Trending Topics:

Ari Shavit’s humiliating fall from grace: AIPAC, Hillel cancel events in wake of groping story

US Politics
on 99 Comments

Ari Shavit, maybe the most influential Israeli journalist in the United States in recent years, has been shunned by major Jewish institutions in recent days following his coming forward as the previously-unidentified author who “groped, grabbed and pulled” American journalist Danielle Berrin in 2014.

Hillel International announced yesterday it had canceled an upcoming speaking tour for Shavit, explaining the decision with particularly harsh terms.

“In light of recent circumstances, and in keeping with our strong position against sexual assault, Hillel International has suspended Ari Shavit’s campus tour,” the group said in a statement. “At Hillel International, we engage with hundreds of thousands of college students at more than 500 campuses across the country every year. We actively oppose rape culture and sexual assault on campus and are committed to supporting survivors.”

Hillel serves as an umbrella for Jewish interest and Israel advocacy groups across U.S. colleges and organized a 28 university tour last spring for Shavit.

Similarly, today the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) announced it too was breaking ties with Shavit, nixing a November 10th event scheduled in northern California.

If the past two days are any indication of what is to come, Shavit’s fall appears as dramatic as his rise to acclaim, with tumbling humiliation undoing the respect he once garnered in synagogues and Jewish spaces and the New Yorker magazine as Israel’s moral voice from the liberal Zionist camp.

Shavit is an important reporter and commentator. He made his career as a columnist for Haaretz and shot to attention in the U.S. with his 2013 best seller, My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel, an evergreen on Israel’s journey from the British mandate period to present day that draws, in part, from the colonial travelogues of his great-grandfathers.

His book was regarded as having historical value because it documented the Nakba in the pages of the New Yorker: an excerpt on the Lydda massacre of 1948, which was followed by ethnic cleansing, a new take for Americans on a topic that otherwise had long since saturated the market. Shavit’s work stood out for its analytical force that praised Israel’s secular Jewish culture while at the same time was reflective of crimes carried out by the state’s founders against Palestinians. He posed further criticism of rising religious fervor amongst settlers over the green line.

His analysis was not without detractors. Critics challenged him as too forgiving of the dispossessions of Palestinians by Zionist militias in the pages of Mondoweiss and the outlets at the center of this scandal, Haaretz and the Jewish Journal, among others. Advocates for Palestinian refugees were disturbed by Shavit’s dismissal of their plight: “the Jewish State cannot let them return. Israel has a right to live, and if Israel is to live it cannot resolve the Lydda issue.”

No one doubted Shavit’s influence.

Both President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were have said to read the book, and discussed it together, reported the JTA. Thomas Friedman wrote in a column that he looked to Shavit for insider knowledge of the underground scenes in Israel since the 1980s. “Shavit celebrates the Zionist man-made miracle — from its start-ups to its gay bars — while remaining affectionate, critical, realistic and morally anchored,” Friedman said after the book was published, recommending everyone read it and talk about it. Shavit was attended on Charlie Rose and at the 92d Street Y by New Yorker editor David Remnick, who discovered him for American readers.  

Danielle Berrin. (Photo: Jewish Journal)

Danielle Berrin. (Photo: Jewish Journal)

Yet when Berrin attempted to join the conversation by clinching an interview with Shavit while he was promoting the book in 2014 in Los Angeles, her encounter as penned in the Jewish Journal last week depicts an amoral aggressor who propositioned her to become his mistress, and intimated he desired to impregnate her.

In this account, Shavit was no moral giant. And, consistent with victims of sexual assault, Berrin recalled key details of the environment—“I remember staring at his scotch glass. The swirling, caramel-colored liquid caught the dim light of the hotel lobby, reflected it back to me.”

“He lurched at me like a barnyard animal, grabbing the back of my head, pulling me toward him.” 

Initially in the account, Shavit was a mystery man.  Berrin said her alleged assaulter was an “accomplished journalist from Israel.” She explained, she hoped to bring attention to sexual assault in general and not harp on the celebrity of the assaulter. “Most women—and even some men—have stories of sexual harassment, abuse or exploitation over the course of their lifetime,” she wrote.

The bulk of her essay did not relate the details of that night with Shavit in a hotel lobby. Rather, Berrin used her personal experience as a jumping off point to explore the wave of discourses surrounding sexual assault detonated by presidential candidate Donald Trump’s brags about sexual assault in a 2005 hot-mic tape. 

Berrin urged other women to come forward with their stories. Yet, the intrigue and media follow-up focused on the unnamed assailant. Reporters were in a race to name Shavit, and then to explore the disservice the story will do to liberal Zionism.

Israel’s News 1 first named Shavit as the likely alleged culprit in a Hebrew language article earlier this week. The report said that his bosses had considered severing employment. And some have called on Haaretz to take action against Shavit. 

English-speaking news outlets initially did not name Shavit, although commenters writing below the articles identified him, resulting in a few days of there being an open secret that Shavit was the man.

After a few days, Shavit came forward in an apology published by Haartez Thursday in which he corroborated Berrin’s version of the events with one stark difference. In Shavit’s eyes, no assault took place. The same events that caused Berrin to fear for safety, he saw as a “flirtation,” adding “I sadly understand that I misconstrued the interaction between us during that meeting.”

In response, Berrin dissected Shavit’s mea culpa yesterday, again in the pages of the Jewish Journal.

“His claim is absurd. The only thing I wanted from Ari Shavit was an interview about his book. No person of sound judgment would have interpreted his advances on me as anything other than unwanted, aggressive sexual contact.”

She added later, “I am glad Ari Shavit has at least acknowledged an encounter took place. As a committed Jew, I am always open to the possibility of forgiveness and redemption.”

“But Ari Shavit has yet to apologize for what he actually did; he did not apologize for committing sexual assault,” Berrin said.

About Allison Deger

Allison Deger is the Assistant Editor of Mondoweiss.net. Follow her on twitter at @allissoncd.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

99 Responses

  1. Marnie
    October 29, 2016, 11:14 am

    ‘She added later, “I am glad Ari Shavit has at least acknowledged an encounter took place. As a committed Jew, I am always open to the possibility of forgiveness and redemption.”

    “But Ari Shavit has yet to apologize for what he actually did; he did not apologize for committing sexual assault,” Berrin said.”

    I think his being able to return to his post at Ha’aretz should be contingent on that very thing. Thank you for coming forward.

  2. Kathleen
    October 29, 2016, 11:42 am

    She added later, “I am glad Ari Shavit has at least acknowledged an encounter took place. ”

    Far, far more than Trump or Bill Clinton have done, Although that is not saying much.

    ” As a committed Jew, I am always open to the possibility of forgiveness and redemption.”

    Smart, And clearly she is not forgetting and appropriately so,

    “Reporters were in a race to name Shavit, and then to explore the disservice the story will do to liberal Zionism.’ Sounds like his very bad behavior is all ready being used to silence the facts that he explores and writes about,

    • RoHa
      October 30, 2016, 10:57 pm

      “Far, far more than Trump or Bill Clinton have done,”

      You are assuming Trump is guilty. Has it been proven that he did grope those women?

