PennBDS Bans Yet Another Journalist

After banning Martin Himel, whose removal might have been justified due to alleged misrepresentation, PennBDS also revoked Philadelphia's Jewish Exponent's press pass. The crime? Writing stuff they didn't like, such as this article here.

Not surprising. After all, at least in part, BDS is about revoking the rights of Israelis and Zionists, including freedom of speech. If you don't support all Palestinian demands, you will not have a right to be heard anywhere (academic and cultural boycott) or to make a living (economic boycott).

PennBDS organizers claimed they welcome dissenting voices to their conference. Yeah, just don't dissent too much or you'll be kicked out.

PennBDS Bans Journalist

According to Mondoweiss, journalist and documentary filmmaker Martin Himel has been banned from interviewing participants at the Pro-BDS conference at the University of Pennsylvania. They used a technicality, saying he did not register as a journalist and was interviewing participants under false pretenses. Really? I think the problem is the fact that he's pro-Israel.

I've never heard of Martin Himel before, but from what I've read, it seems the PennBDS organizers are afraid he'll interview people who don't know who he is, will then edit his footage to pick the worst things people say and then portray the BDS conference-goers as anti-Semites. Indeed, despicable tactics that I do not endorse. However, these are tactics the pro-Palestinian side has endorsed in the form of faux journalist Max Blumenthal's propaganda pieces against Israel.

Blumenthal's usual MO is to go to all kinds of places, stick a camera and microphone in the faces of people who don't know who he is, ask questions, take only the worst quotes to make Israelis/Jewish Americans/whatever look bad and give no context (for instance, one of his videos was from the right-wing group "Im Tirtzu"'s demonstration, but he didn't mention that fact). When Blumenthal or any other anti-Israel filmmaker does this to make Israelis look bad, then it is okay, but when it is done to your side it isn't?

Jewish State: Who Decides

At a pro-BDS conference at the University of Pennsylvania yesterday, the founder of Electronic Intifiada (a word which most Israelis and many Americans associate with terrorism) Ali Abunimah had a whole lecture about what it means for Israel to be a Jewish State. "Let's ask that question", he said. Well, it isn't his question to ask.

The biggest problem I have with Israeli demands that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state is that it invites the Palestinians into the debate over what a Jewish state, or Jewish and democratic state, means. They have a point when they say that they need to know the definition of the term before agreeing to it. But the thing is that this is an internal Israeli issue, an issue only Israelis - Jews, Arabs and others - can debate. The Jewish State is a very general concept, in constant flux. Some Israelis see it as a state for the Jewish people, others see it as a state based on Jewish law - and those are just two of the various possible definitions. It is a vital discussion for Israeli citizens to have, but it isn't the business of Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and the diaspora.

Of course, Abunimah might have discussed the Jewish State concept anyway, even without the wrongheaded Israeli demands. After all, he is a one-stater, right of return activist who would like to see Israel vanish in favor of a State of Palestine with a Jewish minority. He has also defended terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. But then again, Israel's demand to be recognized as Jewish legitimizes his intervention in this domestic issue.

Paul Auster and Turkey

Paul Auster recently decided to cancel a trip to Turkey in protest of the plight of Turkish journalists and writers. This prompted an angry response from Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who accused him of a double standard regarding Israel and Turkey. Auster's criticism of Turkey is accurate, as is his response to Erdogan regarding Israeli freedom of the press. However, his decision to boycott the country is not the answer.

Just like I oppose the BDS movement against Israel, I believe that other countries should not be boycotted. Action can be taken against the government and military, but civil society should not be targeted. Paul Auster would have done much more for Turkish writers had he voiced his criticism while in the country. I'm sure he would have gotten a lot more Turks to listen. Right now, they're probably to angry to hear what he says, just as I don't have patience for whatever someone who boycotts me and my country has to say.

Joseph Cedar Returns to the Acaedemy Awards

I'm a bit late with this news, but it's worth noting on my blog anyway: "Footnote", an Israeli film directed by Joseph Cedar, is nominated for a Best Foreign Film Award at the upcoming Oscar ceremony. This is an excellent film, which tells a universal tale of father-son rivalry and workplace politics. It's nice to have an Israeli film about something other than the conflict get recognized for its excellence.

The press tended to focus on the fact that one of the other four films in this category is an Iranian film, "A Separation". They call it the Israeli-Iranian war by proxy, or a cultural battle. Bullshit. Israelis know to separate between politics and culture, between leaders and artists. In fact, "A Separation" is being shown in theaters in Israel. Israeli authorities have no problem with that. Iranian authorities, however, allowed the film to be distributed in Israel only after European countries pressured them into it. You'd never see "Footnote" in an Iranian theater.

