Antony Loewenstein

A letter and petition regarding the head of Abode in Israel:

Dear Sirs,

We, users of Adobe’s products, wish to express our resentment and protest against the acts and statements of Mr. Reuven Agassi, chairman of Quicksoft Ltd., which officially represents Adobe in Israel.

Mr. Agassi has recently stated in public that he will not employ anyone who did not serve in the Israeli army or did national service, and called on other companies to do the same.

Such blatant discrimination is prohibited under Israeli law. We would like to point out that over 20% of the Israeli population is non Jewish and is not required to serve in the military. Furthermore we would like to emphasis that the present discussion regarding conscription, obligatory or voluntary, and the debate regarding alternative civilian service are important elements in the democratic dialogue being held in Israel today.

Many young Israelis avoid serving the State as an act of protest against the policies of the Israeli government. Avoiding military service for many represents a rejection of militarism, so widespread in Israeli society, a militarism exemplified all too well by Mr. Agassi’s statement.

In his public statement, Mr. Agassi offended many of Adobe’s customers in Israel. We are convinced that Adobe, represented by Mr. Agassi, does not wish to offend its customers and that Mr. Agassi’s statement will have a negative effect on Adobe’s international public relations. We find Mr. Agassi’s statements to be inappropriate for a company that practices fair employment policies.

We call on Adobe to publicly denounce the statements made by its representative in Israel.
Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Hitler is currently in New York City.

Haven’t you heard?

During Ahmadinejad’s talk at Columbia, he was asked about homosexuals in Iran. His (ludicrous) answer?

“In Iran, we dont have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you we have it.”

Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor of The New York Times

Free speech is one of the founding principles of our republic. How can we deny him [Ahmadinejad] the right to speak simply because we don’t like what he has to say, or what he has already said? Isn’t that one of the biggest things that sets this nation apart from nations like Iran in the first place?

The right of free speech cannot be parceled out based on whether we want to hear what the speaker has to say, or whether we agree with those views. It means, quite often, tolerating the expression of views that we find distasteful, perhaps even repugnant. There is much that the Iranian president has to say that is loathsome, about Israel, about the Holocaust, about terrorism, about the United States. Are those views going to disappear because we cover our ears? Are we better equipped to counter those views if we don’t hear them? We think the answer to those questions is, “No.”

Non-violent protest and resistance to Israeli occupation in Palestine is both legal and legitimate.

And it may just be slowly having a tiny effect.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia University was a fascinating insight into free speech in action (though one Haaretz commentator feared that Israel was the loser of his presentation, as if openly discussing Middle East issues  threatens the poor, helpless Jewish state.) More on his talk here and here.

The Zionist lobby worked itself into a lather before Ahmadinejad even arrived and denounced him again after he spoke. A wonderful look,  boys.

The Iranian leader isn’t especially clever, or worldly or witty, and his refusal to accept the Jewish Holocaust is morally repugnant, but what about this constant refrain?

“Why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price for an event [the Holocaust] they had nothing to do with?”

Tragically, he has a valid point (unless, of course, you follow the US media’s hysterical attempt to turn Ahmadinejad into Public Enemy Number 1.)

Ahmadinejad responds by asking what do Americans like about Bush. Pelley’s answer? Bush is a religious man.

“As an American citizen tell me what trait do you admire?” the president asked Pelley.

“Well Mr. Bush is without question a very religious man for example, as you are,” Pelley replied.

“What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people, please tell me, does Christianity tell its followers to do that?” Ahmadinejad asked.

When Pelley reads a statement from Bush to Ahmadinejad – he’s now too cowardly to meet with world leaders on his own and relies on reporters to pass along messages? – my irony meter redlined.

More confirmation that not only is the Iraqi government irrelevant, but that the Bush administration has no problem humiliating them publicly. In spite of Blackwater being ordered out of the country by the Iraqi government, they clearly are going nowhere. This makes a mockery of the suggestion that if the Iraqi government were to request the US to leave, such a request would be honoured.

As for Blackwater, the stench just won’t go away.

In spite of the fact that Iran not only had nothing to do with 9/11, officially condemned the attack and hosted a one million strong demonstration against the attack in its immediate aftermath, the Right is ramping up its Iran bashing.

The argument given is that Iran is arming those who are attacking US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, in spite of the absence of evidence and in some cases, even contradictions from those in positions to know.

