Not Another Israel Blog

Haaretz doing PR for the PM

2005-01-25T18:38:00.000+02:00

Arik Sharon the warrior magically
appeared this week in Haaretz.

Enough about shit weasels, Jewish porn stars and halacha rulings on unibrow - it's time for a serious post about the news.

I don't mean to pick on Haaretz, but yes, this post concerns the New York Times of Israel. (After this post I'll do my best to leave Haaretz alone for a few days.)

It's amazing how the news media are all too happy to be used by political interests - as long as the story is good enough.

Such seems to be the case in the Haaretz report by veteran defense correspondent Ze'ev Schiff.

Schiff reported that Prime Minister Sharon "called for a large-scale Israel Defense Forces reaction to rocket fire from the Gaza Strip earlier this month, including artillery, but toned down his position following objections by IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon in a discussion that has recently come to light."

So Sharon wanted to blast away but the generals held him back. At least that's what Haaretz - and the prime minister - wants us to believe.

But how and why did this discussion "recently come to light?"

Because the people in the prime minister's office are not stupid. Sharon is being criticized for not doing more to prevent rocket fire and terror attacks (6 Israelis were killed at the Karni crossing Jan. 13). So it's time for Arik the warrior to make an appearance - even if it's a manufacured one - while Sharon the diplomat gives Abbas more time to rein in Palestinian militants and terror groups.

The question here is did Haaretz get the story with solid, aggressive reporting or did someone in the Prime Minister's Office simply pick up the phone and call Mr. Schiff, and say, "Ze'ev, I've got a story for you"?

Predictably, Mr. Schiff does not reveal how this story reached him. So we're left to to accept that the discussion in which Arik the warrior called for sweeping military action just "came to light" - as if by magic.

But the story came from Haaretz, so we shouldn't be asking any questions.

Haaretz editorial: B is a 'shit weasel'

2005-01-23T16:09:00.000+02:00

In a blistering editorial, the Israeli daily Haaretz called the publisher of Not Another Israel Blog a "coward" and a "shit weasel."

Does Haaretz have a new editorial policy
under Editor in Chief David Landau?

The short piece was unsigned but submitted to Not Another Israel Blog from ISP 192.118.73.46. A simple online search revealed that this ISP belongs to a computer in Haaretz, a newspaper sometimes referred to as "The New York Times of Israel."

The text of the editorial follows:

AT LEAST BRADLEY BURSTON DOESN'T HIDE BEHIND HIS MIDDLE INITIAL BECAUSE HE'S TOO MUCH OF A COWARD TO PUT HIS NAME TO THE HATE HE SPEWS.

ISN'T THAT RIGHT XXXXXXXXX [-edited for security reasons by B] - FORMERLY OF HAARETZ INTERNET SITE BUT FIRED FOR BEING A SHIT WEASEL WHO COULDN'T HANDLE THE FACT THAT SOMEONE MORE QUALIFIED THAN HE WAS PUT IN A POSITION ABOVE HIM?

While the author of the Haaretz editorial chose to remain anonymous - as does B - it is known that the piece was submitted on Sunday sometime between noon and 1 P.M. Israel time.

It is not known whether the editorial was submitted or approved by Haaretz Editor in Chief David Landau, English Edition Editor Peter Hirschberg or any other senior member of the editorial staff.

But the use of the term "shit weasel," which is mentioned in the Stephen King novel Dreamcatcher, suggests that the Haaretz reporter behind the editorial is familiar with the works of the popular horror author.

Not Another Israel Blog is known to express opinions critical of the Israeli media, particularly Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post. The Haaretz editorial in question was apparently prompted by a recent post in which B opined that Haaretz correspondent Bradley Burston tends to open his pieces in an overly melodramatic style. While B expressed admiration for Burston as a writer and a journalist, he wrote that this drama detracts from the quality of Burston's work and was perhaps catering to the whims of an English-speaking audience outside of Israel.

"Personally I was surprised by the Haaretz editorial," said B, on condition of anonymity. "I'm flattered that the people at Haaretz are paying attention to my blog, but I'm not sure what the fuss is about now. I was only criticizing an aspect of Burston's writing style. There was nothing personal about it. Is that spewing hate?"

B said he doubted Burston was the author. "It's not his style and I don't think I wrote anything that would have upset him so much."

