Music critic abandons balanced reporting of Israel

Music critic abandons balanced reporting of Israel


norman lebrecht

June 10, 2021

A group of pro-Palestinian journalists in the US has published a manifesto arguing that reporting of the Middle East is tilted unfairly towards Israel and pledging to abandon balanced terminology in the future.

The signatures, reportedly verified, included that of the Boston Globe music critic Zoe Madonna.

She will presumably be disqualified from reviewing Itzhak Perlman, Lahav Shani and the Israel Philharmonic.




  • PeterB says:

    It’s a statement of principle by a very large number of journalists, among which apparently one music critic. I find it extremely revealing that Norman Lebrecht thinks this “disqualifies” her from interviewing Israeli artists. I fail to see why mentioning the reality of the Israeli Apartheid state can’t be part of an article or an interview on music making. And I fail to see why Israeli musicians shouldn’t have the opportunity to voice, as musicians, their opposition against this Apartheid regime in an article or interview on their music making.

    • Stephen Gould says:

      There is no “reality of apartheid” and the idea that journalists need to bring up politics when interviewing artists is invidious.

      • PeterB says:

        I can only hope you are not the Stephen Gould whose magnificent Wagner interpretations I have enjoyed and applauded at countless occasions. Still, I never said journalists “need” to bring that up. I said it can be part of an interview of an article. More importantly, as I said in other replies here, both the Israeli human rights organisation B’tselem and Human Rights watch have recently called Israel an Apartheid state. The organisation of life in the occupied territories imposed on the Palestinians is clearly a form of Apartheid. The 2018 law stating literally that “the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people” is an unequivocal basis of Apartheid.

    • davion says:

      there is no apartheid in Israel, study facts. Israel has the right to exist, and the right to defend itself. And to support palestinian groups of whom 99% clearly declare their intentions to exterminate jews, clearer than the Nazis did, and to destroy Israel in order to create a state for the so called “palestinian” nation”, where they affirm that no jew would be allowed, this is Apartheid.

      • Eugene says:


      • Emil says:

        That is not what the letter says, though.

      • PeterB says:

        Both the Israeli human rights organisation B’tselem and Human Rights watch have recently called Israel an Apartheid state. I have lived in Israel. That “99% of Palestinian groups” want to exterminate jews is a vicious and, at a time when nobody believes the Israeli propaganda anymore, ridiculous lie.

        Apartheid is what happens in the occupied territories, and you know that very well. Apartheid also starts to manifest itself inside Israel proper, with the new law declaring that in Israel, only jews have the right to self-determination.

        As to “exterminating”, I have a statistic for you. In the past 12 years, starting with the Cast Lead massacre against Gaza and until December 2020, Israelis murdered 1150 Palestinian children. Numbers provided by the ISRAELI human rights organisation B’tselem. In the same period, Palestinians murdered zero Israeli children. Same period: 2553 Palestinians who didn’t participate in any hostility murdered by Israelis. Number of Israeli citizens murdered by Palestinians: 100. Again data collected by B’tselem.

        • B’tselem is B’sh-t. Read Im Tirzu for the truth

        • I would be very interested to learn how and why you are so pro Palestine. I know why I am a zionist Jews pro Israel. I wonder if there is any cross over in our teachings or feelings and what they might be to completely opposite feelings.

        • R says:

          Please take the vaccine.

        • Major Jewish leaders around the world are supporting an initiative to place the blame for the deaths of dozens of children, killed in the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas, on the Gaza-based terrorist organization.“The publication by the New York Times of the photograph of the children is a libelous distortion and misrepresentation of the facts of the recent conflict,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “It was Hamas that initiated the conflict and placed its rockets among civilian populations and proceeded to launch more than 4000 rockets at Israel, even though around 700 of them landed within their own territory and may have been physically responsible for many of the deaths. The world should join in condemning them and seeking their arrest for those war crimes.”

      • R says:

        over 50% of commenters on this site favor the destruction of the state of Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people. Their political bias trumps their interest in classical music.

        • Saxon says:

          Huh? That is certainly not true. Most people don’t much care either way, but want the problem to go away.

    • Rich C. says:

      Hate Jews much?

    • Brian says:

      Exactly. Her advocacy on this issue seems to me unrelated to anything that Israeli musicians do.

      And besides, couldn’t the Israel Phil have Arab or even Palestinian musicians among its ranks? I don’t claim to understand its internal politics but I’d think musicianship is its #1 concern.

