Antony Loewenstein

The fact that people are shocked, just shocked, that a Jewish leader would speak honestly about the true state of Israel shows how utterly constipated is the debate over the Middle East in the Jewish Diaspora:

One of British Jewry’s most senior leaders this week shattered a longstanding taboo by publicly criticising Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the peace process, voicing moral reservations about some of Israel’s policies, and calling for criticism of Israel to be voiced freely throughout thecommunity.

Mick Davis, chairman of both the UJIA and the executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, also warned that unless there were a two-state solution with the Palestinians, Israel risked becoming an apartheid state.

As news of his views, aired at a meeting in London on Saturday night, began to ripple around the Jewish community, other leaders backed his stance, although it also drew criticism.

Mr Davis said that British Jewry had a “left-of-centre leadership” concerned about “where Israel goes” but which previously had “never spoken publicly about that”.

Leaders wanted openly to address moral dilemmas over settlement building, or a “repugnant” loyalty oath for non-Jewish immigrants, he said. But they felt constrained by the fear of giving ammunition to enemies of Israel who sought to delegitimise the state.

Criticising Mr Netanyahu for “lacking the courage to take the steps” to advance the peace process, he said: “I don’t understand the lack of strategy in Israel and that’s what I want to address.” Although he added that the country’s present electoral system “cannot deliver strong government or courageous politicians”.

He said that if the world community were to lose hope in the possibility of a two-state solution, then demographics would eventually cause Israel to become an apartheid state “because we then have the majority going to be governed by the minority”.

Mr Davis was appearing in a discussion with Peter Beinart, author of a recent essay critical of America’s Zionist leaders which sparked widespread debate overseas. But many of the packed, and largely sympathetic, audience of 160 at the London Jewish Cultural Centre were surprised at the forthrightness of the head of the UJIA, British Jewry’s leading Israel-oriented organisation.

He said that many Jewish leaders shared his views, although he acknowledged that he was “out of step with the majority in this country that have the view that what you do and say should be done quietly, behind the closed doors”.

But he warned that unless there were some movement, “we are going to contribute to what is potentially a very unsatisfactory next 10 or 15 years in which Israel’s capacity to deal with the existential threats is diminished”.

He also vented his frustration that Israel’s political leaders did not pay attention to diaspora Jewry, arguing that philanthropic aid to Israel was not enough for Jews abroad.

“I think the government of Israel … have to recognise that their actions directly impact me as a Jew living in London, the UK,” he said. “When they do good things it is good for me, when they do bad things, it’s bad for me. And the impact on me is as significant as it is on Jews living in Israel.”

Support for Mr Davis was forthcoming from across the UK Jewish religious spectrum, with Reform movement head Rabbi Dr Tony Bayfield praising him as “a remarkable man and a true Zionist leader”.

Rabbi Bayfield said: “The views that Mick expresses are typical of the mainstream, grassroots of our community – honest and courageous in Israel’s defence but also honest and courageous in giving our backing to the pursuit of a just and sustainable peace through two states.”

United Synagogue president Simon Hochhauser, a JLC trustee, speaking in a personal capacity, said: “There is nothing in the quoted comments I would disagree with.”

But there was a more dismissive reaction to Mr Davis abroad. Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League in the USA, accused him of “intellectual arrogance. What I found most objectionable is the quote that Israel has to recognise that its actions directly impact on him as a Jew in London. That is arrogant nonsense.

“The Israeli government has to make decisions that have life and death consequences for Israelis. So what, if what they do socially embarrasses him with his friends? Big deal.”

One Israeli minister remarked tartly: “Mick Davis may be important within the Jewish community in Britain but in the wider world of Israel-diaspora relations, he is virtually unknown.”

The one JLC member to come out openly against Mr Davis’s position was JNF chairman Samuel Hayek, who said “diaspora Jews should never criticise Israel”.

But another, Brian Kerner, a former UJIA chairman, said that although “broadly supportive” of Mr Davis’s views, he was against voicing them in public because “it’s only picked up by our enemies, distorted and used against us”.

