Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘shmuel-rosner’

Obama: Gaza Siege ‘Forced on Israel’

Thursday, January 24th, 2008

Do you think Obama is thinking of all those elderly Jewish voters he has to face in Florida in a few weeks? And of his need to fend off a potential Clinton attack from his political right?

Dear Ambassador Khalilzad,

I understand that today the UN Security Council met regarding the situation in Gaza, and that a resolution or statement could be forthcoming from the Council in short order.

I urge you to ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution on this matter that does not fully condemn the rocket assault Hamas has been conducting on civilians in southern Israel…

All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families. However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this… Israel has the right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians.

The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks… If it cannot bring itself to make these common sense points, I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

This letter is a perfect example of how election campaigns prostitute legitimate policy objectives. Of course, Israel was NOT forced to put Gaza under siege. To say otherwise is first of all to pander to the right-wing portion of the Jewish electorate and second to distort reality. Israel certainly has the right to respond to the Qassams but the method it has chosen has MAXIMAL impact on civilians. Unfortunately, Obama neglected to consider that fact.

Also disappointing is that Obama didn’t call for the UN ambassador to add a denunciation of the siege with his condemnation of the Qassam attacks. How many Arab-American voters do you think there are in Florida? Not many–just as I thought.

It’s no accident that this letter was first published by AIPAC’s favorite columnist, Shmuel Rosner. In fact, except for a few details in it, like the expression of concern for Gaza civilians, the letter could’ve been written by an AIPAC staffer. In fact, that’s a very strong possibility in this instance. Thanks to Racheli Gai who discovered this via the Tikkun daily newsletter.

There was talk earlier today that the Obama campaign denied he’d written the letter. But the U.S. UN Mission press office confirms that the Ambassador did receive a letter from Obama. And Rosner swears to it as well.

Haaretz: Middle East Newspaper of Record

Sunday, September 9th, 2007

Thanks to Phil Weiss for noting this terrific profile of Haaretz by Stephen Glain in The Nation. Every Israeli newspaper has its own functional niche in the country’s media marketplace and both Maariv and Yediot each have important columnists. But there really is no paper quite like Haaretz for the breadth of its coverage. It is to Israel, and even the entire Mideast, what the New York Times or The Guardian are to those respective countries. I simply could not write this blog in this format without the resource that Haaretz provides. What other media outlet has two reporters, one of whose beats is the West Bank and the other, Gaza? The latter, Gideon Levy, writes the most wrenching, disturbing and powerful profiles of Palestinian in extremis. He deserves the Israeli or even international journalism equivalent of a Pulitzer for the sheer humanity of his writing.

I read the English language website and not everything there meets the high standard that the paper’s Hebrew language edition does. Translations and grammar are skewed and sometimes even mysteriously truncated (toned down?) possibly for Diaspora consumption. Also, one has the feeling that the military censor (yes, Israel still has such a thing) tamps down debate. For example, Israel’s recent incursion into Syrian and, it appears, Turkish airspace, has been stifled by such censorship. One wishes Haaretz had a bit more of the gumption shown by the NY Times in the face of LBJ’s [correction: "Nixon's" of course] White House during the Pentagon Papers case. But one can’t lay blame for this at the doorsteps of a single newspaper when the issue is systemic and goes to the nature of Israeli democracy (or lack of it).

Glain really nails Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz’s right-wing U.S. correspondent:

Then there is Rosner’s blog, a landfall for hardliners inside Ha’aretz’s liberal archipelago. In the wake of Hamas’s Gaza takeover in June, Rosner suggested (in a piece written with Aluf Benn) that the idea of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be ditched in favor of a Palestinian confederation or autonomous region comprising Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan. Such an alternative, Rosner wrote, “can be viewed as part of the search for a solution, but also as a whip being held over the head of the hesitant [Palestinian Authority President] Abbas.” It was a brazen proposition even within the Washington Beltway, where the goal of Palestinian statehood is embraced across much of the political spectrum.

Rosner, who worked as an editor at Ha’aretz before moving to Washington, acknowledges his minority status at the paper but says he is no outcast. “As an editor,” he says, “I’ve had to justify my decisions to colleagues, but the dialogue was always professional. I don’t agree with most of the paper’s editorials and neither do a lot of readers, but they subscribe anyway because it is so good.”