  3. jd65
    October 29, 2016, 11:53 am

    The forthcoming unauthorized biography of Ari Shavit Story –

    My Promised Gland: The Triumph and Tragedy of His Fail.

    I got about a third of the way through his book. From page one I recognized as the usual mythification story/prism all liberal Zionists see and paint Israel with. Generally a glorification of Israel w/ the occasional “But Israel’s not perfect” phrase sprinkled in here or there to give the illusion of “liberal” street creed. I may be somewhat exaggerating or overstating it, but I’m so sick of reading the kind of sh*t like he had in that book I may be primed to over-react to it.

    But it certainly doesn’t look like Berrin’s over-reacting to Shavit. Looks like he’s scum and deserves to be denounced for trying to force himself on her.

  4. echinococcus
    October 29, 2016, 1:13 pm

    Looks like the US-Zionist exchange isn’t as one-sided as we thought.

    In the recent past, rape by a President was properly dealt with as a police event, not considered likely to diminish the aggressor’s ability to rape, dispossess and displace the Palestinian population.

    Now, though, it goes Puritan-American: the sexual assaulter is considered unable to do his job of excusing the Nakba and genocidal action; public lynching supersedes proper police action. American culture wins over Zionist entity this time, as with jeans, chewing gum and John Wayne.

  5. Danaa
    October 29, 2016, 4:04 pm

    To me Shavit’s reaction and his apologetic non-apology sounds like a typical israeli male’s. Shavit’s advances would be considered ‘all in a day’s work” in israel. Such aggressive behavior based on the premise that it’s normal macho behavior is so common over there that it is barely worth mentioning. probably one third of females serving in the IDF were at one point raped and many times assaulted. I wouldn’t know what it’s like in a workplace but my guess is that women who work in larger firms sometimes wish there was a hijab or a burqa to ward off the many unwanted advances. This happens disproportionately more to women who are younger, good looking and generally out-going. Attributes that make them appear somehow “accessible”. The usual reaction is to shun the man and use a form of public shaming by spreading the word. That when the assault did not actually culminate in rape. IF it did, many times the reaction is silence and self-blame for allowing a situation to evolve that far.Almost every israeli woman has such stories to tell, though most would rather not.

    As the few prosecutions of men in power in israel demonstrate, these situations become especially problematic when the man is older and in a powerful position. A good rule of thumb is that power goes to the head, and not just in israel.

    I base these observations a bit on experience (left israel when I was quite young, so I had a chance to experience typical predatory behavior many times over, and predatory it is) and most on stories I hear from there and the occasional reading of hebrew accounts for the more recent climate over there. I know that personally, having come to understand the israeli male behavior, I developed certain traits and behavior patterns almost sub-consciously that were designed no doubt to ward off bad situations that would force me to write someone off for life (caveat: I did not have female friends to gossip with. Just other males and those would hardly be the right ones to commiserate with). For example, one defense tactic was to not be in a situation where one is alone with a certain type of individual male. especially a much older one. Another is to have clarity about my own designs and interests so as to avoid any appearance of flirtation when the interest is not there on my part, and when there is a high likelihood of misinterpretation of mere friendliness for an invitation. I am no longer there, but the attributes persist through life for better and for worse. Even when in America where the aggressiveness is rarely so overt and in your face (again, it’s my experience, and only as a comparison. I was never an undergraduate in the US so wouldn’t know what the climate is like there). One thing I noticed in israeli females, even ones who are older, is the way they can move from friendly to freezing in a blink of an eye, almost. It’s like a switch is thrown. probably a defense mechanism developed over their youth.

    It will take probably an anthropologist/psychologist team to dissect Israeli male and female more and behavior patterns. best to think of it as a kind of a jungle. Avigail Abarbanel can no doubt shed more in depth light on this interesting phenomenon of inter-gender behavior in a place like israel. may be she should write another article on this matter for MW? I am sure it’ll be interesting.

    None of this is to hold Danielle blameful in any way. She would likely not have recognized the signs that her pleasant demeanor was eliciting in an interview situation where the goal is to put the subject at ease so they’ll speak freely. She would probably not realize that his increasing “friendliness’ were all signs of trouble to come. because it’s not an American she was dealing with. In her place, i would have probably seen it coming from a mile away and changed the tone of the conversation, and possibly reschedule another meeting in a place where alcohol is not served. But then i would know things she didn’t and no reason she would, coming from a more civilized jewish milieu. How do you note that suddenly the rules of the jungle apply and not the rules of a jewish day camp? or a friendly collegiate encounter?

    I do have BTW one funny story to tell. Funny to me because i made it so and nothing bad happened, though it could have. may be another time, in response to an Avigail well-measured account of the mores of the jungle.

    • Danaa
      October 29, 2016, 4:16 pm

      I overstayed my edit time, so apologies for the disjointedness, typos, etc.

      • Danaa
        October 29, 2016, 7:13 pm

        Bless your heart, annie. All fixers of typos and bad syntax will surely end in a heaven where birds sing, flowers bloom, and lovely humans speak in impeccable grammar with crisp vowels too.

        And thank you so much for the reminder of that earlier article. I thought I remembered something weird about good old Avi but could not recollect.

    • Annie Robbins
      October 29, 2016, 6:02 pm

      he’s an old letch. remember this:

    • judithbell
      October 29, 2016, 11:50 pm

      I think if you replaced any other nationality, race, religion for Israeli in this post, one might find it biased, reductionist and racist. There is far more sexual assault in the US army than there has ever been in the Israeli army.

      • Danaa
        October 31, 2016, 12:10 am

        judithbell, do you speak from experience? because I do. You need to live in israel for like 20 years and serve in their army as a young recruit before you can state emphatically one way or the other. If that is not possible, you may want to listen to the accounts told in hebrew (not English!) among the Israelis. Even then, the worst stories are not told, even in hebrew and even among the knowing, because, well, failure to self protect is not considered a positive attribute.

        I don’t mean to dismiss what some American service women go through, but in israel, service is mandatory, and people find themselves in the military at age 17, 18 with very little life experience. Also in israel, the bonds of silence are even stronger, especially since some of the worst violators have the “glamor” jobs – front line combat officers, pilots etc. So they have an aura of invincibility in an israeli context.

        Also in israel it is generally accepted that women’s role in the military is partly social. Indeed, the IDF can do quite well these days without recruiting women, but they are needed for the ‘cohesiveness’ and the “bonding’, i.e., a social function. So many, not being so wise, behave accordingly, brushing aside the absence of respect from male peers. When the bonding function is violated, as you can imagine, it’s triple the shame. Talking about it or filing a complaint is beyond betrayal. It destroys the veneer of “we are all in this together” kind of rubbish. It can destroy the bonding function of an entire unit. Errgo, the woman complainer not only got herself into a ‘situation” but also failed in her primary duty if, the social one, if she complains

        The US military takes volunteers, and women in the American military do in fact participate in some of the most dangerous and demanding duties. Some in the front lines. A few military pilots, etc. I am sure attacks and unwanted advances happen a lot in close quarters, and there are repercussions to filing complaints. OTOH, unlike the israeli army which for most is compulsory, the reaction of the US military can be more of a shrug, as in “what did you expect”? , “did you think it was going to be a bed of roses”? etc. There is an expectation of toughness and of toughing it out.

