Skip to content

Alison Weir Posts

Media misreport cease-fire violations, again

Killing Palestinians doesn’t count:
Is a ceasefire breached only when an Israeli is killed
?

[Poynter.org — http://groups.poynter.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=160568&post=56867] [Earlier Version published by CounterPunch, Jan. 29, 2009: http://counterpunch.org/weir01292009.html]

Killing Palestinians doesn’t count:
Is a ceasefire breached only when an Israeli is killed
?

On January 27th media headlines trumpeted that Palestinians had broken the latest cease-fire: a bomb had killed one Israeli soldier and injured two or three.

Virtually every media outlet reported this action as a major breach in the ceasefire that had begun on January 18th: Associated Press, CNN, Fox News, CBS, the New York Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times, the McClatchy Newspapers, etc, all pinned the resumption of violence on Palestinians.

There’s just one problem. Israeli forces had already violated the ceasefire at least seven times:

• Israeli forces killed a Palestinian farmer in Khuza’a east of Khan Yunis on Jan 18
• Israeli forces killed a Palestinian farmer east of Jabalia on Jan. 19
• Israeli naval gunboats shelled the Gaza coastline, causing damage to civilian structures
• Israeli troops shot and injured a child east of Gaza City on Jan 22
• Israeli gunboat fire injured 4-7 Palestinian fishermen on Jan 22
• Israeli shelling set a Palestinian house on fire on Jan 22
• Israeli tanks fired on the border town of Al Faraheen, causing damage to homes and farms on Jan 24

Yet, Americans who rely on American media for their news on Israel-Palestine are being led to believe that Palestinians initiated the violence (the death of one Israeli soldier) that has now led to Israel’s latest onslaught:

By the end of the day, according to reports, Israeli forces had already killed a 27-year-old Palestinian farmer by tank fire; had closed the crossings into Gaza, denying the entire population (1.5 million) access to desperately needed shipments of food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid; had launched a military drone that fired a missile into the city of Khan Yunis, injuring a Hamas member on a motorcycle and reportedly at least one Palestinian child nearby; had sent 20 tanks and seven military bulldozers into Gaza; and had occupied a Palestinian home near the town of Deir Al Balah.*

This is not the first time that the press has reversed the chronology
of Israeli-Palestinian violence.


While the media widely reported that Israel’s three-week-long massacre of Palestinians begun on Dec. 27th was a reaction to Palestinian rockets, the fact is that Israel had initiated the violence by breaking the truce on Nov. 4th by killing six Palestinians and injuring another six, and on Nov. 5th by killing yet another Palestinian. Only after this Israeli violence (and its continued suffocating closure of Gaza, another extremely significant truce violation) did Hamas rocket fire resume.

Most Palestinian rockets are homemade projectiles constructed of scrap metal. They began to be launched only after Israeli invasions of Gaza and the West Bank had killed and injured hundreds of civilians.

In six years, these rockets have killed a total of 18 Israelis. Israel killed at least 40 Palestinian men, women, and children in a few minutes on Jan. 6th who had sought refuge at a UN school. During its Dec-Jan invasion Israeli forces killed over 1,300 Gazan men, women, and children and injured over 5,000; Palestinian resistance fighters killed 9 Israelis (4 additional deaths were caused by friendly fire), 5 of them soldiers.**

Three researchers, Nancy Kanwisher, Johannes Haushofer, & Anat Biletzki, recently investigated the sequence of ceasefire violations thoroughly and published a detailed analysis of which party — Israelis or Palestinians — broke truces, ceasefires, & periods of calm first. Their findings, published on the Hufftington Post, are clear:

“Virtually all periods of nonviolence lasting more than a week were ended when the Israelis killed Palestinians first. We include here the data from all pause durations that actually occurred.

“Thus, a systematic pattern does exist: it is overwhelmingly Israel, not Palestine, that kills first following a lull. Indeed, it is virtually always Israel that kills first after a lull lasting more than a week.***

It’s time that the press begins reporting this correctly. The American public — and peace — are ill-served by misreporting the facts.

___

** http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/dec08.html

*** To see the full report, including data and charts, go to http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/reigniting.html

#

Is TV “Pundit” Jeffrey Goldberg actually Israeli Military Officer?

CNN, CBS and others use an analyst who appears to be in the foreign military on which he is commenting and yet don’t divulge this fact

Published on Poynter.org, Jan. 13, 2008

It appears that one of the media’s major “Middle East experts,” Jeffrey Goldberg, is a member of the Israeli military. If so, news outlets should identify him as such whenever he speaks or is cited in reports or analyses — which is often.

Here is what is known:

1. After college, Goldberg – who grew up a self-identified passionate Zionist – traveled to Israel to become an Israeli citizen. He served in the Israeli military (the IDF), and worked as a prison guard at one of Israel’s cruelest and largest prisons, Ketziot, during the first intifada – when Palestinians were being killed, maimed, and imprisoned in massive numbers.

• Many of the over 2,000 Palestinians incarcerated at Ketziot (as at other prisons) had never even been charged with a crime; in effect, it is a large concentration camp. Prisoners were frequently tortured then and now. On at least one occasion (this may or may not have been during Goldberg’s tenure), the prison warden killed two Palestinians in cold blood in full view of the entire camp – including its prison guards. [See our 4-minute video, “Jeffrey Goldberg: Pundit for Israel,” to learn more http://www.ifamericansknew.org/about_us/goldberg.html ]

2. Israel requires its citizens to remain in the Israeli military reserve until they are about 50 years old. Since Goldberg was born in 1965, it would appear that he is now 43 years old, and therefore still in the Israeli military.

3. Goldberg returned to the US and became a journalist. As I said above, he is all over the media as a Middle East commentator – CNN, CBS, the Washington Post, New Yorker, Atlantic (his current post) — you name it, he’s there. In addition, numerous reporters, columnists, etc, cite him in pieces on Israel-Palestine. He is the journalist who, by happenstance, wrote the Washington Post’s review (i.e. hatchet job) of Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. He also smeared Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer’s book The Israel Lobby.

Today, Goldberg comments on the Gaza situation and, as usual, he gives many of the Israeli talking points. Goldberg’s comments, typically, decontextualize the situation. He focuses on Hamas as a “terrorist” organization, fails to give the very revealing statistics of the dead and wounded, and consistently posits Palestinians as the aggressors, despite the actual chronology of events.