I have inveighed here about Rosner’s piss poor journalism and narrow-minded approach to Israeli and American Jewish politics. And if Haaretz is “so good” it’s not because of Rosner’s contribution. I’m not just saying this because of his politics because someone can be conservative and yet write well on this subject. But Rosner is not that person. He doesn’t bring anything to the debate. Yes, he makes AIPAC happy and perhaps that’s one of the sole reasons he’s there. But if it is, that’s a dumb reason to keep a columnist. Find someone conservative who has a voice and something important to say.

Here’s yet another example of why I find Rosner obtuse and tone deaf:

“Never trust Ha’aretz as a true reflection of the average Israeli newspaper reader,” says Shmuel Rosner, the paper’s right-of-center chief US correspondent. “For many Israelis, Ha’aretz is like The Nation. People who read it are better educated and more sophisticated than most, but the rest of the country doesn’t know it exists.”

If Haaretz wanted to be the New York Daily News of Israel, a widely read tabloid, it wouldn’t be Haaretz. And why should it try to be that? Because 90% of Americans might not know the New York Times exists does that detract from the role it plays in society? Haaretz holds out a vision not of what Israeli society IS, but what it might be on its best days. And that’s more than enough for me.

In the unlikely event that I could BE a newspaper and some of the this were on my tombstone, I’d die a happy man:

As a newspaper that succeeds with smart reporting and good writing, Ha’aretz is a model worthy of emulation for a troubled news industry worldwide….Unique among national newspapers, Ha’aretz is both public forum and chronicle of a religious and political movement that has, for good or ill, transformed a region and consumed the world. If the paper has a bias, it is less its liberal sensibility than its appeal to the possible–like Yitzhak Rabin’s “calculated risk” for a negotiated peace–over the reflexively negative of our post-9/11 world. By creating a home for opinions and values that are at odds with its own, Ha’aretz radiates security in its identity and convictions. And by supporting dialogue with Israel’s enemies, it projects confidence in the Jewish state’s ability to coexist with its neighbors as just one rational actor among many. At a time when the Zionist movement appears to be content with exchanging one ghetto for another, Ha’aretz insists on an Israel that is of the world as well as in it.

When I was a Hebrew University grad student in 1980, I read the Hebrew edition every day and it was a major language tutor for me. I felt it kept me in touch with the heart of Israeli society, politics and culture. I sometimes fantasize that if I’d made aliya working for Haaretz might’ve been one of the ways I couldn’t earned a living and made a meaningful social contribution.

So let us sing hosannas to a beacon of light and tolerance in Israel: Haaretz.

Wes Clark, Are You Ever in Hot Water With the Israel Lobby!

Wednesday, January 10th, 2007

Shmuel Rosner, one of the U.S. Israel Lobby’s best friends in the Israeli media, is on the warpath against Wes Clark. Why? Because he had the temerity to “out” the Lobby (particularly Aipac) for beating the drums for war against Iran.

Arianna Huffington got a call from Clark after he’d read a Bibi Netanyahu interview with Arnaud de Borchgrave in which the old ‘peacenik’ detailed his efforts to lobby the Bush regime to take out the Iranian nuke facilities. Bibi asserts in the interview that American military intervention is all but a done deal. I don’t know about you, but I’m with Wes on this one. This sort of stuff is Netanyahu’s metier. It’s what he’s made for as a politician. Manipulating public opinion in favor of harsh nationalist Israeli policies using hysteria and paranoia. I, for one am glad Clark called Netanyahu out on this one. If Netanyahu wants to be Slim Pickens ridin’ that H-bomb down to the ground to nuke some “Russkies” in Dr. Strangelove, I’d prefer that the bomb not have U.S. markings on it. Let Bibi find someone else to do Israel’s dirty work for it (not that I’m advocating that Israel bomb Iran either).

This was Wes’ statement to Huffington:

“How can you talk about bombing a country when you won’t even talk to them?” said Clark. “It’s outrageous. We’re the United States of America; we don’t do that. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the military option is off the table — but diplomacy is not what Jim Baker says it is. It’s not, What will it take for you boys to support us on Iraq? It’s sitting down for a couple of days and talking about our families and our hopes, and building relationships.”

When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: “You just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”

Boy oh boy is Wes in hot water with the Israel Lobby. He just yanked their chain and are they going to roar like a lion. This guy’s gonna be called an anti-Semite and far worse things. Actually, it’s already started. Rosner wrote this:

Gee, what can he possibly mean by “pressure being channeled from the New York money people”?…How and why has it become so easy to speak in this way about the Jews? Second: What does it mean politically?

