Settler leader endorses boycott of apartheid

Check out this gem from the New York Times’ fawning GQ-like profile of Israeli settler leader Dani Dayan:

[Dayan and his wife] built a showpiece home, where the sunken double-height living room is filled with a painting from Vietnam, a sculpture from Machu Picchu and a meditation bowl from Nepal. “This is from South Africa,” he said, pointing to a set of large wooden masks. “Post-apartheid South Africa. I refused to visit apartheid South Africa.”

Chickens. Home. Roost.

Bulletins to Jodi Rudoren: 1) Did you read the Falk book I recommended to you that documents your employer’s sordid history of mis-reporting the facts and the law? Apparently not, as your article completely elides international law, just like your predecessors’ work. 2) In light of Dayan’s comments above, how could you not mention the international anti-Israeli-apartheid campaign, and the two former Israeli Prime Ministers’ claims — Barak‘s and Olmert‘s — that the West Bank is a de facto apartheid regime? 3) Why no Palestinian voices? What do Palestinians think of what Dayan and his colleagues are doing, stealing Palestinian land and all?

P.S. Dena Shunra has kindly summarized portions of a settler site’s Hebrew story referring to the same Times article. She writes:

In two words – they’re pleased.

More words: they’re pleased that he gets the prestigious “profile” spot
in the NYT. The quote they chose from the piece: “most effective,
pragmatic, man of the world.”

The piece mentions that he didn’t hide his opinions from the Rudoren
(using the rather reductive term for report “katevet”), quotes Dayan’s
cousin, Israeli journalist Ilana Dayan (using a more respectful word for
her position, “itona’it”) and ends with the end-point of the piece.

It also links to “sharp criticism on left-wing news sites in the U.S.”
(James North’s at Mondoweiss.net) and to the full original piece & a Hebrew translation therof.

Posted in Activism, BDS, Israel/Palestine, Media, One state/Two states, Settlers/Colonists, US Politics | Tagged , , , , ,

{ 12 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Shunra says:

    Small but VERY IMPORTANT correction: I did not translate portions of the Hebrew report. I *summarized* it, in my own words – I did not convey their words, only a general sense of what they said.

    As a professional translator, this distinction is crucial. Translation conveys the words of someone else, in another language – whereas a summary or “gisting” gets the gist of the meaning without translating every word or nuance.

    • OlegR says:

      Curious ,
      why did you (i assume it was you ) decide that katevet is a reductive term in comparison to itonait?

      • dimadok says:

        Especially when she was presented in the article as” chief of the NYT office in Jerusalem”. My guess- lost in translation mixed with ” personal summary”.

      • Shunra says:

        Because “katav” is pretty much someone who reports events, without being expected to contextualize them, and “itonai” tends to have more cachet. It’s rather similar to the English distinction between “reporter” and “journalist” or “correspondent” (although the nuances are not identical.)

        • dimadok says:

          Could you please check your translation again? I refer to her depiction as “head of the NYT desk in Jerusalem” and I am also having trouble finding the exact word ״כתבת״.

    • Philip Weiss says:

      will fix Dena! phil

  2. Krauss says:

    “This is from South Africa,” he said, pointing to a set of large wooden masks. “Post-apartheid South Africa. I refused to visit apartheid South Africa.”

    This quote is key. It’s this delusional understanding that sustains support for Apartheid throughout the Jewish community.

    It’s us. We just can’t be racists. Ever. It’s always them, the gentiles, the Others.
    Even when the leader of an Apartheid colony says this, Rudoren takes his word for granted. And she probably believes him at some level, judging from her piece.

    • MLE says:

      It’s not just Jews, people always see evil and say that it could never be them, they could never support such terrible things. But only when something is universally agreed upon to be bad. Before that, people flail around like fishes, trying to justify why some have the right to treat others that way, “wellllll I’m sure they have their reasons”

      I don’t think him pointing out about his boycott of apartheid was by accident. He’s trying to say, “See I can’t possibly be labeled as a racist, because I refused to travel to apartheid south Africa.” The next step is to say, “I have an Arab friend or two- so you can’t call me a racist” or if someone says, “I can’t be racist, because I voted for Obama”

      Standing up for people’s rights when deemed safe and non controversial doesn’t mean anything. Its about as meaningful as wearing a Che tshirt and thinking it makes you edgy. Unless you’re willing to be spit on, beat up, or lose friends and family for standing up for what’s right, then you just have to admit you’re a sheep.

    • Blake says:

      Wasn’t Moshe Dayan a Sephardic (Kooshim) Jew though? Perhaps that is why he would not go to apartheid South Africa. No other Zionist leader had a problem with apartheid South Africa.

  3. Kathleen says:

    Matthew, Phil over at Huffington Post/ then Politico some story about U.S. congressional freshman drinking, swimming naked in Israel. Front page of Huff Po. That story makes front and center at Huff Po but nothing about continued illegal expansion of settlements. Huff Po has its standards ..you know. Critical issue

    • Kathleen says:

      In the Politico article about the naked drunk congress folks and staff swimming naked in Israel..says that these were “privately funded excursions” thought that kind of hanky panky was supposed to stop after the Ney debacle. But of course when it comes to “privately funded excursions” to Israel the rules do not apply. Normalized as Marc Ellis would say