An interview with Ben Ehrenreich, author of ‘extraordinary’ Nabi Saleh piece in ‘NYT Magazine’

1340782202
Ben Ehrenreich’s March 15 cover story

On March 15, The New York Times Magazine broke important ground in the mainstream by publishing Ben Ehrenreich’s long and often-thrilling account of resistance in occupied Nabi Saleh, based on his visits to the Palestinian village last summer and earlier this year. The cover of the magazine featured heroic portraits of villagers who had guided the village’s political movement at huge risk, and Ehrenreich’s article portrayed young Palestinians’ throwing of stones as a valid response to military occupation. “The stones were … symbols of defiance, of a refusal to submit to occupation, regardless of the odds. The army’s weapons bore messages of their own: of economic and technological power, of international support.”

While the Forward and Haaretz were quick to attack Ehrenreich for his failure to believe in Zionism–seemingly out of fear that the piece would get a lot of attention– there has been surprisingly little media followup to his important article.

So last week I called the anti-Zionist Jewish novelist, 40, at his home in California to ask a few questions. The record below includes some follow-up by email.

Q. What’s the response been to your piece?  

Ben Ehrenrich: Predictably it has been mixed. The most immediate reaction came, not all that surprisingly, from liberal Zionist quarters, from Chemi Shalev in Haaretz, who wrote something of a self-fulfilling prophesy, predicting that the piece’s critics would focus their attacks on me. All of Shalev’s substantive points were written in the subjunctive, such as his suggestion that the piece “might” be read as encouraging an intifada and would “likely” elicit condemnation. He pointed readers to an op-ed I published in the L.A. Times in 2009 ["Zionism is the problem"] in which I argued that a principled opposition to Zionism had been a mainstream stance within Judaism for most of the twentieth century and in which I made the case for an ethical, Jewish critique of Zionism.

Everything that followed both from both liberals and from points much farther to the right followed Shalev’s lead. No criticism that I saw made any serious effort to take on the piece on a factual basis. Factually it was ironclad—it was extremely closely fact-checked. So no one attempted to engage with the piece directly, which is a shame.

It was the usual attempt to limit the discourse by delegitimizing any possible criticism and demonizing any possible critics. The approach was, “This guy’s an anti-Zionist and he shouldn’t be allowed to talk about the issue at all.” Which is absurd really. Ali Gharib made the point in the Daily Beast that if only Zionists are allowed to talk about Palestine, 99 percent of Palestinians would be disqualified from analyzing their own predicament. Another popular line went, “There are a lot of interesting facts in this article, but it’s all out of context,” and it quickly became clear that the only context they would have accepted as relevant was one that would refute all the facts, namely that the people I wrote about are really violent terrorists and everything they say is a lie.

I didn’t think it necessary or productive to respond to any of the criticism. Some people seemed to want me—or my editors—to recant what I had written in the L.A. Times op-ed, as if it were something I should be ashamed of, but I stand by everything I said in that article, and I think it’s worse than ridiculous to demand absolute allegiance to Israel as a precondition for being able to comment on the actions of the Israeli state. One of my goals in writing about these issues has been to broaden what has for years been an extremely and dangerously narrow discourse, to try to expand the borders of what can be said. Some people clearly find that threatening.

Q. There wasn’t a lot of pickup of your story by journalists seeking to interview you.

No. I went on one radio show out of Chicago. Other places I might have expected to follow it chose not to go after it.

Q. Are you telling me that the only interview you did was with that Chicago radio station?

The only interview I did was that one radio station.

Q. Why do you think that is?

I don’t know. There’s obviously been a great deal of hesitation among editors and producers to grapple with this issue at all. They did have a news hook: Obama was in the West Bank.

Q. Did this surprise you?

Not terribly.

Q. But Amira Hass is over here on her duty-to-throw-stones story, and Nancy Updike did a story on Nabi Saleh for “This American Life.” Aren’t we in a new moment for the American discussion about Palestinian resistance?

