The 'halo effect' shields NGOs from media scrutiny

Article by Naftali Balanson, managing editor of NGO Monitor in The Jerusalem Post

"A familiar scenario: A non-governmental organization (NGO) issues a report on alleged Israeli human rights violations, and it's instantly and automatically newsworthy. The Israeli and foreign media uncritically, even eagerly, promote the NGO's politicized agenda, regardless of the NGO's credibility or the veracity of the allegations.

This "halo effect," whereby the claims of human rights groups are accepted without a modicum of scrutiny, often results in Israel's vilification on the international stage for violating "international humanitarian law" or demonized as an "apartheid state" to be shunned and boycotted. By publishing these stories, the media reinforces the halo effect and becomes partner to the damage done.

The typical article on Israeli "violations" has a number of common denominators. Beyond the ubiquitous headline championing a human rights NGO and condemning Israel, the NGO's "evidence" and sensational accusations are repeated, left unchallenged by the reporter. By dint of its presumed independence and stated lofty goals, the NGO is considered more truthful than the government. The media pits universal human rights against Israel, leaving it to respond on the defensive. This might make for "good" journalism, but does it tell the whole story?

In recent weeks, local, highly political rights groups - funded by the EU and by European governments - have received worldwide coverage for their attacks on Israel. Consider the publicity afforded to Physicians for Human Rights - Israel (PHR-I) when it accused the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) of denying Gazans life-saving health care in Israel unless the patients informed on family and friends. PHR-I's report was published in hundreds of major media outlets, and Israel was portrayed as cruel and inhumane, as opposed to genuinely concerned for the security of its citizens.
.

Yet, despite the importance of this story, did reporters question PHR-I's reliability? Rather, the halo effect shielded it from past mistakes. Three months ago, PHR-I reported that a cancer patient in Gaza died while awaiting a permit to receive treatment in Israel, only to admit days later that the "deceased" was still alive. The patient was attempting to evade a security check.

Even if we give PHR-I the benefit of the doubt, that it was unknowingly misled by the patient's family, surely similar self-serving "evidence" from Palestinians and provided by PHR-I should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism. But it was not."

.

Read the full article here

.

Belgian newspaper Le Soir claims that Israel prefers Western immigrants

Reporting on the latest airlift of 65 Ethiopian Jewish families, Belgian newspaper Le Soir (paper edition of August 7) claims that "there are still tens of thousands of black Jews in Ethiopia, but Israel is not in a hurry to welcome them". Where the paper got such high figures remains a mystery.

Serge Dumont, the author of the article, further claims that Israeli authorities have a preference for Western immigrants, i.e. white immigrants ("les responsables privilégient désormais les immigrants occidentaux"). The journalist does not bother to substantiate this claim either but the implications are clear.

To emphasize the "racist" character of Israeli society, the newspaper goes on to quote a female Ethiopian management student, identified as Imanut B., who is said to have arrived in Israel in 1989 (note the irony she is "a student" and not a "street sweeper"):

"We would be treated much better if we were white and rich. In any case, we wouldn't be accused of spreading AIDS and of being parasites just fit to sweep the streets."

And she adds :

"Maybe white Israelis view us as better than Palestinians, but for them we remain poor negroes who are trying to be civilized."

It is also stated that Ethiopian Jews have not integrated well because they are poorly educated and find it difficult to integrate into Israeli "americanized society". Whatever that means is for anyone to decide, but is in keeping with the whole tone of the article: negative.

In a recent article, Le Soir - whose reporting on Israel is invariably hostile - made light of Barack Obama's positive remarks about Israel putting them down to his need to "court" Jewish American voters.

To find out more about the Falash Mura still living in Egypt:
-Major phase of Ethiopian aliyah ends, but advocates want more
-Bringing Falash Mura impugns the real Ethiopian Jews
-'Last' Falash Mura arrive, group slams gov't for leaving behind thousands of Jews
.

