Occidental Israeli Rotating Header Image

Media

Peace Now Does Not Like Free Speech

‍‍ב חשון תשסט - Oct 30th, 2008
by LB.
1 comment

The annual media brouhaha is here already. Next Tuesday will mark 13 years (according to the Gregorian calendar) since Rabin’s death. In the beginning, this date was marked by many events geared towards healing rifts between the Right and Left in Israel (both political and religious). In Novembers, however, Yigal Amir has been in the headlines more than national healing sessions.

Amir is a controversial figure in Israel, to say the least. There are groups of people who want to pardon him. There are groups of people who want him to rot in jail. There are those probably who don’t even care, but express the prevalent opinion (that would be the latter) for social reasons. There was the issue of whether or not the courts should allow his marriage to Larisa Trembovler. Obviously, the question of children then came up because obviously a politically unpopular criminal should be denied the basic rights afforded to other criminals.

This year, slightly less explosive then the ridiculous issues I mentioned, Yigal Amir was interviewed by Channel 10 in which he said, among other things that will surely get much more coverage than deserved, that he could have killed Rabin earlier than November of 1995, and that “all the military experts said that the Oslo Accord was a disaster.”

Of course, Peace Now (an organization that does not promote peace, not now and not later) had to get involved and, in typical fashion, is trying to quash viewpoints they view as “unacceptable.” Yariv Oppenheimer, Secretary-General of Peace Now, called on the media not to publish the interview (sorry, Hebrew. Why do the news sites not translate these things?) because “the murderer and his followers are attempting to control the public discourse and relay unacceptable message. The media must…not provide them with a outlet.”

First, Oppenheimer is trying to block someone else from expressing himself, regardless of what he actually wants to say. Free speech is clearly not an ideal he values. Second, the media’s responsibility is to report on what is newsworthy. Newsworthiness is not decided by NGOs, but by the public’s interest. Unfortunately, the public has deemed this issue newsworthy.

Not only are they against free speech, they are not even consistent on whether or not murderers should allow themselves to avail themselves of this right. When is the last time Peace Now protested a media outlet interviewing somone like, say, Jibril Rajoub?

Hummus?

‍‍כט תשרי תשסט - Oct 28th, 2008
by LB.
5 comments

Here, in America, seeing the word Hummus on a restaurant menu generally makes me shudder. Hummus is a food that has become chic, cool. However, the average American has not the faintest idea what hummus really is.

Here’s a hint. If it looks like an scoop of ice cream and its served with “pita chips,” then it’s NOT hummus. I honestly have no idea how hummus has gotten so popularized if Americans have only had inedible substances whose only resemblance to hummus is that they contain chickpeas (garbanzo beans).

I happened to catch Guy’s Big Bite, on the Food Network, the other day, and he was making something, which he called hummus. Here are a few of the things that went into that goo, which I can only be glad that it was on TV and not on my plate (or anyone else’s, who I care about): jalapeño, chipotle, and roasted red bell peppers. All of these are products which do not go in hummus. I am not against adding hot spices to your hummus – but that happens when you eat it, not during the preparation. That is why hummus, in any place worth its salt, is served with a spicy sauce, known as s’hug.

Furthermore, hummus is definitely not ever served with “toasted pita bread.” Saying “pita bread” is the same as saying “bread bread” (or even “bauguette bread” and more to the point פיתת לחם, خبز خبز, and other such mistakes like “naan bread”). Also, heat the pita, don’t toast it.

Another mistake I saw on TV that day, was the host opening a can of chickpeas and simply pouring them into the food processor. When making hummus, you must, MUST, wash the chickpeas numerous times, to make the “hummus” even edible. Moreover, if you want your hummus to be good, even if you use canned chickpeas, you have to boil them and remove most the skins, from most of the individual beans.

The biggest mistake, however, was the lack of tehina (sometimes called tahini). For hummus to be really good it must include tehina. Apparently there are other authentic versions that replace tehina with ful or with labaneh, but simply mashing chickpeas (with other vegetables, no less) does not result in hummus.

In any case, my favorite version of hummus is masabacha, at Abu Hassan (Ali Karavan) in Yaffo (sorry, I can’t find an appropriate link in English).

Calling the product made on that show “hummus” is tantamount to libel. The host made a product and called it hummus, despite the minimal resemblance it had to the real thing. And then people wonder why hummus is referred to as a “diarrhea-like substance.”

