video from Iran News blogspot

Iranian-Canadian Amir Safavi-Naeini writes re Iran:

Just thought I'd let you in quickly on what has happened in the last 24 hours.

Some of these reports are still in Farsi, and I'll translate. Basically, last night, according to phone call to Voice of America [http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/23569463/763613892/name/Record000.mp3] from one of the people inside Mousavi's election committee, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, the following happened:
The Interior Ministry called Mousavi, told him...  he'd won. Told the progressive newspapers to avoid printing the word "victory" in publications. Then it seems like "they" essentially changed their minds. All mobiles in Tehran are shut off. The power in the city is shut off. Armed and plain clothes officers are sent to main streets and intersections. Rafsanjani, Noori and Mousavi attempted to contact the leader regarding this, and most of the night is spent with them in meetings, trying to figure out how suddenly AN [Ahmadinejad] is winning exactly 66% regardless of location.

Now Iran is a country where Farsi speakers are a minority. In previous elections there have always been huge variations based on ethnicity, and previous Azeri candidates have won disproportionately in Azeri regions. Mousavi is Azeri. If we are to believe the election results, Ahmadinejad won 60% in Mousavi's home town. Karroubi is from Lorestan, in the previous election he won 5M votes, because all the Lor voted for him. This time, he's essentially come 5th in a 4 person race if one counts the invalid ballots. Apparently AN won >60% in Karroubi's home town, a town which overwhelmingly voted for him previously. The results have been clearly falsified. For the expatriate results, they've given more than half to A.N.; another clear falsification.

Back to Iran, on June 13th, Khamenei, without agreeing to meet with Mousavi, Karroubi and Rafsanjani, validated the election results, essentially removing all legal ways by which the results may be disputed. He did this the very next day. Usually he takes 3 days, to insure there are no irregularities.

In the morning (June 13th) people took to the streets, demonstrations seem to have been spontaneous and have become violent in many parts. There are pictures of burning police motorcycles and bleeding protesters and officers, and films of plain clothes cops grabbing leaders. Here is a blog which essentially captures what has been happening in pictures and clips: http://iran101.blogspot.com/

There are reports of deaths, though it seems like "hokm'e tir" (license to fire guns) has not been given.

On another front, Mousavi is placed under house arrest (http://www.entekhabnews.net/portal/index.php?news=6304). Leading reformers are arrested, including Khatami's brother and his wife. 10s of reporters are also arrested.

Various cities have been put under military rule, including Tabriz (Mousavi's home town, an ethnic Azeri city) and Qom; Shia Islam's Vatican city.

All mobiles have been shut off for the last 24 hours or so. Facebook, twitter, etc. are blocked ("filtered"). All foreign reporters have been asked to leave.

Most disturbing are the (English) tweets of Farhad: http://twitter.com/Change_for_Iran , a university student at Tehran who has been walled up inside the University of Tehran residences. Example: "Ahmadynezad now calls himself 'seyed' (bloodline of prophet mohammad) & wearing a green shawl on state TV! unbelievable!"

You have to understand, traditional media has completely failed us. Iranians out of country have been glued to facebook and twitter and youtube and blogs, since they are the only fast and reliable sources of news. We feel completely helpless outside the country and can only imagine what those inside (who we cannot contact) must be feeling.

A Farsi twitter feed which has been silent for last few hours is that of (previously jailed) F. Ghazi, a brave Iranian citizen journalist.
http://twitter.com/Iranbaan

We can only hope and pray that today will bring another relatively bloodless day for the streets of Tehran, Shiraz, Tabriz, Qom, Esfehan, Babol, etc.

P.S. Please also note this source in EN/Farsi: http://twitter.com/Gita. 

One of my new themes on this site is that the Israel lobby as we know it is over. Gaza and Netanyahu shattered it. Obama gave his speech in Cairo because he knew he would have political cover from American Jews to reach out to the Muslim world. Marty Peretz and Charles Krauthammer didn't like the speech, but Jeffrey Goldberg and Roger Cohen (and Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod) did. That's the ballgame.
This morning Ori Nir of Peace Now provides powerful evidence for my theory from a still-secret poll that says that women and Democrats are defecting:

"Israel Radio ran a scoop this morning: poll data showing a sharp drop in Americans’ perception that Israel’s government seeks peace. The poll was conducted by a U.S. organization that strives to improve Israel’s image here."