Late film director Youssef Chahine declared that Israel is "built on terrorism"

Praise has been heaped by the media on Youssef Chahine, the Egyptian film director who died on July 27, aged 82. The Guardian gushed:

"Youssef Chahine was the leading voice of the Arab cinema for over half a century – and as prolific, versatile and accomplished as many a more famous western auteur – but his abiding worth, inside Egypt and out, has been in his outspoken expression of the conscience of his country. He took on imperialism and fundamentalism alike, celebrated the liberty of body and soul, and offered himself warts and all as an emblem of his nation. Egypt's modern history is etched in his life's work."

Youssef Chahine, "the conscience of his country", was no innovator in one respect: he shared the rabid anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment of the Arab world and with his films and pronouncements he contributed to its entrenchment. Blaming America and Israel is the unfortunate way the Arab world has devised to rationalise its failures.

In his film on 9/11, Chahine showed a suicide attack in Israel, laying the blame on U.S. foreign policy. The father of the Palestinian terrorist says:

"Israel fools everyone. Bush lets them decide who the terrorists are, but imagine your house or the olive trees your ancestors planted being bulldozed."

So what do you do if your olive trees are bulldozed to prevent terrorist activity you engage in? Simple. If you are a Palestinian, you blow yourself up and in the process kill as many innocent people as possible. Your dad praises you and an acclaimed film director makes a film about you, thus explaining, if not justifying, a major terrorist attack that left 3,000 people dead.

Guysen News quotes Chahine's comments on 9/11:

"Bush had the cheeck to tell who is a terrorist. But who is he to speak? He helps Israel which is a country built on terrorism. The occupation of Palestine is violent and it necessarily triggers resistance."
.

Media critic suing French news outlets, by Paul Lungen

Source: The Canadian Jewish News (via UPJF)
.
"After successfully defending a defamation case brought by one of France’s premier television networks, Philippe Karsenty is going on the offensive.
.
Karsenty, who runs an online media watchdog organization, has launched two suits against some of France's most prominent news outlets, alleging they have libelled him by comparing him to a "nut case."

The first suit names Canal+, a pay TV company owned by Vivendi SA, and alleges the network aired a documentary "depicting me as a manipulative liar. They said I was the same as those who say 9/11 was an inside job."

The second suit charges L’Express, a weekly magazine, with running an article that described him as a "obsessive nut case and manipulative," Karsenty said.

"We defended against the al-Dura lie. Now it’s time to go on the offensive and get the French media to pay the price for supporting an anti-Semitic lie," Karsenty said in a telephone interview from Paris.

Karsenty, a financial consultant who operates Media Ratings (http://www.m-r.fr/), won a historic legal victory in May when a French court dismissed a charge of defamation against him. Karsenty had repeatedly asserted that France 2, which has been dubbed "a flagship and establishment channel," aired a news report in September 2000 that was a hoax and an anti-Semitic lie. The TV report claimed Israeli soldiers shot 12-year-old Mohammad al-Dura while he and his father crouched behind a concrete barrel at the Netzarim junction in Gaza. Karsenty questioned whether al-Dura was shot at all and said the false report had vilified Israel and led to attacks against Jews. Al-Dura, moreover, became an international symbol of Israeli ruthlessness and the boy’s poster was visible behind Daniel Pearl when the American Jewish journalist was murdered by al-Qaeda.

Karsenty was sued by Charles Enderlin, France 2’s Jerusalem correspondent, who broadcast the report based on footage and information supplied by a Palestinian stringer, Talal Abu Rahma. Karsenty lost at trial but was vindicated on appeal when a French court ruled his claims were a legitimate criticism of the network and its reporter. Most revealing was that footage shown in court showed Palestinians at Netzarim faking injuries. U.S. Prof. Richard Landes, who had monitored the case, dubbed the news manipulation, "Pallywood."

Karsenty said the French media have lined up behind Enderlin, who they want to protect as a fellow member of France’s intellectual establishment. A petition has been launched in Le Nouvel Observateur that supports Enderlin and paints him as some sort of victim, Karsenty said. The petition supports Enderlin’s integrity and states, "Seven years. For seven years a despicable campaign of hate has been trying to stain the professional honour of Charles Enderlin. For seven years, there have been those who have tried to present as 'fabricated' and as a 'staged scene' his report that shows how a 12-year-old boy was killed by shots fired from an Israeli position."