The situation in Gaza is considerably different than Goldberg’s analyses would lead people to believe. The reality is that Israel has made Gaza into the largest concentration camp on earth, and for years has been restricting its 1.5 million inhabitants’ access to food, medicine, clean water, etc., to the extent that researchers began to find malnutrition among children. With the election of Hamas in 2006 Israel increased its closures, using, as the relief agency Christian Aid stated, “food and medicine as weapons.” Numerous humanitarian groups warned of a growing, “potentially catastrophic” humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

In June, a truce agreement was brokered that contained three points: (1) Israel would drastically reduce its military blockade of Gaza, (2) Israel would end its violence against Gazans, and (3) Hamas would end its violence against Israel. (To put this in context, in the first 11 months of 2008, Israeli forces killed 452 Palestinians, and Palestinians killed 31 Israelis.**)

Israel violated the first term of the truce almost immediately, refusing to allow sufficient food and medicine in for the huge, desperate population, and then violated the second on Nov. 4th and Nov. 5th, when it killed seven Palestinians and injured six. The Palestinian resistance resumed its rocket launchings following Israel’s initiation of violence. In seven years of use, Palestinian rockets have killed a total of 28 people. In the last 16 days Israeli forces have killed approximately 900 Gazans, the majority of them civilians. During this same period, the Gazan resistance has killed approximately 13 Israelis, all but three of them soldiers.

Unfortunately, the media enable Goldberg’s misinformation, positioning him as an expert on the Middle East, a neutral journalist, and unbiased commentator. The fact is that Goldberg is a partisan with a clear track record of devotion to Israel. If he is currently an Israeli military reserve officer, as appears extremely likely, then journalistic ethics and standard practice would require the media to state this clearly and frequently. It would also require that he, as a partisan, be balanced with an equally articulate commentator representing the other side.

How can we learn for certain whether Goldberg is still in the IDF?

This should be easy, but is not. I phoned CNN last week after he appeared there (once again, giving Israeli spin) and asked them. I also asked why CNN was not disclosing his IDF connections. After many phone calls I finally spoke with a CNN media relations person who told me she would find out.

She eventually phoned me back and said that when Goldberg had appeared on CNN, the network had included an identifier with 3 points: (1) author of the book Prisoners* (2) Atlantic magazine staffer, (3) former member of the IDF. I had watched this segment and, apparently, had missed this third point. I asked how long this 3-part bio had been on. She said a few seconds.

Regarding whether or not Goldberg was still in the IDF, she said she thought so. She said that people had told her that after you serve in the Israeli military you remain in the reserves for many years, and that therefore they assumed that this was the case for him. I asked her if she would find out for sure. She said she couldn’t spend any more time on this but suggested I contact the Atlantic.

I found it a bit disconcerting to discover that CNN uses an analyst who appears to be in the foreign military on which he is commenting and yet doesn’t investigate or divulge this fact.

I then phoned the Atlantic to try to ascertain Goldberg’s status and spoke with their press person, Kate Cristol. Cristol told me she didn’t know whether or not Goldberg is in the IDF but said she would find out for me. I phoned her again a few hours later, and she still had no answer, but said she would get back to me with the information soon. I’m still waiting several days later. I’ve left several voice mails, but so far she has not returned my phone calls.

It would be appropriate for others to ask this question every time Goldberg appears on screen or in print. People may wish to contact each news organization and point out that it appears that Goldberg is in the Israeli military. Ask whether this is the case, and, if so, why they have not disclosed this extremely important fact to their viewers/readers.

Being a member of a foreign military is a clear conflict of interest for a journalist whose job is to give unbiased information on the country he is serving and compromises his position as an analyst.

Even in the midst of a major financial crisis, American taxpayers give Israel $7 million per day – and sometimes considerably more. It is essential that we receive factual, unbiased information on Israel-Palestine. Misrepresenting officers in a foreign military as journalistic analysts damages the public’s ability to understand this urgent, life-and-death issue. We need better.

——

* Norman Finkelstein has an excellent commentary on Goldberg’s book http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein10062007.html

** From the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, which has not yet posted the numbers for December 2008.

#

Former journalist Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew. For references see http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/dec08.html

http://groups.poynter.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=160568&post=54840

* * *

This article was published yesterday. Last night the New York Times came out with its Jan. 14th edition, containing an op-ed by Goldberg. I then posted a comment about this on the Poynter website. Today both my article and this comment are being featured on the website. Below is my comment:

Interestingly, the New York Times has just published an op-ed by Goldberg. It identifies him as:

“Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic, is the author of ‘Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror.'”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/opinion/14goldberg-1.html

I hope people will object. It’s this kind of blatant lack of ethics and honesty that is killing journalism… and human beings.

I feel that the most important thing people can do right now is tell others about what is going on.

In addition, I think that people should contact any or all of the New York Times editors below and ask that the newspaper now run a follow-up about Goldberg’s column, disclosing his citizenship and connections to the Israeli military. Truthfully, they should also apologize for misleading their readers.


Public Editor (Ombudsman) Clark Hoyt: write to public@nytimes.com or call (212) 556-7652.

Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal: write to editorial@nytimes.com or call (212) 556-1831

Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr: write to publisher@nytimes.com or call the main number and ask for him: 212-556-7652

People may also wish to contact the other members of the Times Editorial Board.

A view of Madoff’s “victims”

Daniel McGowan — Professor Emeritus, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, and founder of Deir Yassin Remembered — has written an unusual and interesting essay in which he suggests that many of Madoff’s victims were, themselves, victimizers. He is pleased that their ability to continue to harm people may be diminished:

The Madoff Victims: They Richly Deserved It

As the news of Bernard Madoff’s colossal fraud focused on America’s most “important” Jewish tycoons and moguls, it was only a matter of hours before the story was spun around their victimhood with the usual cudgels of “anti-Semitism” and the Holocaust. In Israel columnist Bradley Burston spun the story best by declaring, “The anti-Semite’s new Santa is Bernard Madoff. … The Aryan Nation at its most delusional couldn’t have come up with anything to rival this.”

As the list of Madoff’s “victims” grows, their common characteristic is not philanthropy, but rather political Zionism. Virtually all have worked to build a Jewish state with little regard, and often downright hatred, for the non-Jewish population living there.

The money from this type of mogul or “ganzer macher” has been used to dehumanize and depopulate non-Jews in Palestine for over 120 years. But in spite of creating a strong Israeli economy based on guns, diamonds, and security services and in spite of walling Arabs in Bantustans in the West Bank and in the KZ lager known as Gaza, they have failed. Non-Jews outnumber Jews within the borders controlled by Israel, which makes a mockery out of calling it a Jewish state.

Schadenfreude is defined to be largely unanticipated delight in the suffering of another which is recognized as well deserved. Political Zionism deserves scorn and derision; it is racist and antithetical to what Americans profess to hold self-evident: that all men and women are created equal and that we should share equal rights of citizenship. When rich Zionists lose a piece of their portfolios, especially to the guile of one of their own, it is a delight.

The press was first to report Madoff’s pilfering of the Robert Lappin “Charitable” Foundation, an organization whose “mission is helping to keep our children Jewish, thus reversing the trend of assimilation and intermarriage.” If the reader has trouble seeing the blatant racism here, substitute “White” for “Jewish” and imagine it was the stated goal of the David Duke Charitable Foundation.