You see: When Obama distances himself from Israel, the American people are listening. And the poll was conducted by The Israel Project, a lobby organization that I gather had a couple of people on hand in Cairo to interpret Obama's speech to reporters. (I missed them.)  Nir continues:

Rob Browne at DailyKos urges Rabbi David Saperstein (of the Union for Reform Judaism), who is fasting for Darfur, to fast on behalf of the people of Gaza too--a crisis in which American Jews have far more influence than they do in Sudan. Browne writes to Saperstein that he is being "hypocritical":

PEP at its best, Progressive Except for Palestine. Young Jews, what do you think of this one-way compassion?

Uri Avnery on Netanyahu's forthcoming speech, "his resounding response to Obama’s speech in Egypt."

The lower photo above is of a long boat used to carry stuff through the tunnels from Egypt to Gaza. Someone left it out on the road in Rafah. It slides along the sand in the tunnel.

The tunnels are big business, and they have produced a smuggling culture in Gaza that good people hate.
The picture at the top shows an effect of the smuggling culture: the tunnels are built big enough to get a motorcycle through-- they are building one to get cars through, I heard, but it either collapsed or isn't done yet-- and there are a lot of flash new motorcycles on the streets of Gaza. Because there are no new cars. Mostly young men are on these motorcycles. They are a byproduct of the smuggling culture, and it upsets many Gazans to see them. The black shirt in the foreground is a designer shirt.
You see designer t-shirts on young men in Gaza, but you don't see newspapers.
All this lawlessness, it serves both Hamas and Israel. Both powers are in on it. It gives Hamas power, as the military authority in a lawless place. And Israel has to be in on the business, too. It could shut down the tunnels tomorrow, there are hundreds of them.
But maintaining Gaza in a penurious state of helplessness, charity and ignorance, you cannot blame it all on Israel, but Israel evidently conceives that to be in its interest.

These were my favorite jeans. I threw them in the laundry room. My wife didn't take the pen out of the pocket when she did the wash. She said I should have done that. When I showed my wife this headline, she said, "I can't wait to hear what people say. They're going to be shocked that your workhorse money-making wife is also expected to do the laundry."

Chas Freeman made a speech on the lobby and the two-state solution at the Middle East Policy Council the other day, in "Remarks to Diplomatic and Consular Officers Retired (DACOR)":

For the past forty or more years, the achievement of a peace that could secure the future of Israel has been a core objective of U.S. foreign policy.  Every president has made the pursuit of such a peace a central element of his diplomacy.  To this end, over this period, the United States has transferred more than $100 billion directly to Israel and as much as another $100 billion indirectly.  We have also spent well over a trillion dollars and thousands of lives on wars that relate at least in part to the objective of securing peace for Israel.  Yet there has never been a national intelligence estimate (NIE) on the prospects for Middle East peace or, for that matter, on the prospects for the state of Israel in its absence.  Nor has there been such a review of either the impact of the US-Israeli strategic partnership on our relations with the Arab or Islamic worlds or the role that Arab and Muslim perceptions of it may play in stimulating anti-American terrorism.  There has been no independent evaluation of the perpetually unsuccessful “peace process” despite repeated charges from the peace movement in Israel that their government gives lip service to peace while acting to stall it so as to wrest ever more land from Palestinians.  Our understanding of events in the Holy Land has been left to be defined by AIPAC and other American supporters of the settler movement in Israeli-occupied Arab lands.   They have brazenly – and quite successfully – insisted that the Likud Party and related right-wing factions in Israeli politics should have the right to decide U.S. policy as well as the policy of Israel.

Is it possible that the suspension of independent judgment by the United States has something to do with the utter failure of our forty-year effort to produce a just and lasting peace between Israelis, Palestinians, and other Arabs?  Could it be that in this instance, as in others, foreign policy by franchise serves the interest of the operators of the franchise more than it benefits anyone else?  Might our unconditional, unexamined support of the Jewish holy war for land in Palestine have something to do with the expanding holy war against us by some Arabs and Muslims?  Israelis regularly ask these questions and vigorously debate them.  Until recently, at least, Americans, by contrast, have been effectively enjoined from asking them and hence from considering policies that might secure Israel while securing ourselves.