The appearance of Ahmadinejad at Columbia University has also got the war lovers in a lather. Glenn Reynolds recently wrote:

Plus, the San Jose Mercury News on Stanford’s McCarthyism. “Universities should be paragons for the open exchange of ideas, even if they’re controversial or unpopular. And all connected with private and public university communities should protect that ideal.”

Which is it? Open exchange of ideas or not?

It’s so funny when the wingnuts start tripping over each other.

While the American media underplayed the recent tussles between Fatah and Hamas in Palestine – after all, the US couldn’t be to blame, surely! – and the black blogosphere is starting to find its voice in the world’s leading super-power, the country’s finest investigative journalist Seymour Hersh argues that the Bush years have been unlike any other in his life-time:

The bottom line is nobody in this government talks to me. I’ve been around for 40 years – in Bush I, in the Reagan years, certainly in Democratic regimes, but even in Republican regimes where I am more of a pain – I’ve always had tremendous relationships with people. This is the first government in which in order to get my stories checked out to make sure I’m not going to kill some American, I have to go to peoples’ mailboxes at night, people I talk to and know, and put it in their mailbox before turning it into The New Yorker, to get them to read it and say, “Oh, Page 4, you better not say that, Hersh.” I can’t do that with the government. I used to always go and sit down and talk with the heads of the CIA and heads of other agencies. These guys are just really quantitatively different. You are either with us or against us across the board. And this is why I count days [til Bush leaves office].

Hersh also talks about his Jewish identity:

I like a lot of the historical stuff; I’m agnostic about the religion. But I certainly understand the power of faith, and I wish the American Jews could talk more to some of the Israelis I know and see how open-minded they are about many issues American Jews are not. There is tremendous diversity in Israel. Here the stuff of conversation ends up in a bloody fight; there you can discuss anything. My [three] children chose: Some went through the bar mitzvah process; some did not. I’m a believer in you do what you want to do. For me, my Jewish heritage comes mainly in literature. I identify very strongly with the Saul Bellows and Philip Roths of this world. But it’s so irrelevant that I am Jewish when I write about Jewish issues. It really is for me. It’s just like it is irrelevant what my personal opinion is on things.

And he comments on the Mearsheimer/Walt book on the Israel lobby:

You can’t touch them in terms of being anti-Semitic. They are realists. They are from the realists’ school. I haven’t read the book, but it’s not either/or, either support Israel or don’t. It’s: try and use the tremendous support and relationship we have to modify their behavior more than we do. But this government and that relationship [with Israel] is really profound, and it is just very secretive between us and Israel. It is not transparent, and that is not healthy for anybody.

Gideon Levy, Haaretz, September 23:

Mahmoud Abbas has to stay home. As things stand right now, he must not go to Washington. Even his meetings with Ehud Olmert are gradually turning into a disgrace and have become a humiliation for his people. Nothing good will come of them. It has become impossible to bear the spectacle of the Palestinian leader’s jolly visits in Jerusalem, bussing the cheek of the wife of the very prime minister who is meanwhile threatening to blockade a million and a half of his people, condemning them to darkness and hunger.

Right now power rests with the powerless Abu Mazen. Since Washington – and perhaps Jerusalem as well – badly want the photo-op otherwise known as a “peace summit” to show off an “achievement,” Abu Mazen could and should threaten to boycott the meeting to try and force some achievement on behalf of his people. Palestinians live in Gaza, too – an area controlled by Hamas, which Abu Mazen so loathes: He cannot continue to ignore the inhumane conditions in which Gazans live, caged in by Israel.

What a wonderful way to ruffle some feathers (and make an important political point):

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will arrive in New York Sunday, in order to participate in the United Nations General Assembly in the city. Aside from his anticipated speech at the general assembly on Tuesday, the Iranian president is also scheduled to speak at Columbia University on Monday morning. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to address some 600 university students during his speech, including Jewish students, who will express their opinions on Ahmadinejad’s policies regarding Israel, and the fact that he is a Holocaust denier.

The university’s dean John H. Coatsworth went a step further and told Fox News that the institute would have invited Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler to appear before students had he been willing to participate in an open debate.

As much as the views of Hitler were highly offensive – though, seriously, to suggest that Hitler, a man who was responsible for the death of millions, is comparable to Ahmadinejad, a political hack who oppresses his own people but is hardly responsible for the murder of millions, just shows how hysterical Jewish leaders have become to simply make a political point – it is vital to discuss matters in a frank way. Columbia’s dean is probably going to cop a huge amount of flak for simply stating the obvious but the question remains: do we, as a Western society, believe in free speech, or just an interest in hearing from those with whom we agree?

UPDATE: Watch the video here.