"I've also been critical of Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick - so I don't think I'm playing favorites here," he added. "I'm just offering my view of news coverage in Israel - particularly that aimed at the English-speaking community - which I believe too often fails to live up to proper journalistic standards."

Media experts said that the Haaretz response to Not Another Israel Blog reflects frustration among established media with the growing popularity of blogs.

"The big traditional news sources feel threatened because more and more people are bypassing them in favor of alternative news sources," said Prof. Marty Rosen, who teaches journalism at the State University of New York at Albany. "But regular reporters need to be careful because blogs are not bound by the same rules as newspapers or TV networks. Blogs can get away with a lot more."

When asked why he continues to maintain his anonymity, B said that it was crucial to his work.

"Any experienced journalist understands the importance of anonymous sources," he said. "Almost every major story in Haaretz has anonymous sources."

"In my case, I'm the reporter and the source. In some cases I'd like to reveal my identity so I can take credit for my work, but doing so would put restrictions on what I can write about, and breaking them could jeopardize my job."

B said bloggers would continue their work and not be intimidated by such scare tactics by traditional news media.

"I know it's Israel, not America, but I believe freedom of speech is still valued by many here, particularly journalists," B said. "If someone at Haaretz thinks he or she can stop me or my fellow bloggers from expressing our opinions, they're mistaken."

Jewish porn star Harry Reems today - a Christian convert selling real estate in Utah

2005-01-22T22:02:00.000+02:00

Harry Reems and Linda Lovelace in Deep Throat.

Is nothing sacred? Are there any Jewish heroes left?

Harry Reems, who costarred with Linda Lovelace in Deep Throat, the most popular pornographic film ever made - at least that's what the Los Angeles Times says - converted to Christianity, lives in Utah and sells real estate, according to the Times story.

The Times said it interviewed Reems because a new film called "Inside Deep Throat," produced for Universal and HBO, was scheduled to have its world premiere Friday night at the Sundance Film Festival.

Finally a halacha ruling on unibrow

2005-01-22T01:03:00.000+02:00

If it's a source of embarassment,
the rabbi says pluck away.

I found the following on the Ask the Rabbi section of the Arutz 7 website:

Question:
What is the Halacha concerning someone who has a large "unibrow" (meaning his eyebrows grow straight across his face) is he allowed to wax/shave/tweeze the section in between the eyes? I know women definitely do it but how about men?
Since it brings me embarrassment since I have a large one, and not too many people do, therefore I feel different and embarrassed.

Answer:
Men should not remove bodily hair for the sake of beautifying themselves like women do. But if it is not to beautify but to remove a body blemish that causes embarrassment one can rely on lenient opinions that permit the removal in such a case.

-Rabbi Elchanan Lewis

'What do you find most annoying about Israelis'

2005-01-21T19:14:00.000+02:00

That's what the Israeli woman asked me on the phone.

She told me that we had exchanged phone numbers on Jdate several months earlier. I had no idea who she was. I asked her why we didn't talk then. She said she didn't know. She gave me her Jdate profile number and I quickly looked it up online. It indicated she lived in Jerusalem. Residence in the capital (If I forget thee o Jerusalem...) is usually a tip off of right-wing leanings.

Could you date Ra'anan Gissin - if he
was a woman? I didn't think so.

She told me her grandparents were from Indiana. They lived in Bloomington and one or both of them - I don't remember - worked in the music department at Indiana University.

I should have known better. Her question was like giving me a map indicating the exact location of the lone mine in the field before me. But naturally I had to get close to it.

"It's how we think we're the center of the world, that everything revolves around us. I think it has to do with being the 'chosen people.'"

I deliberately said "we" because I do consider myself part of Israeli society and I also didn't want to appear as if I was criticizing her. Well, it really didn't matter.

Her response went something like this:

"But everyone is watching us. Every decision we make has to take into consideration the reaction of the rest of the world. They don't understand what we're going through. They only see the Palestinian side. They don't know what's really happening here."

Me: "Yes, but when's the last time you saw what was happening on the Palestinian side. Personally, I have no clue what's it's like from their point of view."

Her: "We're the victims here. What do you think is the solution? To build a wall and leave the territories? Will that bring peace?"

Me: "I don't know if it would bring peace, but it would mean we were doing the right thing - an end to the occupation. Build a wall on the border, just get out."

Her: "That won't solve anything. We're not the guilty ones here. Don't you watch the news?"

