NOVANEWS
-
Ynet: Support for Israel on American campuses is kerplunking
-
Dumb as rocks (‘Washington Post’ says giving Palestinians access to quarries will ‘advance the peace process’)
-
Is Paul a precursor of a more presentable candidate in 2016?
-
Cooking magazines dish on new trend: labeling Arabic food Israeli!
Ynet: Support for Israel on American campuses is kerplunking
Jan 07, 2012
Annie Robbins
The capital of South Africa by Carlos Latuff
Student hasbarists are exhausted whitewashing Israel’s apartheid on campuses all across America. That’s not the overall conclusion of a blunt Ynet Op-ed by Israeli journalist Steve Rubin, it’s what’s reflected in the exasperation expressed towards the end.
Is Israel losing the battle? is about the expanding movement of solidarity on US campuses, what Rubin references as a ‘Palestinian narrative’. Yep Steve, American kids like human rights. Sounding the alarm too; “the existential threat that Iran poses to Israel is not nearly as threatening as is the one coming from those that will eventually be influencing American foreign policy and its policies towards Israel.” Triple ouch.
With regards to college campuses, this is not an issue of bigoted anti-Semitism; rather, it is a case of educated and intelligent young adults who have been easily and convincingly swayed by an overwhelmingly powerful Palestinian narrative.
Even more troubling is that these well-educated, anti-Israel activists are the future of America and its leadership. This is a new generation that is no longer enamored with the State of Israel; rather, it is increasingly angry and cannot comprehend how America can maintain such steadfast support for the Jewish state.
It is this same generation that will be leading America over the next 50 years – a period that will prove to be ever so critical in terms of Israel’s prolonged survival.
As for the American Jewish community, there has been an increased disillusionment with the State of Israel’s policies. No longer is Israel the mighty David that defeated the Arab Goliath in a fight for its survival. Rather, it has become an added headache in trying to explain and understand Israel’s prolonged policies in a way that connects to their “American-Liberal” perspectives.
Shocking/not.
Ultimately, Rubin fails to ‘get it’. He thinks Israel is it’s own worst enemy because it doesn’t have the ‘proper resources in place’ to educate the cream of the crop of American youth. Talk about having blinders on; open your eyes Steve, you said it yourself, ‘disillusionment’ with Israel’s policies. So why not suggest Israel change those policies? Can you even say Apartheid? Because that is what we see.
(Hat tip Karen Platt)
Dumb as rocks (‘Washington Post’ says giving Palestinians access to quarries will ‘advance the peace process’)
Jan 07, 2012
Philip Weiss
I used to tell myself, being devil’s advocate, that longtime US envoy and Israel advocateDennis Ross must be some genius and that behind the opaque curtains of the Obama administration he had a vision that could save the two-state solution. George Mitchell didn’t get it. Condi Rice didn’t get it. But Dennis Ross in a Nixon-goes-to-China way did.
Well now all the secrets are revealed– and he has no ideas!
Ross has a piece in the Washington Post saying that all we have to do is let the Palestinians get access to some quarries in occupied territory, and that’s the key. The way to break the impasse between Israelis and Palestinians, he argues, is for Israel to take steps that show the occupation is shrinking and that therefore validate the leadership of Palestinian Authority P.M. Fayyad, not wicked Hamas. Oh and Fayyad has “nonviolent” answers to the occupation.
There is no mention of the nonviolent anti-apartheid movement in the West Bank. There is not a word here about Israeli settlements. Amazing.
What follows is the heart of Ross’s argument: some loosening of restrictions in the occupation. Sort of like rearranging the deck chairs. My headline comes from the Post’s stupendously stupid caption accompanying the article, offered below. Ross:
Finally, in Area C, which is about 60 percent of the West Bank, Palestinians’ security and police forces have no access, their economic activity is extremely limited, and Israel retains civil and security responsibilities. There is no practical reason that the Palestinians cannot be permitted dramatically more economic access and activity in this area.