        I guess my point is not about the occurrence of abuse of authority or just abuse, but of the reaction to it by the military itself as well as society at large. The American woman soldier, being a volunteer, expects to be treated professionally. the israeli woman recruit expects to have an interesting and socially rich lifestyle.

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2016, 2:08 pm

        y” than there has ever been in the Israeli army.”

        But I don’t understand, “judithbell”? Why on earth would there be any sexual assault in the Israeli Army? What a horrible thing to accuse us of, assaulting each other.

      • Mooser
        November 4, 2016, 2:52 pm

        “I am sure attacks and unwanted advances happen a lot in close quarters,”

        You bet, those military service academies are dangerous! And potential officers are packed together like sardines in the classroom.

    • Elizabeth Block
      October 31, 2016, 2:40 pm

      I’ve been wondering for years what is meant when the IDF is called “the most moral army in the world.” I guess this isn’t it.
      Maybe it’s that they don’t make a general practice of raping Palestinian women, children, or men. They certainly threaten it, and if they never actually do it, the threats wouldn’t carry much weight, so I assume they do it from time to time.

  6. Keith
    October 29, 2016, 4:36 pm

    Headlines read: “ZIONIST BIGWIG GRABS KOSHER SEX KITTEN!”

    Take a look at Danielle Berrin’s photo. Does the picture seek to emphasize her journalistic professionalism? Let us be honest here, Ms. Berrin is emphasizing her considerable sex appeal to promote her career. This story will help to do that. If it tarnishes Ari Shavit, well and good, but let us not be naive about Danielle Berrin using her sex appeal to influence men. Is it professional for a woman to strive to look like a femme fatale?

    • echinococcus
      October 29, 2016, 5:09 pm

      Whoa there! Is looking good a crime, now?

      I agree that every time I encounter a super-good looking Zionist woman I feel it’s an injustice, but we shouldn’t let that kind of reaction run away in public, you know. It cuts both ways and in no time they’ll issue a burqa fatwa to the good-looking ones in our camp, and were are you stranded then?

      At any rate, your message could also be read –by the ill-willed only, natch– as the usual macho pretext excusing the aggressor (as detailed by Danaa, post below or above) by the exaggerated comeliness of his victim. Not too good, that. Not even about Zionists. No one deserves that.

      • Keith
        October 29, 2016, 8:27 pm

        ECHINOCOCCUS- “Whoa there! Is looking good a crime, now?”

        Of course not, however, you seem to be missing my point. No nonsense professional competence is hardly the image she is projecting, is it? And yes, her femme fatale image does increase the odds of something like this happening. But also, I sense at least a little opportunism in her “warning” to other women, some welcome publicity to showcase her sexy image. Furthermore, when someone like Danielle Berrin emphasizes her sex appeal, what message does that send to other women about what to emphasize to succeed? Finally, she is, in effect, helping to create an environment which she now complains about. Surely, sex kitten reporters don’t advance the cause of women in journalism. Compare her image to Julia Ioffe, another very attractive woman who, nonetheless, conveys a much more professional image. Julia Ioffe has other problems, but selling herself as a femme fatale isn’t one of them.

        ECHINOCOCCUS- “I was just discussing Keith’s accusation, after paring away the fat irrelevant to a discussion of assault.”

        What accusation? I gave my opinion that Berrin is promoting her sex appeal at least as much as her reporting skills. And you find that irrelevant in regards to an article she wrote regarding unwanted advances? And while it doesn’t excuse Ari Shavit’s behavior, I certainly feel that “professional” women who contribute to a sex-up environment certainly contribute to the overall problem.

      • echinococcus
        October 29, 2016, 10:55 pm

        Come on, Keith, that “professional” standard is certainly not common practice in the mainstream media, TV, and it doesn’t seem to be common practice in Zionist publications.Compare Abby Martin interviews to any Fox or CNN chick. Everybody knows that and there is no way an interviewed celebrity wouldn’t know he’s being baited and he’s supposed to behave.

        In fact, I don’t know if I wrote it already, no one can invoke dress and behavior even madams and sex workers who do dress and behave professional. That’s how it goes with the charge of assault –even for “we’re in Europe” Mid-Easterners.

        So the only relevant thing is: was he stupid enough, or not. If not, but the interviewer is fabulating, too bad, he misbehaved in misjudging because everybody knows which side will be heard. Always keep a witness handy. Case closed.

      • Keith
        October 30, 2016, 6:02 pm

        ECHINOCOCCUS- ” I don’t see the Fox News ladies or some others looking very different.”

        I don’t watch the “Fox News ladies,” hence, cannot comment on their appearance. If, as you say, they project a comparable femme fatale image then you have unwittingly made my point. What did I say?

        “Furthermore, when someone like Danielle Berrin emphasizes her sex appeal, what message does that send to other women about what to emphasize to succeed? Finally, she is, in effect, helping to create an environment which she now complains about. Surely, sex kitten reporters don’t advance the cause of women in journalism.”

        My point being that Danielle Berrin is a willfull participant in the media overemphasis on sex. I have already made clear that I am not excusing Ari Shavit’s behavior, I am critiquing Berrin’s use of sex to promote her career. This is not just a case of someone looking good, this is a case of someone projecting the image of a seductress. As such, she is sending a message to both men and women as to what women in journalism need to do. Equating female journalists with glamorous talking heads is part of the problem. My position is based upon rock solid feminism, real feminism not imperial feminism.

        The original impetus for my comment was simply the jarring contrast between Berrin’s verbal depiction of herself as a naive waif and her publicity photo which tells a different tale. Some commenters seem to feel that her photo does not emphasize her sensuality. Really? Others have misrepresented my comments as a defense of Shavit. Not at all. I do say, however, that sexism and misogyny are strongly influenced by the imagery normalized in the political economy, in particular the image of women as essentially sexual and seductive. Professional men project no such image. Simply compare the male talking heads with the female talking heads. As long as women are portrayed as such, or portray themselves as such, this contributes to the problem.

      • echinococcus
        October 30, 2016, 8:46 pm

        Keith,

        One man’s Snow White is another’s femme fatale. One-size-fit-all much?
        Also, we aren’t from the same litter. I don’t get upset about “the media overemphasis on sex”, I definitely enjoy it, even though I don’t remember having laid hands on anyone, no matter how much come-hither she had. Also, I don’t see what right you or anyone has to prescribe any other person’s image preference. All I ask is competence on the job.

        Also, I don’t have any use about “rock solid feminism, real feminism or imperial feminism” –leave that kind of gobbledygook to the liberal crowd. As long as they don’t tread on other people’s huevos or ovaries and as long as equality is scrupulously respected.

        Only thing to know, who died and appointed you or me Puritan-Liberal or Saudi or any other kind of lifestyle police?

        Two: there is no excuse at all, and look up “none at all”, to be invoked for overstepping the bounds of civilized informed consent. Or even suggesting that anyone’s interpretation of another’s appearance may ever be an excuse. And that’s exactly what you have been doing, under the excuse of your “feminist” viewpoint.