      • davion says:

        any Israeli arab citizen can apply to auditions, when available, of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, or any other orchestra. Whether they win or not will depend (hopefully) on their musicianship, and NOT on their ethnicity or color. In case the palestinian authority wants a symphonic orchestra, they are free to establish one, let’s not forget they get international funds more than all Africa together, sadly this money goes to terrorism of Hams etc. Let’s hope one day they abandon terror and have their palestinian orchestra playing Samson and Dalila in Gaza, filological. Enough with politically correct nominations, where politicians or presidents are clearly elected mostly because they are black, feminine etc etc. Barenboim in his Divan orchestra, which is basically a beautiful idea, unfortunately often selects some almost amateur musicians, only because they are from certain sick politically correct stamp groups etc etc, ridiculous. Jessye Norman was a greatest Wagner singer not becuase she was black.

      • Hat tip to Daniel Barenboim for initiating the East West Divan Ordhestra

    • Derek H says:

      Norman mentioned REVIEWS, which should be accurate, honest and informative.
      Therefore, abandoning balanced terminology is not an option.

      In interviews, Israeli musicians may or may not choose to comment, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they will agree with your view.

    • Jewelyard says:

      PeterB, how about you learn the definition of an Apartheid state and inform yourself as to what really happens in Israel – and what Israeli musicians think – before crapping out that term in your senseless post? Your ignorance would be comical if it weren’t so dangerous.

      • PeterB says:

        Both the Israeli human rights organisation B’tselem and Human Rights watch have recently called Israel an Apartheid state. I have lived in Israel. I have followed what happens there professionally for many years. I know very well what I’m talking about, and Israel propagandists who still believe that they can dismiss the facts with their ready-made phrases are dangerously behind of the times.

    • Eugene says:

      Which apartheid ffs??? Arabs are elected to Knessett, have absolutely all same rights as Jews! Stop talking slander!

      • Saxon says:

        There are certain “rights” which devout Jews have which aren’t extended to devout moslems or christians.

    • James Weiss says:

      “Israeli apartheid state?” Careful, dear, your anti-Semitism is showing.

      • PeterB says:

        Judaism is the greatest continuous cultural and ethnic tradition in Western history. The contribution of Jewish thinkers, artists, entrepreneurs… to our civilisation is immeasurable. It has nothing to do with that militaristic nation in the Middle-East that daily tramples the values that made judaism great.

        • you should quit while ahead by saying Jews are great…..the rest is crapola. I lived in Israel, my family does too, and believe me they are NOT milataristic. Rather caring, sharing, respectful members of the Nation of Israel who realize the true value of a Jewish State.

          • PeterB says:

            How many war criminals have become prime ministers in Israel? How big a chance of a career do you have if you refuse military service and are not ultra-orthodox?

            A majority of Israelis have voted again and again and again and again to continue the oppression of the Palestinians. A large minority does absolutely nothing to stop the oppression. With the exception of a few thousand (if there are thousand) people who really fight the occupation, every adult Israeli is responsible for the military occupation, the illegal settlements and the daily war crimes. Calling Israel militaristic is a gentle euphemism.

          • let’s remember Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and loveable Schicklegruber aka Hitler

    • Alank says:

      The use of the term “apartheid state is as repellent as it is false. Its use would warm the heart of Goebbels or a modern leftist like Madura or the Iranian Mullahs. If you use this term you have never been in Israel or the West Bank. You probably just watch the excretable BBC. Just as one example, if Israel is an apartheid state how is it that the proportion of Arab medical students enrolled in Israeli universities roughly reflects their population. Have you ever visited Technion or University of Haifa? Only an ignoramus or anti-Semite would use this term. BTW I spent 4 years working in the West Bank some 10 years ago when the PA was undergoing real reforms and their was optimism for some hope. The current PA is run by corrupt and inept thugs who care nothing other than the perpetuation of their own power. They regularly commit human rights abuses against their own people. Sadly despite a relatively well education population there is a just a minority of “democrats”. They are the authors of most of their woes.

      • PeterB says:

        I lived in Israel. The situation in the occupied territories has every mark of Apartheid. The 2018 law stating that only jews have the right of self-determination in Israel is the definition of the legal basis of Apartheid.

        Let me repeat a statistic I’ve mentioned before. In the past 12 years, starting with the Cast Lead massacre against Gaza and until December 2020, Israelis murdered 1150 Palestinian children. Numbers provided by the ISRAELI human rights organisation B’tselem. In the same period, Palestinians murdered zero Israeli children. Same period: 2553 Palestinians who didn’t participate in any hostility murdered by Israelis. Number of Israeli citizens murdered by Palestinians: 100. Again data collected by B’tselem.