Karsenty said supporters of the petition are "personalities who are worried by the fact I was not found guilty. They say there is no right to defame and the justice system is allowing me to defame him. That’s not true. The judge found there was no defamation.""
.
Related:
The Daniel Pearl Standard - a responsible journalism

Not-So-Young 'Youth': French Airman Implicated in Anti-Semitic Attack, by John Rosenthal

The gang: there were three of them (Sekou, Foued and Boubacar), not youngsters as they have been portrayed in the media, but adults closer to 30 than 20: 25, 26 and 27 years old. The victim: a defenseless 17 year old Jewish boy, Rudy Haddad. Ruddy was attacked by the gang with a crutch, and possibly with an iron bar. Another young Jewish victim was set upon in the same area with a machete.

John Rosenthal's analysis in World Politics Review:

"Late last month, a Jewish teenager wearing a yarmulke was brutally beaten in Paris's 19th arrondissement by a gang of what the French media has widely-described as "youngsters": jeunes. As discussed in my earlier WPR report "'Gang Wars' or Anti-Semitic Attacks?," while the Paris District Attorney's office has identified anti-Semitism as an "aggravating" factor in the attack, both the District Attorney's office and the French media have strongly relativized the charge of anti-Semitism by presenting the incident as the outcome of a series of "clashes" between rival "youth gangs": a black and/or Arab gang, on the one hand, and a "Jewish gang," on the other.

Last week, two suspects in the crime were arrested - and, as turns out, the "youngsters" are not so young after all. One of the suspects, identified as "Sekou M." in press reports, is 25 years old. The second, identified as "Foued O.," is 26. The Jewish victim of the attack, known in French press reports as "Rudy H.," is just 17. A third suspect who was arrested in connection with a related assault on the same day in the same neighborhood has been identified as "Boubacar C.," a 27-year-old native of Mali. "Boubacar C." is suspected of having been involved in an attack in which a second Jewish victim was cut on the arm with what has been variously described as a "machete" or (per the daily Libération) a "meat cleaver" (feuille de boucher).

While the age of the suspects comes as a surprise, what is most astonishing, however, is that the principal suspect in the crime, the 26-year-old Foued O., turns out to be a corporal in the French air force. As first reported by the daily Le Parisien, after investigators failed to find Foued O. at his family home in the 19th arrondissement, he was arrested at the air force base in Taverny, north of Paris. The French Ministry of Defense has confirmed that a member of the French armed forces has been arrested in connection with the attack on Rudy H. According to eye-witness accounts of the attack, the most serious blows were struck by an assailant wielding a crutch.

Rudy would be left with multiple skull fractures and broken ribs. Foued O., who at the time of the attack was on medical leave with a sports injury, is alleged to have been the assailant who beat Rudy with the crutch. As discussed in detail in my earlier report, the "gang wars" scenario presented by the Paris District Attorney's office - and unquestioningly repeated by much of the French news media - does not hold up to scrutiny. On closer inspection of the known facts, the incidents leading up to the attack on Rudy H. appear to have been less a matter of "clashes" between rival "gangs" than of one-sided assaults on individual or largely outnumbered Jewish youngsters. According to all the publicly known eye-witness accounts, the Jewish youngsters were unarmed. (The incidents occurred, moreover, on a Saturday: in observance of the Sabbath, it is forbidden for an orthodox Jew like Rudy H. to carry any objects, let alone a weapon.) The assailants, on the other hand, are reported to have wielded, among other things, "iron bars," the "machete" or "meat cleaver," and, of course, Foued O.'s crutch.

The revelation of the hardly tender age of the suspects is just a further element discrediting what has been up to now the standard depiction of the circumstances surrounding the attack - or rather attacks - in the 19th arrondissement. These were men, not "youngsters," and they stand accused of assaulting a teenager nearly 10 years their junior."

What the British media are smoking, Fresno Zionism blog

The same anti-Israeli biais can be found in most European editorial boards - the British media is not the exception, it is the rule.


