The Forward asked me to write a piece for them along the lines of the piece on Pam Geller and BDS which appeared in Souciant today. The two articles have both similarities and differences, so you should check out both. Can’t say I’m keen on the title, but it does reflect what I wrote.
Free speech is now a key battleground in the Israel-Palestine conflict. And, as with virtually all battlegrounds in this conflict, the debate is completely divorced from reason. The comparison of pro-BDS speakers to a hatemongering racist like Pamela Geller is absurd and offensive, and what one thinks of BDS as a tactic and a movement has no bearing on that obvious truth. I explore this at Souciant this week.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s end is now inevitable, and his appointment of Omar Suleiman as Egypt’s “first vice president” shows his desperate flailing and lack of realistic options. Suleiman is very close to Mubarak and has always supported his policies, domestically and internationally. He has been heading Egypt’s intelligence services for almost two decades. But he has also been Mubarak’s most prominent emissary in dealing with the Israelis and in strategic discussions with the United States. One can only interpret this as an attempt to pander to the US, in the hope that they can and will do something to rescue Mubarak, or at least try to sustain the current government’s policies with his successor. It won’t happen….
So far, it seems the Western anti-Muslim hysteria has not been able to latch onto anything to promote irrational fear of “radical Islam” taking over in Egypt, despite the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in these protests. The MB, which, contrary to its frequent portrayal in the US, is actually a moderate Muslim group these days who, in Egypt and elsewhere, have forgone violence and embraced popular activism and political agitation, has been used as a frightening specter in the West in the past. But both the fact that this is clearly a struggle for freedom and the fact that the protests were not sparked by the MB (indeed, they were probably a little late in joining in support) and have featured an astonishing cross-section of Egyptian society have prevented this. But the fact is that whatever emerges in Egypt is likely to be more independent-minded than Mubarak and certainly less willing to be complicit in Israel’s policies vis a vis the Palestinians. When that becomes apparent, the demonization is sure to begin…
I met Thomas some years ago; she is definitely someone who shoots from the hip, and she has, for quite some time, been in a position where she could do so. She has generally asked tougher questions, on the Middle East as well as many other issues, than other reporters because she has had virtually guaranteed access to the White House.
I have enormous respect for the work she’s done as a journalist. But I have absolutely no sympathy on her for the
reaction her remarks have garnered. They were offensive and inappropriate. Her apology, which I believe was sincere, didn’t really address the offensive content of what she said.
Some, like Think Progress’ Matt Duss, have pointed out that similar comments regarding Palestinians have not garnered serious criticism. He’s right. Still, I do believe that while anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry remains shamefully tolerated in the US, had Thomas’ comments been directed at African-Americans, women, or other groups in this country who have made some progress in fighting discrimination, she would have been in just as much trouble.
In any case, there was a great outcry, and Thomas, who could be argued to be the premier serious female reporter in the country, has retired as a result.
In Israel, the premier woman journalist in the country went a hell of a lot farther, in a premeditated, rather than an impetuous fashion. And there is hardly a peep in response in her home country.
Caroline Glick is well-known to readers of right-wing e-mail lists, and of course, of the Jerusalem Post, where she is the deputy managing editor and a regular columnist. She is also a fellow at the extremist neoconservative Center for Security Policy in Washington. Continue reading
My recent piece on UC Berkeley’s divestment vote, Principled Opposition, drew a response from Akiva Tor, the Israeli Consul General for the Pacific Northwest region. Zeek printed it at this link. It was also posted at the consulate’s site.
Today, I published my own response to Tor. You can read it below or at Zeek’s web site.
By Moshe Yaroni
In Principled Opposition, I discussed some of the implications of the divestment vote at UC Berkeley. Akiva Tor, Israel’s Consul General for the Pacific Northwest region of the United States, took the time to write a response. It is a response one must read carefully. I have.
Mr. Tor begins by relating two incidents of anti-Semitism that apparently occurred among members of the crowd. It is indeed a sad reality of activism on the Israel-Palestine question that bigotry too often raises its ugly head.
But that bigotry occurs on both sides. Some might be interested in comparing the frequency or viciousness of the bigotry among activists on different sides of the issue. I find such comparisons distasteful. The important point is that, as someone who is in very regular contact with both activists and supporters of different sides of this issue, I can attest that neither side has a short supply of such people.
Yet I can also say that for neither side is this the norm. Mr. Tor fails to point out that the activists bringing this issue to the fore at Berkeley publicly denounced anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
I’ll go a step further. Mr. Tor is correct that I was not in Berkeley for these events. But I am a graduate of Berkeley, and I saw first-hand both the passions and the hatred that this conflict can stir. Neither Jews, Arabs nor other supporters of either side on campus were immune. Continue reading