Here's where I got a bit annoyed because I sensed - perhaps it stemmed from my own insecurities - that she was lecturing me.

(In my opinion, the tendency to lecture about how the world works is the second most annoying thing about Israelis.)

Me: "Listen, I've been here eight years and most of my professional life has been in journalism. I read the news and I'm doing a graduate degree in political science. It's not like I'm some clueless immigrant who just arrived."

This didn't stop the floodgates. She continued with her lecture and seemed to be channeling Ra'anan Gissin. I was no longer paying attention to her argument except hoping to find some opening to disengage - gracefully if possible - from the conversation.

Suddenly there was a pause, as if she was waiting for a response.

Me: "Listen, I'm going to go now."

Her: "What? That's it? Just over this political discussion?"

Me: "Yeah, well, in any case I'm applying to graduate schools in the U.S. so I probably won't even be here in the fall. Layla tov."

Her: "Layla tov."

Please tone it down, Brad

2005-01-21T17:20:00.000+02:00

I used to enjoy reading Bradley Burston's pieces for the online version of Haaretz. He's excellent at identifying the key issues of the day and putting them in their broader historical and political context.

But I wish he would tone down the melodramatic ledes. Here's the opeining in his latest piece:

Armed Islamists have long been the lethal wild card in the Dead Man's Hand of the Mideast peace table.

Dead Man's Hand of the Mideast peace table? What the hell is he talking about? It's damn entertaining writing, but for my taste way over the top.

Perhaps I've just grown tired of noisy journalism, but I also think such ledes detract from the quality of Burston's writing and skills as a journalist. I find it hard to take him seriously when it appears he's seeking the melodramatic angle of the story or he wants to transform the story of the day into a cliffhanger.

Here's the lede from a Burston piece entitled "The fight of Sharon's life: His place in history" dated May 27, 2003:

At the age of 75, with countless wars, near-fatal injuries, and half a century in public life behind him, Ariel Sharon only now faces the fight of his life - securing his place in history.

It seems to me the fight of Sharon's life were the wars and near-fatal injuries? But I guess that wouldn't make a good story.

It seems as if every time Burston writes there's some fight of someone's life or deadly card game. I get tired just reading his opening lines.

How about this piece (date unknown) entitled "The Abbas problem: Partner or Yasser Redux?":

No one doubts the courage of Mahmoud Abbas.

In the blood-soaked course of the Intifada, the professorially unglamorous Abbas, 69, gained sudden world stature as a lone voice for moderation in Israeli-Palestinian relations, and as the most likely partner for peacemaking in a post-Arafat epoch.

Now, however, an abrupt re-invention has vaulted Abbas onto the shoulders of gunmen and into the smiling public embrace of Marwan Barghouti's wife, in a campaign swing that has him lauding the legacy of Yasser Arafat, and vowing to protect the very men who head Israel's hit lists of most-wanted terrorists.

The only thing missing is the dramatic Hollywood music score playing in the background.

(For more examples, just do a Google search for Bradley Burston Haaretz.)

Do we really need to turn up the pressure on the reality here? I mean things are dramatic enough as it is. Can't we journalists put events in some kind of context and perspective?

This is Israel, our daily lives. Not entertainment for the English reading Jewish audience in America.

Or is it?

How not to build trust with Israel Arabs

2005-01-20T23:41:00.000+02:00

My apologies for not posting for nearly a week. I've been busy trying to make progress with my Master's thesis.

I was struck by this Haaretz article earlier in the week about changes in the duties of the Shin Bet official in the Education Ministry who had been deputy chief of Arab education in the country.

I don't think you need to be a leftist to be troubled by the previous arrangement.

I understand that the Shin Bet has a job to do, but to have a security officer assigned to Arab education? Even if you believe the Shin Bet needs to keep an eye on Arab education in Israel, shouldn't it be done in a more secretive manner?

It's like we're telling the Arabs, "We don't give a damn what you think. We don't even need to conceal our intelligence operation. Your loyalty to the state is in doubt, so we're watching every move you make."

Can't the Shin Bet just recruit someone in the Education Ministry to help out? Isn't that what agencies like the Shin Bet and Mossad are good at?

In any case, this is just another reflection of Israel's ineffective policy vis-a-vis its Arab population, which is no way to build an environment of loyalty and trust.