While Mr. Burston found Madoff’s bilking of “fellow Jews, even Holocaust survivors” particularly outrageous, there are those who find divine justice in seeing one fraud defraud another. Elie Wiesel and his Foundation for Humanity would certainly qualify. Here is a man who has made millions peddling his narrative on the deaths of Jews in World War II; his novel, “Night,” is mandatory reading for most high school students; questioning it in any way invites charges of “anti-Semitism” and “Holocaust Denial.” He has been feted by Presidents and holds dozens of honorary degrees. If there were a CEO of the Holocaust Industry (a term coined by Norman Finkelstein), surely it would be The Great Weasel.

Wiesel’s Foundation claims to combat indifference, intolerance and injustice through programs to promote acceptance, understanding, and equality. Yet he remains persistently indifferent to over 60 years of suffering of the Palestinian people and treats them with silence or as the “untermenschen” his people once were under the Nazis. Wiesel boasts of having worked for the terrorists of the Jewish Irgun, not as a fighter but as a journalist, and he steadfastly refuses to apologize for the massacre by his employer at Deir Yassin. As a devout Zionist there is no way he can endorse one state in Israel/Palestine with equal rights of citizenship for all.

Other victims of Madoff’s deception, like the Shapiro Family Foundation and the Chais Family Foundation, are undoubtedly genuinely philanthropic and well-meaning. But insofar as their gifts support Jews-only education, medicine, and social programs in Israel, they deserve the derision that would be accorded to Aryan philanthropists or others who support a racist state, one whose very laws favor one chosen group over all the rest.

Madoff’s clients were not just generous Jews; they were Jews who directly or indirectly support the racism inherent in political Zionism. They support the assimilation of Ethiopian Jews (a noble enterprise), but reject the assimilation of Israeli Arabs and the Palestinians caged in West Bank and Gaza. They support “birthright” trips for young American Jews in hopes they will settle in Israel, but not the “Birthright Unplugged” educational trips of Hannah Mermelstein or the work of Jeff Halper’s Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions.

Madoff’s wealthy victims build ever more Holocaust memorials with the message “Never Forget” but ignore the current siege and starvation of Gaza to which they contribute financially and by their silence. Like The Great Weasel, they simply dismiss the analogy as “unworthy.” Where is the Spielberg movie of the Gaza ghetto that isolates three times as many people as the Warsaw Ghetto and in worse conditions? Where is the support for Righteous Jews (RighteousJews.org) like former Princeton University law professor Richard Falk, who calls what Israel is doing to the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza “a crime against humanity?” Falk has condemned the collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza as “a flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

Cast in terms of their impact on the struggle for Palestinian human rights, it is difficult not to plead guilty to schadenfreude caused by the greed of Bernard Madoff. In fact, my only regret is that Edgar Bronfman and Alan Dershowitz were not among his preferred clients.

#

Of course, there are many other victims as well. While the media have largely focused on the organizations discussed above, a great many others also suffered major losses. Below is a partial list from the Wall Street Journal:

Madoff’s Victims

The fallout from Bernard Madoff’s alleged Ponzi scheme reverberated around the world as the list of investors facing losses widened. Among the biggest losers were charities, hedge funds, and banks in Europe and Asia. Below, see some of the most exposed investors and sort by the amount of potential losses. –Updated 12/19/08

 