Article posted @ the FresnoZionism blog


"A recent survey of the British media on the occasion of Israel’s 60th anniversary shows, unsurprisingly, that the British media don’t like Israel very much. This is not a shock to anyone that has ever looked at the BBC website or read the Guardian but there is one particular aspect that I want to discuss:

Eighty-three per cent of articles in all newspapers which took a position on Israel’s stance on peace contained the message that Israel did not seek peace…

Overall, only 6% of articles carried the message that Israel seeks peace. This message was only contained in three articles in The Daily Telegraph, The
Independent and The Sunday Telegraph…

Twenty-six per cent of coverage [on the BBC website] contained the message that Israel is not seeking peace.

A neutral observer on Mars, for example, might have trouble understanding this.

1. After all, Israel was attacked by the Arab nations in 1948, preempted an imminent attack in 1967, and was attacked again in 1973. The 1948 and 1967 wars were declared by Arab leaders to be genocidal in intent. Insofar as Israel initiated hostilities, it was in response to clear acts of war such as the closing of the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping in 1956, and the Katyusha attacks on northern Israel by the PLO in Lebanon in 1982.


2. In 1978 Israel agreed to return the entire Sinai peninsula to Egypt in the interest of peace, giving up a huge strategic advantage and a large amount of natural resources, including oil. In return, she received a 'cold peace' - really just an extended truce.


3. In 1993, Israel signed the Oslo agreement with terrorist Yasser Arafat in the interest of peace. In return, she received several years of escalating terrorism against her population, culminating in Arafat’s rejection of the Clinton-Barak proposals and the murderous second intifada. Israel offered to transfer 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza to the Palestinian authority, give up control of Judaism’s holiest sites in east Jerusalem, etc., all for peace.


4. Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in 2000 in the interest of peace and received in return the Hezbollah buildup which led to the 2006 war.


5. In the interest of peace, Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005, at great cost to uprooted residents - who still have not received just compensation as promised — and to the nation. In return, she received a Hamas terrorist state, thousands of rockets fired on her population, cross-border attacks, and will soon have to fight another war.


6. Israel is presently negotiating with the Palestinian Authority for what may be a ‘do-over’ of the Clinton-Barak proposal, in the face of clear evidence that neither Fatah nor Hamas is prepared to accept the existence of a Jewish state of any size.


7. Most of the Arab nations, as well as the Palestinian Fatah and Hamas movements, have never stopped the continuous barrage of anti-Israel and antisemitic propaganda and incitement in their official media, while the Israeli government always stresses its desire to live in peace with its neighbors.

Considering all this, you would think that the Arabs are the ones who are uninterested in peace, and that Israel has been, over and over, prepared to make great sacrifices for peace - even after they’ve been kicked in the teeth in response.

Yes, you would think this. But you are not smoking the same stuff as the British media."

Israel: Reality and Perception, by Francisco Gomes

"Ruling another nation is neither an ambition nor is it a policy of Israel. Peace is at the core of Jewish tradition and is also at the centre of Israel’s goals as a state."

Francisco Gomes wrote a remarkable and exceptionally well-researched article on Israel - it is well worth reading in full. It appeared in the May edition of The Brit, a monthly newspaper published in Madeira.

"There is little doubt that the perception that people have of the world they live in and of the actors that shape it is influenced by media coverage as well as by the opinion-makers that are chosen by the major news channels to comment the various events that define life on the planet. In other words, the world, as we know it, is not, for the most part, the result of our direct contact with this or that reality, but the outcome of what we hear and see reported in regional, national and international media. This fact must encourage us to think critically about the news reported to us on an almost-constant basis and to question what is reported by journalist and commentators around the world.

At the present time, very few issues have been more debated, analysed, studied, discussed, revised, described, considered, reported on or commented on than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ever since the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence – which we celebrate this month – and the ensuing conflicts between the state of Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinians and Hezbollah, the unstable relation between Arabs and Jews has dominated international news. However, with the exception of some media channels in the United States and Europe, which have consistently thrived to provide their audience with an objective depiction of Israel, the image that is projected to the international arena of that state is a far cry from reality.

It is a well-known fact that the accuracy of any conclusion – regardless of whether it is taken at the international political level or at the local level – is intrinsically associated to the quality of the information on which it is based. So, it is only fair that we take our time to divulge some interesting facts about the history of Israel, the relation between Jews and Arabs and the impacts of the often-miscalled “Israeli occupation” of the Palestinian territories and its people. We feel such information is necessary in order for the general public to gain a more honest understanding of the human, social and political dynamics that shape that region of the world.

Concerning Israeli history, a theme that is often discussed in that of nationhood. In this regard, it is important to note that the notion of a Jewish nationhood was formed at about 1312 BCE, two thousand years before the rise of Islam. In contrast, Arab refugees in Israel only began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern state of Israel.

Likewise, since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, Jews have had dominion over the land they presently occupy for one thousand years, with a continuous presence in the territory for the past three thousand years. Arabs only have had control of Israel twice, namely from 634 until the Crusader Invasion in June 1099 and from 1292 until 1517, when they were displaced by the Turkish Empire. Moreover, for over three thousand years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. It has never been the capital of any Arab entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied the city, they never sought to make it their capital.

Concerning the relation between Jews and Arabs, one of the critical issues that has opposed both identities is that of refugees. On this topic, it is worth remembering that, in 1948, Arab leaders encouraged Arab refugees to leave Israel with the promise of purging the land of Jews. About six hundred thousand left the territory, sixty percent of which never saw an Israeli soldier. In contrast, Jewish refugees were forced to flee Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

Also, Arab refugees were intentionally not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. In fact, out of the one hundred million refugees that have been created by events that occurred since World War II, Arab refugees are the only group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own people’s lands. This fact demonstrates a lack of understanding and thoughtfulness that is uncommon among people who basically share the same historical, cultural, racial, religious and ethnic bonds. In contrast, Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the American state of New Jersey.

Moreover, in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Arabs have been represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians or Arab extremist organisations. These initiated all five wars that have been fought with the state and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won. Despite this situation, the diplomatic position of Israel has evolved and, in recent times, the Israeli government has embraced a diplomatic strategy that implies the establishment of two separate states, one Arab and one Jewish, living side-by-side. This position has not been reciprocated and, to this day, Article 15 of the Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization still calls for the destruction of Israel, or, as it is phrased in the document, “the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.”

Furthermore, despite the much-talked international support for the Israeli cause, global response to the goals and needs of the Jewish people has been, in most cases, dismal. For example, of the one hundred and seventy five resolutions passed by the Security Council of the United Nations before 1990, ninety seven were directed against Israel. In addition, of the six hundred and ninety General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, four hundred and twenty nine were directed against Israel. What’s more, the United Nations was silent while fifty eight Jerusalem synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians during their occupation of the territory, while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives and while they enforced an apartheid-like policy that prevented Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

Concerning the impacts of the “Israeli occupation” of the Palestinian territories, the deep contrast of the Palestinian living conditions before and after Israeli administration clearly suggests that it has been beneficial to the Palestinians living in the territory. For example, during twenty years of Arab rule, Palestinian male life expectancy grew from 42 to 44; during the next twenty years of Israeli administration, Palestinian male life expectancy grew from 44 to 63. Also, during twenty years of Arab rule, Palestinian female life expectancy grew from 45 to 46; during the next 20 years of Israeli administration, Palestinian female life expectancy grew from 46 to 67. Moreover, during twenty years of Arab rule, Palestinian infant mortality rate decreased from 200 per thousand to 170 per thousand; during the next twenty years of Israeli administration, Palestinian infant mortality rate decreased from 170 per thousand to 60 per thousand. In addition, during twenty years of Arab rule, Palestinian crude death rate decreased from 21 per thousand to 19 per thousand; during the next twenty years of Israeli administration, Palestinian crude death rate decreased from 19 per thousand to 6 per thousand. Finally, malaria, which existed in the Palestinian territories before 1967, was eliminated during Israeli administration.

At the infrastructural level, Israeli administration has also benefited the lives of many Palestinians. For example, before 1967, when Israel’s rule began, only 113 hospitals had been built in the territories. But, at the present time, that number has more than tripled, to about 400 hospitals. Also, before 1967, only 23 motherhood centres had been established. Today, more than six times as many can be found.