'There will be no talks with desecrators of the Sabbath'

2005-01-13T08:45:00.000+02:00

Rabbi Elyashiv sounds like he's about to smash our idols.

I have an idea.

The operation of businesses on the Sabbath creates a certain amount of tax revenue. I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult for an economist to come up with the number.

If the ultra-Orthodox parties really want no dealings with Sabbath desecrators. i.e. the secular who keep this country's economy afloat, then I propose they not be entitled to this dirty money.

For example, if 1% of tax revenues end up going to the ultra-Orthodox today, under my plan they would get 1% of the tax revenues generated by businesses that do not operate on the Sabbath budget.

I wonder if such a proposal would get them talking to the Sabbath desecrators.

Haaretz: Israel's young Ethiopians like vodka and rap music so watch out

2005-01-12T17:18:00.000+02:00

Why do our young Ethiopians want to be like Tupac?

My first reaction to Wednesday's front page story in Haaretz was disgust. But maybe I've just read too many racism in the media articles for my graduate studies.

Ethiopian youth dance in Ashkelon, but dream of Harlem is a feature story about Ethiopian youth in Israel. While Haaretz should be applauded for covering Israel's Ethiopian community, the reporters - as well as the editors who selected the headline, photos and captions - likely perpetuated the racism in this country toward Ethiopians.

The story teaches some valuable lessons about Ethiopians in Israel:

-They like rap music
-They lie to their parents to get money to buy vodka
-They like clubs
-They would prefer to be in Harlem than Israel

But is any of this true?

The story ran on the front page of the Hebrew edition, above the fold, with the photo you can see in the English story above. Continued inside the paper, there is another photo of Ethiopians "fueling up" (yes, that's the language Haaretz used) and drinking vodka.

In addition, the premise of the headline (The same one was used in the Hebrew and English editions.) is questionable. When asked about their identify, the young Ethiopians interviewed for the story said:

"First of all Jewish, then Ethiopian."

"Jewish, for sure."

"Israeli and Ethiopian both."

That doesn't sound like Harlem to me.

Personally, I also don't understand what's so terrible about young Ethiopians creating for themselves their own identity in Israel. Is Haaretz - and the rest of Israel's elite - nervous that young Ethiopians are (God forbid!) different than the rest of us?

The story also neglects mention of discrimination against Ethiopians. In the past the Israeli press has had more than a few stories about religious Ethiopians being refused admission to religious schools.

Maybe this is a factor? Maybe not all young Ethiopians drink vodka and listen to rap music?

The headlines and captions are irresponsible and the content fails to meet even basic standards of responsible journalism. It's based on the research of one anthropologist and a single night interviewing young Ethiopians at a club.

More is to be expected from a paper that claims to be the New York Times of Israel.

What's the 'highly classified problem' between Israel and Russia?

2005-01-06T13:09:00.000+02:00

Haaretz is reporting Thursday that a "highly classified problem" was the real reason for the special meeting on the crisis in Israel's relations with Russia that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon convened earlier this week.

I'm not privy to any information that isn't already out there, but my guess is that it has something to do with the nuclear reactor Iran is building in Bushehr with Russian assistance.

ADDED WEDNESDAY, JAN. 12
I was wrong on that one. Haaretz reported Wednesday that the dispute is over Syrian President Bashar Assad's planned visit to Moscow later this month.

Who's demonizing who? / Sharon as Buffy the Vampire Slayer

2005-01-05T19:45:00.000+02:00

Settler leaders on Wednesday accused Prime Minister Sharon of demonizing and delegitimizing them, Haaretz reported today.

"They have marked us as an enemy, as air, as dust - and dialogue with us is conducted on the hills of Yitzhar in a pre-planned provocation," said Pinhas Wallerstein, head of the Binyamin Regional Council.

Does Wallerstein really believe the Israeli public is going to sympathize with the settler movement now?

Let's set the record straight.

It is the settlers - and not Ariel Sharon - who have demonized and delegitimized themselves, with their desperate actions intended to foil Sharon's disengagement plan.

It is the settlers who established an illegal outpost at Yitzhar and other sites in the West Bank.

Wallerstein and other settler leaders simply cannot grasp the new socio-political reality in which the majority of Israelis are no longer willing to carry the burden of the settler movement.

The majority of Israelis want to leave the Gaza Strip altogether.

The majority of Israelis have reached the conclusion that we gain nothing by remaining there.