Investor Description Amount of Exposure Comment
Investor Description Amount of Exposure Comment
Fairfield Greenwich Advisors An investment management firm $7,500,000,000 More than half of Fairfield Greenwich’s $14.1 billion in assets under management, or about $7.5 billion was connected to Madoff.
Tremont Group Holdings Hedge-fund group $3,300,000,000 The investment firm is owned by OppenheimerFunds and Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. Tremont’s Rye Investment Management business had $3.1 billion invested, and its fund of funds group invested another $200 million.
Banco Santander Spanish bank $2,870,000,000 In euros, the figure is 2.33 billion.Of that, 2.01 billion euros belongs to institutional investors, Optimal Strategic hedge fund investors (international private banking customers); 320 mllion euros belongs to other private banking customers.
Bank Medici Austrian bank $2,100,000,000 The bank had two funds with $2.1 billion (1.5 billion euros) invested with Madoff. Bank Medici is 25% owned by Unicredit SpA and 75% owned by chairwoman Sonja Kohn.
Ascot Partners A hedge fund founded by billionaire investor, philanthropist and GMAC chief J. Ezra Merkin $1,800,000,000 The hedge fund had $1.8 billion under management as of Sept. 30, had substantially all of its assets invested with Mr. Madoff.
Access International Advisors A New York-based investment firm $1,400,000,000 N/A
Fortis Dutch bank $1,350,000,000 Fortis Bank and its subsidiaries have no direct exposure to Bernard Madoff Investment Securities LLC, but parts of the group do have a risk exposure to certain funds it provides collateralised lending to. If, as a result of the alleged fraud, the value of the assets of these funds is nil and the respective clients cannot meet their obligations, Fortis Bank Nederland (Holding) N.V.’s loss could amount to around EUR 850 million to EUR 1 billion. The continuity of Fortis Bank Nederland (Holding) N.V.and its subsidiaries is not at stake in any way.
Union Bancaire Privee Swiss bank $1,000,000,000 The bank’s exposure to Madoff — less than 1.26 billion Swiss francs — is less than 1% of overall bank assets.
HSBC British bank $1,000,000,000 HSBC provided financing to a small number of institutional clients who invested in funds with Madoff; some clients in its global custody business have invested with Madoff, but the company doesn’t believe these arrangements should be a source of exposure to the group.
Natixis SA A French investment bank $554,400,000 The company says it didn’t make direct investment in Madoff-managed funds; some investments made on behalf of customers could have ended up being managed by Madoff. Exposure is about 450 million euros.
Carl Shapiro The founder and former chairman of apparel company Kay Windsor Inc., and his wife $545,000,000 Mr. Shapiro, a 95-year-old apparel entrepreneur and investor, had $545 million with Mr. Madoff, creating what could become the largest personal loss yet in the scandal. A spokeswoman for the family confirmed that Mr. Shapiro’s charitable foundation, the Carl and Ruth Shapiro Family Foundation, invested $145 million with Mr. Madoff. Mr. Shapiro and his family had an additional $400 million or more invested with Mr. Madoff. Mr. Shapiro, a widely respected philanthropist, was one of Mr. Madoff’s earliest and largest investors.
Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC British bank $599,000,000 The bank had exposure of about 400 million pounds to Madoff through trading, collateralized lending.
BNP Paribas French bank $431,170,000 The company said it has no investment of its own in Madoff-managed hedge fund but it does have risk exposure (up to 350 million euros) through its trading business and collateralized lending to funds of hedge funds.
BBVA Spanish bank $369,570,000 The company reiterated it doesn’t have direct exposure to Madoff but would face losses of 300 million euros if Madoff funds were found not to exist.
Man Group PLC A U.K. hedge fund $360,000,000 Invested in funds directly/indirectly sub-advised by Madoff Securities
Reichmuth & Co. A Swiss private bank $327,000,000 The Lucerne-based private bank warned investors that around 385 million Swiss francs, or 3.5% of its assets under management, were affected.
Nomura Holdings Japanese brokerage firm $304,000,000 The 27.5 billion yen exposure is through Fairfield Sentry; That amount represents 0.2% of assets under management.
Maxam Capital Management A fund of funds based in Darien, Connecticut $280,000,000 The fund reported a combined loss of $280 million on funds they had invested.
EIM SA A European investment manager with about $11 billion in assets $230,000,000 The European investment manager with about $11 billion in assets. Overall, EIM assets at risk are less than 2% of what it manages.
AXA SA French insurance giant $123,200,000 Exposure is well below 100 million euros.
Credit Industrial et Commercial SA French bank $111,000,000 The bank has no direct exposure to Madoff but could be affected through an intermediary.
UniCredit SpA Italian Bank $92,390,000 The company’s total exposure is about 75 million euros. Dublin-based Pioneer Alternative Investments is indirectly exposed to Madoff via feeders; Italian clients have zero exposure.
Hadassah The Women’s Zionist Organization of America $90,000,000 Hadassah had approximately $90 million invested with Mr. Madoff.
Nordea Bank AB Swedish Bank $59,130,000 The amount of exposure is about 48 million euros.
Hyposwiss A Swiss private bank owned by St. Galler Kantonalbank $50,000,000 Hyposwiss said roughly 0.1% of its overall assets was invested in Madoff products through managed accounts. Another $100 million is exposed through clients who chose to invest in Madoff funds. St. Galler Kantonalbank said its financial situation and liquidity aren’t hurt by Hyposwiss’ exposure.
Banque Benedict Hentsch & Cie. SA A Swiss-based private bank $48,800,000 Banque Benedict Hentsch said its clients have 56 million Swiss francs at risk. Benedict Hentsch had also recently agreed to merge with Fairfield Greenwich Group, a major Madoff distributor. When the news of Mr. Madoff’s arrest broke, it scrambled to undo that deal.
Fairfield, Conn. town pension fund $42,000,000 The town’s employees board and police and fire board, which cover 971 workers, had $41.9 million invested with Madoff, said Paul Hiller, Fairfield’s chief fiscal officer.
Bramdean Alternatives An asset manager $31,200,000 The exposure is about 9.5% of assets.
Tufts University University $20,000,000 The university’s Investment Committee authorized an investment with Ascot Partners, which in turn invested the entire sum with Madoff Securities. Tufts has written off the value of this investment, which totaled $20 million, or slightly less than 2 percent of our endowment.
Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles The largest manager of charitable gift assets for Los Angeles Jewish philanthropists $18,000,000 The amount invested with Madoff represented less than 5% of the Foundation’s assets.
Harel Insurance Investments & Financial Services Ltd. Israel-based insurance firm $14,200,000 N/A
Baloise Holding AG Swiss insurer $13,000,000 N/A
Societe Generale French Bank $12,320,000 The company says its exposure, which is less than 10 million euros, is “negligible.”
Groupama SA French insurer $12,320,000 Exposure is around 10 million euros.
Credit Agricole SA French bank $12,320,000 Exposure is less than 10 million euros.
KAS BANK European financial company $11,000,000 KAS BANK has exposure through one of its clients. A material write-down of these investments could result in an unsecured claim. The extent of the potential loss cannot yet be established precisely, but will not exceed 9 million euro net.
Richard Spring individual investor $11,000,000 A Boca Raton resident and former securities analyst, says he had about 95% of his net worth invested with Mr. Madoff. Mr. Spring said he was also one of the unofficial agents who connected Mr. Madoff with dozens of investors, from a teacher who put in $50,000 to entrepreneurs and executives who would put in millions.
RAB Capital hedge fund $10,000,000 N/A
Banco Popolare Italian bank $9,860,000 The company says it had indirect exposure of up to 8 million euros; maximum lost on funds distributed to institutional, private clients is about 60 million euros.
Korea Teachers Pension A 10 trillion won Korean pension fund $9,100,000 N/A
Swiss Life Holding Swiss insurer $78,900,000 Swiss Life said it has indirectly invested assets worth around 90 million Swiss francs through funds of funds managed by Madoff Investment Securities.
Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co. Japanese insurance and financial group $9,000,000 Mitsui Sumitomo didn’t invest directly in the Madoff fund.
North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System health system $5,700,000 Exposure represents less than 1% of the health system’s investment portfolio. A donor agreed to reimburse the system for any losses.
Neue Privat Bank Swiss bank $5,000,000 The bank invested in a certificate based on a hedge fund with exposure to Madoff
International Olympic Committee The organizer of the Olympic Games $4,800,000 The IOC’s exposure represents about 1% of its total investment portfolio. Organizing committee confirmed they will be able to meet their obligations.