It is, actually, rather troubling, even scary. People in elite circles somehow came to the conclusion that denouncing the Jewish community and its support for Israel is now becoming acceptable. Walt and Mersheimer came first, than former president Carter, now Clark – and we already have a new trend on our hands. A Jewish leader with whom I spoke yesterday asked me this most disquieting question: Is the ice thinner than one might have thought?

Politically, it is voices coming from the Democratic party, again, a nuance that the Republican Jewish Coalition could hardly miss. Yesterday, it released a statement [sic] “strongly condemned ‘blatantly anti-semitic’ remarks made by Retired General Wesley Clark in an interview with Arianna Huffington and urged the Democrat presidential aspirant to apologize… This is yet another sign that the veiled and not-so-veiled anti-Semitic sentiments that are rampant in the left-wing blogosphere are seeping into the ‘mainstream’ of Democrats’ political discourse.”

Gimme a break. When asked about U.S. military action against Iran, Clark correctly notes that the mainstream American Jewish community is “divided,” but that the Israel Lobby’s leaders (“New York money people”) are united in favor. What is factually inaccurate about that statement?? Nothing. Everyone knows that Aipac has been promoting war with Iran for a terribly long time. If you don’t believe me go look at the media coverage of their last national gathering. And do you really believe that Aipac is NOT trying to influence the White House & Congress on the issue of bombing Iran?

I wouldn’t have said “NY money people” because Aipac’s leadership is spread all over the country. It’s an unfortunate and imprecise choice of words. But calling them “pro-Israel donors” would’ve worked just as well.

The Republican Jewish Coalition is a bunch of neocon hacks trawling for an issue. Clark’s interview seems just as good a way to take it to the Dems as any. So they went on the warpath. And Rosner is their willing handmaiden. A non-issue, boys. As Bill Clinton used to say: “This dog won’t hunt.” But hey, you can’t fault ‘em for trying. They spent $1-million plus trying to dent Jewish support for Dems in the last election. What happened? Jewish support went UP.

Wes, DO NOT apologize. Hold your ground. You’re precisely right. Much of the national Jewish leadership is sounding the trumpet for us to blow Iran’s nukes to smithereens. But American Jews are by no means united behind such a position. Democrats need to oppose U.S. military action against Iran. If that means tangling with Aipac then so be it. Aipac should get out of the way on this issue and let the U.S. decide what is in its national interests. It should not be trying to tell U.S. leaders that what is in Israel’s interest (and it is highly debatable whether such adventurism would be in Israel’s interest) is also in the U.S. national interest.

Haaretz, known for its progressive analysis of the Israeli-Arab conflict, has some of the most acute, passionate, and profound columnists writing on this subject. It has had tremendous correspondents like Amos Elon covering the U.S. beat. Now it has Shmuel Rosner. It’s as if CBS passed the national news anchor baton directly from Walter Cronkite to Charles Johnson. What an embarrassment.

Welcome to visitors here coming from Rozwadow’s Daily Kos link. Thanks to him for raising the visibility of this post and blog. It’s also delicious having been banned from Kos to be able to raise my head once again there even if only via a link from a Kos poster.

More Rosner Cluelessness on New Jewish Peace Lobby

Monday, October 16th, 2006

Shmuel Rosner has been the journalist who’s spilled the most ink covering the new initiative to create a dovish Jewish lobbying counterpart to Aipac. While he’s provided some light on the issue, much of what’s he’s written has been drivel. Take this characterization of Brit Tzedek, one of the groups participating in the effort:

…There is another problem that the leftist lobby will face: It is located to the left of AIPAC – but also to the left of most of the American (and of course the Israeli) public. Brit Tzedek Veshalom (the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace), for example, is an idealistic, almost revolutionary movement that is succeeding in attracting an increasing flow of young Jews to its ranks. It has the enchantment of youth and a kind of Beatnik-style promise for a rosy future. But make no mistake: its identification with the leftist streams in America, with Soros, will make things difficult for it in its contacts with Congress, certainly in cases when it is under Republican control. It will also have difficulty, undoubtedly, in contacts with the Israeli government. It is doubtful whether this bothers Soros.

Let’s examine that passage more closely. Is Brit Tzedek to the left of the American or Israeli public? Not at all. Brit Tzedek supports an end to West Bank settlements. So do American Jews. It opposes the Occupation. So does a majority of American Jews. Brit Tzedek supports an independent Palestinian state. So do the vast majority of American Jews. Brit Tzedek supports peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. So do the vast majority of American Jews. So, Mr. Know-It-All Rosner, how is Brit Tzedek to the left of the American public?