        • Alank says:

          Murdered? I suppose you include teenagers firing gunshots or dropping rocks on the heads of worshippers or those killed as Hamas human shields. I guess it depends on your definition of “hostility” I worked in Ramallah and if you think that city is run like an apartheid city then you need to blame it on the PA. You really dont know what the hell your are writing about. You simply replicate some bogus statistics by a left wing group and base your entire argument on it. Israel left Gaza to its own devices and received missiles in return. Many if not a majority of Palestinians consider Tel Aviv occupied. You may hate your white self but Israelis are not about to commit suicide.

    • Alank says:

      Your use of the term “apartheid” is as repellent as it is blatantly false. Your views with warm the heart of a Goebbels or Khomeini. You clearly have never been to Israel of the West Bank. I assume your information is from the excretable BBC or Guardian or from the speeches of Corbyn. How do explain that an Islamic party just played a key role in selecting the new PM? How do you explain that Arab Israelis matriculate in medical school at a rate reflecting their population? I worked in the WB for 4 years a decade ago when real reforms were being made. That has all but been erased by a totally corrupt, inept, illegitimate regime that abuses its population and cares for nothing but perpetration of power. Sadly, despite a relatively educated population, only a minority seek compromise with a focus on their own economic development. Unfortunately, they are the main authors of their own woes. Of course Israel is not blameless but the use of term apartheid is despicable and now the vocabulary of western leftist anti-Semites who seek to delegitimize the State of Israel. Not surprising since they are doing it ot their own countries.

      • PeterB says:

        Just some Israeli Apartheid laws and practices:
        1. Foreign citizens who marry an Israeli can get citizenship or permanent residence – unless they are Palestinians.
        2. The Israeli state, which controlsmore than 90% of land within Israel proper, has built hundreds of communities for Israeli citizens, and not a single one for Palestinians.
        3. Most of the land on which Beduins used to live has been expropriated. On that land, Israel has built Jews-only communities.
        4. In Israel, it is legal for communities to reject Palestinian citizens applying to live there on grounds of “cultural incompatibility”.
        These are Apartheid practices in Israel proper. I won’t even try to sum up the dozens of reasons why the regime imposed on the occupied West Bank is pure, unadulterated Apartheid.

    • …I fail to see why Israeli musicians shouldn’t have the opportunity to voice, as musicians, their opposition against this Apartheid regime…”

      How by doing so, how will such voicing help advance the careers of Jewish performing artists?

  • Emil says:

    I’m curious – where do they call for an “abandonment” of journalistic principles? On the contrary, the letter calls for approaching the news in context, and argues that journalists have failed to do so. If anything, it is a restatement of journalistic principles, not an abandonment.

    As for the “abandon balanced terminology”, again that is not what the letter says. They pledge to use accurate terminology, that’s all.

    • Barry says:

      Accurate according to whom?

      Obviously, there is a great deal of disagreement on that. Many people on the other side feel major American media outlets are biased in the opposite direction. (I worked for a newspaper for years and heard from both sides on the issue)

      I can’t speak for all of the newspapers around the country, but the major one from the large city I live near has increasingly allowed their Arts & Entertainment and Sports writers to slip their political and social views into their articles and columns the past few years. Some of us feel that’s highly inappropriate and wouldn’t have stood up to scrutiny under the journalistic standards that existed until recent times.

      It obviously remains to be seen whether Ms. Madonna will do that. But given the direction in which journalism has moved in the U.S. in recent years, there is reason to at least voice concern after her signing of this statement.

      • Emil says:

        Indeed, “according to whom” is a central question. But interpretations and contexts are inherently disputed and contestable, and there is nothing anti-journalistic about what the signatories of this letter are doing. The values (accuracy, faithful contextualisation) they affirm are fundamental journalistic values, regardless of whether one agrees that the context they propose is accurate.

        • Barry says:

          I would argue the most fundamental value a journalist could have is objectivity; and it’s not clear that’s what the signatories of the statement are displaying that.

          • Emil says:

            Why not? What is unobjective about demanding accurate contextualisation and terminology? Contextualisations are inherently debatable and contestable – there is nothing wrong with disputing that, and their intervention is certainly not beyond the bounds of public discourse.

          • Barry says:

            I guarantee you there is plenty of context that people on the other side feel is missing in the reporting too. I can attest to that.