      • CigarGod
        October 30, 2016, 8:47 pm

        RoHa and Annie,
        I meant Body English…but it is more or less the same as BL.
        I just like BE better in this case because I think she uses her body, looks, charm, in the way a pool player uses his stick against the ball. Hitting Ari in different spots, at different power to create curve, spin, throw, etc.
        I think she is a hustler…and I mean that in the billiards sense, not the street sense…but I think there could be a little cross-pollination, too;-)

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2016, 1:23 pm

        “She walks in beauty, like the night, single file, eyes front, and no hanky-panky!”

      • RoHa
        November 1, 2016, 9:21 pm

        Thanks, Cigar God. Another obscure American idiom becomes clear.

    • Annie Robbins
      October 29, 2016, 6:15 pm

      Is looking good a crime, now?

      is that all you see? her “looking good”?

      keith, if you think this photo is emphasizing her sex kitten appeal, check out the flirt factor on her update (which was originally on her initial complaint btw, it’s since been edited:

      http://www.jewishjournal.com/danielle_berrin/article/danielle_berrin_my_response_to_ari_shavits_apology

      either way it’s no excuse, looking sexy (or flirty) in a photograph is still not (ever) a license to assault no matter how much one (ie shavit) could just swear she really wants it.

      the jewish journal uses this photo to promote her. imho, it’s unprofessional:

      • echinococcus
        October 29, 2016, 6:43 pm

        Annie,

        Are you replying to Keith, me, or both?
        Your question to me, re mine (“Is looking good a crime, now?”) is:

        is that all you see? her “looking good”?

        Keith said:

        Ms. Berrin is emphasizing her considerable sex appeal to promote her career

        I was just discussing Keith’s accusation, after paring away the fat irrelevant to a discussion of assault.

        Also “unprofessional” is very relative. Depends on exactly what the profession in question entails. Still totally irrelevant to a discussion of assault. Even professional appearance and conduct in a sex worker is irrelevant to a discussion of assault, as confirmed by divers courts, assault being assault.

      • CigarGod
        October 29, 2016, 8:58 pm

        Well, the guy may have been drunk and way over the line. But,that “professional” photo with her come hither look and her tossled lioness mane looks like she is using her sex appeal to get my attention.

        I suspect her words, looks and body english would have encouraged anyone to make a pass. Some folks cultivate that as a tool to get what they want. Hell, our intelligence services teach it.

        I don’t believe I’ll accept her version of the story that she was a completely innocent bystander.

      • RoHa
        October 30, 2016, 1:52 am

        Could you please explain what “body english” means?

      • Annie Robbins
        October 30, 2016, 2:05 pm

        probably meant body language

      • Annie Robbins
        October 30, 2016, 3:50 am

        Annie,

        Are you replying to Keith, me, or both?

        i was multi tasking. the response to your question was directed at you. then i cut to keith.

        if ms berrin was a younger girl/woman, say 12-22, i could excuse her for being naive. but she’s not. she’s 34 and she’s not promoting herself as a screen actress/performer, these are the photo the jewish journal uses on her articles. and the one she uses on her twitter feed https://twitter.com/hollywoodjew the one i posted w/dennis ross above is the one originally used in her initial reference to shavit (now edited out) and in her followup. as a journalist. this doesn’t mean i think she showed up at the interview w/this look or demeanor — what i mean is that, because of her promotional look, this is what he may have anticipated.

        believe it or not i have photos of myself at a younger age to rival those of ms berrin’s but i don’t post them on the internet because i am not promoting myself as a tease, i want to be taken seriously. i’ve watched videos of her on panels speaking and it’s not her persona, but these photos are provocative and i’m sure she knows that. they (jewish journal) and herself, they are promoting her as a provocateur and a tease.

        and in her article of melanie trump, she makes a point of going after her image, she directs the reader to scrutinize her image “There was Melania in a white robe, working with her “glam team” of stylists…. Here she was, head to toe in white, posing … There she was, relaxing at “#home #NYC” on a Thursday night…“. so, it’s fair game scrutinizing hers.

        Anyway, not our job to defend a Zionist, especially if also an @$$-*

        yet daniella berrin is a zionist and you’re defending her. as a matter of principle he shouldn’t have treated her that way, no man should treat any woman that way if she shows signs of resistance (which is often a polite, yet challenging, way of expressing [generally complete and utter] revulsion). and, she should clean up her professional act unless she wants attention placed on her image. just read the men oozing over her in the comment section: http://www.jewishjournal.com/hollywoodjew/item/about

        she’s a good writer, the jewish journal doesn’t need to pimp her out. she’s a smart woman and attractive. she would be attractive just playing it straight so why doesn’t she? it’s a fair question especially considering her focus on melanie trump’s image, it makes berrin’s public persona fair game.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 30, 2016, 4:11 am

        I was just discussing Keith’s accusation, after paring away the fat irrelevant to a discussion of assault.

        the “accusation” which you think is “the fat irrelevant” to the discussion of assault:

        Let us be honest here, Ms. Berrin is emphasizing her considerable sex appeal to promote her career.

        her femme fatale image does increase the odds of something like this happening.

        clearly you have no daughters. clearly you were never a daughter yourself. clearly, as an adolescent, you were never warned by your father about “mixed messages” and the way men think. when discussing sexual assault, none of this is “fat irrelevant”.

        you didn’t answer my question. is that all you see, her “looking good”? because i see her expression of flirtation and allure. very similar to the expression i would reserve for a lover and not the general public. unless i wanted the general public to perceive me in a certain way, unless i wanted to promote that aspect of my being.

        but then, she is “hollywood jew”. what do i know.

      • echinococcus
        October 30, 2016, 5:15 am

        Annie,

        I thought I had already cleared the misunderstanding –so I’ll try to say the same things differently.
        All you say on this person’s probable attitude, intentions, etc. is correct.

        It is, though, as you and Keith also agree, not relevant in any way to a case of assault, ie physical contact without assent (or, in the US, an alleged contact without assent.) Attitude, friendliness, appearance, grooming and dress remain irrelevant, even in the case of sex workers.

        Also, she is not the only journalist who presents like some high-class model; I don’t see the Fox News ladies or some others looking very different. In fact, it seems almost to be the rule with outlets that make a specialty of recruiting good-looking gals, some of them able propagandists, some not.

        Personal note where we may diverge: it doesn’t disturb me in the least, it’s always nice to have eye candy and I am sure there is some purpose to it, as many of them seem qualified, intelligent and able, generally as yellow journalists (but rarely, alas, politically reliable ones.)

        It’s just that I am looking at it from the Shavit angle; he has no excuse even if he hadn’t touched her in the case of complaint –that’s how it is in the US, period. And even if it’s ridiculous the way we here make a professional case out of of a private penal event, it’s nice to see a genocidal βασταρδ get a kick in the bottom. I hate Shavit. A bit like being happy that Al Capone got nabbed, even if it was for minor tax evasion. She is unimportant except as the instrument, so all other aspects except the assault are irrelevant. Thank you.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 30, 2016, 6:30 am

        She is unimportant except as the instrument

        interesting

      • Mooser
        October 30, 2016, 12:15 pm

        (“Is looking good a crime, now?)

        “You’re out on the street,
        Lookin’ good!
        And baby, deep down in your heart,
        You know it ain’t right!”

      • Mooser
        October 30, 2016, 12:58 pm

        ” And even if it’s ridiculous the way we here make a professional case out of of a private penal event”

        No pun intended, I assume.

      • echinococcus
        October 30, 2016, 1:49 pm

        Moozer,
        Vat iz “poon”?

      • echinococcus
        October 30, 2016, 10:03 pm

        Roha and Annie,

        Body English is definitely different than body German, body Italian or body Yiddish.
        I have no idea how body Hebrew looks, though.

      • RoHa
        October 30, 2016, 10:28 pm

        Thanks, Annie. I found that in the OED later. I’m glad to see that my comments are finally getting through. It looked as though they were lost, but it seems they were simply greatly delayed.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 31, 2016, 1:20 am

        don’t know what “OED” means. they were not merely “greatly delayed” they went automatically to trash — like most of them.

      • RoHa
        October 31, 2016, 1:46 am

        “don’t know what “OED” means”

        GASP!

        http://www.oed.com

      • oldgeezer
        October 31, 2016, 7:48 am

        @Annie
        Oxford English Dictionary. OED.

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2016, 1:38 pm

        Am I the only one who is concerned because Mr. Shavit might be drinking more than is good for him?

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2016, 1:53 pm

        Moozer, Vat iz “poon”?

        Oh, sorry. The song was written by Jerry Ragovoy and Bert Berns and originally recorded by Erma Franklin in 1967.

      • echinococcus
        October 31, 2016, 2:52 pm

        Mooser,

        Thanks for the song. Always liked it, in small doses.
        I was saying, one can’t intend any pun as long as one doesn’t make one –no?

      • Annie Robbins
        November 2, 2016, 9:21 pm

        re OED, thanks oldgeezer.

        Annie,

        I thought I had already cleared the misunderstanding

        the only person with a misunderstanding is you echi.

        not relevant in any way to a case of assault

        well had i said it was relevant to the “case of assault” you might have a point, but since i didn’t it sounds like you’re just endlessly repeating yourself.

        i can discuss whatever i want to discuss. if ms berrin chooses to present herself as provocative tease, an image promoted by the jewish journal, i can go after her image just like ms berrin went after melanie trumps image. it’s fair game. just because you think “it’s always nice to have eye candy” doesn’t mean i have to think women promoting themselves as flirts is professional — unless it’s part of the job.

        you think you’re looking at it from “the Shavit angle” whereas i think i have a much clearer understanding of what shavit was thinking and anticipating. it doesn’t excuse his actions — ever.

      • echinococcus
        November 3, 2016, 2:39 am

        Annie,

        Won’t make it into an endless back-and-forth. Only, it is very probable that the ladies whose unprofessional appearance incurred your and Keith’s disapproval very probably consider that their appearance is part of their journalism job.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 4, 2016, 1:19 am

        the ladies … very probably consider that their appearance is part of their journalism job.

        which appearance might that be? according to you the “looking good” appearance or the flirtatious tease appearance i’ve been referencing. do tell.

      • Mooser
        November 3, 2016, 3:48 pm

        “it doesn’t excuse his actions”

        You would think that a guy being interviewed in a hotel lobby could keep a civil tongue in his own mouth.

        Oh well, he’ll get what’s coming to him.

      • echinococcus
        November 4, 2016, 11:23 am

        Annie,

        Who am I to decide what is “professional”? It’s up to the practitioners themselves, who should know better than I do what’s needed for the kind of “journalism” they are doing, anyway. In fact, considering the disastrous content, it’s natural to expect the public to watch spectator sports or Miss America pageants rather than politics.
        So the laws of capitalism dictate that political journalists compete with sexy tease shows or ball games.
        What can be worth watching in a propaganda session interviewing a Shavit or a still-unjailed Dennis Ross? If I had a TV the first thing would be to turn off the sound, and the second to only look at the interviewer lady provided there’s anything to show.

    • Kathleen
      October 29, 2016, 8:40 pm

      I am partially with you Keith… clearly intentional and unprofessional. Yet not an excuse for Shavit’s

    • jd65
      October 29, 2016, 10:43 pm

      Keith writes:

      “Take a look at Danielle Berrin’s photo… let us not be naive about Danielle Berrin using her sex appeal to influence men. Is it professional for a woman to strive to look like a femme fatale?

      Holy hell, Keith. There’s really no need to parse out the problems w/ what you’ve written here in too much detail. In this context of a woman having been sexually harassed, w/ the accused having copped to it, you pointing out how good looking she is (without even mentioning the harassment in the post at all, aside from an unfunny joke headline) and that she is possibly using her attractiveness to further her career, is akin to pointing out that a woman was wearing a “hot” sweater while she was being raped. And, no, I don’t think that’s a bad analogy. What the hell were you thinking, man?

      My suggestion: If you ask real nice, maybe Annie will delete that post for you (I wouldn’t, but Annie’s a kinder soul than me). However, save your post on your hard drive and maybe you can use it when there’s a discussion about journalistic ethics…

      (The above was written before your 2nd post in this thread. Had some computer issues…)

      …And yes, her femme fatale image does increase the odds of something like this happening…

      There you have it. Wow dude. That’s completely messed up.

      • Keith
        October 30, 2016, 6:12 pm

        JD65- “… is akin to pointing out that a woman was wearing a “hot” sweater while she was being raped.”

        No it is not.

        JD65- “And, no, I don’t think that’s a bad analogy.”

        I do. Feel better after your little temper tantrum?

      • jd65
        October 30, 2016, 7:39 pm

        I do. Feel better after your little temper tantrum?

        If it makes you feel better to call my post a “temper tantrum,” then by all means that’s what you should do. But no, I don’t feel better. Not that I felt particularly bad to begin with. What would absolutely make me feel better would be for people to never again blame the victim for being abused. Whether we’re talking about women (or men) being sexually harassed/assaulted, or Palestinians being abused/killed/detained/etc. Say what you will, and label my posts w/ whatever derogatory term you like. It’s an open forum. But in the context of an article about a woman being sexually harassed, you immediately passed go and went directly to blaming the victim (what did her head shot look like, she’s using her looks to get ahead, etc.), instead of getting the actual subject of the article. I guess for you, the subject was her appearance and not her having been sexually harassed. Thats what happened and you can deflect all you like to another topic (reporter/journalistic ethics). However legitimate your points on that other topic may be (I think they are absolutely legit), the fact that you went there immediately, giving that topic primacy instead of the subject of her being harassed (the topic of the above article), is a serious tell in my book. What a drag, man.

        But I guess this is just another tantrum to you. Oh well. Whaddayagonnado…

      • jd65
        October 30, 2016, 7:44 pm

        I do. Feel better after your little temper tantrum?