Lucian Hudson, chairman of Liberal Judaism, said: “The danger is that anyone sceptical or critical of Israeli policy feels so frustrated that they give up on Israel altogether, or become indifferent, and that’s the worst threat. We need to re-engage over what matters to them. “

Joy Wolfe, the veteran Manchester-based activist, commented: “Mick Davis is probably articulating what many people are thinking but it is uncomfortable hearing it from one of the UK’s top Zionist leaders, which clearly will be picked up by our enemies.

“I am reluctant to criticise a fellow Zionist leader. But I strongly disagree with his concern that what Israel does should take into account its impact on Jews outside of Israel. Israel has to do what is right for Israel.”

Harvey Rose, chairman of the Zionist Federation, while agreeing with “much” of Mr Davis’s position, said: “How Israel is perceived in the UK has a direct bearing on our comfort levels in Britain. It troubles me that so many people place the blame entirely on Israel.”

Vivian Wineman, the president of the Board of Deputies and chairman of the JLC, said: “Mick Davis is entitled to make his remarks – there are a wide range of views both in this country and in Israel on these issues.”

This Australian mini-documentary on the West Bank city of Hebron first screened in 1996. Nothing has changed since except life for Palestinians has worsened. Rampant, Zionist racism has increased, the IDF continues to protect the handful of settlers and a few brave souls campaign against this outrage.

Don’t tell me that Israel is serious about peace.

This is the first interview that Tamil journalist J.S. Tissainayagam of the local Sunday Times newspaper has given since his release in May 2010. It is about the state of the media in Sri Lanka. Tissainayagam received the Peter Mackler Award for journalistic courage and integrity in October 2009.

This is what it’s come to. American desperation, Zionist arrogance and absolutely nothing towards peace:

National Security Adviser Uzi Arad said Saturday in an interview with Channel 2 that an interim agreement with the Palestinians cannot be ruled out.

“It is unclear whether we have a partner for a permanent agreement,” said Arad, who accompanied Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his recent United States visit.

“If a permanent agreement won’t be reached, I don’t think we should rule out the possibility of solutions that are less than a permanent settlement,” he told Channel 2.

Arad emphasized that Israel must examine closely whether it has a willing partner for peace.

“Do we have a partner who is ready to take the same steps for peace that the prime minister said he will take? Do we have a willing Palestinian partner?,” Arad asked.

Arad claimed that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been avoiding peace talks with Israel for a year now, but stressed that Israel must continue pushing forward with attempts to restart negotiations.

“We have faced continuous refusal from Abbas to hold direct talks even though we haven’t demanded any kind of precondition from him. He isn’t willing to agree to terms that he was willing to in the past when [Ehud] Olmert was prime minister,” Arad said.

Arad also confirmed for the first time that the United States has made a written commitment not to pressure Israel to stop West Bank construction again if it accepts an incentives package aimed at reviving Mideast peace talks.

Arad also said payment agreements need to be worked out regarding the sale of F-35 stealth fighters to Israel as part of the package.

Under the deal, Israel will refrain from construction in the West Bank as part of a 90-day settlement freeze U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has requested in exchange for a package of incentives.

Tehran fears cultural imperialism but they just end up looking like paranoid and bigoted fools:

In little more than a year, the Persian-language satellite television channel beamed into Iran by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and a prominent Afghan family has rapidly become one of the most popular stations in the country.

A little too popular, it appears.

This week, a long-running campaign led by the Iranian government to undermine the channel, Farsi1, took a menacing turn: A group calling itself the Iranian Cyber Army hacked into Farsi1’s Web site, as well as several sites owned by the Mohseni family, and posted a cryptic but sinister warning.

“The allies of Zionism should know this,” said the message, which stayed on the Web sites for about six hours on Thursday. “Dreams of destroying the foundation of the family will lead straight to the graveyard.”

The exact meaning of the message was unclear, but conservative Iranian leaders complain that the programming — a heavily censored variety of comedies, soap operas and dramas — is eroding traditional Iranian values.

The campaign against Farsi1 illustrates the growing fear among Iranian leaders over the intrusion of private broadcasters onto the country’s airwaves, which is challenging the state’s monopoly over the flow of information.

The cyberattack is the latest effort in a campaign to discredit the television station, which went on the air in August 2009. This year, Iranian authorities tried to jam a satellite used by the channel. Personal attacks on Mr. Murdoch, as well as on Saad Mohseni, the chairman of the Moby Group, have appeared on Iranian television and newspapers. News Corporation and the Moby Group each own half of the channel.

