Antony Loewenstein

The number of mainstream commentators and journalists who don’t conform to predictable positions on global affairs is rare, indeed.

That’s why the mainstream loves them.

Why does Israel and her Zionist supporters always believe that the Jewish state’s international image is so dire because of bad PR? Jeez, it may have something to do with the fact that Israel is an apartheid state. Such uncomfortable facts can’t be hidden with a bigger advertising budget:

Israeli Ynet News reported Wednesday that the Israeli Forging Minister, Tzipi Lvni, stated that Israel is investing in a multi-million dollar campaign to improve its image in the world after its latest war on Gaza.

Livni stated that the Foreign Ministry is holding talks with the Ministry of Finance for a grant of additional funds for its campaign which will focus mainly on Europe and the United States.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry recently received confidential letters from a number of its embassies informing the Israeli leaders that Israel is about to be considered by some European countries as a racist state, similar to the former South African apartheid regime.

This week marks the sixth anniversary of the death of American peace activist Rachel Corrie by an Israeli bulldozer.

Her mother spoke recently on the Rafah/Gaza border about her daughter’s legacy:

You asked about Rachel and how people respond to her here, and I—most everybody, at least if they—you know, they know her name when they hear it, most all of them. If somebody points out that we’re Rachel Corrie’s parents, you know, they’re very kind, and they want to talk to us.

I think I can only explain that because, you know, this—it is a prison here, and when someone comes from the outside, as Rachel did and as others do, other ISMers, other internationals come to Gaza and the West Bank, and then pay the ultimate price, which is what they feel Rachel has done, I think it gives them some hope. I think it probably strengthens their resolve, you know, to know that there are people on the outside that care as much as Rachel did. And I think that also it means a lot to them to see that we continue, in a way, continue some of her journey, not doing the same kinds of work, but that we haven’t forgotten them, that we’re back again, and that we’re doing what we can in the United States.

Rachel brought us to the issue. We, certainly—if we had an allegiance before that, it was really to the Jewish Israeli story and narrative. That’s what we knew about. And we learned—she was very good about bringing us material, pointing us to websites and so forth, and she really tried to bring us along, even before she came here. She didn’t just abruptly one day get up and go. She did some planning and preparation for it, and she tried to include us in that process. But, of course, we learned much more as she was there, particularly when she wrote the emails to us. It was eye-opening, because we knew about her as a writer and as an observer. So, it’s one thing to read about things on a website or in a newspaper article or a book, not knowing the people who are doing that; it’s another thing to hear about it from someone that you know and trust. And so, immediately we started to learn things, and so did our entire extended family and Rachel’s friends, because the things that she was writing about were being shared.

When we came here after she was killed, you know, our knowledge, you know, just developed more and more. And there really is no better way to learn about a situation than to come and see it for yourself.

Why Fox News defines brainless “news”:

American investigative reporter Seymour Hersh speaking at an al-Jazeera conference in Doha, Qatar about the recent war in Gaza:

Suppose Israel did less bombing, They would have done better. I saw no reporting on the six month period leading up to the conflict in which Israel attacked Gaza. The Israelis didn’t know that much about Gaza.. Israeli failure is greater than was covered. Was it really a war, or just a one sided bombardment?

The following letters appear in today’s Sydney Morning Herald:

Before accusing your editorial writer of oversimplification, perhaps Athol Morris (Letters, March 14-15) should check his back copies of the Australian Jewish News. That paper has published several of my letters arguing that Israel should be a state of all its citizens. Readers took that to be the end of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, and said so.

However, in the hearty debate that ensued, no one took the view that it was offensive to suggest Israel should be “as Israeli as Australia is Australian” (and as Jewish as Australia is Christian). Nor did the editors who published the letters.

Vigorous debate has always characterised Jewish culture. Hearing a different view is not offensive. To suggest that the AJN refused an ad for commercial reasons does not tally with the above experience.

Sol Salbe Maidstone (Vic)

Maureen Dean (Letters, March 16), commenting on an AM interview with Jeffrey Halper, writes: “The final crucial point he made was that a big proportion of suicide bombers consist of young people who have had their houses demolished by the Israeli Government.” What actually happens is that the Israeli Government demolishes the houses after the bombings.

Mick Weiss Coburg (Vic)

Let’s not believe that the Australian government will only block sites that are deemed “illegal”:

It has been revealed that ACMA has blacklisted a page on the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks.org that contains a leaked copy of the Danish blacklist of banned websites.