And as for his comment that BT is an “idealistic, almost revolutionary movement,” the first adjective is true in a sense. But BT is also quite a pragmatic movement. There are issues on which it will NOT take a position. It will not take a position advocating that the U.S. or Israel negotiate with Hamas (even though the majority of American Jews AND Israelis favor this policy). Though to be clear it opposes Aipac-sponsored legislation to criminalize contact with Hamas. And as for calling BT “almost revolutionary,” this is poppycock. What’s so revolutionary about it? In fact, in some of its efforts like Congressional lobbying it is mirroring Aipac itself. What’s so revolutionary about that?

Rosner’s incredulousness about Brit Tzedek is annoying in the extreme:

It has the enchantment of youth and a kind of Beatnik-style promise for a rosy future.

What the hell is this supposed to mean? I’m 54 years old and a member of BT. I know many members of the local Seattle chapter. Hardly a youth among us. What the hell is he talking about? And as for the “Beatnik-style promise of a rosy future”–doesn’t anybody edit this guy? As I wrote above, BT’s campaigns are quite pragmatic. Witness its ultimately successful lobbying effort (in league with Israel Policy Forum and Americans for Peace Now) against the Palestine Anti-Terror Bill. This was the first time that American Jewish groups stood up in Congress and said No to a cherished Aipac bill. It was a slap in the face to the group; and to Congress it was a slap heard round the world–or at least round its halls. We’re not talking rose-colored glasses here. BT is no hippie gathering of peace and loveniks. On the contrary, we’re mostly activists dedicated to this issue for decades. We’re hardened to disappointment and tragedy. But we go on nevertheless because we believe in peace and what it can do for both warring parties.

Again, Rosner’s contention that BT will have trouble getting traction in Congress because of its so-called “leftist” views is belied by its success a few months ago as I wrote above. All this Rosner nattering is mere Aipac talking points dressed up to look like journalism. Actually, Rosner has probably tidied up the prose a bit since Aipac’s views of BT must be R-rated knowing how those folks deal with their perceived enemies.

As for BT having no influence in a Republican Congress…well, it looks like we might just have a more hospitable Congress than that come November if current polling results are borne out at the ballot box.

And finally, in another piece he wrote about the new lobbying project, Rosner again shows that rather than having his finger on the pulse of American Jewry, he has it squarely up his own rectum:

I stated that the American Jews are dovish – which is true – but didn’t differentiate between their general dovishness and their views on Israel. Some readers protested, saying I should have, and they are right. Surveys show that the views of American Jews are much more mainstream on Israel than they are on internal social issues. AJC’s annual surveys have shown in the past that American Jews usually support the Israeli government’s approach by a 3-1 margin or more.

What he really means to say is that American Jewish LEADERS (like Howard Kohr, Abe Foxman, David Harris and Malcom Hoenlein) are hawkish advocates for Israeli government policy. And in reality when government policy isn’t sufficiently hawkish–as during the Gaza withdrawal–some of those leaders distanced themselves even from Israeli policy. American Jews however, are quite dovish in their views of the conflict. And it is simply false to say that they wholeheartedly support Israeli government policy. Yes, they support Israel the nation. But do they support expanding settlements? No. Do they support the U.S. and Israeli government campaign to isolate and punish Hamas? No, in fact they favor negotiating with Hamas as does the Israeli people. And while American Jews may’ve supported Israel’s efforts to attack Hezbollah and retrieve its hostages, it definitely does not support the punitive war against Lebanon which followed. All of the attitudes I’ve laid out here are borne out by numerous polls, many of which have been linked and discussed here.

Rosner is simply not a credible source when it comes to characterizing the reality of American Jewish discourse regarding Israel. Sure, he can tell you what Aipac or the other fuddy-duddy Jewish groups are thinking. But he can’t tell you what George Soros or Israel Policy Forum or Brit Tzedek is thinking because he doesn’t understand their viewpoint at all. It’s like we’re on the moon and he’s looking at us through a telescope–upside down.

Finally, Rosner ought to look at a Haaretz poll that accompanies his articles on the new group. To the question: “Is it time to form American-Jewish lobby for peace?” Fully 64% of 596 respondents say “Yes.” Before he damns the effort with the faintest of praise as he has done, Rosner ought to take a look at what his own readers are telling him.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE