TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM
July 03, 2009 | 5:02 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
28.07.2008
Is Anything Sacred?

Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv was lambasted for printing the note that Obama placed in the Western Wall, allegedly stolen by a Yeshiva student. "Notes which are placed in the Western Wall are between the person and his Maker; Heaven forbid that one should read them or use them in any way," said the Chief Rabbi of the Western Wall. "This sacrilegious action deserves sharp condemnation and represents a desecration of the holy site."

But according to a statement from Ma'ariv yesterday, the paper alleges that the Obama campaign actually leaked the note to reporters before Obama even placed it in the wall.* Yediot Aharonot, Israel's most popular daily, claims to have also received a copy of the note but decided not to print it.* As a Ma'ariv spokesman told the Jerusalem Post

Barack Obama's note was approved for publication in the international media even before he put in the Kotel [Western Wall], a short time after he wrote it at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

The Obama campaign is denying the note was "approved for publication." At this point, it's their word against that of Ma'ariv, but I'm still waiting for some concrete proof from Ma'ariv to back up their accusation. It's a pretty bold claim to make without providing a smoking gun and via an anonymous spokesman to the Jerusalem Post.*

*Post updated to reflect the Obama campaign's denial and additional reporting.

UPDATE 2 (6:10 a.m.): Since posting this item, I’ve gotten a lot of comments from people questioning the veracity of Ma’ariv’s accusation. I definitely should have called the Obama campaign before rushing to post this item—and though I updated it soon after hearing of the campaign’s denial, I apologize for my initial haste. Though Ma’ariv is one of Israel’s most prominent newspapers, there is certainly reason to question its motives regarding this story, considering it is trying to justify its own much-derided decision to print Obama’s letter. There is also talk of a lawsuit against Ma’ariv for violating Israel’s Basic Law guaranteeing privacy. I’ve been on the phone with various sources in Israel for the past few hours trying to get concrete information about the accusation. I spoke to Ma’ariv’s spokesman on the phone a few hours ago and sent him a list of questions; I will update here as soon as I hear back from him.

In the meantime, I’ve found additional quotes from Ma’ariv spokesmen to three other Israeli publications reaffirming their narrative—and going even further than their quotes to the Jerusalem Post by explicitly saying that the Obama campaign approved the printing of the letter, and even gave copies of the note to members of the international media before he went to the Western Wall. But Ma’ariv has yet to produce tangible evidence for either of these accusations, and I’m withholding any endorsement of their claims until they do so.

UPDATE 3 (4:25 p.m.): I finally heard back from the Ma'ariv spokesman, who denied that the Obama campaign leaked the memo to them or gave them approval to print it, and who disavowed the alleged spokesman who gave quotes to at least four Israeli publications. At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll be following up with those publications to find out where they got those quotes from. I just spoke with an editor at one of those publications who broached the possibility that Ma'ariv was trying to deflect criticims of it by releasing these spurious rumors about the Obama campaign, but upon realizing that they'll have to back up those accusations, is now disavowing them. I'll update here if I get anything interesting from those publications. 

--Zvika Krieger 

Posted: Monday, July 28, 2008 3:49 PM with 37 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ratnerstar said:

I like how Obama addresses God with a simple "Lord-" ... no "Almighty," no "Dear," no "Gracious."  It reminds me of the emails I get from my boss.

Lord-

Expected your progress report yesterday afternoon.  Please stop by my office today.  Thanks.

P.S. I approved your expense submission fm. last Tues.

July 28, 2008 4:20 PM

Count said:

I guess! You might be right, but you're entirely going off of one ambiguous statement released by a newspaper in response to strong criticism. Ma'ariv did not say that the Obama campaign leaked it the note and Yediot Aharonot did not say that it got the note in advance. This post is far too assertive considering how little you're basing it on.

July 28, 2008 4:22 PM

jacksondyer said:

"But according to a statement from Ma'ariv yesterday, the Obama campaign actually leaked the note to reporters before Obama even placed it in the wall."

And I had  some sympathy for Obama when I read this story.