I certainly feel that it’s possible to say things in the American press that it wasn’t possible to say a few years ago. I think the tipping point was Cast Lead. After the bombardment of Gaza in 2008 and 2009 a lot of Americans found they could no longer offer Israel the kind of uncritical support they had given it for so long. The logic of self-defense became harder and harder to justify. I wrote that L.A. Times op-ed in the wake of Cast Lead and was shocked when the paper agreed to publish it. I was quite happily surprised when the New York Times decided to assign the Nabi Saleh piece. It’s extraordinary that they chose to publish this piece. They showed a lot of courage in doing it.

And I was very happy to have my inbox overwhelmed by supportive emails after the piece ran. I received a couple of dozen emails attacking me, which I expected, but also dozens and dozens and dozens of emails thanking me for writing the article, expressing happiness and surprise that it was published in such a prominent place as the Times Magazine. I had a similar experience with that op-ed in 2009. People wrote me with this incredible sense of relief, that I had been permitted to express ideas in print that many people share but that they never see reflected in the mainstream press. At least in terms of popular opinion and media discourse, something is certainly shifting in the U.S. Unfortunately that shift isn’t reflected in the actions of our politicians, which was quite clear from Obama’s trip.

Q. Your piece didn’t take a political position or offer much political analysis, one state, two state.

I think that it’s fairly easy to make a case in one direction or another and it happens on op-ed pages all the time. More in one direction than the other perhaps. But what you don’t see at all in the American media is Palestinians who are not P.A. officials or Hamas officials being taken seriously. You do not see them portrayed as human beings dealing with the humiliating realities of a military occupation and you do not see them as individuals making painful moral choices and committing themselves to a daily struggle with no end in sight. I don’t believe the piece romanticized anything, but I did make a great effort to provide sufficient historical and political context for readers to understand why and how the people of Nabi Saleh act as they do, to allow readers to understand their struggle on their terms, not on terms provided by the IDF or the State Department. Those are perspectives that we don’t get in the US media, and it seemed far more important to document them accurately than to make easy political points.

Q. It was rumored that the Times editors were surprised to learn of your 2009 LA Times piece at the time of your detention by the Israeli army in Nabi Saleh July 2012–when news broke that you were over there for the Times, and folks on twitter got very excited about the LA Times story.

I don’t think so. It took a lot of courage for The Times to publish it, and I felt very well backed throughout. They were very committed to this piece.

Q. The piece seemed to be delayed for months. I thought it was going to die. What happened?

There isn’t really a story there. They held it for various reasons that weren’t political. It was about to close when the Gaza war broke out in November, and, since no one knew what was going to happen, they decided to hold off. By December my original reporting, which I had done over the summer, was beginning to feel stale, and they made the decision to commit more resources to the story. They sent me back for another three weeks and sent Peter van Agtmael, the photographer, whose work is really extraordinary, back as well. They certainly knew they would catch heat for publishing the story, and they pushed ahead and ran it almost as soon as Peter and I returned from the West Bank.

Q. How did the piece originate?

I had visited Nabi Saleh briefly in 2011 while working on a piece for Harper’s about the role of water in the occupation of the West Bank. In early 2012, a Times magazine editor asked me to pitch stories. I came up with five or six ideas, including a piece on Nabi Saleh. (None of the others were Palestine-related.) To my surprise, the Nabi Saleh story was the one that caught the editors’ interest.

Q. In the political divide between Gatekeepers and 5 Broken Cameras, the liberal Zionists embrace Gatekeepers and ignore 5 Broken Cameras. Is that what happened to your piece in the discourse?
 
I don’t know of any liberal Zionist organization that has taken an organizational position on my piece. But a lot of people who are active in progressive groups in the US have contacted me and thanked me.
 
Q. Some of them being liberal Zionists?
 
I think so, yes. Not that they identified themselves as such in their emails.
 
Q. Will you be doing more on this subject?
 
I’d like to. As you know, it’s a pretty addictive part of the world to cover.
 
Q. I meant film or TV following up.
 
No. I know nothing about those worlds.
 
Q. Well it’s not like 60 Minutes has been calling?
 
No. Nobody’s been coming to me. I’m a writer. I don’t really go beyond the printed word.
 
Q. My memory of the piece is there were very few comments about a culture that is largely unknown in the U.S. I know you said something about all the Tamimis, but probably nothing about cousin marriage tradition. And you didn’t comment on Islam, or women wearing hijabs, that I remember– the kind of stuff many visitors (including me in my early days) liked to point out. Was this a conscious choice? If so, what did it reflect on your part?
 
It wasn’t a conscious choice, though I was careful not to exoticize or to fall into any easy orientalist traps. Americans tend to be obsessed with Islam and all its manifestations, and prefer to see the conflict in religious terms or via some variant of the neo-con clash of civilizations model. As if resistance to occupation were a form of irrational, primitive, pre-modern extremism that can be cured via enlightened secular values. What struck me in Nabi Saleh–and in the rest of the West Bank–was the complete irrelevancy of those paradigms. Religion is as real (and unreal) to people there as it is anywhere else, but if you focus on that you tend to obscure the fact that people are responding to the concrete realities of a military occupation. 
 
Q. Last question, Ben. Let’s talk about the Jewish narrator. In 2006 the Times published a very important essay by Tony Judt in support of Walt and Mearsheimer’s LRB piece on the Israel lobby, and Judt later said that they asked him to insert in there, I’m Jewish. Judt told the story because he knew that Jews were privileged, and that the Times needed to send this signal to its readers. As the NYRB does by publishing David Shulman when it’s critical of Israel, as the New Yorker does when David Remnick is the authority. As Mondoweiss does by stating, we’re a progressive Jewish site at root. As JVP does. It’s a racket, we’re all in on it, and my question is, When do Palestinians get to hold the microphone. Aren’t you and I to blame too? Because if they were holding the microphone, a basic human rights issue like the right to resist that is so core to your piece would have been noncontroversial many many years ago. As it is, Americans have to warm up to the idea, and a Jew has to bring them this news. Comment?
 
I’m glad you asked that question, and yeah, it’s super-problematic. It’s a specific instance of a bigger problem, that black and brown people’s stories can generally only be told in this society via the authority of a white narrator, that we–white people, in this case of Jewish ancestry–are tasked with the representation of black and brown and in this case Palestinian people, who in this dynamic are stuck in the passive role of being represented and are not allowed to interpret their own realities. So certainly we are complicit, and I don’t see any way out of that complicity except to use what privilege I have to tell stories that tear holes in the broader narratives which allow this arrangement to continue. And to do so with scrupulous attention to my own role in it, to the power differentials at play. This means, in other words, using the platform that I am unjustly rewarded with in order to step back and allow other people, who are systematically deprived of any platform, to speak. I think this is in the end what made so many people so angry about my Nabi Saleh article, that I attempted to give the people there an opportunity to speak without stepping in and interpreting for them and putting them in any of the usual boxes (militant, terrorist, Islamist, whatever) that function to silence and delegitimize them. That was a brand of treason, which I was happy to perform.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine | Tagged

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

  1. Cliff says:

    Wonderful interview Phil.

    I loved this very last sentence:

    That was a brand of treason, which I was happy to perform.

    It’s a great play on the tribal loyalty thing and ‘loyalty’ to the clash of civ. narrative.

    And it also relates perfectly to the article about Max Ajl and his mom defending him in the comments section of the article in question.

    ‘Treason’ against injustice inbuilt or a product of tribalism is a worthwhile endeavor and a moral imperative.

  2. Walker says:

    It’s really not surprising that there has been almost no media followup to Ehrenreich’s piece – that is the typical response to any important piece of information that disturbingly contradicts the official line. Look at the near-silence that greeted the news that the 911 bombers were motivated in large part by US support of Israel.

    It’s also not surprising that Ben Ehrenreich is the daughter of Barbara – two excellent journalists with a strong moral sense.

  3. Les says:

    It is not surprising that there was next to no follow up. When it comes to the big players/owners in our print and broadcast media, opposition to Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is 0%. Can you think of even one exception?

  4. Nice interview, Phil. Ehrenreich is very impressive.

  5. Ellen says:

    That “brand of treason” is the first step to breaking free of identity politics.

    Where Jews to no need to feel to reveal their identity when appealing for universal and humanistic values instead of Zionism, which is neither universal nor humanistic, but tribal.

    That “brand of treason” that will allow Jews to be just like the rest of humanity first as a driver of motivations and not identity, real or imagined.

  6. Walker says:

    Regarding this:

    It took a lot of courage for The Times to publish it, and I felt very well backed throughout.

