oints of view Missile Defense from page 41 could acquire four Iron Dome batter- ies, and Congress provided the funds. Including this funding, the president has committed $650 million through this fiscal year for cooperative U.S.- Israeli missile defense programs. Beyond this commitment, just last week the Pentagon announced that the administration will work with Congress to seek additional funding for more Iron Dome batteries. Rep. Howard Berman, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has introduced legislation to help Israel buy additional Iron Dome batteries and interceptors. These efforts are in keep- ing with the longstanding and biparti- san U.S. commitment to our partner- ship with Israel. In confronting Iran, President Obama has made clear that a nuclear- armed Iran is unacceptable, and that all options — including military options — are available to prevent such an outcome. Missile defense cooperation with Israel is a powerful factor that can help dissuade Iran from choosing the nuclear weapons path. And should Iran continue its intransigence, missile defense cooperation will help ensure that both our nations can pursue what- ever course of action is appropriate to meet that threat. ❑ Carl Levin is a Democratic U.S. senator from Michigan and chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Dry Bones 42 May 3 2012 Commentary Anti-Semitism Bites 'Watchdog F or more than 50 years, the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), under the auspices of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, has served as a "watchdog" – along with some other trade maga- zines – over the media. As a regular feature, CJR "punishes" media institutions with "darts" for stories that are unprofessional, violate ethics or are guilty of a wide variety of other journalistic offenses. Well, given CJR's performance in its January-February edition, it deserves two darts for just one story. At issue is a long article, "The Times and the Jews" by Neil A. Lewis, which analyzed whether the New York Times is biased against Israel in the paper's cover- age of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Lewis, analyzing how the Times handles Jewish issues, concludes that the Times is not guilty of any unfairness to Israel. While a thoughtful article, one cannot really conclude from his analysis whether the Times violates journalism's most sacred principle – objectivity – in its coverage of Israel. But that subject is best covered in a separate article. At issue is a full-page caricature, accompanying the article, of a Chasidic Jew who, with a scowl on his face, is reading the Times on a park bench. The caricature is remi- niscent of the most vulgar depictions of Jews by the Nazis, anti-Jewish Arab propaganda and other anti-Semitic mate- rial distributed by Jew haters. Indeed, one reader commented on CJR's website: "By the way, nice anti-Semitic cartoon you have with the article. Why don't you make his nose a little longer??? (sic)." Dart No.1. Apparently, reeling from the reaction to the illustration, the magazine posted an "apology" on its website. In a relatively long explanation, CRJ said: "The first thing to say is, we are sorry that anyone was offended." The magazine explained that since Lewis points out that a most "vocal seg- ment" of critics of the Times is heavily Orthodox, "So what we asked for, and got, is a drawing of a man from Orthodox Judaism's Hasidic branch reading the Times and scowling at it." First, it is not quite accurate to main- tain that Lewis attributed much of the criticism of the Times to Orthodox Jews. It is part of the article, but not a major point. Second, even if that were true, the CJR could have illustrated the article to make its point with a much less offensive cari- cature. Third and finally – which merits dart No. 2 – is CJR's apology, which really is not an apology. To state "... we are sorry that anyone was offended" is not the same as stating, "We are sorry for publishing the caricature. It is offensive and we were wrong," or something along those lines. MUBARAK Caricature in the Columbia Journalism Review that accompanied the story "The Times and the Jews" from its January-February 2012 issue As another reader said in a comment on the CJR's web- site: "It is not your place to apologize for what people feel, but to apologize for your actions that caused these feelings. It shouldn't be 'We're sorry people were offended' as their feelings are completely valid and don't need to be excused by an apology. What it should read is, "We're sorry for pub- lishing a (sic) image that is offensive." The whole episode is somewhat ironic because here is a magazine that dedicates itself to "policing" the media, but like the media, cannot bring itself to admit wrongdoing and take responsibility for its mistake. That might even merit dart No. 3. The magazine argued: "The image was okayed along the way by multiple editors and art directors, a group that includes Jews and non-Jews, for what it's worth..." It ain't worth much because all that suggests is that "Jews and non-Jews" at CJR lack the necessary sensitiv- ity. Moreover, including the fact that Jews were involved in approving the image is a lame attempt to escape responsi- bility. Hey, if Jews approved it, it must be OK. That doesn't wash, and CJR would have been better served not to use this argument. Incidentally, it is important to point out that Lewis had no involvement in the choice of the illustration. When I exchanged emails with him on his article, he made that point, adding he knew it would cause a problem as soon as he saw it. If, indeed, none of the entire staff at CJR understood the implications of the illustration, then they all are in need of some sensitivity training. ❑ A former political reporter, Berl Falbaum, of West Bloomfield, is an author and public relations executive, and teaches journalism part-time at Wayne State University.