July 28, 2008 4:28 PM

tomeg said:

If Ma'ariv's claim is valid, shame on the Obama people, and on Obama, himself. Contemptible.

July 28, 2008 4:47 PM

tomeg said:

Amended:

If Ma'ariv's claim is valid, <and the story is true,> shame on the Obama people, and on Obama, himself. Contemptible.

Just to close any loopholes. I'm embarrassed and chagrined, not to mention f*****g furious!

July 28, 2008 4:56 PM

GSpinks said:

The statement by Ma'ariv is suspect. The article says:

In response, a Ma'ariv spokesman said that "Barack Obama's note was approved for publication in the international media even before he put in the Kotel, a short time after he wrote it at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. In any case, since Obama is not a Jew, publishing the note does not constitute an infringement on his right to privacy."

The paper added that is was "pleased" with its "journalistic accomplishment."

However, the article also indicates that:

Western Wall Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovich condemned the removal of the note. ... On Sunday, Rabinovich returned the note to the Kotel.

My suspicion derives from this article, which makes , www.jpost.com/.../Satellite and my recollection that the photograph that was published showed creases from crumpling and folding news.yahoo.com/.../israel_obama_s_note . I particularly like this line from that article:

Maariv published a photograph of the note, which it said had been removed from the wall by a student at a Jewish seminary immediately after Obama left.

I'm thinking Ma'arev is full of it.

July 28, 2008 4:58 PM

drdannyu said:

You're kidding, right, Zvika?  Because nobody with a functioning cerebral cortex could possibly be taking this seriously.

So, what... the Obama campaign "approved the prayer for publication" and went to the trouble to pre-crease it?  How cunning!  You'll also note that Yediot Aharonot says it "obtained" the note, but didn't publish it out of respect for Obama's privacy.  So they decided to respect the privacy of the candidate that leaked it to them?  What a fascinating manner of dealing with leaks!  Also, they didn't say that they obtained the note FROM HIS CAMPAIGN.  An important detail to notice, Zvika.  Makes you seem more... I dunno... intellectually honest and professionally rigorous.

Also, one other charming detail... the Ma'ariv spokesman apparently thinks that this is all a moot point, since a goy like Obama doesn't deserve to have to privacy of his prayers respected in the first place.  Kind of undercuts his legitimacy, don't ya think?  But you didn't bother to mention that, did you, Zvika?

Good to know that TNR isn't suffering from a hack shortage.  

July 28, 2008 5:12 PM

sullydog said:

Um...am I the only one who thinks it's a little curious--and self-serving--that the very newspaper that is being excoriated for its shameful decision to publish the prayer is the same newspaper that's reporting that it was "leaked?" Does anybody have any material proof of this alleged leak? If so, please direct me to it.

But, for the sake of argument, let's just suppose it WAS leaked. Who gives a flying purple f--k? How is that different from any other politician or world leader or pope publishing the text of a benediction or a prayer before actually delivering it? Obama went to the wall, paid his respects, and made the offering of a simple, gracious and humble prayer.

I just don't see the outrage there.

In fact, this tells me far less about Obama than it does about the people who are just fricking desperate for something to be outraged at Obama about.

Ratnerstar: please consider for a moment the Lord's Prayer. It's not the Gracious Lord's Prayer, or the Dear Lord's Prayer, or the Special Lord's Prayer, or the Most Omnipotent, Compassionate, Almighty and Eternally Fashionable Lord's Prayer. It's just the Lord's Prayer, and its opening salutation is simple: "Our father...". Also please be aware that the word LORD, especially vis-a-vis the Jewish liturgy, is a stand-in for Tetragrammaton. LORD is thus a surrogate for the holiest word in creation, which cannot be uttered. It is, in fact, the name of God. It requires no adornement, your apparent fetish for irrelevant salutations notwithstanding.

And so, ratnerstar, I think the real difference you have with Obama on this one is that...he KNOWS that. And you don't.

Again, you guys are just scraping the bottom of the barrel here. And I don't get it, because Obama has actual policy positions, most of which I agree with but some of which I think are highly debatable. Instead you wring your hands over this inconsequential rubbish. I'm genuinely bemused.

July 28, 2008 5:20 PM

hemlock41 said:

Um, maybe TNR could get the Obama campaign's side of the story first, before printing such a damning post? Relying on a source which, when you read through it, is clearly interested in making Obama look bad, is pretty hack-ish.

If the claim about the leak checks out, it's disappointing and cheesy on the part of the Obama campaign. But some actual reporting legwork would be in order before TNR arrives at this conclusion.

July 28, 2008 5:25 PM

benberger said:

Politicize religion you say??!!??  I never.  But didn't Ma'ariv publish a picture of the note?  Did Obama release that too?  I'd like to buy a replica or something...and an Obama kippah too would be great.  

July 28, 2008 5:30 PM

kj_593 said:

The Pope did (leaked) this as well. I think the issue is that someone TOOK it from the wall.

July 28, 2008 5:36 PM

rriley said:

I agree with drdannyu and sullydog that Ma'ariv's statements are pretty slippery.  The linked Jerusalem Post reports are still saying this involved somebody's digging the note out of the wall, not something finagled by Obama.  And go look at Ben Smith's blog at Politico:  The Obama campaign has now denied that they leaked the prayer.

I think Zvika Krieger better correct and update this post.

July 28, 2008 5:40 PM

ratnerstar said:

Good Lord, sullydog, maybe you should go to wailing wall and request a sense of humor.  I'm not holding my breath, but miracles do happen occasionally.

July 28, 2008 6:27 PM

ratnerstar said:

P.S.  I'd hold my pro-Obama bona fides up against yours any day, but you clearly have me beat in the Taking Shit Too F'ing Seriously department.  Congratulations.

July 28, 2008 6:40 PM

jhildner said:

This incendiary post doesn't add up, it misprepresents the known facts, and it should be taken off the website or seriously corrected.  Not even the paper says that the Obama campaign participated in the publication of the note, contrary to the above.  It says rather that the note "was approved for publication in the international media."  What does *that* mean?  I don't know.  The statement is cryptic and coy.  It does not say "approved by the Obama campaign" as one of the above links says.  Did someone learn what the note would say beforehand?  Did someone obtain a copy of the note beforehand?  If so, from whom?  And why is the paper proud of a "journalistic accomplishment" that amounts to publishing what the campaign allegedly "approved for publication in the international media" if that's what happened?  If Obama's campaign really leaked it, why wouldn't it just say that?

Moreover, the fact that the actual note was swiped from the wall is confirmed.  The guy apologized.  Is Obama supposed to have staged that whole thing?  Doesn't that sound less than credible?  Moreover, the post above says that another paper has confirmed this story -- that it also received the note "in advance."  In fact, the linked-to story says no such thing.  Rather it says that another paper also received the note but chose not to publish it to respect Obama's privacy.  Nowhere does it say that it received the note *beforehand* or "in advance."  My inference is that it was offered the note *after* it was taken, but rejected it.  If Obama had leaked the note to that other paper, of course, they would not have refrained from publishing it out of privacy concerns because there would have been no privacy concerns.  Moreover, note that the paper, in its defense, does not argue that Obama's privacy concerns are invalid because Obama leaked the note.  Rather it says, that Obama's privacy concerns are invalid because he's not a Jew!  Why would it say that if the note had really been leaked by the Obama campaign?  Once again, why not just say that if it's true?

Please fix this.

July 28, 2008 6:44 PM

thetraytiger said:

"Barack Obama may be above politicizing our troops, but I guess he isn't above politicizing religion. . . . But the fact that the paper printed a copy of the actual note means that, regardless of whether the text was circulated ahead of time, someone most have fished the actual note out of the wall--which is still pretty shameful. "

That's just great, Zvika. You posted a weakly sourced snippet, then completely backtracked when it became clear that your provocative assertions were unfounded.

As other posters have noted, shouldn't the classic journalistic maxim 'Consider The Source', have led you to at least cast a skeptical eye on Ma'ariv's claim?