The Iranian authorities appear to be particularly unnerved by the entrance of Mr. Murdoch, who is not just an aggressive businessman but also a politically active one. In neighboring Afghanistan, the Mohseni family has built a successful string of television and radio stations and Web sites since the American-led invasion in 2001.

Both Mr. Murdoch and the Mohseni family were named in the renegade Web site posting that appeared Thursday.

According to American officials, as well as spokesmen for both the Moby Group and the News Corporation, Farsi1 receives no funds from any government.

Indeed, Farsi1 offers no political fare, neither news nor editorial commentary. Instead, it provides viewers with comedies and dramas, most of them from Latin America and Korea, and toned down for a more conservative Iranian audience.

Though the plots often involve romance and infidelity, anything resembling male-female contact is excised — even kissing. The menu even includes a few American standbys like “24,” which features an American federal agent who often battles terrorists from the Muslim world.

“If the script says anything that is not right or appropriate, we edit it,” said Zaid Mohseni, the chief executive officer of Farsi1 and Saad Mohseni’s brother. “Visually, if there is something not appropriate, we edit it out. We know that the majority of viewers are watching with their families. We are very sensitive to this.”

Still, Farsi1 has drawn the ire of Iranian leaders, who say that the Western-oriented programming represents an assault on traditional Iranian values and is even corrupting the Iranian people.

“Satellite TV programs such as those broadcast on Farsi1 destroy the chastity and honor of our families and encourage the young to take up lovemaking, wine drinking and Satan worship,” Mohammad-Taghi Rahbar, a member of Parliament, told the Iranian news agency IWNA this year.

“The channel is funded by ‘Zionist money’ and planned and managed by Iran’s enemies,” he said, without providing details. “What family that has any dignity would let is members watch Farsi1?”

From the Times Higher Education supplement:

No one is suggesting that Sir Michael or Sands put the interests of their employer, or former employer, first. But the Browne Review does symbolise and sanction an insidious aspect of the wider privatisation process, which brings into education-policy formation management consultancies whose policy fixes, although discussed as “improvements” to schools and universities, effectively entrench their influence. The more the state sector is modelled on or interacts with the private sector, the greater the perceived imperative for policymakers to turn to such organisations for advice.

The Browne proposals will accelerate the trend towards a public-private divide in higher education similar to the one in secondary schooling. In the process, they will widen the crack through which management consultancies may enter, enabling them to strengthen their foothold in education provision, and expanding the zone of unaccountability at the heart of the state.

Balloon Juice highlights a startling passage in a Washington Post story:

But many residents near Kandahar do not share the view. They have lodged repeated complaints about the scope of the destruction with U.S. and Afghan officials. In one October operation near the city, U.S. aircraft dropped about two dozen 2,000-pound bombs.

In another recent operation in the Zhari district, U.S. soldiers fired more than a dozen mine-clearing line charges in a day. Each one creates a clear path that is 100 yards long and wide enough for a truck. Anything that is in the way – trees, crops, huts – is demolished.

“Why do you have to blow up so many of our fields and homes?” a farmer from the Arghandab district asked a top NATO general at a recent community meeting.

Although military officials are apologetic in public, they maintain privately that the tactic has a benefit beyond the elimination of insurgent bombs. By making people travel to the district governor’s office to submit a claim for damaged property, “in effect, you’re connecting the government to the people,” the senior officer said.

The blogger comments:

While you dirty hippies and evil leftists are focusing on the lives destroyed, what you are overlooking is that if you put on your neocon warface, you’ll realize that when we bomb civilians, kill their family members and friends, destroy their homes, their crops, and their livestock, sure there may be some hard feelings. But let’s not overlook the value of the government meet and greet!

We’re not just killing civilians and destroying their homes, but rather, this is a cleverly disguised government outreach program!

America’s leading Zionist lobby, AIPAC, loves pornography.

And many other tales here.

Earlier this week we were reminded of the Australian Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan years ago dismissing the Burmese “dissident” Aung San Suu Kyi.