The majority of Israelis are no longer willing to let their sons and daughters risk their lives in the army and defend the messianic delusions of a small, but politically powerful, minority.

The settlers are losing their stranglehold on government policy and the allocation of resources in the country - and it's a painful realization. Wallerstein may not have realized how approrpriate his comment was that the settlers have been marked as air and dust, for it captures their diminishing influence and relevance.

(Speaking of demons, Mobius recently met the Devil himself and lived to blog about it.)

Oops

2005-01-05T17:36:00.000+02:00

This appeared on the front page of Tuesday's edition of The International Herald Tribune distributed here in Israel with the English version of Haaretz.

It's supposed to be a teaser for a story inside. Apparently someone forgot to fill in the blanks.

About a year ago, before my blogging days, the Haaretz print edition had a much more embarassing mistake. A photo of an American reform rabbi, who I actually knew because I took his course during my undergraduate studies, had a caption that went something like this:

WHERE'S MY SANDWICH: An overweight reform rabbi. What a surprise.

To my knowledge, no one got fired over that mistake, but more than a few journalists have lost their jobs over such needless displays of arrogance.

So today's lesson for you young reporters out there: Never put something in a story you wouldn't want printed. Whatever joke you were trying to make won't be funny when the editor fires you.

Mommy, he called me the 'Zionist enemy'

2005-01-04T15:22:00.000+02:00

In a surprise move Tuesday,
Mahmoud Abbas announced that
Palestinians don't like Israel.

A headline on Tuesday's Haaretz online homepage reads: Abbas, considered a relative moderate, calls Israel 'the Zionist enemy'.

I'm not sure I understand why the Haaretz editors making such a fuss. What's Mahmoud Abbas supposed to call us?

I think it's safe to say that except for the ultra-leftists and ultra-Orthodox, the vast majority of Jews in Israel are by definition Zionists. And Zionism hasn't exactly taken up the Palestinian cause, which I guess would make us the enemy. (That would partly explain some of the news events regarding Israelis and Palestinians over the last 50 years or so.)

But a friend pointed out to me that I have to consider the historial context here. Egypt and Jordan, for instance, do not call us the Zionist enemy, at least not officially, while Hezbollah, however, does.

Another context to consider is that today seven Palestinians, most of them reported to be children and teens, were killed by IDF tank fire in the Gaza Strip

Abbas is also in the midst of a political campaign in which the Palestinians will choose a successor to Yasser Arafat. If he wants to be taken seriously, and have the power to actually do anything, he must appeal to the militant elements in Palestinian society in order to get their support.

(It's not as if Ariel Sharon embraced Palestinian claims for statehood prior to becoming prime minister.)

We're also not doing him any favors calling him a moderate. We may as well call him a collaborator. A moderate won't have the respect of the Palestinian street and thus won't be able to make the concessions necessary in a peace deal with Israel.

(It's pretty much the same thing for Israel. A left-winger like Peres or Barak doesn't have the same legitimacy among the general Israeli public as Sharon or another Likudnik in giving up the settlements. Whether Israel has the will to stand up to the settlers so Sharon can deliver is another question.)

We don't need a moderate on the other side. We need a pragmatist. There are some who feel that Marwan Barghouti is better suited to deliver the goods than Abbas, although he's currently sitting in an Israeli jail and serving numerous life terms for murder.

I don't expect Arabs, and certainly not Palestinians, to accept Zionism, much less act as if the Zionist movement was a positive development for them. It resulted in the creation of a Jewish state on land the Palestinains claim as their own.

I'm not making excuses for Abbas, just pointing out that yes, we Zionists are the enemy in the eyes of the Palestinians. Did we really not realize that until Abbas opened his mouth today?

Political tsunami / It's not about us!

2005-01-02T18:30:00.000+02:00

Is anyone else annoyed by the way some Israeli columnists have politicized the tsunami disaster?

From the left, Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy asks:

"What would have happened, heaven forbid, if the tsunami had struck the coast of the Gaza Strip?...

If it were not for the 10 or so missing Israelis in the tsunami disaster, we would have forgotten about it already. When hundreds are killed in Gaza and tens of thousands of innocent people are left homeless because of what we have done, we turn away. If they had been victims of a natural disaster, we would have already been there to help."

And on the right, Stewart Weiss opines in The Jerusalem Post:

"Now, the so-called disengagement, really a retreat, from Gaza.