July 28, 2008 6:48 PM

sullydog said:

@ratnerstar:

Oh, I get it. You weren't really criticising Obama. You weren't having fun at his expense in the middle of a thread concerning a cheesy and unsubstantiated bullshit allegation. No, no, no. You KID Obama!

You were just joking.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Pretty funny. Just joking.

So was I!

July 28, 2008 6:50 PM

ratnerstar said:

Yep, I wasn't really criticizing Obama.  I was, however, having fun at his expense (that's pretty much the definition of "kid," if you're curious).  Yes, I was joking.  I guess it seemed pretty obvious to me, but I'll try to make my humor clearer to you in the future.

Oh, and I completely agree that it's a bullshit allegation.  In fact, I don't even care whether it's true.  Because it has absolutely no relevance to whether Obama will be a good President.   It amazes me that people bother to get worked up about this, one way or the other.  

July 28, 2008 7:19 PM

FBC said:

Two data worth considering. Israeli journalists understandably can be a bit wobbly in English. And the pro-actively anti-religious attitude of some secular Israelis is far beyond what most Americans could imagine.

So, here's what seems one likely read of the event.

Obama's campaign released (not "leaked") the text of the prayer to some newspapers. Yedioth Acharonoth decided it wasn't going publish anyone's prayers.

Maariv's statement has what seems a gratuitous sentence: Obama isn't Jewish, so he doesn't have any right to privacy. Nor any other rights, implicitly. This reads like a sarcastic shtoch at the ultra-religious who sometimes seem to think that way, as when they abuse Latinos at meat-packing plants, or spit on Christian clerics at the Western Wall.

There's a video of the alleged thief on YouTube.

youtube.com/watch?v=6i7v85iEgvY

Compare with another video of Obama at the Wall.

youtube.com/watch?v=FTu_XYiMvEQ

The video of the theft looks staged to me. I could list several reasons why.

Today, an alleged thief apologized to Israel's Channel 2. No other info about who he is, or what happened. We just have Channel 2's word for it.

Seems a partway continuation of the Avraham Burg spirit.

What these guys don't comprehend, nor do their counterparts on the other side, the Neturei Karta, is that by slamming part of Israel in the international media they're simply attacking Israel. The int'l audience doesn't discern.

It looks like the Maariv crowd taking a shot at the religious, aided and abetted by Channel 2 after the fact. And the Obama campaign backing away rapidly from the whole thing.

July 28, 2008 7:35 PM

thetraytiger said:

What jhilder said. This post is a disgrace. Poor sourcing, shoddy analysis, likely downright false.

Why aren't Crowley/Scheiber keeping a closer eye on The Plank?

July 28, 2008 7:46 PM

thetraytiger said:

Oops... sh*t forgot which blog I was on.  Sorry Mike/Noam!

July 28, 2008 7:53 PM

psantillana said:

"someone most have fished the actual note out of the wall--which is still pretty shameful."

Well, yes, but we already knew that from the first wailing wall post, didn't we?

July 28, 2008 8:53 PM

Girlwonder said:

<i> At this point, it's their word against that of the two Israeli papers.<i>

When we are talking about the "word" of Ma'ariv, do we mean when they said they received the prayer note from the Yeshiva student, or when they now claim they received it from the campaign?  As for the "word" of Yediot Aharonot, care to post a link to the article, or even to a blog that links to the article?

I'm not saying it's impossible Obama gave the prayer to the media, but there are so many holes in Ma'ariv's current story that it's really hard to believe it merits such an outraged blog post.  First, Ma'ariv already claimed that they got it from a Yeshiva student.  They only claimed that Obama released after there were threats of a criminal investigation.  Second, the Yeshiva student has confessed to stealing the note and giving it to the paper; indeed, the copy of the note Ma'ariv published appears to be the original, folds and all  (if the campaign had released it, why did Ma'ariv need the one taken by the Yeshiva student?).  Third, although the blog linked to claims Yediot Aharonot "obtained" the note, it doesn't have a link to the article.  Even assuming the blog is correct, all the article allegedly said is that it obtained the note but didn't publish it out of respect for Obama's privacy.  If it obtained the note from Obama, why on earth would it refrain from publishing it out of respect for his privacy?  Fourth . . . really, need I go on?  