Sheridan is back at it today (thanks to Scott Burchill):

For nearly 20 years, good hearted Indonesians have been telling the Burmese to study the New Order regime that prevailed in Indonesia under Suharto, especially in the early years after he took power in the mid-60s. The Indonesian army, like the Burmese, believed it was the only institution that could possibly keep the country together. It developed the doctrine of dwifungsi or dual function, to allow the military a direct role in politics as well as security.

But at the same time, especially in the early years, Suharto was extremely consultative. He tried to co-opt as many social forces into the New Order as he could and he took expert economic advice from the famous Berkely mafia.

Burchill: This is precisely the period when Suharto’s slaughter of his political opponents, and anyone associated with them, reached its peak. Hundreds of thousands were murdered in one of Asia’s worst bloodbaths. Seems the Burmese junta did just that. Good hearted advice indeed.

Wise words about a media mogul that too few people are willing to challenge:

Alan Rusbridger, the editor-in-chief of the Guardian, today stepped into the debate over whether Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation should be allowed to take full control of BSkyB, by warning of the “chilling effect” that “one large media company can have on public life”.

Giving a lecture in Murdoch’s native Australia, Rusbridger said that the revelations of phone hacking at the News of the World illustrated “the nature of the problem” when one media group becomes too powerful in the UK.

The controversy, Rusbridger said, “raises questions which are not so much about hacking, troubling as those are, but about how other forces in society – whether it is other media organisations, the police, the regulator or parliament itself – behave when faced with the muscle of a very large, very powerful and sometimes very aggressive media group”.

He added that “something is dangerously out of kilter” when MPs such as Adam Price on the Commons culture, media and sport select committee confess they have been “held back” from probing into News Corporation’s affairs because of “fear of what that company might do to them” – or when former employees are “too frightened to speak publicly about what they know” .

In June, News Corporation proposed an £8bn buyout of the 61% of satellite broadcaster BSkyB it does not already own, a deal that would bring together the largest newspaper group in the UK, with nearly 40% of the average daily sale with the largest broadcaster by turnover. Combined, the two companies would have a turnover of £7.5bn, compared to the BBC’s £4.8bn.

Rusbridger queried whether it could be “good public policy to allow a still greater concentration of power across not just one wing of the Fourth Estate but two”. He said that while it was possible to come up with “all kinds of metrics” to justify the merger on competition grounds, “it would still feel wrong”.

He said that the argument about the proposed buyout was not about the individual merits of Rupert Murdoch as a media owner, warning instead that “there’s no one I would want to have that much power” – whether it was the BBC, the moderator of the Church of Scotland or even Sir David Attenborough.

Last night in Sydney at the Palestinian Film Festival I saw an amazing new film by Jewish film-maker Julian Schnabel, Miral.

This is a deeply moving tale about the Palestinian experience, from the 1948 Nakba to the Deir Yassin massacre, the 1967 war and the first intifada. Is it this generation’s Exodus, asks Mondoweiss?

Its significance is telling the Palestinian story to a Western audience, in a compelling and revealing way. Schnabel says that after a test-screening in New York, most people said they’d never seen the Middle East told from the “other side”:

To document Palestine and its history, the pain and joys, resistance and occupation, is never told in mainstream cinema. Indeed, the release of this film, by a leading independent film-maker, reflects the growing global awareness of the issue. Here’s Schnabel:

Before I made this film, I hardly knew anything about Palestinians. But I’ve been following the story of Israel my whole life. As a child, I remember watching Exodus at Manhattan’s Rivoli Theatre with my parents. Everybody stood up when they sang Hatikvah and put their hands on their chests. My mother and father were very proud. I recently learned from my sister Andrea that my mother was President of Hadassah in Brooklyn . . . in 1948, the year of Israel’s birth. Making this film in Jerusalem allowed me to see this world for the first time, and to work with a landscape that I needed to see.

I was in tears by the end of the film. I felt profound anger that my people, the Jews, were inflicting such cruelty and pain on the Palestinians. But Miral is a lyrical and playful film that doesn’t glamorise or romanticise the Palestinians but merely shows their stories and struggles on the big screen. There’s no hiding that for many Palestinians Israelis are creeps, brutes, soldiers and occupiers. “Balance” is a false aim when one people are under occupation.