Clal Insurance Enterprise Holdings An Israel-based financial services company $3,100,000 N/A
Ira Roth individual investor $1,000,000 Mr. Roth, a New Jersey resident, says his family has about $1 million invested through Mr. Madoff’s firm.
Mediobanca SpA via its subsidiary Compagnie Monegasque de Banque. $671,000 Limited to $671,000 via its Compagnie Monegasque de Banque. via its subsidiary Compagnie Monegasque de Banque.
Fred Wilpon owner of New York Mets N/A N/A
Steven Spielberg The Spielberg charity — the Wunderkinder Foundation N/A N/A
JEHT Foundation A New York foundation focused on electoral and criminal justice reform N/A The foundation, which stands for Justice, Equality, Human dignity and Tolerance, will close its doors at the end of January 2009. Donors Jeanne Levy-Church and Kenneth Levy-Church had all their funds managed through Madoff.
Mortimer B. Zuckerman Charitable Remainder Trust The charitable trust of real-estate magnate, who owns the Daily News and U.S. News & World Report N/A Funds exposed represented 11% of the value of that charitable trust.
Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation A Massachusetts-based Jewish charity N/A The group, which financed trips for Jewish youth to Israel, was forced to close on Friday because the money that supported its programs was invested with Madoff.
Chais Family Foundation A charity that gives away about $12.5 million annually to Jewish causes N/A The California-based charity group invested entirely with Madoff, and was forced to shut down operations on Sunday after years of donating some $12.5 million annually to Jewish causes in Israel and Eastern Europe.
KBC Group NV Belgian banking and insurance group N/A No direct exposure; some indirect exposure through collateralized loans, but the exposure is very limited and immaterial to KBC’s earnings. KBC has also made some loan advances to institutional customers who have invested in funds managed by Madoff Investment Securities, but this shouldn’t have any material impact either, the company said.
Credit Suisse Swiss bank N/A The company says it has “no material direct exposure.” It is reviewing if any client funds were affected.
Barclays PLC British bank N/A The bank says it has “minimal” exposure” and is “fully collateralized”
Dexia French bank N/A No direct investments in funds managed by Madoff,; private banking clients have total exposure of EUR78 million to funds primarily invested in Madoff funds. Indirectly, Dexia is exposed through partially collateralized lending operations to funds exposed to Madoff funds for a gross amount of EUR164 million. If the assets managed by Madoff Investment Securities were nil, the above mentioned lending operations could trigger an after tax loss of about EUR85 million for Dexia.
Allianz Global Investors The asset management unit of German insurer Allianz SE N/A The unit says exposure “is not significant.”
Banco Espanol de Credito SA (Banesto) A Spanish bank contolled by Banco Santander N/A Its clients have a total 2 million euros exposure
CNP Assurances French insurer N/A No direct exposure. Indirect exposure of 3 million euros via a fund of funds
UBS AG Swiss bank N/A The bank says is has “no material exposure.”
Yeshiva University A New York-based private university $110,000,000 Although the university had “no direct investments” in Madoff’s firm, a portion of its endowment had been invested for 15 years with Ascot Partners, which had “substantially all its assets invested with Madoff.” Yeshiva’s investment represents about 8% of its endowment. J. Ezra Merkin had been a University trustee but has resigned in the wake of the scandal.
The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity The charitable foundation of Nobel laureate N/A N/A
Leonard Feinstein The co-founder of retailer Bed Bath & Beyond N/A N/A
Sen. Frank Lautenberg The charitable foundation of the New Jersey Senator’s family N/A N/A
Norman Braman former owner of Philadelphia Eagles N/A N/A
Jeffrey Katzenberg The chief executive of DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. N/A Mr. Katzenberg’s financial affairs along with those of Mr. Spielberg were managed by Mr. Breslauer, Mr. Katzenberg has suffered millions in Madoff-connected losses, say people familiar with the matter.
Gerald Breslauer The Hollywood financial advisor to Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg N/A Along Messrs Katzenberg and Spielberg, Mr. Breslauer himself has likely sustained heavy losses in the Madoff affair. He customarily invests alongside his clients, say these people, and has sometimes been a larger investor than the people he represented
Kingate Management hedge fund N/A Kingate’s $2.8 billion hedge fund Kiingate Global Fund reportedly invested heavily with Madoff
Julian J. Levitt Foundation Texas-based charity N/A N/A
Loeb family N/A N/A N/A
Lawrence Velvel individual investor N/A Mr. Velvel is dean of the Massachusetts School of Law
Fix Asset Management. hedge fund N/A reportedly invested heavily in Madoff’s portfolios
EFG International AG Swiss private banking and asset management group N/A EFG clients have $130 million invested in Madoff through third-party funds sold by EFG. In addition, 0.3% of the bank’s total invested assets, held in custody, are invested in Madoff.
Support Organization for the Madison Cultural Arts District Non-profit N/A The group had $18 million invested with Fairfield Greenwich until September. A spokesman for the Overture Center in Madison, Wis., built with SOMCAD funds, said, “Speculation that SOMCAD could be on the hook is not outlandish.”
Royal Dutch Shell pension fund Pension fund N/A The pension fund has an indirect investment that may be affected. The fund originally invested $45 million. The alleged fraud won’t affect the financial position and funding status of the fund.
Fire and Police Pension Association Of Colorado Pension Fund N/A It had $60 million invested with Fairfield Greenwich until six months ago. The pension fund has $2.5 billion under management
Genevalor, Benbassat & Cie. money manager in Geneva N/A Members of the Benbassat family, which run the firm, have long known Mr. Madoff. In a statement on its Web site, Genevalor said it “has been reviewing the potential damages caused to its clients” by the alleged Madoff fraud. A statement from the Thema fund said it had assets with Madoff that were now frozen, but did not elaborate.
Banco Espirito Santa Portugese bank $21,400,000 The amount represents about 0.1% of assets under management.
Great Eastern Holiding Singapore insurer $64,000,000 Great Eastern said $7.7 million of its exposure is invested from its Life Fund. Great Eastern is 87% owned ny Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp.
M&B Capital Advisers Spanish brokerage $52,800,000 The firm is run by the son and son-in-law of the chairman of Banco Santander. Through M&B, private and institutional investors bought more than $214 million in Madoff’s funds.
Royal Dutch Shell pension fund Global energy and petrochemical company N/A The pension fund fund has an indirect investment that may be affected. The fund originally invested $45 million. The alleged fraud won’t affect the financial position and funding status of the fund.
Phoenix Holdings Israeli financial services company $12,600,000 Phoenix’s insurance unit invested $15 million over the last three years in funds managed by Thema, which made investments through Madoff. In November, the company requested to redeem $10 million. The payment was due Dec. 12 but Phoenix hasn’t received it.
Credicorp Peruvian financial services company $4,500,000 Credicorp’s Atlantic Security Bank unit has $1 million in direct exposure and up to $3.5 million in potential contingencies “related to transactions secured by these investments.”
Fukoku Mutual Life Co. Japanese insurer N/A The company said it holds similar investments trusts to those held by Sumitomo Life Insurance Co. but declined to specify the balance. Sumitomo disclosed that it has about 2 billion yen, or about $1.8 billion, exposed via trusts.
New York Law School law school in New York City $300,000 The school invested the money through its endowment entity. The school filed an investor lawsuit against J. Ezra Merkin, Ascot Partners and BDO Seidman.
Nipponkoa Insurance Japanese insurer N/A he company said it holds similar investments trusts to those held by Sumitomo Life Insurance Co. but declined to specify the balance. Sumitomo disclosed that it has about Y2 billion exposed via trusts.
Sumitomo Life Insurance Co. Japanese insurer $22,000,000 Sumitomo Life didn’t invest directly in the Madoff fund but part of its investment trust holdings were linked to it.
Swiss Reinsurance Co. Swiss insurer $300,000 Exposure is through hedge fund investments; no direct exposure.
Aozora Bank Ltd Japanese lender $137,000,000 Aozora entrusted 12.4 billion yen to investment funds, which invested with Madoff. Cerberus Capital Management LP owns a majority stake in Aozora.
UBI Banca Italian bank $86,000,000 The bank said the exposure is linked to proprietary investments. UBI Pramerica and Capitalgest Alternative Investments, the assets-under-management units, have no exposure.
Taiyo Life Insurance Co. Japanese insurer $17,900,000 Taiyo Life didn’t invest directly in the Madoff fund.