July 28, 2008 11:48 PM

FBC said:

Well, no, psantillana, we don't already know anyone really took the prayer from the Wall.

According to an unverified post on JPost, the Obama campaign also released the text of his prayer to the Chicago Tribune before Obama went to the Wall. It would be helpful if TNR would verify this. This is consistent with what several Israeli papers have stated, tho it contradicts what the Obama campaign -- or some of them -- have said.

This practice is also consistent with what other celebrities have done. I think the Pope also released the text of his prayer to the media before going to the Wall.

It would make sense, in fact, to remove the note directly, and officially, since souvenir hunters would be inclined to take it. Did this also happen with the Pope's note?

Somewhat consistent with a couple of other oddities of the Obama campaign. Before the Pennsylvania primary, Obama said that religion was just for bitter people, more or less. He backtracked on this, of course. As he's backtracked on getting out of Iraq, and on the unity of Jerusalem. But the impression was that he was signaling to the burgeoning atheist movement among the chattering class -- the Mark Lilla crowd -- that Obama privately gets it, and is just going through a few religious motions in order to get elected.

Certainly this ideology is strong in Europe, and has many adherents in Israel. Could the Maariv editors be among them? Their otherwise irrelevant crack about non-Jews having no rights seems to put them in the Avraham Burg, Yossi Beilin camp.

As this story progresses, I'd expect the Obama campaign to admit that, yes, they did release the text of the note to the media prior to the visit. And those staffers who denied it "misspoke."

No one ever quite took responsibility for keeping those women in hejabs out of the campaign photos, either.

Another unverified post at JPost argues that no actual yeshiva student would go to Channel 2 to confess. Without being expert about the Israeli scene, I'd be inclined to agree. Most black-hat yeshiva students aren't permitted to watch any television, any more than the Amish, and would scarcely take the risk of being exposed as a television-watcher. (The story would spread by word of mouth.)

Whole thing -- including the purported video -- looks staged. Obama gets his name in the press; the intended takeaway is he's a religious guy, and moderately pro-Jewish, putting a prayer in the Wall; and the Maariv editors get a chance to stick it to charedim.

DJStahl

July 28, 2008 11:58 PM

GSpinks said:

FBC, you forgot to incorporate Obama's hajj and why he eats babies.

July 29, 2008 12:15 AM

jhildner said:

FBC:  You're trafficking in false rumors and "unverified" suppositions and inaccurate facts, all to smear Obama as a big phony -- to the point of nutty conspiracy territory -- when it comes to religion -- a smear that is patently false to anyone who has paid attention to Obama and his religious views over the years.  There are in fact no other papers or media outlets confirming that the note or the text of the note was "approved for publication in the international media" by the Obama campaign prior to its being stolen from the wall and reprinted in Ma'ariv.  If you have different information from a reputable source -- not an unverified blog post -- please link to it, instead of jumping to conclusions.

July 29, 2008 12:31 AM

FBC said:

jhildner writes, "...all to smear Obama as a big phony -- to the point of nutty conspiracy territory -- when it comes to religion -- a smear that is patently false to anyone who has paid attention to Obama and his religious views over the years."

Oh, be serious. Obama's comment before the Pennsylvania primary was widely reported, and heard by many as a put-down of religion. More substantially, he's in a cleft stick regarding Rev. Jeremiah Wright. If Obama's a sincere supporter of Rev. Wright, then he's got problems being associated with Wright's wild rants. If Obama isn't a sincere supporter of Wright -- then Obama's open to the same inference that he's not genuinely religious, and he joined Wright's church solely for political advancement.

And Obama's played the Wright matter similarly, with evasion and ambiguity.