I'm rooting for "Footnote", because it is an excellent Israeli film (and the only one in the category that I've seen), not because of some hatred for Iran or any other country in the running. I also hope that the second time's a charm for Cedar, who was nominated in 2008 with "Beaufort".

Oskar Schell Goes to the Movies

I read Jonathan Safran Foer's novel "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" four and a half years ago. I absolutely loved it. I even posted a review on this blog (which I don't remember ever doing with other books), and discussed the question of whether or not Oskar is autistic (I said no, most commenters said yes). For some reason, the latter post is the most popular one on my blog, with people reaching it through Google searches every day. Apparently, the question is on the minds of many (though it seems like often it has been assigned to them for a school paper).

Now there's a movie adaptation out, which is even nominated for a Best Film Oscar. I have only seen a couple of trailers, since the movie itself hasn't opened in Israel yet. The reviews are mixed, with some critics saying it is a manipulative weepy.

From the trailer and other things I've read, the movie has done away with any ambiguity about autism/Asperger's, and even mentions that Oskar was assessed for Asperger's but the diagnosis was inconclusive. I'm not too happy about that. I think it would have been better to let moviegoers decide for themselves, just like the novels lets readers decide for themselves. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether or not that hurts the film.

I'll certainly write about the movie again after I see it.

Newt Gingrich: America's Netanyahu

Conventional wisdom about the presidential elections looks like it may be wrong again, just like it was wrong in 2008. Newt Gingrich just might end up being the Republican nominee, rather than Mitt Romney. Even scarier, the guy might get himself elected president.

If this happens, my two countries, Israel and the United States, will have chief executives who are each other's clones. Politically, they're both on the extremely conservative side (though in Netanyahu's case, that's mainly true about economics and hawkishness, and less about social issues). That's probably why both of them are backed by Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson: Adelson has given millions to a pro-Gingrich SuperPAC and owns a free Israeli daily, "Yisrael Hayom", which many consider Netanyahu's unofficial spokesman.

The differences don't stop there. Netanyahu and Gingrich are both married to their third wives. Gingrich cheated on Wife No. 1 with Wife No. 2, and then on Wife No. 2 with Wife No. 3. As far as I know, Netanyahu was already divorced when he met Wife No. 3, Sarah, but in the early 90's he admitted to cheating on her when he thought a sex tape was about to be made public (in an interview with Sarah, which everybody compared to Bill and Hillary Clinton's famous interview).

In today's New York Times, Frank Bruni writes about many of Gingrich's negative character traits. When I read the article, all I could think of was the fact that it almost sounded like Bruni was talking about Netanyahu. Gingrich and Netanyahu like to falsely insert themselves into important events of the late 20th century (for example, Netanyahu once reminisced about Rehavam Ze'evi's time in his cabinet, even though Ze'evi never joined Bibi's government; other times, he claimed his first government proposed all kinds of initiatives that were actually started under other prime ministers). Also, Netanyahu and Gingrich regularly attack the elites, and just as Bruni can't find a definition of "elite" where Gingrich isn't part of it, I can't find a definition of the word that doesn't include Netanyahu.

As Bruni notes, Gingrich trumpets his Roman Catholicism and attacks secularists, despite having had a six-year affair with his current wife. Netanyahu, too, has whispered in the ears of rabbis that the left has "forgotten how to be Jewish", although he himself is far from being a righteous religious Jew.

I could go on: their animosity toward the media, except when it helps them; their love of deregulation; their de-facto opposition to the two-state solution, and much much more.

Oh, and there's one more similarity: I really would like neither one to be in government.

Hacker Wars

In today's Haaretz (Hebrew edition only), Assaf Ronel criticizes the Israeli hackers who published the credit card details of innocent Saudi civilians in retaliation for a Saudi hacker revealing innocent Israelis' credit card information. He also argues that Israeli police should investigate the Israeli hackers.

Ronel is absolutely right. Responding to criminal acts with criminal acts of our own should not be our way. The police should arrest and prosecute those who hacked into Saudi websites and stole credit card numbers.

There is a lot of idiocy in this whole affair. Calling hacking Cyberterrorism, as our genius Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has, is just stupid. It's a nuisance, a crime and might cost credit card companies money, but it isn't terrorism. You don't fear for your life, and there are very easy ways to avoid falling prey to hackers (like using PayPal, for instance, or only very trustworthy Israeli websites). So chill, Ayalon.