            Of course she is welcome to her opinion. I’m not advocating that she suffer consequences. But it’s also not beyond the bounds of public discourse to question whether it’s wise for journalists to publicly take these types of positions about issues on which there is so much disagreement about what context is proper, what all of the important facts are, etc. For years, news outlets didn’t want their consumers questioning their writers’ objectivity and had hard rules against these types of things. It’s clearly not as big of an issue in the profession at this point.

          • Emil says:

            On the contrary, it’s a realization that sources and positions deemed ‘objective’ are nothing of the sort. Similarly, the decision by some media to stop printing uncritically police statements of police shootings is not an ‘anti-police’ stance – it’s simply a reflection that police statements are simply often wrong, misleading, or outright inaccurate, and not ‘objective’. This letter is similar, in that it argues that the language previously deemed ‘objective’ is not undisputed, and can be misleading.
            So yes, everyone will argue news are improperly contextualised and described. It’s the job of journalists to use their judgment to achieve fairness and accuracy. That’s what this letter does. Their judgment can be contested and criticized, just as the established journalistic judgment can (and ought) to be criticized and contested.

          • V.Lind says:

            Thanks, Emil, for these comments — principally in pointing out that the blurb at the top is not what the letter says.

            A someone who worked as a journalist in many media and in several countries for a very long time, I am well aware that the most faint “pro-was Pal” sentiment was enough to get anyone drummed out of a newsroom. It certainly could not reach print, or air. I remember a photographer friend getting a tip that an Arab information office in Toronto had been burned out and some offensive slogans painted on remaining walls. She passed by, took some pictures, asked some questions and called the police to verify the account. Not a single newspaper in Toronto would touch the story.

            I also remember discussions at senior levels at the CBC to try to balance their coverage more, the admission being that it had been consistently pro-Israel. I think it was in the mid-80s. It may have been later, but I suspect it was because of their having been wrong-footed over their coverage of Sabra and Shattila.

            Doesn’t make them “pro-Pal,” which I find an offensive term in any case. It makes them consider any story on its merits. And, to their CBC’s most respected Jewish journalists were entirely supportive of and participatory in this approach. (A few were not, and I certainly recall a producer dismissing a staffer who thought that the Mitla Pass had been grabbed illegally, a view shared at the time by Israeli leadership).

            The source of this is a nationalist website endorsed by that right wing rag Helen Kamioner was upholding the other day. A crowd that will doubtless love the incoming Israeli government. And a crowd that does not concede that there are sometimes two sides to a question.

          • Barry says:

            This is what I’m talking about. I have no idea what kind of journalism you practice, but I can tell you I would question the objectivity of your reporting on anything to do with Israel after reading this.

            Do you not think I can point to specific instances that cut the other way, like the local coverage of the Philadelphia Orchestra’s Israel tour stops or the Palestinian child who died in his father’s arms and was painted as a martyr and a shining example of what monsters Israelis are. Only it turned out upon further review that he was killed by Palestinian gun fire.

            I have a very close friend in Israel whose full time job is to monitor bias and anti-Semitism in the British media, and he is extremely busy at all times.

            And I also wouldn’t take his reporting on anything to do with Israel and the Palestinians in a paper of record without a grain of salt.

          • V.Lind says:

            Most, though not all, of my work was as a dance and music critic, and arts interviewer and feature writer, so little of this ever arose as an issue in my own work. I never ever had occasion to write upon Mid-East issues.

            The photographer I mentioned was herself Jewish. The explicit change of policy at the CBC was actually reported at the time. I was witness to the showdown between the producer and a researcher over the Mitla Pass, and the consequence. (The researcher was able to find work on another show, but the producer said, icily, that he had no place on HIS show).

            I find myself absolutely outraged, time and again, by anti-Semitism. It is beyond my ken that one could hate, let alone persecute, a people because of their race or religion.

            But I am not very keen on the notion that the government of Israel can do no wrong, or that the Palestinian people do not exist or have any rights. I support reportage that can see all around an issue — contexts, as Emil has so eloquently pointed out. That may mean changing a few verbs, and it may mean changing a few minds on some of the issues. That very much includes Palestinian minds — the notion that they can regain the specific homes they lives in before 1948 has to be buried for once and for all. But so does the denial that they lived there then.