    The only reason that it should “take a lot of courage for the Times to publish it” is that the Times itself has worked so hard over decades to tell Americans a very distorted story.

  7. Fritz says:

    I’m very impressed by this important statement:

    And to do so with scrupulous attention to my own role in it, to the power differentials at play. This means, in other words, using the platform that I am unjustly rewarded with in order to step back and allow other people, who are systematically deprived of any platform, to speak.

    He admits that he was “unjustly” rewarded with a platform which the people who deserve to get it will never be allowed to.

  8. Great interview, Phil. Important work. Culture doesn’t change over night. You should consider doing a similar follow-up interview with Ehrenreich’s editor. Why did he choose this story? What were the repercussions, if any? Why does (s)he think there’s been so little follow-up? Describe the opening up of the public discourse to other voices. Etc.

  9. Dutch says:

    This is an important interview, Phil. Thanks so much.

    @ David Doppler
    I agree completely with the follow-up idea. And the question why the editor believes there is little reaction on Ehrenreich’s piece is crucial – starting point for a much needed discussion.

  10. Les says:

    Ours is a speak no evil media, that is when refusing to discuss what the USA does. We know how vicious was the Boston bombers’ decision to kill and maim. How does this compare with the US drone attacks on 16 year old American born Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in Yemen and more recently in the remote village of Wessab in Yemen, where, in both cases, there were no identifiable bodies left and in the latter case left no choice but to bury the human flesh that remained with the flesh of their animals? Think how lucky Boston was not to have been on the receiving end of US diplomacy!

  11. Donald says:

    Great interview on both sides, Phil. Good questions asked and very good responses.

    On the NYT itself, yeah, they or some fraction of the paper deserves a lot of credit for publishing it, but I don’t recall any editorial or op ed piece following up. And as Ben says, most of the media simply ignored it. There was a window of about a week, then the next NYT Sunday Magazine issue comes out, and the story is stale. All the usual “intellectuals” in the media (on NPR and elsewhere) had to do was ignore it for that week and they were home free.

  12. RJL says:

    Ehrenreich, who is only of Jewish descent, maybe, but isn’t Jewish, is chutzpadik to say Jews are privileged. Having lost over 6+million in the Holocaust, that’s privilege? Further, no mention of Ms. Tamimi who planned the Sbarro bombing, murdering innocent Jewish people; is that privilege, too? Come on, to promote this magazine article that doesn’t look into the souls of such blood thirsty murderers, or question how this promotes “human rights for Palestinians” (or their Jewish victims), is incredulous. We all understand why Palestinians want the occupation to end, but does every means, including savage killing, justify their desired end? What ever happened to negotiating? Even the stacked against Israel UN expects that!

    • amigo says:

      “We all understand why Palestinians want the occupation to end, but does every means, including savage killing, justify their desired end?” rjl

      It seems as if you are assigning special privilege to Jews.

      “Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: “Ye shall blot them out to the last man.” But first and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play: speaking in a clear voice to the whole world, as well as to our wretched brethren outside this land, it proclaims our war against the occupier. We are particularly far from this sort of hesitation in regard to an enemy whose moral perversion is admitted by all. [23]”

      Jews good terrorists, Palestinians bad terrorists.

      Tiresome twaddle.

    • Cliff says:

      Jews in America are privileged. They are one of the most successful minorities in the country.

      Palestinians have human rights. Defending their human rights is a noble cause. No need for the quotations but being as you are a racist Jewish supremacist like Dov Hikund (Kahanist) it’s not surprising you’d put Palestinian humanity in a grey area.

      We all understand why Palestinians want the occupation to end, but does every means, including savage killing, justify their desired end? What ever happened to negotiating? Even the stacked against Israel UN expects that!

      What does this have to do with the topic? What are you responding to?

    • Shingo says:

      Ehrenreich, who is only of Jewish descent, maybe, but isn’t Jewish, is chutzpadik to say Jews are privileged.

      Yeah right. You decided to remove his right to be Jewish because he criticed Israel.

      Having lost over 6+million in the Holocaust, that’s privilege?

      Clearly he’s not talking about 1940.

      Further, no mention of Ms. Tamimi who planned the Sbarro bombing, murdering innocent Jewish people; is that privilege, too?

      What the hell has that for to do with this interview?