        If it makes you feel better to call my post a “temper tantrum,” then by all means that’s what you should do. But no, I don’t feel better. Not that I felt particularly bad to begin with. What would absolutely make me feel better would be for people to never again blame the victim for being abused. Whether we’re talking about women (or men) being sexually harassed/assaulted, or Palestinians being abused/killed/detained/etc. Say what you will, and label my posts w/ whatever derogatory term you like. It’s an open forum. But in the context of an article about a woman being sexually harassed, you immediately passed go and went directly to blaming the victim (what did her head shot look like, she’s using her looks to get ahead, etc.), instead of getting to the actual subject of the article. I guess for you, the subject was her appearance and not her having been sexually harassed. Thats what happened and you can deflect all you like to another topic (reporter/journalistic ethics). However legitimate your points on that other topic may be (I think they are absolutely legit), the fact that you went there immediately, giving that topic primacy instead of the subject of her being harassed (the topic of the above article), is a serious tell in my book. What a drag, man.

        But I guess this is just another tantrum to you. Oh well. Whaddayagonnado…

      • Sibiriak
        October 30, 2016, 10:37 pm

        jd65: …you immediately passed go and went directly to blaming the victim
        ———–

        I don’t see that.

        Keith writes:

        My point being that Danielle Berrin is a willfull participant in the media overemphasis on sex. I have already made clear that I am not excusing Ari Shavit’s behavior, I am critiquing Berrin’s use of sex to promote her career. This is not just a case of someone looking good, this is a case of someone projecting the image of a seductress. As such, she is sending a message to both men and women as to what women in journalism need to do. Equating female journalists with glamorous talking heads is part of the problem. My position is based upon rock solid feminism, real feminism not imperial feminism. [emphasis added]

        I agree with that entirely.

        Where exactly do you disagree?

      • jd65
        October 31, 2016, 12:25 am

        Hey Sibiriak:

        jd65: …you immediately passed go and went directly to blaming the victim
        ———–

        I don’t see that.

        Keith writes:

        My point being that Danielle Berrin is a willfull participant in the media overemphasis on sex. I have already made clear that I am not excusing Ari Shavit’s behavior, I am critiquing Berrin’s use of sex to promote her career. This is not just a case of someone looking good, this is a case of someone projecting the image of a seductress. As such, she is sending a message to both men and women as to what women in journalism need to do. Equating female journalists with glamorous talking heads is part of the problem. My position is based upon rock solid feminism, real feminism not imperial feminism. [emphasis added]

        I agree with that entirely.

        Where exactly do you disagree?

        Maybe “you don’t see that” because the post you used there was not his initial post under this article. His first post was this:

        Headlines read: “ZIONIST BIGWIG GRABS KOSHER SEX KITTEN!”

        Take a look at Danielle Berrin’s photo. Does the picture seek to emphasize her journalistic professionalism? Let us be honest here, Ms. Berrin is emphasizing her considerable sex appeal to promote her career. This story will help to do that. If it tarnishes Ari Shavit, well and good, but let us not be naive about Danielle Berrin using her sex appeal to influence men. Is it professional for a woman to strive to look like a femme fatale?

        I guess you missed that? So maybe you also missed this:

        …And yes, her femme fatale image does increase the odds of something like this happening…

        The “something like this” being sexual harassment.

        Anyway, I thought I was clear about this, but I guess I wasn’t. I don’t have a problem w/ discussing whether or not Berrin may be intentionally using her sex appeal to further her career or that the head-shot that’s being used for her may be inappropriate, etc. That’s all fine to discuss, IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT.

        This article above, that we’re supposedly commenting on, is about a woman who was sexually harassed and the person she accused has copped to it. If the first thing you think to write about this article is her abusing her sex appeal to further her career, I think that’s messed up, totally inappropriate, rude, and maybe sexist.

        Yes, journalistic integrity is an important issue. Yes the “Foxification” of female news anchors is a problem. But so is Global Warming. That should not be one’s emphasis when starting to talk about this incident. If people here disagree w/ that and think it’s appropriate to respond to this article first w/ that stuff about women not emphasizing their sex appeal in journalism, then we have very different attitudes on what is a decent response to the information in this article.

        Since we’re here at MW, the analogy seems appropriate and obvious: Let’s imagine an article here about, say, the events on the Mavi Marmara. Does one read about the events and say, “Holy sh*t! Israel’s IDF killed a bunch of people. That’s disgusting and criminal.” Or is your initial reaction to say, “Damn, those peace activists shoulda known better. That’s a dangerous neighborhood and shit happens all the time when you go in there like that. I guess they knew they’d get a lot of publicity.” Again, you may think that’s a bad analogy (I know Keith thinks it is…). I don’t. It’s the same thing, just on a smaller scale.

      • jd65
        October 31, 2016, 12:26 am

        Test.

      • jd65
        October 31, 2016, 12:48 am

        Hey Sibiriak:

        jd65: …you immediately passed go and went directly to blaming the victim
        ———–

        I don’t see that.

        Keith writes:

        My point being that Danielle Berrin is a willfull participant in the media overemphasis on sex. I have already made clear that I am not excusing Ari Shavit’s behavior, I am critiquing Berrin’s use of sex to promote her career. This is not just a case of someone looking good, this is a case of someone projecting the image of a seductress. As such, she is sending a message to both men and women as to what women in journalism need to do. Equating female journalists with glamorous talking heads is part of the problem. My position is based upon rock solid feminism, real feminism not imperial feminism. [emphasis added]

        I agree with that entirely.

        Where exactly do you disagree?

        Maybe “you don’t see that” because the post you used there was not his initial post under this article. His first post was this:

        Headlines read: “ZIONIST BIGWIG GRABS KOSHER SEX KITTEN!”

        Take a look at Danielle Berrin’s photo. Does the picture seek to emphasize her journalistic professionalism? Let us be honest here, Ms. Berrin is emphasizing her considerable sex appeal to promote her career. This story will help to do that. If it tarnishes Ari Shavit, well and good, but let us not be naive about Danielle Berrin using her sex appeal to influence men. Is it professional for a woman to strive to look like a femme fatale?

        I guess you missed that? So maybe you also missed this:

        …And yes, her femme fatale image does increase the odds of something like this happening…

        The “something like this” being sexual harassment.

        Anyway, I thought I was clear about this, but I guess I wasn’t. I don’t have a problem w/ discussing whether or not Berrin may be intentionally using her sex appeal to further her career or that the head-shot that’s being used for her may be inappropriate, etc. That’s all fine to discuss, IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT.

        This article above, that we’re supposedly commenting on, is about a woman who was sexually harassed and the person she accused has copped to it. If the first thing you think to write about this article is her abusing her sex appeal to further her career, I think that’s messed up, totally inappropriate, rude, and maybe sexist.

        Yes, journalistic integrity is an important issue. Yes the “Foxification” of female news anchors is a problem. But so is Global Warming. That should not be one’s emphasis when starting to talk about this incident. If people here disagree w/ that and think it’s appropriate to respond to this article first w/ that stuff about women not emphasizing their sex appeal in journalism, then we have very different attitudes on what is a decent response to the information in this article.