Such silencing of debate is a perversion of democracy.  The Likud lobby does not simply seek to ensure that the positions it advocates receive favorable consideration in the policy-making process, as it is fully entitled to do.  It strives to block contrary views by applying odious labels to their spokespersons, distorting their records, ostracizing them, and obstructing the circulation of their views in the media.  It prefers to operate in the shadows.  Its characteristic mode of attack is the whisper campaign and hit-and-run; having struck, it denies that it was even on the scene.  Like the Bolsheviks, the Likud lobby falsely claims to represent a majority – in this case, a majority of the American Jewish community –  when it does not.  Its thought police are in fact especially vicious in their suppression of contrary opinion among the three-fourths of Jewish Americans who favor peace over continuing land grabs in the Holy Land. 

The Likud lobby should not be allowed to usurp the title, “Israel Lobby.”  It is pro-settler, anti-Arab, and anti-free speech.  It does not care whether those it lobbies hate it as long as they fear it.  Its answer to the possibility that its actions might rekindle anti-Semitism in this country is intensified intimidation of Israel’s American critics, whom it conflates with the dwindling band of citizens who object to the extraordinary contributions to our nation’s public life of Jewish Americans .  This lobby’s object is not to win debate but to preclude it.  To that end, it insists that only those associated with its viewpoints occupy positions of public trust in our government.  It is a menace not so much because of what it advocates, with respect to which reasonable men might differ, as because of the profoundly anti-democratic means by which it ensures that no one, Jew or gentile, reasonable or not, can exercise the right to differ with it.

We have seen this phenomenon in our politics before.  The “China Lobby,” which, in association with Senator Joseph McCarthy, advocated the interests of Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang by branding its opponents as treasonous and silencing them, is a case in point.

Full transcript at Snuffysmith.

Shiva Balaghi is an editor at MERIP and, beginning in July, a fellow at the Cogut Center for Humanities at Brown University (where she will teach history). She has been compiling information on the outcome of the elections from news sources, youtube videos, facebook, and emails from colleagues in Iran. Her report:
Something’s happening here…And by now, it’s pretty clear what we are witnessing in Iran. No one can claim that the elections for President of Iran are indicative of a genuine democracy. Still, within the very narrow field of candidates that are allowed to run for office within highly regulated elections, there has been some fluidity. This allowed the IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran] to have a safety valve, allowing some modicum of participatory government. This completely rigged election that reinstated a highly unpopular president has now shown deep cleavages within the ruling classes of Iran.
Long before it could have been feasible to actually count votes, Ahmadinejad claimed a landslide victory in the June 12 presidential elections. Iranian presidential elections are determined by simple majority. Hours before the last polls closed (in LA), the official count was giving Ahmadinejad an insurmountable lead in the 60%s.
The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei issued a public statement that with nearly 80% of the electorate casting votes, the winning candidate has received 24m votes in this magnificent and beautiful presidential elections. This is a genuine celebration that our enemies are seeking to undermine; they want to steal the sweetness of this victory from our people, so our dear youth must be completely alert and all candidates must refrain from any provocative words or actions. Given that the Supreme Leaders is the final power over Iran’s judiciary and military forces, his statement essentially blocks off any appeal process and signals whose supporters will be receiving the butt end of batons.
The Ministry of Interior is charged with overseeing the election process. Last night, according to news reports, several officials of that ministry protested the way election results were being announced; however, links to these Iranian press reports were blocked on the internet. Even a cursory review of election figures released by the Ministry of Interior gives pause. There is a perfect linear relationship between votes for Ahmadinjead and those for Mousavi—who seems to have received half as many votes as Ahmadinejad in every precinct across the country. As Tehran Bureau, a clearing house for information, reports, “Statistically and mathematically, it is impossible to maintain such perfect linear relations between the votes of any two candidates in any election — and at all stages of vote counting. This is particularly true about Iran, a large country with a variety of ethnic groups who usually vote for a candidate who is ethnically one of their own.”