To give one example, there are Palestinian stone masonry factories in Area A [under P.A. control], but Palestinians have limited access to the rock quarries in the West Bank, which are in Area C. In a case brought against Israeli ownership of the rock quarries, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled late last month that no additional quarries should be Israeli-owned. That ruling creates an opening for private Palestinian ownership, should any new quarries be established — and there clearly is room for more.
Expanding the Palestinians’ economic opportunities in Area C would do wonders for job creation and the overall Palestinian economy.
These steps should be feasible from an Israeli standpoint.
Is Paul a precursor of a more presentable candidate in 2016?
Jan 07, 2012
Philip Weiss
I’m stunned by the way that mainstream newscasters continue to overlook Ron Paul. He’s running second in the New Hampshire polls after Mitt Romney, but commentators can only talk about Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich– even when those polls are right up on the screen. The blindness (evident on NBC Nightly News, Chris Matthews, and NPR) feeds conspiracy theory– and may only foster the movement that Paul is leading. A couple people have pointed me to this video above, in which CNN reporter Dana Bash says she’s “worried” that Ron Paul will continue to hang in there through the nominating season.
Meantime, here are two realists arguing that while they couldn’t vote for Ron Paul, he presages an important shift in our politics.
Pat Lang says Paul is too old to be president, but likens our historical moment (as I have done) to the 1850s, when the slave power was regnant and it required a new party to break it.
IMO what you are seeing in the highly disciplined mass of young people who support Paul is the commencement of a powerful movement that will result in a political party.
In 1856 the Republican Party ran its first presidential candidate. Paul should run as a representative of a new party.
By the way, Lincoln, who of course ran on the Republican ticket in 1860, repeatedly attacked a “conspiracy” of the slave power inside our politics in the 1858 Douglas debates, a race he lost. He said the conspiracy corrupted Whigs and Democrats, who coordinated matters like the Dred Scott decision behind the scenes. He wanted the debate out in the open.
Then here is Steve Walt’s view of Paul as a precursor:
Paul comes with too much baggage to persuade many people to follow his banner, and his views on other issues provides the media and other mainstream groups with an excuse to ignore the more interesting parts of his message. If by some miracle Paul managed to win the Republican nomination, the general election would probably look a lot like Johnson’s crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964.
But that historical analogy got me wondering. Contemporary political historians argue that Goldwater’s defeat in 1964 laid the foundation for the modern conservative movement, which came to fruition with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Paul has done surprisingly well during this primary season, and his views clearly resonate with a sizeable core of young and fairly well-educated voters. Is it possible that Paul’s brand of foreign policy restraint just needs a better champion, one who is both more broadly appealing but also not saddled by so much poisonous baggage? In short, just as Ronald Reagan eventually built on the Goldwater movement and made its core principles appealing to many Americans, might Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy be awaiting the arrival of a candidate (in 2016, or maybe 2020) who can put them in a more attractive package?
Cooking magazines dish on new trend: labeling Arabic food Israeli!
Jan 07, 2012
Allison Deger
Saveur Magazine’s 100 January issue.
Saveur‘s January issue contains its “Saveur 100” list of great finds from round the world and profiles two “Israeli” foods as hot new trends– honey and hummus. Who knew!
Billed as one of the most “seductive restaurants” in Philadelphia, Zahav makes the Saveur top 100 list and gets a good run for its hummus recipe.
“[P]ulsating with the energy of contemporary Israel’s vibrant dining culture,” the restaurant is owned by chef Michael Solomonov, who was born in Tel Aviv. Solomonov makes a hummus with “tahini and olive oil, [which] seems all the more velvety in contrast with the tangle of crisp hen of the woods mushrooms on top,” Gabriella Gershenson writes.
Then there’s the jar of Kinneret Farms’ silan, or date honey, hailed as an infatuating historical delicacy. Senior editor Gershenson again:
On a recent trip to Israel, I became infatuated with silan, or date honey. The sweet cola-colored syrup seemed to be everywhere… Though it was new to me, it has been a Middle Eastern staple for millennia; in the Bible, mentions of honey refer not to bees’ honey, but to date honey.