            I don’t suppose the approach of the journos who signed this manifesto will change much. But something has to change if there is ever to be a solution. The biggest stumbling block to any sort of peace in the region is intransigence, which both sides have shown on abundance in recent decades. And which is what makes me apprehensive about the putative leader of this Israeli coalition.

            As I have written elsewhere on SD, nothing is going to change or improve until leaders of both sides can meet with good will and full respect for each other’s people as human beings with normal human needs. I wish I were more hopeful.

            British anti-Semitism disturbs and rather confuses me, and its media may reflect some of that. But I can assure you, North American media coverage was for decades hugely tilted in favour of Israel’s position on everything, and Arabs were almost demonised. (Long before the sort of Islamophobia that post-dates 9/11). These journalists may just be frustrated at trying to cover what they see without using implied or explicit, depending upon their employers, code language. They may accept, which some who contribute here apparently do not, that there is more than one side to this issue.

            I doubt it will affect anybody’s review of Itzhak Perlman. it seems to me there is a sort of prejudice in the very suggestion.

          • Barry says:

            One of the aspects of my job at a major newspaper for years was the deal with members of the public who were unhappy with coverage.

            I find it ironic that you’re singling out people who won’t concede there are two sides to a question in light of the number of complaints I’ve had about our coverage being biased against Israel or for the Palestinians in our use of certain terminology or characterizations. That’s in addition to the many letters-to-the-editor with similar claims that we published over the years. And yes; we got similar complaints on the other side.

            Even if the people who signed this statement make some accurate points, they are making them for only one side and ignoring the points on the other. By those omissions, she is making a subjective statement which is bound to call her objectivity into question with some readers. It’s already happening on here. (Most media bias comes in the form of failure to present all aspects and context of a story rather than straight out lies)

            Yes. There are two sides to this issue. And it doesn’t appear that you’re willing to acknowledge that.

      • Of course she will, just as the Grey Lady did….the potential damage and spread of lying pr is what scares me

        • R says:

          at least she doesn’t have a job anymore! has a lot of time to write lengthy diatribes, virtue signaling.
          the thin veneer of civilization is wearing off. as the sprouting of Holocaust museums around the world demonstrates, the world loves dead Jews.

  • Araragi says:

    It takes a lot of hubris to make one believe their opinions are fact. Opinions are for the editorial page.

    • Emil says:

      Context is not opinion. This is a debate about the factual accuracy.

      • Araragi says:

        They are not just calling for context but for changing the neutrality of the language used to describe the events. They are calling for neutral terms like “clash” and “conflict” to be replaced with more partisan terms like “attack” and “assault.” Israel’s proponents will say they were provoked by rioters at Al Aqsa and rockets by Hamas. To replace neutral terms with partisan terms would be taking sides. That’s not journalism. And this shouldn’t be controversial.

        • Emil says:

          “Attack” and “assault” can be perfectly factual terms if they are accurate. And “neutral” terms can be inaccurate if they mask what is actually happening. We expect that journalists will use their best – and fair – judgment to determine what terms most accurately describe the situation. That’s what they have always done, and what the signatories of this letter say they will continue to do.

          • Araragi says:

            A journalist could also use “attack” and “assault” to describe what Hamas does. It’s more about perspective than objectivity and the journalists job is to be objective. In a complex situation that spans numerous generations and has had countless clashes, the neutral term is appropriate.

      • depends on where you get your facts

  • In addition to this manifesto being worth today’s New York Times and it’s woke left music critics, this pr bit of anti-Semitic incitement make me believe that we may be in for the next step “In March 1933 Hitler appointed Joseph Goebbels to be the Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. It was Goebbels’ intention to have his ministry take control of all German culture, but he ran up against Rosenberg’s already-existing Party infrastructure. Fortunately for him, Rosenberg’s activist stance had caused considerable disruption, which had become politically inconvenient for Hitler. This allowed Goebbels to convince the Führer to sign a decree creating the Reich Chamber of Culture (Reichskulturkammer) on September 22, 1933, with Goebbels as President. Within the Chamber were divisions for each of the arts, including the Reich Chamber of Music (Reichsmusikkammer), to which all musicians and composers were required to belong if they wished to work; those rejected were effectively professionally banned. Goebbels used the Chambers not only to regulate the arts, but also to improve pensions and get rid of unqualified and untrained artists. The ministry controlled the Chambers through the senior artists involved, who ran them on a daily basis. By 1937, the Reich Chamber of Music had 95,600 members.[“

    • PeterB says:

      By comparing criticism of Israel to the indoctrination policies of the nazi regime, you abuse the memory of millions of innocent victims. This is, sadly enough, common practice for defenders of the Israeli Apartheid state.