The Left is up in arms over the wearing of orange stars by those about to be evicted – some forcibly – from their homes of two or more decades.

While the use of symbols from the Holocaust is shocking, can these politicians not see, not appreciate the trauma, suffering and pain these good people are feeling?

They are experiencing a tsunami of their own – albeit man-made – swept out of their communities by a political tidal wave."

To Mr. Levy: There was no tsunami in the Gaza Strip.

To. Mr. Weiss: Being evacuated from one's home in Gush Katif is not equivalent to being killed by a tsunami.

To both columnists: Are we, as Jewish Israelis, so self-absorbed that we are incapable of accepting that this terrible disaster has nothing whatsoever to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict?

Must we co-opt the deaths of some 150,000 people in order to advance our respective political agendas?

Ohio Dentists Bringing Smiles to Israel

2005-01-01T23:51:00.000+02:00

The above headline comes from this story on Arutz Sheva.

To anyone familiar with press coverage of dental/medical missions to Israel, it's clear that Arutz Sheva scooped the Cleveland Jewish News with its coverage of this compelling story.

(Kfar Sava, where the Ohio dentist delegation was hosted, is known to suffer from a disproportionate number of dental problems as compared to the rest of the country.)

Dr. Stuart Rosenrosen was part of the Ohio delegation.

Arutz Sheva and CJN are known for their fierce journalistic rivalry that has spanned decades. Sources told Not Another Israel Blog that some staff in Cleveland were preparing for the worst in light of this latest professional blow.

"Even the senior editors were updating their resumes," one intern said on condition of anonymity.

"The Jewish community in Cleveland deserves better from their hometown Jewish paper," she added. "I'm personally and professionally embarassed we didn't get this story first. I don't know how I'll be able to show my face Friday night at Agudath B'nai Israel (Synagogue).

But media experts said that the rivalry between the two publications demonstrates the vitality of the American Jewish press and it's longstanding commitment to the highest journalistic standards.

"The American Jewish press is constantly reinventing itself to survive in the everchanging and highly competitive world of Jewish news," explains Prof. Marty Rosen, who teaches journalism at the State University of New York at Albany.

"It's not so important whether it was Arutz Sheva or the Cleveland Jewish News that got the story," said Rosen. "It's important that someone did - and that just shows that American Jewish dentists who visit Israel are getting the press coverage they deserve and which the Jewish reader in America demands."

'All Mezuzah Sales Are Final'

2004-12-31T19:31:00.000+02:00

I know Hanukah is long over, but I only saw this Daily Show clip today, and it's damn funny.

'I want my Al-Manar TV'

2004-12-30T11:21:00.000+02:00

News director of Hezbollah run-TV station Al-Manar as quoted in a Slate story:

"We're not looking to interview [Ariel] Sharon. We want to get close to him in order to kill him."

Although I consider myself a defender of First Amendment rights, I'm not sure I share the Slate writer's position that Hezbollah TV should not be banned in America. It seems to reflect a "protect liberal values at all costs" attitude that fails to consider reality.

(Did I really just write that? I'm starting to sound more and more right-wing. I must be getting old.)

On the other hand, maybe a more effective policy would be to allow Al-Manar to broadcast in the U.S. - but to monitor subscribers.

Hell, if I was FBI director I'd dispatch undercover agents door-to-door to sell satellite TV subscriptions.

"So, Mr. Abdullah, I'll sign you up for CNN, Family Channel, National Geographic, Discovery, MTV, HBO, ESPN, Disney... oh, and what about Al-Manar?"

Al-Manar offers quality programs such as this
all-star cast in the Syrian production of 'Diaspora'
depicting the Jewish plot to control the world.

Yeah, go ahead and call me a racist, but let's be honest: How many Oklahoma residents would be interested in watching Al-Manar? It's safe to say that the typical Hezbollah TV viewer speaks Arabic, has a copy of the Koran on the bookshelf and doesn't eat chick peas only during visits to the Sizzler salad bar.

He also doesn't frequent the Elks Lodge nor does his wife belong to Daughters of the American Revolution.

Although some some will argue my idea would infringe on civil liberties, it might prove helpful the next time someone inside the U.S. is planning a terror attack on American soil.

(I fear I may be suffering from an identity crisis in regard to my politics.)