Regarding the Wall incident, there are only two reports with any credibility easily available on the net. One is the AP report on the incident, the other by the LA Times. One says another Israeli paper, Yedioth Ahronoth, was "offered" the note. The other says the other paper "obtained" the note.

www.nypost.com/.../israeli_newspaper_publishes_obamas_weste_121564.htm

seattletimes.nwsource.com/.../2008074312_obamanote26.html

Yedioth's English-language site, ynetnews.com, makes no mention of the incident at all.

To read further on the matter, you'd probably need to read the Hebrew-language sites for Yedioth and Maariv. Or actually phone the editors and ask them.

Since Mr. Krieger actually draws a salary for this, I'd prefer that he follow up on it rather than myself. Thus I present reasonable surmises posted elsewhere. Perhaps he can verify them, or disprove them.

1) Is it a common practice of celebrities to publish the contents of the note they plan to place in the Wall? I seem to recall the Pope did so. Have other celebrities done so?

2) Did the Obama campaign give the text to the Chicago Tribune, his hometown paper? Did they give it to any other papers?

As far as hoaxes, have a look at a video on YouTube that purports to show the theft of the note. The URL is above. I see several things there that raise some reasonable doubt.

There seem a bunch of contradictory elements and loose ends to the story. Why would Maariv, a staunchly secular journal, AFIK, include in its statement a comment that non-Jews aren't entitled to privacy?

Mr. Krieger writes above that "the Obama campaign is denying the note was 'approved for publication.' " I have no reason to doubt Mr. Krieger on this. But my cursory Googling didn't turn up that statement by the Obama campaign, either. It'll be interesting, as the story progresses, to see whether the Obama campaign backtracks on this statement also. As noted, they've backtracked on lots of things before.

None dare call it "flip-flopping."

Tho that would apply more to policy positions, while here it just looks like evasion.

Rove had a certain trademark style. The Obama campaign seems to be manifesting its own style. It includes a sort of phantom-punch technique, a quick jab followed by an even quicker pullback.

Accusing Obama of being a smooth politician, comparable to Rove, isn't a conspiracy theory.

July 29, 2008 2:19 AM

nvyossig said:

Ma'ariv reporter Avishai Ben Haim, who published the story, told Army radio yesterday that not only did Ma'ariv get the note from a yeshiva boy, it paid good money for it. Shortly afterwards, the editor in chief of Ma'ariv, Doron Glaser (actually, he's a co-editor in chief) sent an internal memo forbidding all reporters from giving interviews without his specific consent.

July 29, 2008 3:12 AM

drdannyu said:

Just wanted to follow-up and say that I appreciate the contrition, Zvika.  I apologize for the arch tone of my first post.

July 29, 2008 8:16 AM

THE TEXAS SCRIBBLER said:

A friend and sometimes reader says he finds some of my political humor offensive. Well, the truth is, almost nothing I write about politics is intended to be humorous. For instance, I seldom see Baby Barry as a subject for wit. I call...

July 29, 2008 10:08 AM

bigfish said:

"During the Pennsylvania primary, Obama said that religion was just for bitter people, more or less. He backtracked on this, of course."

Um...he didn't say that.  He said that the economically downtrodden who assume that government won't help them out with their pocketbooks cling to issues dealing with religion and guns.  He didn't backtrack, because he never made that statement.

July 29, 2008 10:38 AM

FBC said:

"Ma'ariv ...paid good money for it." Checkbook journalism...

But what then was the note that the unnamed yeshiva student turned over to the reporter at Israel's Channel 2 news, a day or so after Maariv published the text and the image of the note?

So not only did Maariv's editors engage in an apparent invasion of privacy, that offended pretty much everyone in Israeli media, they now say they paid for info, also below the avowed standards of most papers.

And why would Maariv want to pay anything for this note?

The tip-off may be that brief, otherwise superfluous passage in their initial comment -- That Obama as a non-Jew has no right to privacy.

Obviously Maariv is being sarcastic. But a sarcastic comment is peculiarly out of place in this context, and aimed at a local target.

Maariv seems to trend left, the paper of Meretz's Amnon Rubinstein and the late great Tommy Lapid.