      • Araragi says:

        By comparing Israeli democracy to South African apartheid, you abuse the memory of millions of innocent victims.

      • clearly, as indicated in all your posts on this subject, you are attempting to debunk painful facts and truths with your opinions. You are so way off it actually pains me to know there are too many other people who think as you do.

        • R says:

          The only reason I continue perusing the voluminous comments is to read YOURS! Thank you for your commitment to the truth. No arguing with the devil defenders.

  • M McAlpine says:

    Anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli, biased journalism. So what’s new?

    • Not new, but this is the 21st Century after Auschwitz and it’s time to wake up and smell the……
      and raise the troops and voices

      • dd says:

        yup, whatever works,eh?…

        ‘The Map’ Shows Palestinian Loss of Land

        • Stephen Gould says:

          The map shows no such thing. What it does – for propaganda reasons – is colour all the map that isn’t Jewish occupied as though it were Palestinian-occupied. Large portions of the land were unoccupied by either side. But I guess that would undermine the dishonest point being made.

      • V.Lind says:

        Raise the troops? Excuse me?

        Raise your voice all you want — fight your corner. It’s your right — AS IT IS THEIRS. But just who were you planning to raise the troops against? I think there are quite enough troops raised at Israeli borders, so I must assume you have found another target.

        • I would hope my troops will arise to defend what is mine including my children and my land and my right to a peaceful life without fear of a daily barage of rocket aimed at extinguishing me and my people from the land to the sea

      • M McAlpine says:

        I thought that 4,800 rockets fired indiscriminately (including landing among Palestinians) did that!

    • V.Lind says:

      Seems those of us who do not worship at Zuckerberg Temple do not have access to this tedious-sounding gem.

  • Nijinsky says:

    There’s more than a couple of journalists from Are they then also to be excluded from having any thoughts about someone Jewish? Are they then all not Jewish?

    What I find antisemitic, along the blatant discrimination against someone, simply because they are Jewish, is when someone says that 99 percent of Palestinians believe Israel shouldn’t exist, and that’s the reason Israel has the right to the behavior that so far hasn’t at all stopped the sad tragic disputes, and has only perpetuated and helped the extremism to fester, making life more dangerous for anyone living in Israel, as well as the rest of the Middle East. There is no way that 99 percent of all those people don’t wish the Jews a place to live, and agree with whoever is maintaining the conflict that’s tearing their lives apart on either side of it. And I really feel truly sorry for anyone that believes that one has to categorize a whole population of humans in such a manner. Whether it’s in regards their being Jewish or Palestinian. Is Natalie Portman also not Jewish, or to be excluded from having opinions about what that is, because she didn’t take her Genesis reward from Netanyahu? Is any Palestinian that doesn’t agree with the rocket launches then not a Palestinian? If more than 1 percent of the Palestinians want a free Israel, are they lying? And if anyone could actually promote non violence, and reconciliation do they then not belong on either side of the conflict because they haven’t “chosen” sides, and that’s unrealistic, when to truly be realistic, they have no choice left!?

  • Nijinsky says:

    By the way, I don’t really agree with the label apartheid, also because that’s a term South Africa itself used, believing it was justified And it doesn’t work to inspire people who are thus labeled to look at their behavior differently. But those who see Israel working against itself, and are quite baffled by it, can be at a loss for words, when they really are trying to point out something that would make the world better for Jews as well as others, would they try something that works because it is non violent, and that communicates rather than tries to control people with fear and intimidation.



    The Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund pays monthly cash stipends to the Palestinians.The scheme has been described as “pay for slay”, and has been criticised as encouraging terrorism. The PA paid out about NIS 1.1 billion (US$303 million) in stipends and other benefits to the families of so-called “martyrs”

  • Israel’s new government must be a puzzle for anyone who thinks of the Jewish state as a racist, fascistic, apartheid enterprise.

    Issawi Frej is Arab and Muslim and used to work for the Peace Now movement. Now he’s Israel’s minister for regional cooperation. Pnina Tamano-Shata is Black: The Mossad rescued her, along with thousands of other Ethiopian Jews, from hunger and persecution when she was a small child. She’s the minister for immigration and absorption. Nitzan Horowitz is the first openly gay man to lead an Israeli political party. He’s the health minister. At least one deputy minister, as yet unnamed, is expected to be a member of the Raam party, which is an outgrowth of the major Islamist political group in Israel.