        Since we’re here at MW, the analogy seems appropriate and obvious: Let’s imagine an article here about, say, the events on the Mavi Marmara. Does one read about the events and say, “Holy sh*t! Israel’s IDF killed a bunch of people. That’s disgusting and criminal.” Or is your initial reaction to say, “Damn, those peace activists shoulda known better. That’s a dangerous neighborhood and shit happens all the time when you go in there like that. I guess they knew they’d get a lot of publicity.” Again, you may think that’s a bad analogy (I know Keith thinks it is…). I don’t. It’s the same thing, just on a smaller scale.

        My guess si we may heading for one of those useless, un-fun infinite loops w/ this topic. If I see that that’s the case, I’ll be duckin’ out…

      • echinococcus
        October 31, 2016, 2:48 am

        JD65,

        “Bad analogy”? Not on your life. It explained the concept of priority, hit exactly where it hurt and reproduced the real-life thing. You should be a high school teacher –if you weren’t one already, that is, and didn’t have better things to do.

      • Keith
        October 31, 2016, 2:05 pm

        JD65- “Again, you may think that’s a bad analogy (I know Keith thinks it is…).”

        Yes, I do think it is a bad analogy. But if bad analogies and strawmen is all you have, I guess you have to go with what you got. You should be aware, however, that there may be those who will be deeply offended by you making any comparison to the events on the Mavi Marmara with the incident involving Danielle Berrin and Ari Shavit.

        JD65- ” That’s all fine to discuss, IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT.”

        I think it is highly appropriate to discuss this in this context. Please bear in mind the way the story was written. This is not a tale of a system where a good-looking women feels the need to use her sex appeal to get a late night interview with all that implies. No, she presents herself as a naive waif who continues to go along in spite of numerous red flags. When Shavit says that he wants to defer the interview to talk about her, how easy it would have been to remind him that she came for an interview, not to discuss her personal life. Case closed. She may have lost the interview, who knows for sure. And while she eventually did lose the interview, she did get her story, didn’t she? It took two years and Donald Trump to provide the excuse to run it, but run it she did. Advanced her career. Kept the same image. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! No rape. No murder at sea. Berrin was much more aware of what was going on and much more in control of the situation than her story implies. And no, I am not excusing Shavit’s conduct, rather I am trying to look at the big picture to try and put his conduct in context. And yes, Danielle Berrin is a willing part of that big picture. And your myopic focus on just one aspect of the situation does you no credit. Neither does your overreaction where my comments are compared to making excuses for Israeli terror on the high seas. Last I heard, Danielle Berrin was alive and well and profiting nicely from her experience, still part of the big picture which you choose to ignore.

    • Mooser
      October 30, 2016, 12:06 pm

      “Is it professional for a woman to strive to look like a femme fatale?”

      Elmer Fudd: “Oh , Brunhilde, you’re so wovely!”
      Bugs Bunny: “Yes I know it, I can’t help it.”

      Maybe she can’t help it. You can sure read a lot into a head-shot, “Keith”. What did the great Rue Lalenska say? “Don’t hate me because I am beautiful?”

      • Keith
        October 30, 2016, 6:19 pm

        MOOSER- “You can sure read a lot into a head-shot, “Keith”.

        I see a femme fatale wannabe and you see Snow White. Go figure.

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2016, 12:51 pm

        “I see a femme fatale wannabe and you see Snow White. Go figure.”

        For your information, sir, since I am married, I do not raise my eyes above the ankles of strange woman not my wife. You may find that view somewhat inhibited,(I will forego speculating on the reasons that might be) but for a born talocruralphile like me it’s not so bad.

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2016, 1:15 pm

        And if I make it through the summer without causing a scandal, when almost all the women wear sandals,, Mr, Shavit should be able to keep his hands to himself.

  7. Stogumber
    October 29, 2016, 6:47 pm

    Every Puritanism is slightly comical from an outsider’s sight. And American “sexual assaults” are definitely a laughing matter.

    What exactly should the poor guy have done? Never proposing to a woman at all? Or only offering her to become his wife, but never offering her to become his mistress? Or offering her to become his mistress, but only without pregnancy?

    Obviously someone (mostly the man) must take the risk of proposing, so that the other side (mostly the woman) has a chance to turn him down. And no, he needs not to know this before.

    I suppose that one could draw a reasonable line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. But American Puritans with their confused ideas about “sexual assault” can’t.

    • echinococcus
      October 29, 2016, 8:46 pm

      The “poor guy”, as you say, “could draw a reasonable line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour” and make sure not to touch before express consent, for example. Nothing Puritan there, so far.

      He would in any case carry the responsibility of misjudging the other party’s reaction, including false accusations. And, if he had misjudged, could repeat, with
      John de Stogumber:
      “I didn’t know what I was doing. I am a hotheaded fool, and I shall be damned to eternity for it.”

      That one sure was an early Puritan.
      Anyway, not our job to defend a Zionist, especially if also an @$$-*

  8. Marnie
    October 30, 2016, 12:28 am

    If Ms. Berrin wasn’t as ‘telegenically’ attractive, would this have gotten so much attention? A less attractive woman would be humiliated by the real dogs of the media for not being cute enough so of course, the story can’t be true.

    We just can’t catch a break. There’s always something wrong with us. We’re either too old, young, smart, stupid, light, dark, ball-busting bitches, nags, thin, fat, cold or dogs.

    Don’t excuse shavit’s behavior because she was such a beauty that he couldn’t help himself. Really? I have a hard time believing this is shavit’s first rodeo. His ‘apology’ sounds like it’s had practice. Ms. Berrin didn’t ask or allow shavit to touch, grope, kiss or proposition her and since he did without her premission, it’s called a crime.

    Maybe he could interest playboy or penthouse or even jugs to get his focus off sex in the bathrooms unless he’d like to be a contributor to playboy or penthouse.

  9. Talkback
    October 30, 2016, 4:12 am

    ““But Ari Shavit has yet to apologize for what he actually did; he did not apologize for committing sexual assault,” Berrin said. ”

    Like with Israel Shavit possibly thinks that “Shavit has a right to live, and if Shavit is to live he cannot resolve the Berrin issue”.

    • jd65
      October 30, 2016, 11:45 am

      Like with Israel Shavit possibly thinks that “Shavit has a right to live, and if Shavit is to live he cannot resolve the Berrin issue”.

      The politically incorrect wannabe comic in me can think another Israel/Palestine analogy to this Berrin/Shavit “affair,” like the one you’ve made. I feel I dare not make it here, seeing as my mock Shavit title has already not gone over too well here. Quit while I’m behind I guess…

  10. oldgeezer
    October 30, 2016, 10:09 am

    Hmm test test.

    Not sure what’s going on but none of the reply links are active for me. I posted words to the following effect last night but they never appeared so I will retry that.

    I am a bit shocked by the number of comments which suggest she was so ehow asking for it. I am a total loss for a rebuttal but don’t think anything justifies assault.

    • jd65
      October 30, 2016, 2:23 pm

      Yup. I’ve had lots of technical posting issues last 24-48 hours as well. And believe it or not, just now I was able to see the “edit” link/option under a very recent post from Annie. I clicked on it to see what would happen, and got a “failed” page. However, what if I had not gotten a “failed” page?

      This is all old news as folks who have been posting here for years know that the “techie” side of this board is… lacking. Whatever, I guess. Essentially, I no longer bring it to anyone’s attention when there are technical problems w/ posting here ‘cuz you know it’s just gonna keep happening.