Mousavi’s spokesman claims he received word from the Ministry of Interior that he had won the elections and had already begun preparations for a large celebration on Sunday. His campaign offices in north Tehran were attacked and several of his campaign workers were hospitalized. He had announced a press conference at 2 pm Tehran time, but this never took place. By some reports, he met with former President Rafsanjani, who ardently opposed Ahmadinejad’s re-election, to strategize on their next steps. The award winning director Mohsen Makhmalbaf announced from Paris that he was the spokesperson for Mousavi outside of Iran. By some estimates, Mousavi gained 80% of overseas votes with Iranians voting in England, N Korea, Iraq, US, Australia, etc.
Days before the election took place, the Revolutionary Guard warned against a “velvet revolution” in Iran… This has become the code phrase used whenever scholars, artists, fashion designers, medical researchers, women’s rights activists, students, and union organizers are rounded up and thrown in prison. It signaled, more strongly than anything else, that the thousands who were peacefully protesting for Mousavi in the run up the election were going to become targets of the security forces.
Protestors are taking to the streets and their computers. Though the IRI has shut down SMS texting, a regular tool used for campaigning and election monitoring in Iran, street protestors are using their cell phones to take pictures and videos that they download. Several youtube videos show major protests in Tehran’s largest thoroughfares, including Vali Asr Street and Vanak Square. Many protestors are seen wearing green, throwing stones, setting bonfires to stop traffic. In one demonstration, streetsweepers join the crowds who chant, “Streetsweeping brothers, pick up Mahmoud and haul him off!”
Security forces are carrying out Operation Sovereignty. In photos taken at 6 pm local time in Tehran, we see hundreds of riot police in full gear throwing tear gas into the crowds with batons in hand. Other videos taken by protestors using cell phones show riot police and plain clothes thugs beating up demonstrators, including veiled women, who are heard screaming “Don’t hit me!” Some clips contain the sounds of gunfire. All the protestors are clearly unarmed, though a few are seen throwing rocks.
As darkness fell over Tehran, tens of thousands are still in the streets protesting. Reminiscent of protests that took place before the 1979 Revolution, some are chanting from their rooftops, “Death to the Dictator!” Other slogans include: “Liar, liar: where is my vote? 10 million, 20 million, we didn’t vote for the monkey!” Sounds of gunfire fill the streets, but observers say most are shooting into the air. There are unconfirmed reports of 50-100 deaths.
There have been rumors that Mousavi was detained, by Iranian rights groups say this is not the case. He issued a brief statement on his website to his supporters saying: Your will has been blocked by a strange phenomenon in the name of lies and cheating. I urge you, valued people, to be patient and I assure you that to the last of my ability, I will defend the rights of the Iranians. I call on you to help observe calm.
Ahmadinejad gave a live speech on Iranian television. He said the government belongs to the people. In a clear reference to Mousavi, who was one of the leaders of the Islamic Republic Party during the revolutionary movement, he called on those with a background in revolution to given in to people's demands, respect people's rights & to stand by him as companions of Prophet did. He said the past no longer matters and even those who once stood alongside Imam Khomeini should only be judged by what they do today. He invited all Iranians, including those outside the country, to join hands & assist him. Election is over. He called Iran's youth his children.
The IRI is quickly closing off media websites, including the BBC Persian service. Facebook, used heavily by Mousavi supporters, is being filtered.
Speaking from Ramallah, the esteemed Jimmy Carter—known for monitoring elections worldwide—diminished the importance of the Iranian presidential elections and said he hoped in his second term, Ahmadinejad would moderate his positions. Hamas welcomed Ahmadinejad’s victory, while several Israeli politicians already announced that his reelection signals a need for external forces to intervene.
The US media has been horrible in its coverage of the elections and its aftermath. NPR had more coverage of the European soccer last night and of the Stanley Cup this morning. It was evening in Tehran before Amanpour did a short piece for CNN. Even Keith Olbermann had a sleepy dude from the New America Foundation on … without even bothering to explain what his credentials as an Iran expert are. With an estimated 750k Iranians living in the US and several major academic organizations devoted to Iranian Studies, the unwillingness and inability of the US media to cover these elections properly is truly indicative of a larger problem in Irano-US relations. US press coverage has been embarrassing and shameful.

