‘LA Times’ runs piece by investor in Occupation without disclosing his interest

Israel/Palestine
on 16 Comments

Weiss got a queasy feeling about a piece in the LA Times attacking the Orthodox for intolerance but saying nary a word about treatment of the Palestinians. Nancy Kricorian of Code Pink exposes the black heart of the matter in a letter the LA Times has not published:

In his op-ed essay, “Will the Ultra-Orthodox Hold Israel Back?” , Stanley Gold appeals to Israel’s Declaration of Independence, which states that Israel must ensure "complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex, " to sound a warning about the growing menace of ultra-orthodox Jewish fundamentalism to Israel’s secular and reform Jewish citizens. Yet in an article focused on minorities and making Israel "a just nation," Mr. Gold makes not a single mention of Palestinian citizens of Israel, 20% of Israel’s population, nor of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation

It is ironic that Mr. Gold, as president and CEO of Shamrock Holdings, oversees a major investment in Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories, a corporation that has its main manufacturing plant in the illegal settlement of Mitzpe Shalem in the Occupied Palestinian West Bank. Ahava illegally exploits captured resources of the Dead Sea shore in the Occupied West Bank for use in its products, a clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.. And to make matters worse, Ahava misleadingly labels those products as “ Made in Israel,” a practice that has been repeatedly decried by human rights groups such as Oxfam. Shamrock owns 18% of Ahava. Mr. Gold would sound a more persuasive note were he himself not benefiting so mightily from Israel’s continued disregard for human rights.

Discussions of justice in Israel cannot omit Israel’s settlements and its failure to respect Palestinian rights.

About Nancy Kricorian

Nancy Kricorian is a New York City-based writer and activist.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

16 Responses

  1. cogit8
    October 8, 2009, 12:01 am

    Phil and Nancy, calm down and take a deep breath. Stanley Gold had 250 words or so and he used them to bash the wing-nut, knit-hats, curls down to there, ultra-Orthodox, ie the so-called ‘settlers’. This can’t be a bad thing in the overall story of Israel, because they deserve to be marginalized like religious luddites which they are. He’s accomplished more for the ‘reveal the truth about Israel’ crowd (of which I am a proud member) in the LA Times than Phil or I (who has had no articles published in LA Times that I know of).

    My point is, don’t knock someone who hasn’t attained your (our) level of enlightenment on the Israel Question. Everyone has to make their own way, and the best way to encourage more people to get onboard the train ‘a comin, is to give’m a hand and say “welcome aboard the freedom train”. How do you know that SGold is not married to a refusenik or even a Palestinian (like Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Araf).

    Let’s not be too quick to pass judgement on another self-hating Jew who reveals the truth about Israel!

    • Richard Witty
      October 8, 2009, 4:28 am

      Thank you cogit.

    • Chaos4700
      October 8, 2009, 7:18 am

      That’s all well and good but are people forgetting that it was the so-called “moderates” that planned and executed Operation Cast Lead?

  2. cogit8
    October 8, 2009, 12:15 am

    as for unpublished letters to the LA Times, here’s one for ya about the article that 2 vengeful Rabbis wrote against the Rev. Tutu and M. Ghandi:

    link to latimes.com

    Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper express in their article one of the most shocking intellectual developments of modern times: the gradual shift of the Jewish community away from a classical liberal-humanist basis towards a more fundamental religious fervor which embraces militarism. If the “lesson of the Holocaust” is “that never again will the destiny of our [Jewish] people be placed in the hands of others”, we have arrived at the point where Jews are free to do anything in the name of their destiny(witness Gaza atrocity). The two authors confirm it is the horrendous events of the Holocaust which created this monumental shift in attitude.

    In a curious twist on history we’ve already been through, we now have Rabbis in effect calling for Blood and Iron. And to continue this simile, while no one should object to any country maintaining WMD for defensive purposes only, we now have the Jewish community openly calling for Israel Uber Alles in the Middle East! How else can you say “Israel will not allow an Iran with nuclear weapons” except as proof of this? How else to interpret the pressure inside the Jewish community to not marry outside the religion except as unspoken race-law?

    Jewish intellects who reject the tremendous achievement of a Desmond Tutu, a
    Mohandas Gandhi, (and a Jesus Christ of course), essentially jetison 2000 years of human progress in favor of Old Testament values. There is a straight line connecting this shift to fundamentalism and the ongoing assault on ground-breaking documents of human progress such as the Magna Carta, U.N. Charter, Geneva Conventions, the Nuremburg Trials, and the U.S. Constitution. Add to these the trampling of universal human-rights and the codified legal acceptance of barbaric torture. All of the above intellectual dead-enders will be swept away by history as human progress once again resumes it’s course, but a lot of people will remain occupied by militarism and be ripped apart by explosives in the meantime.

    John Marker
    Los Angeles

    • LeaNder
      October 8, 2009, 10:00 am

      brilliant. I like the force. Anger Richard?

    • Donald
      October 8, 2009, 10:14 am

      This part makes me cringe–

      “Jewish intellects who reject the tremendous achievement of a Desmond Tutu, a
      Mohandas Gandhi, (and a Jesus Christ of course), essentially jetison 2000 years of human progress in favor of Old Testament values. ”

      That’s an old-fashioned Christian way to phrase things, but it sets Jesus up against the Old Testament in ways that aren’t accurate. Jesus didn’t introduce anything new into Jewish ethics. Parts of the OT are pretty bloodthirsty, but other parts tell us to love our neighbor and the book of Jonah presents a God who loves even the people of Nineveh, who were sort of the Nazis of their day.