Everyone's invited to the anti-disengagement party

2004-12-29T08:46:00.000+02:00

Settler leaders are considering actively recruiting Diaspora Jews to come to Israel and join the resistance against Sharon's plan to evacuate settlements in the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank, The Jerusalem Post reports today.

Some excerpts from the story:

Pinhas Wallerstein – senior member of the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza:

"I have received hundreds of emails from Jews abroad who expressed their support and are interested in coming to Israel to fight the plan," Wallerstein told The Post. "I am personally in favor although we [the settlement council] will have to discuss the idea since there are Israelis who do not like when Jews from abroad interfere with what is going on here."

(But, Pini, what about left-wing Jews in America who want to interfere because they support dismantling the settlements?)

and..

Rabbi Mordechai Friedman – head of the American Board of Rabbis, an organization made up of some 1,000 orthodox clergymen – said Tuesday that hundreds if not thousands of his followers will come to Israel to fight the plan.

"The government needs to protect its citizens and when they don't the citizens can take back the government," Friedman said. Claiming his organization curses Sharon on a weekly basis, Friedman added that he agrees with Wallerstein's call to break the law when fighting the plan but that it needs to be done violently.

"We need to paralyze the country," he said. "The only way to do that is with means which include violence."

(But it's not your country to paralyze, Mordechai.)

and...

Calling the plan "ethnic cleansing," Gro Wenske, head of the Norway-based Christian Bible and Israel Organization, pledged her participation in the resistance. She said that hundreds of Christians from Norway will come to Israel to fight the evacuation.

(Let's just call Gro what she really is: A Jesus freak with too much time on her hands. And unfortunately, I'm sure the attractive Norwegians won't even come.)

This is just ridiculous. On this blog I've expressed my distate for American Jews actively advocating Israeli policy positions, whether they are on the left or right of the political spectrum, when they don't even live here and feel the consequences of what they are advocating. But I'm just shocked the settler leaders are proposing bringing people who don't even have Israeli citizenship to fight the evacuation plan.

Would this happen in any other democracy in the world? If anything this proposal is another indication of the settlers' desperation.

On the other hand, does the right-wing want to legitimize the active involvement of non-Israelis in such a debate? What is to prevent left-wing organizations from actively recruiting people from around the world to come to Israel and protest government policy? There are certainly more people worldwide who favor dismantling the settlements (and more than a few, unfortunatley, who favor dismantling all of Israel). Should they also be summoned to Israel to join the fray? Or is it an invitation-only affair?

This country already has far too many extremists as it is. Bringing to Israel nutty pro-settler Americans to oppose the disengagement is exactly what we don't need.

Coming of age / Breaking the cycle

2004-12-28T21:56:00.000+02:00

Philip Roth (L) and Milan Kundera. Not settlers.

Looking at my blog tonight I realize I've been posting far too much about settlers. I had no intention of adding to this string tonight. I just wanted to come home from work, walk the dog, make dinner and do a bit a studying. But then I came across Caroline Glick's column, about the settlers, and I couldn't resist.

So later I'm sitting in my apartment and I decide to take from the shelf Philip Roth's classic book of American Jewish male sexual angst Portnoy's Complaint. I thought I would select an interesting passage to post here - anything to break the cycle of settler nonsense. Fairly quickly I come across the following:

"A Jewish man with his parents alive is half the time a helpless infant! Listen, come to my aid, will you - and quick! Spring me from this role I play of the smothered son in the Jewish joke. Because it's beginning to pall a little, at thirty-three.!"

I'm 33, so I knew this was the passage to post.

Remember this metaphor from 1995?

2004-12-28T18:15:00.000+02:00

Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick writes:

Gaza residents caused a public outcry when they taped orange Stars of David to their clothes this week. The hue and cry of the politicians on the Right and on the Left said that in using symbols from the Holocaust they were besmirching the memory of the victims of Europe's genocide of its Jews. It would seem that those who decried the residents' symbol have forgotten what a metaphor is. The point was not that Sharon is Adolf Hitler or that Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz is Adolf Eichmann. The point of the protest was that Israel is the first Western state to call for the forced removal of Jews from their homes, simply because they are Jews, since the Holocaust and that there is something morally atrocious about the notion that for peace to come –- to Israel and to those bombing Israel –- it is necessary for entire regions to be rendered Judenrein.