Gershom Gorenberg in Foreign Policy:

"The classic definition of chutzpah is murdering your parents and begging for the mercy of the court because you're an orphan. Adding thousands of settlers to existing communities so that later you can claim that evacuating them would be too great a trauma could be another definition."

Among the astonishments of visiting Gaza are the ubiquitous portraits of martyrs in public places. Such pictures are, obviously, an essential expression of honor in Palestinian culture.

My response to these portraits was wholly aesthetic, and not moral. I don't know what any of these men and boys did, though some of them evidently died in the January slaughter.

Here (with apologies for the out-of-focus-where's-Waldo style of my photography, notwithstanding which, all these photos are copyright Phil Weiss) is my gallery:

Ira Glunts writes:
Back in February, in this space, I criticized Americans for Peace Now (APN) for initiating an email campaign profusely praising the “courageous statements” on the settlements made by Rep. Gary Ackerman during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. One of my points was that Ackerman, who is among the most powerful congressional allies of the pro-Israel lobby, should not be lauded for any isolated statement that sounds like it is pro-peace. Why enhance the credibility of someone who is the opposition?

In the same APN initiative Rep. Robert Wexler was also mentioned for his heroic remarks at that hearing. The Florida Congressman, a crafty politician, is a close friend of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who somewhat surprisingly is endorsed by the pro-Israel, pro-peace, J Street.
The press largely reports political speech under the questionable assumption that statements are made honestly. This is how the Washington Post described the Ackerman and Wexler statements made early this year in a recent piece:

That was then, but now that the Obama administration is seemingly challenging the Israelis to completely freeze settlement expansion these two faux men of conscience are now apparently of a different opinion.
Here is a sample of what Mr. Ackerman has said recently regarding the issue:

For a good analysis of Ackerman’s statement see, “Ackerman’s Nonsense” by Josh Marshall.
Here is a statement which has been attributed to Mr. Wexler.

As Bruce Wolman notes, this statement "presupposes what is to be negotiated." The assumption that all the territory on the “Israeli side” of the security fence is not even the public position of the Netanyahu government, which argues that only the ‘settlement blocks” will be annexed to Israel . In other words, Wexler is much worse than Netanyahu on this issue.
Both Congressmen are considered strong supporters of President Obama. Rep. Wexler as a Jewish pro-Israel legislator gave an early and important endorsement to the presidential candidacy of then Senator Obama, who at the time was actively courting the Jewish vote.
So if the likes of Wexler and Ackerman are the congressional allies that President Obama has to rely on if he is serious about fighting a battle for a viable Palestinian state and a just peace, I think that it is going to be a difficult.

What can you expect of an article in the Jewish Week titled, "Times’ Cohen Getting Under Our Skin." The enlightened Times columnist gave editor and publisher Gary Rosenblatt an interview at his office at the New York Times, and said that Gaza had transformed his view of the Middle East (Iraq did it for us here).
Irritated, Rosenblatt wanted to make sure Cohen is Jewish. So before the drubbing at the end of the article (too late!), there is a lot of Jewish identity stuff. Who is getting bar mitzvah'd in Cohen's family, etc.
The best part is Cohen on Israel--"what he describes as a willful ignorance among Israelis of their reality and responsibility." The new mantra is dignity and "humiliation" (Obama used that word in Cairo). Jewish Week:

This is important. Israel has no idea what is going on in the territories. Roane Carey, the Nation magazine editor who lived in Israel for the last three months, explained this to me in Gaza; and I observed it for myself when I visited Israel, three years back. Willful ignorance. Makes Jews here all the more responsible.

Our latest comments policy also failed to work. It required that Adam Horowitz and I approve every comment before it was posted. This is too large a responsibility (when we are both unpaid and howling under the lash).

Comments are vital to the life of this site. Most of our commenters are great. Many of them bring insights to issues that the writers can't bring. We need to keep the comment section alive, in spite of the vandals who have sought to destroy it by impersonating people and trotting out profanity and racism.