  13. ritzl says:

    Yes, great interview. I’m “glad you asked that [last] question” as well. It’s important, the ask and the answer.

    Ehrenreich’s answer was an unambiguous [and correct] discernment, backed up by the fact that he equally unambiguously acted upon his discernment in the article. He is his mother’s son.

    At the risk of being fanboyish, I think you are at your best while interviewing. You bring out, or maybe better, narrow/shape the discussion around, your worldview on this issue. It’s [not a criticism] a bit harder to tell from the topics you choose to post here, but in your spoken interviews (whether you being interviewed, or you interviewing someone) you are more focused on what you believe to be important, globally on this issue. I think you nail core issues when you are in free discussion. You make it all make sense, contextually.

    That specificity is good for people like me who can’t read everything all the time.

    Thanks. And thanks to Ehrenreich, and his mother.

    • Shingo says:

      We all understand why Palestinians want the occupation to end, but does every means, including savage killing, justify their desired end?

      Apparently. Didn’t the creation of Israel justify the mass murder, ethnic cleansing and terrorism by Zionists?

      What ever happened to negotiating?

      Negotiating means producing a resolution, not a means to delay and stall the outcome while stealing the land being negotiated.

      Even the stacked against Israel UN expects that!

      The US and Israel have blocked all attempts to allow UN to get involved.

  14. casaananda says:

    The question I want answered is why, as Ehrenreich states, it was so “extraordinary” that this piece of simple reportage was published, and why the paper, in his opinion, “showed a lot of courage in doing it.” WHAT, I have to wonder, is the possible threat that required “courage” for the paper to publish a report about what’s going on in this West Bank village? Isn’t it, or has it not been, the job of what is arguably the US newspaper of record to report ALL the news about this core conflict in the Holy Land? Why has it taken decades simply for the Times to report about the conflict from the Palestinian side (but not take “sides”)? Or, put another way, what has ever been “wrong”about honest reportage about the conflict from both “sides” of the conflict?

    Now I realize, given the quote below, how utterly naive I was in 1975 to write about the scene in the refugee camps in Gaza and expect a major US newspaper to publish what I wrote almost 40 years ago. Another question: why is it or was it ever “not possible” for a paper like the Times to publish a story about the lives of the people under colonial occupation? If this was or has been the case — “not possible” until recently — then what does this say about the NY Times for a very long time? That maybe the paper has been derelict in its duty to inform the American people in a fulsome manner?

  15. Kathleen says:

    Phil, Adam, Annie etc
    Former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit Micheal Scheuer really taking a beating from the I lobby. Being smeared

    The Scum of America’s Earth are strongly Pro-Israel
    link to non-intervention.com

  16. Frankie P says:

    “Q. Are you telling me that the only interview you did was with that Chicago radio station?
    The only interview I did was that one radio station.
    Q. Why do you think that is?
    I don’t know. There’s obviously been a great deal of hesitation among editors and producers to grapple with this issue at all. They did have a news hook: Obama was in the West Bank.
    Q. Did this surprise you?
    Not terribly.”

    Neither Ben E. nor Phil W. care to delve too deeply into the answers to these questions. Ben mentions the hesitation of editors to grapple with the issue, but neglects to address why editors hesitate, and what the consequences of such grappling could mean to their careers. He says it doesn’t surprise him, but doesn’t mention why it doesn’t surprise him; I would think many media outlets, if independent and searching for true news stories about a volatile region, would be lining up to interview Ben. Oh, what’s that you say? They are not independent and searching for true stories of human Palestinians?

    Ben, you wrote this, and in my eyes, it alone makes you a hero and a rare truth searcher: ‘["Zionism is the problem"] in which I argued that a principled opposition to Zionism had been a mainstream stance within Judaism for most of the twentieth century and in which I made the case for an ethical, Jewish critique of Zionism.’

    Turn your laser eye now to the American scene, and search for the truth about why the American people are not often permitted to see the kind of truth in your article for the NYT Magazine.

    FPM

  17. Phil, this is a great interview. I didn’t know that Ben hadn’t been approached for comment after his piece was published. I assumed he was choosing not to comment. Knowing this now, it changes how I think about the article. I’ll say it’s more unique then I realized. I also didn’t know Ben was Jewish.