That reminds me of another metaphor, sweet Caroline. Remember this one? It's a poster depicting Yitzhak Rabin wearing an SS uniform. It proved to be extremely effective. I guess the right-wing knows the power of a good metaphor.

Settlers cite legality when it suits them

2004-12-28T13:23:00.000+02:00

In this Jerusalem Post story, Benzi Lieberman, chairman of the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, comments on the disengagement bill currently under debate:

"The law is manifestly illegal," he charged. "It has a black flag flying over it."

Excuse me, Mr. Lieberman, but what about those illegal settlement outposts in the West Bank? Or do those not count?

Settlers' rejection of disengagement = Muslim rejection of right of return compromise

2004-12-27T20:15:00.000+02:00

I really need to come up with a shorter headline. Anyway, veteran Haaretz reporter Akiva Eldar has an excellent piece on the faulty reasoning of settler opposition to Sharon's disengagement plan.

Eldar, who is known for his left-wing views, argues (persuasively in my opinion) that the logic settlers are using to reject the right of Israel's democratically elected government to evacuate Jews from the territories closely resembles that used by Muslim clerics when a Palestinian leader appears willing to compromise on the "right of return."

Not the center of the world all the time

2004-12-27T09:14:00.000+02:00

Although this blog is about Israel, it would be wrong not to mention the disaster in Asia in which at least 19,000 people were killed over the weekend by a tsunami.

(Citing Foreign Ministry figures, Haaretz was reporting 542 Israelis still unaccounted for in southeast Asia as of Monday morning.)

As I was arguing with the old settler last night in Tel Aviv, mothers in Asia were identifying their dead children.

It kind of puts things in perspective, and unfortunately perspective is a commodity sorely lacking in Israel.

'You should be ashamed of yourself'

2004-12-27T06:56:00.000+02:00

I traded accusations with an old man who was among the settlers protesting last night outside the Kirya, the nerve center of the Israel Defense Forces, in Tel Aviv.

"You should be ashamed of yourself," I said as I passed him. I was referring to the orange Star of David he was wearing.

"It is you who should be ashamed," he replied. I turned around and resumed my walk home.

Settlers and police facing off Sunday evening in Tel Aviv.
Can you spot the orange Star of David? (AP)

Maybe he was a Holocaust survivor himself, I thought. But he's invoking the memory of the Holocaust, and possibly his status as a survivor, to justify a policy today that directly affects me and other Israelis who serve in the army. And there are plenty of other survivors who think using the orange star in this protest is despicable.

Of course the settlers had the usual banners "Let the IDF win" and the like. We're witnessing the death throes of the settler movement. I was surprised by the large number of women and children there and the absence of men. I guess their PR people wanted to ensure photographs of Israeli police confronting "defenseless" settlers.

I hadn't intended to enter the fray, but police had closed Kaplan Street to traffic. By the time I realized it was closed because of a settler demonstration, I had already gone a few blocks and I didn't feel like backtracking. Kaplan is my normal route home from work when I walk rather than take the bus. And my bus was stuck in traffic due to the commotion of the protesters.

When I first entered the street, there was a long stretch that was pretty much empty. Then I saw the settlers standing in front of a police barricade and plenty of police.

I asked a policeman it was ok for me to walk through. He asked where I was going. When I said home, he let me pass.

At the same time, a teenage settler boy standing next to the cop, probably about around 15-16 and wearing an orange Star of David, smugly uttered in my direction, "If you go in, you won't come out."

I hadn't intended to confront anyone. I just wanted to go home, walk my dog, and make a little something for dinner. But this arrogant teenager was wearing an orange star. He was warning me where I could walk in my own city. And he felt entitled to wear that star because his elders in the settler community, some of them survivors, had given him the legitimacy to do so.

But many more older Israelis, some of them survivors, condemned the use of this charged symbol in this battle - and it's becoming increasing clear that this battle is not about Israel's security, but rather the narrow interests of a settler community convinced it is entitled to the way of life that is subsidized - both financially and ideologically - by the greater Israeli population living outside the territories.

This is the reason I told the old man he should be ashamed. And I stand by that statement.

(If you can get past his tendency to overdramatize, Bradley Burston has an interesting piece in Haaretz today about the settlers' use of the orange Star of David.)

Pinhead Arafat

2004-12-24T08:49:00.000+02:00

The headline speaks for itself.

A brilliantly funny front page in yesterday's New York Post. The Bloomberg report on which the story is based is worth reading.