Interesting media developments from New York, where publications are discovering that going hyperlocal is, possibly, the way to sustain decent journalism.

It seems that if a Sri Lankan journalist is to survive, he or she should never miss breakfast with the President.

David Shasha is a major progressive intellectual leader of the American Sephardic community. He sends out a weekly email newsletter with articles of interest related to Jewish issues and the Middle East. His latest missive contains the following passage, relevant here because of yet more evidence of the Jewish establishment arguing it should be somehow separate, or even superior, to the rest of society (though other faiths are equally culpable):

I would like to direct our readers to a shocking and disgusting article that appeared in this week’s New York Times.

The article discusses a battle being waged by local New York religious groups to squash attempts by the government to expand the laws regarding filing claims of Child Sexual Abuse. In a stunning turn, the religious groups are lobbying against the legislation. Prominent in the list of groups opposing the attempt to protect children is the Brooklyn Sephardic community.

Having had my own bitter personal experience with the leaders of the community relating to the psychological abuse of my own children, none of this comes as any surprise.

The protection of children and families and the sanctity of Jewish law is of no concern to these leaders and rabbis. In a post-Matloub Abadi world, the moral anarchy of the community seems to know no bounds. What would ordinarily appear to us as “Hillul Hashem,” a profanation of God’s name, is for these people a badge of honor. I am certain that the only thing they see as wrong here is the fact that their evil deeds are being publicized in the newspaper. Within the confines of the community here in Brooklyn such immoral actions are not only deemed proper, they are enforced within the social structure of the community – those who dare to speak out against them are shunned and persecuted.

It is a truly shameful episode, not only for my own community and those who are forced to suffer the damage inflicted on their families by the rabbis and leaders, but for the larger religious community in New York which has to deal with such a disgusting set of leaders.

To add insult to injury, I direct your attention to another article involving the same group in the Brooklyn Sephardic community which provides even further confirmation of its skewed values.

The following letter appears in today’s Sydney Morning Herald:

I never heard the PM program to which Athol Morris refers (Letters, March 14-15), but I did hear Jeffrey Halper interviewed by Fran Kelly on the ABC Radio National Breakfast program on March 11. Professor Halper never mentioned being against the existence of a Jewish state on that program. My interpretation of the interview was that his aim was to see Israelis and Palestinians live together in peace. He also referred to houses owned by Arabs in the Negev that have been bulldozed about 18 times to date.

The final crucial point he made was that a big proportion of suicide bombers consist of young people who have had their houses demolished by the Israeli Government. I would encourage people who would like to eventually see peace in the Middle East to attend Professor Halper’s talks to hear for themselves and make up their own mind.

Maureen Dean Lane Cove

The Australian Jewish News publishes the following editorial this week:

A vocal critic of Israel’s policy of demolishing Palestinian houses is currently on a tour of Australia.

Professor Jeff Halper, an American-born retired Israeli academic, coordinates the Israeli Committee Against Housing Demolitions (ICAHD), which attacks the practice of demolishing Palestinian homes.

There is an important distinction between houses that Israel demolishes as a deterrent to terrorists -– a policy that has proved somewhat effective -– and houses that are demolished after they have been illegally built in contravention of Israel’s municipal planning laws.

House demolitions are traumatic, we admit. But when they are the homes of terrorists, and the practice proves to be an effective deterrent, the lives saved are more important than the walls demolished.

And when they are furtively built in defiance of Israel’s planning laws, they become part of the politics that beset the West Bank and will need to be ironed out in a final settlement.

As to Prof Halper, he is more than just an opponent of house demolitions. He is a hardline detractor of Israel and has described it as a place that attracts “nefarious ideologies” and a country that courts “apartheid”.

So it was with dismay that we discovered Sydney Progressive congregation, Emanuel Synagogue, was on a list of his speaking engagements.

The synagogue is meeting on Thursday to decide if it will withdraw his ill-advised invitation to a small Torah class.

A meeting between Prof Halper and the class, organised by Emanuel’s Rabbi Jeffrey Kamins, may have been well intended as an informal exchange of views in the context of a weekly parshah and the ethical issues it raises.

But the event has since been publicised well beyond Emanuel’s congregational membership and has become a cause celebre for Jews Against the Occupation, which is one of several organisations supporting Prof Halper’s visit to Australia.

We hope the Emanuel executive will cancel the professor’s visit to their synagogue.