In the US, the _Nation_ may be the most notable representative of evangelical anti-religious sentiment entwined with more or less socialist values. The _Forward_ and the Workmen's Circle nowadays are more bourgeois. But in Israel this Meretz outlook is seen as much nearer the center. It was prominently represented in the founding of the state. And in addition it blames religion for the "ghetto Jew" and the meekness that permitted pogroms and worse.

As Wieseltier notes, we're in an era of media stunts. Powell telling the UN about WMDs. Linda Tripp giving Monica Lewinsky's taped confessions to Clinton's adversaries.

There seems a convergence of interests here. Maariv gets to take a shot at the charedi. And the Obama campaign gets to place the story of the prayer note in a particularly advantageous way, getting notoriety because of the theft scandal, but at the same time not getting too much scrutiny of the note itself, because the theft scandal takes up that space.

Rubinstein was involved in another prank a few years ago, when his death was erroneously announced and he was eulogized by Avraham Burg, then the speaker of the Knesset. Haven't heard Maariv was directly implicated.

July 29, 2008 11:00 AM

jhildner said:

FBC:  Your suggestion is that Obama's Christianity is a sham and that he is secretly contemptuous of religion.  Given everything he has said and written over the years, including prior to his presidential or even his U.S. Senate run, that's ridiculous.  His 2006 speech regarding religion and politics expresses his long-held and consistently-expressed views on religion and its place in politics.  obama.senate.gov/.../060628-call_to_renewal  It is evident from this speech, other speeches and statements, as well as his books that he takes his religious belief seriously.  Consider the possibility that you're placing undue weight on one comment that was not intended to express any contempt for religion whatsoever.  The "conspiracy theory" I was referring to was what I took to be your suggestion that the theft of the note was staged by the campaign.  (That does sound nutty to me.)

As for your links, they confirm rather than contradict my initial take.  Neither of those news reports say that the other Israeli paper was given the note or the text of the note *in advance* -- that is, prior to its being placed in the wall -- nor do they say that the other paper was offered the note *by the Obama campaign* or anyone associated with it.  Rather, the reports say only that the other paper was offered the note but declined to publish it, out of concern for Obama's privacy.  Now, if that other paper had obtained the note from the Obama campaign, there would be no privacy concerns.  My inference, as I said before, was that that other paper was offered the note *after the fact* -- after it was taken out of the wall -- but, unlike Ma'ariv -- turned it down because they viewed publishing it as inappropriate.  Doesn't that make the most sense?

As for the Tribune or other papers, there is no reason why they would not say in their own reporting that they had received the note or the text of the note in advance.  Those papers would be in a position to lend some credence to Ma'ariv's account, such as it is.  I have seen no reports in other papers, including the Tribune which I read daily, that those papers received the text in advance.  Why not?  Perhaps because they didn't?

July 29, 2008 12:37 PM

hemlock41 said:

Thanks for the follow-up, Zvika. I'll keep my eye out for any further updates.

July 29, 2008 3:34 PM

The Plank said:

Yesterday, I posted an item about an accusation from Israeli newspaper Ma&#39;ariv that the Obama campaign

July 29, 2008 4:34 PM

FBC said:

jhildner, thanks for the link. Also useful to hear that you haven't seen it in the Chicago Tribune.

The story from Maariv seems to change daily.

Interesting how nonspecific Obama's note was. Christians often mention Christianity in their prayers, the Trinity and so forth, and if Obama expected the note to be kept private, I might have thought he'd use that sort of language. On the other hand, if he expected the world to read it, it would be more likely he'd keep the language nondenominational. But I think the link goes some way toward explaining this.

I think the Pope published his note prior to his visit, and it also was phrased diplomatically, mentioning things common to Christianity and Judaism.

Plenty of other celebrities have visited the Wall and left notes, and I don't recall hearing of anything like this incident.

July 29, 2008 5:23 PM

Soccer Dad said:

via memeorandum I wanted to believe the worst of the Obama campaign. I wanted to believe that they had released the note that the candidate had place in the Kotel (Western Wall) to two newspapers. There was some indication that the paper making the claim

July 30, 2008 8:32 AM