Shooting News Update

‍‍ט תשרי תשסט - Oct 7th, 2008
by LB.
1 comment

Update – A comment from Ben has alerted me that MPD has a record of gun violence on its map matching the incident from Saturday night. However, no news outlets seem to be picking it up – and at this point, they probably will not either. Meaning its simply not important enough – a shooting in Adam Morgan is now too commonplace to be considered. Great.

Home Sweet Home?

Adams Morgan Shooting – News?

‍‍ז תשרי תשסט - Oct 6th, 2008
by LB.
2 comments

I posted the other day about a shooting incident in Adams Morgan on Saturday night. Apart from very little information on a few blogs, there seems to be no reports on any mainstream media.

One person commented that he saw an undercover police officer exit a nearby restaurant as soon as the shots were heard. There was a very significant increased police presence, a number of ambulances, as well as the taping off of a crime scene. Another commenter said he saw a “college kid loaded into an ambulance with a wrap on his head.” And yet another commented that the following morning a police officer told him that someone was shot during a mugging and that the suspect was arrested.

How come none of this is on the news? It seems to me that a shooting in a residential neighborhood, with a victim no less, should be pretty newsworthy. Or could it be that Adams Morgan has really gotten that bad, that occasional gunfire is to be expected on the weekends?

It’s been two days and no news at all. Something smells bad.

Someone Stop the Times Already

‍‍ו תשרי תשסט - Oct 4th, 2008
by LB.
No comments yet

The New York Times really is an old gray lady – a busybody, with an editorial board made up of idiots who keep sticking their noses in places they do not belong.

In an editorial today, titled “Olmert’s Belated Truths”, the Times has decided to announce that Olmert “voiced some startling truths this week”. First of all, Olmert’s familiarity with the truth is extremely minimal. Second, anyone who is a true defender of the truth ought to be offended by this group of people, who has decided that one is telling the truth only when one foolishly shares their opinion. The only thing belated about Olmert is his departure from the prime minister’s office.

With regards to what Olmert said – nothing about it is startling. It may bother me, but I am not startled when someone says that Israel must give up the West Bank and east Jerusalem. Also, it is not true. Currently, there simply is no formula that can be followed which will lead to peace with our neighbors, on the basis of a two state solution. By and large, the Palestinians hate Israel. They hate the idea of a Jewish state, keep murdering Jews, and they hate the idea of a world that is not ruled by Muslims. If they ever achieve independence I would not wish upon anyone to be a Christian in that entity.

In his interview for Yediot Acharonot, Olmert said “What I am saying to you now has not been said by any Israeli leader before me”. If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny that this person claims to be an Israeli leader. He is not a leader of anything, except for maybe corrupt Israeli politicians. This person, who has accepted bribes, embezzled, and sent Israeli youth to their death, without any real plan or any real goal in mind, has the audacity to say he knows what is good for Israel?! He knows what is good for his pockets and what is good for his career, but the only time he ever really thinks about anyone else is only when he wants them to like him.

It is not frustrating that Olmert has “waited so long to say these things”. It is frustrating that he is saying these things at all. It is frustrating that the New York Times portends to know what is good for Israel, or how to bring about peace in the Middle East.

He, who headed Israel’s government through a period of groveling before its enemies, is now saying that it is megalomaniacal to act on its own against Iran’s nuclear weapons program? The only time Israel has ever been successful in self-defense has been when it has acted on its own. If Begin would have waited for UN sanctions and American diplomacy to work in the early 1980s, we would today we dealing with a nuclear, Saddam-led Iraq, or we would be reading about WWIII in history books.  That, and dealing with the myriad of problems nuclear fallout causes.

There is no issue of “finding a way for both states to claim Jerusalem as their capital”, as the Times seems to think. First of all, there is only one state. Second of all, Jerusalem is a Jewish city. The Jewish city. and has been since before it was founded. Giving it up, apart from being unjust, would be a victory for bigoted, racist terrorism.

The Times concludes its show of stupidity by urging Livni to take steps that would be harmful to Israel’s existence, and to make far reaching changes to Israel’s foreign policy. This, after a small group of corrupt individuals voted her into office.

The New York Times should stick to issues it knows about – like intellectually dishonest reporting. And Kadima, along with the corrupt politicians who lead it, have got to go NOW. Israel needs new elections now – before too much damage is done.