      • Chaos4700
        October 8, 2009, 10:49 am

        You maybe raise a good point but people — Christians especially — forget that the “Old Testament” as Christians traditionally call it is a part of Christianity too. In fact, when you get down to it, Judaism, Christianity and Islam share a lot of history.

        And they also share a lot of the same core values too. Just as the nasty anti-Semitic rhetoric about Jews being “Christ killers,” blood libel, etc. was used to create an artificial and wrong-headed notion that Christianity and Judaism are mutually incompatible, so too is the same thing being done to Muslims as “jihadists” seeking a “worldwide Caliphate” who convert others by the sword, etc. to create the illusion that Islam is incompatible as well.

        I might be putting words in his mouth, but I don’t think cogit8 was ascribing that only to Jews, but talking about it in the context of the Jewish community. Natural enough, I’d think, given the emphasis of this blog. To be fair, the same thing does occur in extremist Islam making either Judaism or Christianity seem incompatible — and it is just as heinous a sin against the core values of Islam when their fundamentalists do that, as when Jewish or Christian fundamentalists do it as well.

        (My only addendum being that Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t have the might of the American military-industrial complex behind it the way Jewish and Christian fundamentalism does)

      • DavidF
        October 8, 2009, 1:26 pm

        Chaos4700,

        (entering Christian mode)

        I’m not sure what you mean by compatible. From an orthodox Christian perspective, Judaism cannot offer salvation, and Jews should be evangelized and encouraged to convert.

        Since Christ died for the sins of the whole world, all humanity is guilty of His death. Of course, anyone can be forgiven by earnestly repenting and accepting Christ’s forgiveness. Since Jews have not, and Christ died for their sins, then they technically still bear the guilt for Jesus’ death.

        In common language, “blood guilt” sounds like an accusation of a crime (and an implied threat of vengeance), although the point was to emphasize the need for the Jews to convert to Christianity (at which point they would be free of this guilt).

        Certainly, there is no problem with Christians getting along with Jews, and most moderate Christians avoid the injunction to evangelize.

  3. javs
    October 8, 2009, 3:39 am

    Why not I put the same lables on the non palestinians like abbass whom is bahi, just as there is another motive for the pres of iran whom has jewish roots , so does the bahi abbass. ALL cults should be disbanded and never allowed. Why is it the same every day, why are the crimes made to be blamed on the victims. when is this madness going to end….I am begining to wonder if the ultimate cult took any of the problems that accompany the next generation of hate mongers and genecidal cults. It will have to end abruptly so it seems because no common sense is availible for those whom are in charge. And as for the fact the problem is going to stick like a magnet to steel untill justice has been served or the world ends for us. Knowing 99% there is no god makes me wonder …was moses dealing with aliens as has been seen to be possible from ancients all around the world to only decide to use it as control>??? well it would seem so in reality.

    • Richard Witty
      October 8, 2009, 4:28 am

      Where do you get that Abbas is Bahai?

      • Donald
        October 8, 2009, 10:06 am

        Probably the same source he got for Moses dealing with aliens.

  4. javs
    October 8, 2009, 3:45 am

    As for the raping of the minerals by the company…have you seen anywhere that doesn’t have a person with “chosen loyalty” to ruin completely the surrounding they dwell in. The site could do these articals forever and reasons could be stated forever the truth will never change no matter how much they try and rewrite history to fit their needs and greeds. There are groups from what I read placing time capsuls all over the world to spread the truth of these cults especially the zionist…so that if possible thay will never be in charge of anything but the garbage they placed upon themselves with utter foolishness, not realizing they are sealing their own fate forever and ever…that is a mighty long time. As for the supporters I hope they are included in these capsuls as not to trust their families in the future. May be we could give the zionist palestine texas…maybe that was where they were to be and got lost><

  5. US_Objector
    October 8, 2009, 6:56 am

    Breaking news from Haaretz: Haim Saban is contemplating purchasing a 50% stake in al-Jazeera . . . ! link to haaretz.com

    Hey, betcha that once Saban gets done Zionizing the news content of AJ, it’s likely cable stations in America will finally make the channel available to their customers. Right now, lobbyists of some undetermined origin — ahem — have prevented the major cable companies from carrying the channel, which is available in only two minor cities in the US. Says wikipedia:

    As of 2009, Al Jazeera’s English-language service can be viewed in every major European market, and is available to 130 million homes in over 100 countries via cable and satellite, according to Molly Conroy, a spokeswoman for the network in Washington. [10]

    However the channel is noted for its poor penetration in the North American market, where it is not carried by virtually any cable networks except local networks in Toledo, Ohio, and Burlington, Vermont.[11] It has begun a campaign to enter the North American market, including a dedicated website IwantAJE.com.

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    Wow, imagine how incisive the al-Jazeera coverage of the Jane Harman scandal would have been if Saban owned half of al-Jazeera! How about the live shots from Gaza — would Europeans be able to see the devastation first hand if Haim owned and controlled the news channel?

    • Chaos4700
      October 8, 2009, 7:17 am

      I’m confused. If Haim Saban perpetuates the notion of Jews controlling the media… does that make him anti-Semitic?

  6. morris
    October 8, 2009, 6:56 am

    Khalid Amayreh introduces himself and the West Bank

Leave a Reply