Our new strategy is to adjust the Intense Debate software so that it functions socially: all comments will be posted, but if an offensive comment is reported by several other readers, it will be automatically stricken.
We need your help here. Many readers turn to the comment section regularly to speak out or to learn from others. Can you help us by reporting foul comments? Thanks.

Taghreed El-Khodary, reporting at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza

One of the highlights of my trip to Gaza was meeting Taghreed El-Khodary, the correspondent for the New York Times. She had breakfast with my New York-based delegation two weeks ago. Everyone in my group came away feeling that she is an amazing ambassador for her society. Why, just consider the warmth and sensitivity in her face, above. 

The first surprise of the meeting for me was how outspoken and analytical El-Khodary is. I had expected a nose-to-the-ground reporter type. Certainly her writing in The New York Times during the onslaught on Gaza back in January had a who-what-where-when quality. Just the facts, ma'am--when this extreme situation cries out for more than facts, it cries out for emotional color, depth, and analysis, so that Americans can respond with moral force and creativity to an ongoing disaster.

For instance, El-Khodary continually referred to the situation in Gaza as "a siege." Just as everyone in our lefty delegation does. Is it a siege? I would say yes; Webster's says siege is a military blockade. Well then why doesn't she get to say as much in the Times? Oh but I'm getting ahead of myself.

A small, lively woman wearing jeans and a wide leather belt with a big square buckle, El-Khodary began by saying that the situation in Gaza is not a "humanitarian" crisis, it is a political crisis. "When I met with John Kerry, I said, stop talking about humanitarian problem, because it's purely political." Gaza is under siege, and Hamas is benefiting. "The society is shifting into a society that is very dependent on others... And Hamas is getting more power out of every aspect of life."

She described the breakdown of the civil society in Gaza. Many young people are unemployed. Some of them get paid without having to produce anything, because they work for the Palestinian Authority, and the Palestinian Authority ordered teachers and civil servants to leave their jobs when Hamas took over the government.Hamas then filled the schools with newly-graduated teachers with very little experience.

"They know how to pray... but they are not competent. Their competence is with religion." She told of one high school where Hamas teachers instruct girls on how to wear the veil.

"You know teenage girls. They are dying to wear skirts... You can see the shift, where this place is going. I blame the international community, I blame the Palestinian Authority for asking the teachers to stay at home... This is why I am against the siege, because people will be stuck with one way of looking at things."

At the same time, El-Khodary said, the international community was "stupid" in its efforts to isolate Hamas.

"Hamas is a reality, like Fatah. You cannot marginalize it. You can weaken it, but indirectly." She had explained all this to John Kerry, and she felt that he understood. (I blogged about this two weeks ago.) "You can't focus only on the humanitarian aspect. It's a political issue...

"That's why I'm here. To be able to explain it to Congress."

At this point in our meeting, the penny dropped. I realized that El-Khodary is not a reporter in the conventional mode. In one of the greatest foreign-relations horror-shows on the planet right now, she has taken on a larger human responsibility, of seeking to explain one people to another. I felt the admiration in me building for her, and I put aside all the little journalistic questions I had.

She said that she had met the three congresspeople who had come the week before: Brian Baird of Washington, Donna Edwards of Maryland, and Peter Welch of Vermont. (These three people should get leadership awards.)

"My message to them was that if you want to come out with a policy, a strategy, you have to understand the ground really well. You cannot only listen to Fatah, to Abu Mazen and then determine a strategy."

[El-Khodary at breakfast, Marna House, Gaza City]

She related how Hamas had become heroes during the second Intifadah--and Israel had worked to make them into heroes. While covering the intifada, El-Khodary had become angry at the fact that the whole television report was about Hamas.

"But that was the reality. You cannot ignore them. When you assassinate their leaders, kill them, punish them, people sympathize with the victims. They turn them into heroes. And Hamas was very active on the ground, helping the poor." And of course Fatah had failed to do anything real toward creating a Palestinian state.

One of our delegation asked about a third way, a secular alternative to Hamas, but El-Khodary shook her head. She said that the international community must focus on reconciling the two sides, Fatah and Hamas.  "That should be the priority. Then we can talk about the peace process. But they go together."