Public Opinion Decides Outcomes of Ongoing Conflicts

‍‍כט אלול תשסח - Sep 29th, 2008
by LB.
No comments yet

The BBC decided it was a good idea to poll international public opinion to see who is winning “”the conflict between al-Qaeda and the US”, finding that 49% think neither side is winning, 22% believe the US has the upper hand and 10% say al-Qaeda is winning.

Since when does public opinion determine the outcomes of wars? The BBC even went so far as to say that the “verdict across the world appeared to be that the war on terror had produced something of a stalemate.” Verdict? Really? Judge and Jury to decide who wins a war?

Internationally, only 22% said US action had weakened al-Qaeda, while 34% of Americans thought it had. I’m curious to how many of these people actually know who is winning or only offering their opinion on the matter.

I think Bin Laden rigged the jury.

I think Bin Laden rigged the jury.

Tom Segev v. The Truth

‍‍כט אלול תשסח - Sep 28th, 2008
by LB.
No comments yet

Noah Pollack is right in his criticism of Tom Segev as a “scholar” who writes as a “revisionist” not as a historian but as someone who wants to “see politics triumph over scholarship”. However, in response to Segev’s review of “Icon of Evil,” saying that it “is of little scholarly value, and may be potentially harmful to Middle East peace prospects”, Pollack makes a point, that I think is extremely unuseful: “What in fact has been very harmful to the peace process is the New Historians themselves.”

I am not saying he is mistaken. But it is entirely irrelevant. A historian should not be thinking of the consequences of his writing in his books. He should strive to uncover the truth, the whole truth and make it publicly known. Not try and figure out what is harmful to the peace process. By saying this, Segev belies his own medicority as an academic.

But Segev is more than just mediocre. He is a danger and harmful to all those seek the truth.

Tom Segev has long been a despicable figure in the arena of Israeli history and the history Arab-Israeli relations, changing historical facts to match his own distorted view of the situation. How one can describe the British as pro-Zionist during the period of the mandate is beyond me. Are these the same British, whose police did nothing to stop the Hebron Massacre of 1929? The same British who basically banned Jewish immigration to what was then known as Palestine? The same British who, in breach of the mandate, whose purpose was “putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917″ (The Balfour Declaration) gave away over 70% of the mandate territory to the Hashemite family? How very Zionist of them.

Segev claims, regarding the Six Day War, that “the war with Egypt was inevitable because the Israeli society was so weak…[that] Israel was simply too weak not to start the war with Egypt.” That’s right. Closing the Straits of Tiran was not an act of war. Nasser’s declarations about “how to totally exterminate the State of Israel for all time” were a moderating influence. As Michael Oren has pointed out, in his wonderful review of Segev’s latest piece of drivel, Segev simply chooses to ignore any “Arab calls for Israel’s destruction and the slaughter of its citizens”. It would undermind his point that Israel is bad, and wouldn’t let him modify history to fit his opinions, never mind what actually happened.

When publications like the New York Times publish such garbage, they are doing more than just harm their own reputation, and possibly the good name of the authors of “Icon of Evil”, for “he who controls the past, controls the future,” and if the past is not controlled by those who tell the truth, what will the future look like?

Jon Stewart’s Intelligence

‍‍כח אלול תשסח - Sep 28th, 2008
by LB.
1 comment

…or lack thereof.

Okay, he’s not that stupid, really, but he is so self righteous that when he tries to be proves how smart he is and it turns out that he’s wrong, well, you almost just have to say something.

A couple weeks ago the aforementioned foreign affairs expert interviewed Tony Blair, and Stewart tried to criticize the idea that democracies don’t go to war with each other (this is known as Democratic Peace Theory) as a fabricated theory, made up by the cabal of neocons, basically as an excuse to invade Iraq.

James Kirchick, over at Commentary’s blog has a great analysis of the interview and Jon Stewart, which is especially important considering the poll Kirchick mentions, which finds that “For Americans under 30, these comedy shows [e.g. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, LB]are now mentioned almost as frequently as newspapers and evening network news programs as regular sources for election news.”

After Tony Blair disproves Stewart attempt at disproving an international relations theory, Stewart goes on to say that “Hamas and Hezbollah aren’t like Al Qaeda, and could not share that group’s goals, because the two Palestinian terrorist organizations are “localized,” whereas Al Qaeda has broader ambitions.” I would say that he completely ignores history, but he doesn’t, because he doesn’t really know history. He has a very narrow view of history, which he views in an orthodox “progressive” lens. Hezballah has hijacked a TWA plane, bombed American marines in Beirut, and is responsible many more humanitarian acts.