Israeli also more than tripled the number of Palestinian teachers and boosted the Palestinian educational system by establishing a number of universities. Among those universities were the College of Scientists, established in Abu Dis in 1982, the College of Social Welfare, established in El Bira in 1979, the College of Religion, established in Beit Hanina in 1978, and the Islamic College, established in Hebron in 1971. Nonetheless, this was not the only effect Israeli administration has on the Palestinian educational system and the Palestinian people. Before 1967, the percentage of illiterates on average had been 27.8% among men and 65.1% among women. At the present time, Israel has helped reduce illiteracy to less than 13% among men and to less than 35% among women.

In March 2008, in a speech before the Massachusetts state legislature, Tzipi Livni [photo], the Israeli Foreign Minister, stated, “Sometimes, there is a very big difference between Israel’s international image and its realities.” An objective consideration of the historical relation between Jews and Arabs and of the effects of Israeli administration on the Palestinian territories and its people amply confirms this assertion. Ruling another nation is neither an ambition nor is it a policy of Israel. Peace is at the core of Jewish tradition and is also at the centre of Israel’s goals as a state."

Posted with the permission of the author

BBC distorts Jewish refugee issue on website

From Point of No Return blog:

"The good news is that the Jewish refugees issue has made the BBC website at last. The bad? The BBC has managed to distort and belittle their plight. Here are one reader's angry comments, interposed with the BBC article.

Jewish groups from around the world are meeting in London to highlight the plight of Jews who left their homes in Arab nations after Israel was founded.

[They did not 'leave their homes' - they were actively oppressed by the states in which they were citizens. Many were imprisoned, and their belongings confiscated. It would be more honest to say "driven from their homes"]

The conference organisers, Justice for Jews, say they want to ensure the story of Jewish refugees is told, alongside that of Palestinians.The American-based group says around 850,000 Jews lived in Arab nations before Israel was founded in 1948.

[It is not just "the American-based group" who gives these figures - these figures are widely and reliably documented. This phrasing gives an intimation that it could be an exaggeration - I can provide you with links to sites that document precisely how many Jews were driven from each country.]

It says most were forced to flee due to hostility when Israel was created.

[There are plenty of personal accounts online. If you wish I can put you in touch with some of those who were driven out in this way and have ended up living here in the UK]

Justice for Jews, which campaigns for compensation for Jewish refugees from the Middle East, says the international community has always focused on Palestinian refugees and never given due attention to Jewish refugees.The BBC's Arab affairs analyst Magdi Abdelhadi says the subject is highly controversial as the numbers of Jews who left, and the conditions under which they left, are disputed.

[This is the first I have heard that that this is "highly controversial". Of course it does spoil the narrative of Palestinian refugees now it transpires that there were so many Jewish refugees, and they were actually absorbed into communities rather than kept as a political pawns. Could it be that the only refugees Magdi Abdelhadi wishes the world to know about are Palestinian?]

He says one undisputed fact is that Jews were part of Arab societies for centuries, where they were fully integrated in their societies, until Israel was established.

[They were part Arab societies, although many had dhimmi status. Dhimmi status, that of being a strictly second-class citizen, is not the same way as we understand 'fully integrated' in the UK. Magdi Abdelhadi is being disingenuous by somehow 'forgetting' this salient and crucial fact]

Some left because they were Zionists, others because of growing hostility towards them after the Arab-Israeli wars in 1948 and 1967, and there were also those who were encouraged to leave by the new Israeli state, our analyst adds.

[Jews, who had resided in the surrounding Arab states for centuries were 'reclassified' by the Arab states as Zionists, particularly at the time of the Six Day War. Having been thus labelled gave the Arab states a reason to oppress their loyal Jewish citizens. I feel you should maybe talk to some refugees who now reside here in UK because I know this flip assessment on the BBC site is both offensive and untrue.]

He says not all of them went to Israel - many went to France and America, where some of them still feel very passionately about the Arab cultures they grew up in."

An interesting anecdote from Ben Cohen on Z-Blog
See also:
How the Arab world lost its Jews, a book by Nathan Weinstock