Sources: WSJ reporting; Associated Press; the companies and charities

 

 

 

In response to a blogger’s criticism of a film I helped on a bit, Occupation 101

Sadly, I don’t have time to keep up with blogs as much as I should (not surprisingly, since I almost never even post to my own), but I recently discovered that a prominent blogger named Philip Weiss (whose work I have sometimes read and found valuable) had written some odd things about an excellent documentary I assisted on a bit, Occupation 101. In his blog Weiss describes attending a showing of Occupation 101 at Yale, after which I had been invited to lead a discussion.
 
I’m extremely proud to be associated with Occupation 101. The two young filmmakers who created it have produced a breathtakingly powerful film.  The story of how they made their film is sort of like a Hollywood movie, if Hollywood ever made movies where Arabs weren’t the villains. Sufyan and Abdallah Omeish, two brothers who had never made a documentary before and had basically no money, decided they were going to make a film about Palestine – and they’re not even Palestinian.
 
They had little money and no connections, but they had a dream (see what I mean?) and somehow they scraped together the resources to go over to Palestine and film the occupation up close. And they went further; they gathered archival footage, filmed interviews all over the country on their small, low-budget equipment, delved through books and told the whole story – about early Zionist terrorism, the ethnic cleansing of 1947-49, the 1967 war, the treatment of Christians and Muslims in the Jewish state. They told about the vast amounts of US money to Israel, about the Israel lobby and Christian Zionism. They filmed interviews with analysts in Israel, Palestine, and throughout the US, and then edited all of this into a riveting explosion of information, emotion, facts, and feelings.

 It took them years, as they worked to get each edit just the way they wanted it, each dissolve correct, the music perfect, the rhythm right. Their studio was a room in a small, cheap apartment in west LA. On occasion I would join them there, whenever they wanted outside feedback or were ready for some narration. Sometimes the recording would go well, but I’m far from a professional and eventually my mouth would get dry, or I’d stumble, or go too fast or too slow, but eventually it would be good enough and we’d go on. It was far from soundproof and sometimes we’d have to record during lulls in the construction going on outside.

After about five years, their film was basically done and they were about to release it, but then they discovered that some of the archival footage they thought they’d gotten pro-bono wasn’t, and they suddenly had to raise more money. Then they discovered that they needed permissions from all the people they’d interviewed, and that took still more time and effort. And, of course, they kept tweaking it, coming up with new ideas, updating it to include the latest changes in events.

Finally, they let it go – and the reaction was electrifying.  Los Angeles Journal called it “One of the best documentaries.” Infocus raved, “A visual revolution is born.”

Awards flowed in…

•    Golden Palm Award, Beverly Hills Film Festival
•    Best Editing, Beverly Hills Film Festival
•    Best Film, Artivist Film Festival
•    Audience choice Best Film, East Lansing Film Festival
•    Best Feature, River’s Edge Film Festival
•    Best Documentary, Dead Center Film Festival
•    Best Documentary, New Orleans HR Film Festival
•    John Michaels Memorial Award, Big Muddy Film Festival…

Yet, here I am (I’ve just returned home from a small speaking tour), reading a commentary on the film by Philip Weiss — whose blog entries position him as a Jewish, pro-Palestinian writer — in which he calls Sufyan and Abdallah’s film “propaganda” and alleges that the film “demonizes” Israelis. These are not only extremely destructive accusations that could seriously undermine distribution of the film, they are also quite false.  The reality is that the film features many Israelis in various peace and anti-occupation organizations, who are quoted extensively. In fact, the majority of the interviewees are Israeli and/or Jewish.

While Israel partisans oppose the film, many people knowledgeable on Israel-Palestine consider it one of the best documentaries produced on the subject.

Former Princeton Professor Richard Falk, Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara who served on a 2001 three-person Human Rights Inquiry Commission for the Palestine Territories by the United Nations, called the film “a remarkable portrayal of the reality of the Palestinian ordeal.”

Falk, who also happens to be Jewish, went on to say:

“What I was particularly struck by was that there was not a false note in the entire film, and I cannot imagine a better way for the people of this country to finally come to appreciate the reality that Palestinians have been enduring for decades now than to watch this film…”


Weiss’s blog entry also claims that there was “never a sign that Israel had fulfilled some Jews’ dreams – no coins in that fountain,” even though the film includes moving scenes of Jews flowing to Palestine to escape Nazi atrocities.

It is hard to imagine someone writing equivalent criticism of a similarly excellent film depicting oppression elsewhere….  For example, it occurs to me that I can’t think of a single film about segregation in the south that contained anywhere near as many good southerners (even though these also existed) as Occupation 101 contains good Israelis.

The fact is, the film does not exaggerate conditions, or the history. The situation for Palestinians is that bad. In fact, it’s worse. The reality is that some quotes from Israeli soldiers that have been reported in the Israeli media were not included in the film – they were too strong.

Perhaps it would be informative for Weiss and others to learn a little of what was left out of the film. One example is a quote from the Israeli publication Davar, which published an account by a soldier who participated in the 1948 massacre at the Palestinian village of Dueima. The soldier described the actions of his fellow soldiers:

 

 ”  … They killed between eighty to one hundred Arab men, women and children. To kill the children they [soldiers] fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one home without corpses. The men and women of the villages were pushed into houses without food or water. Then the saboteurs came to dynamite them. One commander ordered a soldier to bring two women into a building he was about to blow up … Another soldier prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death. Another Arab woman with her newborn baby was made to clean the place for a couple of days, and then they shot her and the baby. Educated and well-mannered commanders who were considered ‘good guys’… became base murderers, and this not in the storm of battle, but as a method of expulsion and extermination. The fewer the Arabs who remain, the better.”

There are a great many more of these grisly, firsthand accounts about numerous massacres throughout Israel’s history. If Occupation 101 were going to be made even longer than it already is, the need would probably be to include more on these, which almost no one knows about, rather than putting in more on the narrative about how Israel fulfilled “some Jews’ dreams,” which everyone has heard about, over and over again.

It is strange to read Weiss’s bashing of the film in the midst of a piece emphasizing the value of listening to the voices of young Arab-Americans. However, Weiss says that he arrived late, so it’s possible he didn’t see the credits and assumed I was responsible for it. Or perhaps he is simply not so enthusiastic about young Arab voices when they stray beyond the parameters he would set for them… which is disappointing in a writer who normally opposes efforts to keep discussion of Israel-Palestine only within limits set by Jewish/Israeli preferences.

Weiss then goes on to describe the discussion after the film. Here, also, I feel his description distorts the reality.

Following the film there was an extended question-and-answer session. While most people seemed moved by the film and asked questions about specific aspects, there were also challenging questions from people who were partisan toward Israel. The Q & A went on quite a long time, until finally the student organizer determined it was time to close the event. He stood up and said there would be one more question. There were still a great many hands up, and I randomly called on a student who had been waiting, like numerous others, to be called on. He asked whether there was hope that peace would ever be reached… I responded that I felt that when the US ended our massive aid to Israel, which prevented the Israeli government from believing it would ever have to compromise, the two populations would be able to find peace. I stated that there were visionaries on both sides who would be able to step forward when the US one-sided support of Israeli militarism got out of the way, and that Israelis and Palestinians would then find the way forward.