Trying to differentiate Hamas from Al Qaeda is also pretty stupid, considering one group helps fund the other (see: Karine A).

Not the latest thing online, but go read.

The Settlers are Evil!

‍‍כח אלול תשסח - Sep 27th, 2008
by LB.
No comments yet

This is what the New York Times is reporting, while basically accusing people of attempted murder with no hard evidence whatsoever. Isabel Kershner, proving she either has no journalistic integrity to speak of, or a weak mental capacity (or both), describes Prof. Sternhell, the victim of a pipebomb attack at his home, as having made “impassioned critiques of Jewish settlements in the West Bank”. Legitimizing murder is an “impassioned critique”?

Also, what is this headline – “Radical Settlers Take on Israel“? The New York Times regularly reports on the latest Peace Now report accusing a large section of Israeli society of land theft (by manipulating Civil Administration data and maps and then claiming them as a source). I’ve never seen a headline about “Extremist Leftist Movement Takes on Israel”. They are basically characterizing “settlers” as anti-Israel. Every time they write like this they stray farther and farther away from journalism and into the land of (amateurish) punditry.

What I think is almost funny though, Sternhell ascribes so much importance to himself, that he has declared this attack to be the beginning of the end of democracy in Israel.

And I thought jailing minors for nothing was a pretty good sign of democracy’s demise, or maybe a lack of freedom of expression would be undemocratic.

This, by the way, is what is happening while settlers are busy practicing witchcraft – freedom of worship is not granted by the protégés of Israel’s premier expert of the demise of democracies. Freedom of assault is clearly a well-known tenet of democracy.

Jon Stewart is a Hypocrite

‍‍כב אלול תשסח - Sep 22nd, 2008
by LB.
1 comment

…and stupid, too.

I used to really like watching The Daily Show. Jon Stewart (and the rest of the “reporters”, too) was always really witty and identifying with his cynicism was really easy for me. His critique, which was usually directed towards the media was always really sharp, and right on target.

Many remember his appearance on Crossfire, the late CNN show. His criticism of Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala is has become, by now, legendary. If you haven’t seen it – watch it now, at the very least the stupidity of the audience is amusing, as stupid people tend to be (until they run your country, but that’s a topic for another post).

Now, Jon Stewart has never hid his political views. He is an unabashed liberal, and most of his jokes were at the expense of Republicans. All of that didn’t used to bother me – after all, the Bush administration and the Republican Party are usually, to put it lightly, easy targets (see: Larry Craig, Dick Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales, just to name a few – and those are all within the last three years…) But I always felt (perhaps mistakenly) that he was still somewhere within the range of “fair” when dealing with US national politics.

Over the last few weeks, however, it being election season and all, the Daily Show has been covering, well, the campaigns. So far, so good. I also think both sides are getting pretty much the same amount of coverage by the Daily Show. My impression, though, is that Stewart is idolizing Obama and can’t get enough of making fun of McCain. Not that you can’t make fun of McCain (and Palin…) and his policies enough – but Obama (and BIDEN!) are not exactly gaffe-free. Stewart is just playing into middle America’s claim that the liberal establishment (of which Stewart is definitely a member) are elitists and look down their nose at the average American.

And this has nothing to do with who I support. The Daily Show has turned into a comedy news show – real news. It has long since been a fake news show. Yes, the reporters aren’t always really “reporting”, and it’s not exactly NBC Nightly News (not that I consider that to be the hallmark of broadcast journalism), but it’s a news show, and during this election season, it’s basically become a 30 minute nightly poltical attack ad against McCain. I do identify with a lot of the jokes, but as often as not, I see easy openings for making fun of Obama and Co. – and I’m not the professional comedian. So even if you consider the Daily Show to be pure comedy and not news, Jon Stewart is shirking his professional responsibility as a comedian (or a news anchor…)

The point is, if Jon Stewart can go on CNN and criticize pundits for “partisan hackery”, he should at least make an attempt to appear as if he is above that. Instead, he might as well be just funnier, more successful version of Bill O’Reilly.

This post has gotten pretty long so I will get to Jon Stewart’s stupidity another time.

Newer Posts →