Hubba-Hubba …

The Israeli Consulate in New York has come up with an ingenious idea to promote tourism to Israel in the United States: officials there have managed to twist the arms of the most popular US men’s magazine, Maxim, to write a feature about stunning Israeli models.

Back when I was under the spell of Roman villiany, some guys from the Israeli consulate in NYC requested a meeting to push story ideas for the magazine I was editing. When I see this report, I learn that they could have been more persuasive …

PS: Going Hollywood.
Another PS by Bech (with kind permission?): yoyo check this out.

My Vote …

I see that Anthony Shadid is likely up for a Pulitizer for his coverage of Israel’s summer war on Lebanon. I hope he wins.

It was fascinating to compare the NYTimes and WaPost coverage this summer. The editorial pages of both papers were steadily pushing the worst kind of pro-Israel propaganda (in fact, I would argue that the arguments are not pro-Israel in any meaningful sense). But while the editors at the NYTimes were consistently smoothing their correspondents’s copy to fit that line, the WaPost gave Shadid a free hand and to my mind, he played it well.

Getting Ready for War …?

“A senior Israeli defence official said negotiations were now underway between the two countries for the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an “air corridor” in the event of the Israeli government deciding on unilateral military action to prevent Teheran developing nuclear weapons.”

As I have said before, I believe the pro-war faction in the US is delighted over how its opponents insist the Administration is getting ready for just such a war. Here is military analyst William Arkin on the recent BBC report:

I have argued in these pages that that is why it is essential that we not overstate what the United States is really up to and that the Bush administration recognizes that its “planning” might be misinterpreted by Iran and lead to the very thing it supposedly is hoping to prevent.

Stay tuned …

Michael Gordon Must Be Stopped …

This is getting ridiculous. Not only does he help the Pentagon prepare the American public for future wars, he helps the DOD explain ones that happened while we were sleeping.

If you think the US was fighting Al Qaeda in Somalia, come have a piece of my yellow cake and make me an offer for my aluminum tubes …

What You Won’t Read in the NYTimes …

In his speech he intends to remove any doubts the Democratic Party’s donors and constituents, many of whom are Jewish, may have about his support for Israel in his speech.

Poor Wesley Clark … He just picked the wrong country to state the obvious …

The Radical Empiricism of the NYTimes …

We have no doubt about Iran’s malign intent.

Journalism, much? Reminds me of a certain Donald Rumsfeld. Those who read this blog, however, would know that I prefer Theodore Roethke:

All who remember, doubt. Who calls that strange?

Toward oblivion, the march continues …

Just to Be Clear …

The U.S. military would like us to believe that Iran is supplying weaponry to Iraqi insurgents who cannot open their mouths without denouncing their co-nationals as “Persian spies.”
I noticed the WaPost gave a rather critical review of the “presentation” in Baghdad the other day, while the NYTimes of Judy Miller and Michael Gordon fame were once again eating it all up. Embarrassing.

UPDATE: See this on US media coverage of the presentation.

On his new site, Iraqslogger.com, Eason Jordan observed in response, that “one of the three supposedly unnamed US officials apparently has been outed by an Iraqi news service, Voices of Iraq, whose report on the Baghdad news conference identified one of the three speakers as Major General William Caldwell, whose portfolio includes public affairs and who holds frequent news conference and grants one-on-one interviews. “So, if the VOI report identifying Caldwell is correct, why did every other news organization apparently agree to grant anonymity to the general who’s the official spokesman of the US-led Multi-National Force in Iraq? Why would Caldwell insist on not having his name associated with these allegations today?”After the bogus Iraq evidence debacle in 2002 and 2003 — allegations that led to war, tens of thousands of lives lost, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent — only a fool would accept as the gospel supposed evidence against another country that’s presented by officials who insist on making their allegations anonymously.”We deserve better from the US government. We deserve better from the western news media.”

The Dark Lord of the Office of the Vice President …

“Start FBI investigation — with or w/o public announcement. As targets include NYT, Sy Hersh, potential gov’t sources.”

This guy is really a piece of work.

Are the Gulfies This Crazy …?

At the opposite end of the spectrum of reactions was a major Gulf state official. Speaking privately, not for quotation, he said, “if I had to choose between living with a nuclear Shiite Iran across the Gulf from us, and the bombing of Iran’s nuclear installations, with all the dire consequences of such an attack, I would still opt for bombing.”

While it has been fun to watch Chirac make the unforgiveable political mistake — telling the truth — over Iran’s nuclear capabilities, it should be stressed that the Israelis do not believe their own propaganda concerning Iran.

Truth be told, I am starting to get a bit scared, but maybe that is just because the White House has sent Cheney out to the media. I still think it is mostly bluster, but:

“A mistake could be made and you could end up in something that neither side ever really wanted, and suddenly it’s August 1914 all over again,” the U.S. officer said on condition of anonymity, because of the sensitivity of the issue. “I really believe neither side wants a fight.”

Update: A propos French president Chirac, check the remarkz in French:

“Je dirais que ce n’est pas tellement dangereux par le fait d’avoir une bombe nucléaire – peut-être une deuxième un peu plus tard, bon… ça n’est pas très dangereux. Mais ce qui est dangereux, c’est la prolifération. Ça veut dire que si l’Iran poursuit son chemin et maîtrise totalement la technique électronucléaire, le danger n’est pas dans la bombe qu’il va avoir, et qui ne lui servira à rien… Il va l’envoyer où, cette bombe ? Sur Israël ? Elle n’aura pas fait 200 mètres dans l’atmosphère que Téhéran sera rasée.” (…)
“J’ai eu un mot rapide, et je retire naturellement, quand j’ai dit : “on va raser Téhéran”. C’est évidemment une boutade dans mon esprit… mais bon. Je n’imagine pas que l’on puisse raser Téhéran !”

Thought Police …

An essay the committee features on its Web site, ajc.org, titled “ ‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,” says a number of Jews, through their speaking and writing, are feeding a rise in virulent anti-Semitism by questioning whether Israel should even exist …
In an introduction to the essay, David A. Harris, the executive director of the committee, writes, “Perhaps the most surprising — and distressing — feature of this new trend is the very public participation of some Jews in the verbal onslaught against Zionism and the Jewish State.” Those who oppose Israel’s basic right to exist, he continues, “whether Jew or gentile, must be confronted.”

Best response comes from Michael Posluns, a political scientist at the University of Toronto.

“Sad and misbegotten missives of the sort below make me wonder if it is not the purpose of mainstream Jewish organizations to foster anti-Jewishness by calling down all who take from their Jewish experience and Jewish thought a different ethos and different ways of being as feeding anti-Semitism.”

Here is the AJC’s latest ad in the NYTimes, so it is unclear if the greatest threat to Jews worldwide are the Iranians or New York City playwrights … Stay tuned …