The event was then over. It had been a long night and the students needed to get home to study. Many of the foreign students, in particular, feel it is critical that they do well at Yale; otherwise, as one student told me, they won’t be able to stay. Suddenly, a man in the audience stood up and shouted out that he was an Israeli solider and that everything had been “lies.” There was considerable shouting back and forth, and when it finally quieted, I said to him that I fervently disagreed and asked him to name any inaccuracies. He apparently couldn’t, so he instead began to go into a long discourse of some sort; it was difficult to hear in all the commotion. This type of behavior is typical. I’ve rarely been to an event about Palestine in which some Israelis or Israel partisans have not demanded everyone’s attention and time far beyond that allotted to anyone else.

While this IDF soldier was trying to claim victim-hood for Israelis, yet again, the irony of the situation struck me. Here was a man who was an Israeli soldier – the one that you see at every checkpoint demanding ID’s from old women and young students; deciding who may pass and who may not; yelling at people who respond too slowly; flirting with female soldiers while people wait in line in the sun to be waved through; who point machine guns at crowds going to pray, work, school, and who bark orders at old, stumbling men; who smash rifle butts into nonviolent protestors; who regularly, as some soldiers have described the Israeli military’s actions, “starve, humiliate, and dominate an entire population” … here he was, a member of the Israeli occupying force, trying to demand the victim’s right to speak, even as real victims had been willing to forego their questions when time forced the event to end. It seemed to me that either all the students should be allowed to ask their questions without discrimination, including the many Palestinian and Arab students who rarely have a voice, or no one; and since the student organizer had called the event to an end, I ended it.

Weiss disapproved, feeling that I should have favored the IDF soldier with more time, despite the lateness of the hour and the fact that other students had equal right, at least, to speak.

He also wished I had brought “some nuance to the victimization narratives.” It’s interesting to ponder this, so often demanded by Jewish writers in regard to Israeli oppression and so rarely elsewhere. Perhaps if more Afrikaners had been living in the US, there would have been more demand that depiction of South African oppression be more “nuanced.” As it was, I don’t recall a lot of nuance on this subject, or a lot of concern at its absence. Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that South African apartheid ended… while Israeli apartheid goes on and on and on.

By the way, after the event many of the Arab and international students seemed enormously excited about the evening, the film, and my role. I find this reaction frequently. I think they’re astonished to see a non-Arab, non-Muslim American who for once is not watering things down – who is actually describing honestly and fully what it’s like for Palestinians. (Of course, that shouldn’t be considered laudatory, it should be routine. Moreover, I should have looked into what my government was funding in Palestine at a far younger age.)

Weiss then writes that he wishes that I spoke “more transparently about [my] path to this work.” Yet, my talks largely focus on my path to this work, and I’ve often been interviewed about this on radio programs. In fact, there’s even a video on this by Alternate Focus, which has been shown on a number of public access television stations around the country and that is posted on Youtube. I’ve also included my story occasionally in my writings. Given my commitment to and history of openness on this subject, the accusation of a lack of transparency seems considerably off the mark and a bit weird, almost as though he’s suggesting some sort of sinister motivation but doesn’t say what.

Truthfully, if he had wished to know more about this, I wonder why he didn’t simply ask me. From his blog entry it appears that at some points he was standing quite close to me. It feels a little strange that he never came up and introduced himself, especially since he writes that he’s on my “side.” Having read a few of his pieces, which I had found interesting, I would have enjoyed meeting him.

This reminds me of a pro-Israel zealot from the West Coast some years ago who sat next to me at a conference and then wrote about me later  (with significantly more inaccuracy and outright venom). It always seemed strange to me that a writer wouldn’t attempt to speak to the subject of his report – especially when he’s right next to her.

I’d like to think that if Weiss had spoken to me directly – perhaps if we’d gone for coffee afterwards or the next day – and if we’d talked over our goals and perceptions and beliefs in person, rather than through public, impersonal blogs, we would have found a great deal in common; in fact, I expect it would have been a learning experience for both of us. I hope our future conversations will be face to face, not through the Internet. Personally, I think we’re both trying to do important work, and sometimes succeeding. It would be good to join forces.

Democracy Now: Please tell your audience about Israeli strip searches…

“Democracy Now” is quite possibly the best national radio and television news show on US airwaves. It consistently produces honest, hard-hitting reports on a multitude of subjects. For many years Amy Goodman and her team have built a well-deserved reputation for reporting on subjects often untouched by the “corporate media.”

While many progressive journalists shied away from reporting the facts on Israel-Palestine, Democracy Now began to do this some years ago and has steadily improved its coverage on this issue.

Unfortunately, however, there are still some things that the show’s producers appear reluctant to tell their listeners/viewers.

One of them is the cruel and widespread Israeli policy of strip-searching everyone and anyone they wish:  small children, pregnant women, bound prisoners… the reports are numerous, pervasive, and grotesque. In some cases Israeli soldiers have forced people to strip naked and have then shot them dead.

Yet, Democracy Now has virtually never reported on this practice.

A year ago If Americans Knew produced a short video and investigative report on Israeli strip-searching of women and children.

We offered all this information to Democracy Now before we published it, hoping they would break the story themselves. We phoned them, left numerous voicemail messages for everyone we could think of, emailed Amy Goodman, numerous producers, etc., and over-nighted a DVD to them of the video. They refused to cover it.

We tried again a few months later. Again, with no results.

Recently, we investigated the subject of Israeli strip searches once again. Israeli intelligence officials had just assaulted Mohammed Omer, a young, internationally renowned Palestinian journalist, forcibly strip-searching him at gunpoint, taunting him, and beating him up.

Despite reports by the UK Guardian, Reuters, BBC, Israeli media, and others, the Associated Press refused to report on this. Finally, because of external pressure, AP finally issued a report of sorts, but alleged that Mohammed Omer’s claim of being strip-searched was “unusual,” implying that he was not to be believed, despite the fact that he had just received various prestigious journalism awards and addressed European parliamentarians.

Because of AP’s astounding denial of this widespread and offensive practice, we then compiled a list of reports on Israeli strip searches and emailed this 25-page document to AP, asking – unsuccessfully – for a correction. We also researched AP’s coverage of Israel-Palestine over the past ten years and were astounded to discover that the search did not turn up a single mention of Israeli strip-searching of civilians. We found only one result in hundreds of thousands of AP news reports from the region – a few stories about a Palestinian hunger strike protesting, among many things, the prisoners’ daily strip searches by Israeli guards.

We again contacted Democracy Now, which had just broadcast a very good interview with Mohammed Omer, telling them that AP was suggesting that Israel did not commit strip searches and asking them to correct this misinformation – particularly since AP was trying to use their allegation to discredit Omer. We felt that they would be as outraged by AP’s mistruth as we were and would want to set the record straight. Again, we had no success.