      Doesn’t make it ok, or any less frustrating. But it does come w/ the dinner…

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2016, 12:55 pm

        ” I was able to see the “edit” link/option under a very recent post from Annie.”

        That happened to me, too! Twice. The second time I said “why not?” and edited Annie’s post in my favor.

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2016, 1:29 pm

        “This is all old news as folks who have been posting here for years know that the “techie” side of this board is… lacking”

        Maybe the comment section should be Disqus-supported, and the site hooked up with Google Ads, too?

  11. jon s
    October 30, 2016, 10:53 am

    Update: a second woman has come forward with an account of inappropriate behaviour on Mr. Shavit’s part. He has therefore resigned from Ha’aretz and Channel 10.

    • echinococcus
      October 30, 2016, 5:16 pm

      Look at what John S writes: Shavit resigns from his assignments because of “inappropriate behavior” (read groping –nothing professional.)

      One can really say that the massive American Zionist component in the Zionist invasion of Palestine has produced the most sulfurous combination of Puritan and Jewish Orthodox obscurantism.
      There used to be a limit between private and public even in the Zionist entity. No longer, now that the US-bred fanatics are in command.

    • Danaa
      October 31, 2016, 12:31 am

      jon s – that resignation! the crime in israel is to be caught, as you would know, since you were there for a time, and heard them talk amongst themselves, right? getting caught is very very bad, even, and especially for the powerful and/or influential. Rumors about Shavit’s bad behavior (meaning sleaze-ball, or jack-ass, or whatever the word is in English) have been circulating for some time. To violate the dignity of a pretty jewish American lady journalist would therefore be considered fool-hardy. IT opens the dam to other accusers in israel, who didn’t dare or care to come forward before.

      In an israeli context Shavit was shown to be both a jerk and an idiot. A deadly combination, just like a certain president. Ergo, a resignation is in order, followed by public shaming, and possibly worse.

      • jon s
        November 6, 2016, 4:33 pm

        Danaa, I wasn’t “there for a time”. I live here.

      • Mooser
        November 6, 2016, 6:50 pm

        “Danaa, I wasn’t “there for a time”. I live here.”

        Of course you do, “Jon s”. You live there until it’s time to activate that US passport firmly anchored in your pocket.
        Why make any compromises with the Palestinians? Hey, if you make the place too hot to hold you, or it gives insufficient returns, you’re, as the song says, “leavin’ on a jet Plane, and don’t know when I’ll be back again.”
        What the hell, leave the Mizrahi there to face the consequences. Everybody knows they are the most nationalistic and “anti-Arab”

    • Mooser
      October 31, 2016, 1:08 pm

      “Update: a second woman has come forward with an account of inappropriate behaviour on Mr. Shavit’s part”

      Well, ain’t that a kick in the head!

  12. Mooser
    October 30, 2016, 12:23 pm

    I guess it is finally safe to reveal that when I was very young, I had a huge crush on Brenda Starr.

  13. Citizen
    October 31, 2016, 5:44 am

    Putting “english” on a ball, in pool or billiards, means hitting your strike ball slightly off center to make it spin so it ends up in or near best location for you. Here some history on the usage, along with the phrase “body english.”

    http://www.word-detective.com/2010/03/english-on-a-ball-etc/

  14. WH
    October 31, 2016, 6:39 am

    Without wishing to play down sexual assault in general, it’s a sad reflection on the public discourse about Israel in particular that Shavit is being shamed for this, rather than for consistently defending massacres and ethnic cleansing.

    • Artemis
      October 31, 2016, 10:53 am

      I totally agree.
      Moreover, I don’t visit this website to read about men making unwanted advances. What next?

    • CigarGod
      October 31, 2016, 11:08 am

      Good point.

      • MHughes976
        October 31, 2016, 12:21 pm

        Good point indeed.

  15. Jane Porter
    October 31, 2016, 12:33 pm

    This AIPAC and other organizations who condemned and threw out a serious journalist are
    really ridiculously victorian.
    This lady’s photographs in other times would have been found on the site of an escort agency.
    I have known a lot’s of women journalists, especially the ones specialized in politics who just used their charms to have a good article and didn’t make a fuss at being courted even in a rude way.
    Annie Robbins and Keith fortunately had the good reaction about this lady.
    To deprive students of Ari Shavit lectures in universities is a shame!
    Maybe the truth is that they preferred him not to have exchanges with students in the actual
    problematic tensions in the “jewish world” about Israel/Palestine. So the lady gave them the occasion to manifest their American puritanism.

    • echinococcus
      October 31, 2016, 3:07 pm

      Jane Porter,

      Any injustice committed against that low-life of a Shavit is deserved. No matter if grossly pisse-vinaigre Puritan.

      I suppose that the American Puritanism contagion on the Zionist entity “culture” is a good thing too. They have no business being logical or fair. The faster it decays and starts looking like our disaster, the better.

      As for the journalist hussy, let’s leave her in peace, as long as she doesn’t become influential. After all, it’s up to her to know how she wants to perform her job. Interviewee beware.

      One thing is sure, AIPAC and the other propaganda organs do need Shavit. He is a “progressive”-speaking genocidal puke. They’l now cut him out to appear Holier than Thou and spite their face. They needed him to be in contact with the younger students (not necessarily physically, of course.)

    • Mooser
      November 1, 2016, 3:37 pm

      ” and didn’t make a fuss at being courted”

      “Courted”? We’ve adopted polygamy?

      • echinococcus
        November 1, 2016, 4:29 pm

        Wheresaproblem, Mooser?
        Were the Founding Patriarchs from Dinosaurian times monogamous?

  16. captADKer
    November 1, 2016, 7:28 am

    WHAT EXCEPTIONALLY INSPIRED AND CONTRIBUTED COMMENTARY. SO MUCH MORE INTERESTING THAN THIS BLOG’S MONOTONOUS PROPAL, ANTI SEMITIC DAILY DRIBBLE.
    well done!

  17. Michael Lesher
    November 1, 2016, 11:52 pm

    Allison got to the story before I did… but I did manage to publish this comment on the Times of Israel blogs, pointing out the hypocrisy of American Jewish establishment figures who didn’t object to Shavit’s glorification of macho Israelis expelling Palestinians or killing civilians in Gaza, but are acting shocked because he also groped a Jewish journalist:
    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/surprised-by-shavit-we-should-be-surprised-at-ourselves/

    I was hoping to avoid preaching to the choir by putting it there…

    • Keith
      November 3, 2016, 12:27 pm

      MICHAEL LESHER- “Because if all the pundits and critics who lionized Shavit ever since the publication of his book, My Promised Land, in 2013 … are really surprised by Shavit’s Trumpish antics, they have only themselves to blame.”

      First of all, I thought your article was spot on, and I strongly encourage my fellow Mondoweissers to follow your link and read it. Perhaps your list should include a certain sexy Hollywood “Jewess journalist” (Twitter self-description) who gushed “…I remember how excited I was to interview the author of “My Promised Land,” a book of astonishing insight and self-reflection.”

Leave a Reply