Throughout the conversation, El-Khodary was impassioned in her support for a two-state solution as the only hope. Ending the Palestinian crisis will improve politics throughout the region, she said; and she is pulling for Obama.

"I hope he will have the time, I hope he will succeed. He knows the situation very well. He understands both narratives very well... My fear is that the same policy will continue and the status quo will continue, and the Israelis will feel paralyzed to go forward."

She spoke with frustration of the isolation of Palestinian society. This was a common thread in every conversation we had with educated Palestinians. They implored us to do whatever we can to break the siege and show a different face of the Palestinians to the world. "I'm very angry at the international media," she said. Before the war the siege in Gaza was continuous, and few people covered it. "Gaza was under so much pressure, and I didn't understand why reporters couldn't make it here. I didn't understand why [the media] were not letting their international staff have presence here. There were many papers who had nobody here."

Half an hour had passed, and the ambassador in El-Khodary fully expressed itself. She told us how important it is to bring Gaza back into the human family, so that Palestinian society can grow, and that Gaza's future leaders can learn to relate to other cultures.

"There has to be an opening of the closure. People need to leave, they need to see how the world functions. You meet all these young people who have never met an Israeli--all their life. And there is a need for international presence in Gaza. After the war an army of journalists came, and now where are they?"

Some of us asked her what it was like to be in Gaza during the war, and fear entered her voice.

"I didn't like it that no international journalists were here. It's always good to have others around you. Really I felt like I was working by myself. There was so much pressure and responsibility. And I made such an effort to be on the ground..."

One night Israel hit the Parliament two blocks from her house, and then they dropped leaflets warning people to get out of the area.

"They tell you to escape but where to escape, when they are dropping leaflets everywhere? Even in my garden. And you can hear the plane hovering all the time [presumably a drone]. You think maybe they are going to make a mistake. Maybe they are going to hit you. Maybe your neighbor is wanted.  It was a scary experience."

Like other smart committed Gazans we met, El-Khodary has options. She can leave Gaza in a moment. Her talents are in demand. But she does not want to leave. The story is too important; she said she is too interested in how it will end, as a journalist; and as a Palestinian, she feels tremendous responsibility to represent her society in the international press.

She became impassioned as she spoke about the future. 

"I hope I will see the two-state solution," she said. She felt this both as a reporter and as a citizen. "As long as you are living in this jail, there is a reminder that the story is not over... It is about occupation..." Even when she buys cheese in the market and sees that it is from Egypt, it is a reminder of the siege."This comes from the tunnels." And of course there is something wrong with that: that the most productive sector in Gazan society is contraband.

I finally opened my mouth. I sensed how deeply moved my whole group was by El-Khodary's heroism and nobility, by her invocations both of professional "objectivity" and her love for a people who have been cruelly isolated by the world. I said, "The woman we're meeting is not the writer that I read in the New York Times. Are they censoring you?"

The look El-Khodary gave me bordered on disdain; and quickly I realized that in her situation, the question was all but meaningless. 

"The New York Times is the paper to reach you, and to reach all Americans. I mean, what is my goal? It is to reach you... There are two narratives of the story. One is Israeli. And I have managed to get the Palestinian narrative out.

"Of course, I would always put more [than appears]. But you have limited space in the paper, and you have another narrative. There is another narrative, and it is important."

She then referred to this piece in the Columbia Journalism Review that she wrote, that is filled with descriptions of the war and of Hamas's treatment of collaborators. "I don't know why they didn't take it," she said of the New York Times.

Still, she accepted her role. She could be making tons of money in the Gulf working for a TV station, but she was getting the Palestinian story out, and helping others at the Times to understand the details of Palestinian life. "I'm working for them full-time but I'm not staff." She liked that role; it allowed her to perform analysis for the International Crisis Group at the same time. 

I felt slightly foolish in my question. Of course she is being censored. But the New York Times is hardly alone in suppressing the full Palestinian story. All of American media are in on that. And meantime one must be thankful for the Times for affording this brave reporter the platform that it has.

"And one must keep working and pushing, for the story to get out."