I finally decided to write an article myself about Omer’s abuse, Israeli strip searches, and the media cover-up (subsequently published by CounterPunch) and again phoned Democracy Now. When I finally made it through their voicemail maze to a human being, I explained that I was writing an article about media coverage of Israeli strip searches – mostly focusing on AP – but said that I had not been able to find instances of Democracy Now covering this topic, either. I said that I thought I was probably wrong about this omission, and asked if the person could help on this. He said he thought I was wrong, too, and asked if I wanted a whole archive. I said I just need him to point me to a few stories.

He then transferred me to another person. I repeated my request, and this new person, a producer for Democracy Now, was immediately and surprisingly hostile, repeatedly demanding: “What’s your angle?” When I explained that I was just trying to find out where Democracy Now had reported on Israeli strip searches, he barked, “It’s your story, you find out” and the conversation went downhill from there. He grew increasingly angry and defensive and suddenly declared that he was speaking off the record.

This was not the response I expected from a progressive journalist. Even if Democracy Now had virtually never reported on Israeli strip searches (which appears to be the case – all we’ve been able to find in the entire Democracy Now archive are two mentions by interviewees and a report on the same prisoners’ strike that AP covered), I would have hoped a Democracy Now producer would be disturbed to realize their neglect of a pervasive policy of abuse and be open to reporting on it – or would at least be interested in more information on the topic. Instead, he appeared to be furious that I was even asking about their coverage of this ongoing Israeli practice.

By the time the conversation was over, I was reeling. I finally looked him up on the Internet to try to figure out what was going on. I discovered a blog entry from a few years ago where he had written about how “dear” Israel was to him as a Jew, and had described the close friends he had made while living and working on a kibbutz. He wrote that eventually, however, he had visited the West Bank, and was horrified to learn what Israel was doing there, describing some of the abuses he had witnessed. As many people have written, such an experience of discovery about Israel can be extremely wrenching, and the journey away from life-long conditioning difficult, only completed in stages, and that many people long retain a strong emotional attachment to Israel.

It occurs to me that it’s quite possible that this producer knew of our many phone calls and emails about Israeli strip searches (perhaps he himself had even received one of our messages) and that he was aware of, or perhaps even part of, Democracy Now’s decision not to cover this deeply disturbing Israeli practice. If so, all of this may help explain his defensive reaction to my phone call.

Some years ago, Amy Goodman gave a talk at the UC Berkeley Faculty Club in which she mentioned her connection to Israel. She explained that she was Jewish and had attended Hebrew School while she was growing up. She said that it was many years before she could finally bring herself to face the facts about Israel.

Fortunately, in recent years she has clearly made a conscientious effort to report on Israel-Palestine thoroughly and accurately. She is clearly a dedicated journalist and a person who cares deeply about justice, so it’s not surprising that the excellence of her work has come to include reporting on Palestine.

I hope this trend will continue and that Democracy Now will eventually inform its enormous audience about Israeli strip-searching of little girls, pregnant women, and shackled, tortured men. I hope they will tell their audience about the “cavity search” of a young American PhD student and about the Palestinian man that Israeli soldiers forced to strip naked and then act like a dog. I hope they will report on Israeli soldiers stripping people and then killing them.

I believe that Israel’s pervasive and repugnant policy of humiliating human beings through stripping them naked is newsworthy. I believe that Americans, who give Israel over $7 million per day and are therefore responsible for Israeli actions, need to know about this one.

I hope that people at Democracy Now, and others, will view our video and examine our list of strip search incidents, and that Democracy Now will use its considerable power to inform Americans about a depraved pattern of intentional humiliation that we, as American taxpayers, have the power to stop.

*

Anyone who agrees may wish to contact Democracy Now to tell them this.

Rough drafts and random thoughts…

I’ve finally decided to try to create a blog. I plan to tell a little about who I am, why I feel that it is so important for Americans to learn about Israel-Palestine, and provide additional resources and thoughts on this subject.  In addition, I’ve noticed that there are various reports about me around on the Internet — some are accurate, many are not. At times I may try to address some of that on this blog as well. For now, you may wish to go to the “About Us” section on the If Americans Knew website to learn more about who I am and how I got involved on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

My Articles, Videos, Recommendations, etc.

  • My Articles — These are available on our website. Since some people attempt to call me anti-Semitic (a slur often used to try to silence honest discussion of Israel-Palestine), you may wish to read one of my first essays, “Anti-Semitism is wrong“, written in 2001.
  • Video about me and about If Americans Knew — This 30-minute video was produced by Alternate Focus, which produces Public Access television programs about Israel-Palestine.
  • Videos we’ve producedThe Easiest TargetsThey’re very short; please watch them. I don’t know which I think is the most important. The Easiest Targets, about Israel’s practice of strip-searching children (13 minutes) exposed a practice that until now had been hidden from the outside world. Our most recent one — Jeffrey Goldberg: Pundit for Israel (4 minutes)– provides an important glimpse into the background of this widely interviewed Middle East “expert” and about his bashing of Jimmy Carter’s recent book. The 5-minute Trailer is probably our Captured Prisonersmost widely viewed one so far, and the one on Prisoners is one of the most revealing. The short one on AP erasing footage is particularly significant. You can get a DVD with all of these on it.
  • My Recommended Booklist on Israel-Palestine — There are so many excellent books on this topic that it’s hard not to include them all. One of the most recent is Ali Abunimah‘s brilliant One Country. This is essential reading for anyone wishing to consider how the region can find peace. Like Mazin Qumsiyeh‘s groundbreaking book Sharing the Land of Canaan, Abunimah’s One Country provides the visionary thinking that so many better known volumes neglect. If you’re going to read Jimmy Carter‘s truly noteworthy book — an extremely important but occasionally flawed contribution (eg the history at times repeats unexamined Israeli narratives, and the discrimination within present-day Israel is surprisingly white-washed) — read these two books as well. Another must-read is Donald Neff’s Fallen Pillars, an over-looked bedrock book detailing US relations with Israel and what has driven them. Kathleen  Christison‘s  Perceptions of Palestine, like her more recent articles on the Neo-cons, is also extraordinarily important, as are Paul Findley‘s classic expose, They Dare to Speak Out and Stephen Green‘s Taking Sides and Living By the Sword.  Other brilliant authors  whose body of scholarship is an essential part of understanding this topic are Naseer Aruri, Nur Maslha, Salman Abu Sitta, Ilan Pappe, and Alfred Lilienthal. These authors have produced profoundly important works that need desperately to be read more widely than they currently are. Clayton Swisher‘s detailed discussion of Barak’s allegedly “generous offer” nails this topic, Ron David boils the history of the conflict down powerfully to its detailed essentials, and James Ennes‘s Assault on the Liberty will quite likely be noted by future historians as one of the most significant exposes of the late 20th century.
  • A still more recent must-read is Ilan Pappe’s superb THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINE