Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

One of the distinguishing characteristics of AIPAC’s Mideast policy initiatives is their overreaching nature. Not content with merely isolating a Hamas-led PA government, they author a bill which criminalizes even the remotest federal interactions with Hamas. Similarly, not content with merely advocating a military strike against Iran, they have a grandiose vision of a united anti-Jihadist front against that country consisting of the U.S., Israel and India. Far-fetched you say? Not according to AIPAC, which recently sent its board of directors to India for consultations at the highest level including with the prime minister.

It’s useful to note the way this story tries to subtly paint a portrait of two states (India and Israel) united in a war against radical Islam, the upshot being the enemy of my enemy is my friend:

The security measures at Number 7 Race Course Road [the Indian PM's residence] in New Delhi are reminiscent of Jerusalem…As in Israel, special precautions are taken to ensure the protection of the Prime Minister at his official residence. India’s history of political assassinations and terrorism necessitate such measures.

It is in part because of the shared threat of terrorism that the meeting with Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh is about to take place. The AIPAC Board of Directors has journeyed here to meet with India’s national leaders to discuss ways the United States, Israel and India can work more closely together to confront the gravest dangers in today’s world: the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical arms and terrorism motivated by religious extremism.

If you think about the assumptions behind this trip you realize that AIPAC has created a vision of a global war against Islam with essentially the U.S., Israel and whatever other country it can enlist to fight on its side. It’s frightening, almost terrifying. Do American realize the strategic initiatives that this organization is cooking up for our foreign policy? Where AIPAC wants to take us?

Get a load of this hokum:

As Prime Minister Singh enters and greets us each individually, I am struck by the poignancy of the moment. The leader of this country of 1.1 billion people has once again carved out time to have a meaningful conversation on the critical issues of the day with leaders of America’s pro-Israel community. I remember a previous meeting with Prime Minister Singh in New York when he averred that he knew of no other group in history that has played such a prominent role in the development of civilization as the Jewish people.

In the rough-and-tumble world of politics in the world’s largest democracy, Singh presents himself as a humble and dignified man. He is a Sikh leading a nation of some 885 million Hindus and 145 million Muslims.

Do you hear yet another echo of Israel here? In the rough and tumble of world politics, Israel presents itself as a humble and dignified country. It is a Jewish nation amid a world filled with multitudes of far larger religions.

Finally, the writer gets to the heart of the matter, the solicitation of alliance against Iran:

In our meeting with Prime Minister Singh, we…urge a more assertive stand towards Iran. Prime Minister Singh…emphasizes that Iran is obliged to meet international nuclear commitments but that he hopes that dialogue and diplomacy facilitated by the United Nations will lead to a solution.

So far, thank God, he’s not biting.

The report also notes the delegation’s hopes for closer trade and military relations between India and Israel. But note the dastardly Reds and Mohammedans that stand ominously in the way of closer ties:

While the tangibles of defense and economic cooperation are on the rise, there are still areas of concern. The current government, dependent on the votes of a large Muslim voting bloc and the communist party, prefers a lower profile in its relations with Israel, and India continues to vote against Israel at the United Nations. Regarding the Iranian nuclear threat, India’s two votes against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005 and 2006 were extremely important and marked a historic change in India’s approach. Yet India could probably use its special relationship with Iran more nimbly and actively to change Iranian policies that New Delhi opposes.

Note the grandiosity of the phrase “Indian could…change Iranian policies that [it] opposes.” What are they smokin’? Neither the UN, EU, NATO or U.S. has been able to change Iranian policies that it opposes. What magic bullet does New Delhi have that none of the others have?

I want to end on a closing note of realism. It is entirely reasonable for Israel to pursue a closer relationship with India. As the report correctly notes, India is rapidly emerging as one of the world’s top economies. For a country so dependent on exports to fuel its economy, it makes perfect sense for Israel to expand trade with that country. It may even make sense to pursue increased military cooperation. But to delude yourself into believing that Israel and India should join together to make war on a common enemy is foolishness of the most dangerous sort. Furthermore, it ignores the growing warming of relations between Pakistan and India. You’ll recall that a recent bombing of the cross-border train that killed scores of citizens of both countries did not even derail a high level ministerial meeting between the two countries.

A war by Israel or the U.S. against Iran is one of the worst ideas that’s come down the pike since the idea of invading Iraq. Not even a 3-way alliance between Israel, India and the U.S. against Iran (were it to happen) would change that.

Hat tip to M.J. Rosenberg for this story.

tags aipac-supports-israel-india-alliance-against-radical-is, india-israel-relations, india-u.s.-israel-alliance-against-iran

I kid you not. A New York Times reporter tried to slip in this little green bonus to Goldman Sachs in the paper’s story on the levereraged buyout of the energy company, TXU:

People involved in the negotiations said that Goldman Sachs, an adviser and lender to the buyers, helped broker peace with environmental groups and sought their support for the transaction. Goldman Sachs has been one of the most aggressive firms on Wall Street about taking action on climate change; the company sends its bankers home at night in hybrid limousines.

Sorry for the profanity but…big fucking deal. What do they want–a medal? You send your fat cat bankers home at night in a hybrid limo that’s still an environemental outrage.

tags corporate-environmentalism, goldman-sachs-environmental-record, new-york-times, txu-leverage-buyout

Some of us writing political blogs started because we had a burning passion to say something to the world and some of us like right-wing legal blogger Ann Althouse, er, didn’t:

Unlike a lot of other political bloggers, I started blogging with a distinct lack of interest in politics. My first post about a presidential campaign, back in January 2004, the first month of my blog, was purely an accident. I was reading The Isthmus, our free alternative newspaper here in Madison, Wisc., when I ran across a chart comparing the Democratic candidates for president.

Because I had the longtime habit, inherited from my grandfather, of reading out loud whatever little things in the newspaper happened to catch my attention, I said: “Hmm. ‘Little known fact: at 59, Wesley Clark has only 5% body fat.’ ”

My son Christopher, who was used to finding himself on the receiving end of this habit, came back with: “Should it be: ‘Wesley Clark is 5% body fat?’ ”

That cracked me up, and, instantly making the transition from old family habit to new blogging habit, I posted our little interchange on my blog. I didn’t care at all whether I was helping or hurting Clark’s campaign for the Democratic nomination. I had merely encountered something that amused me at the time. I wasn’t aiming to become a political pundit. That blog post had more to do with my interest in the rhetoric of dieting, the subtleties of language and my son’s sense of humor than with politics.

–New York Times (TimesSelect membership required)

There’s a multitude of things I find unbelievable about this passage. First, that this incident was what motivated her first blog post. Second, that a political blogger admits to “a distinct lack of interest in politics.” Third, that she finds this cute or funny or…I don’t know what. Fourth, that the NY Times actually published this shit. Other than that, it’s brilliant.

tags ann-althouse-political-blogger, new-york-times

Cecilie Surasky has just pointed me to some draw-dropping material in Rachel Neuwirth’s website, Mideast Solutions. After you read it, you’ll wonder why she stopped at calling Chaim Seidler Feller, UCLA Hillel rabbi, a ‘kapo.’ The woman claims that Israeil and American Jews who advocate peace with the Arabs are a “fifth column” which forfeits its right to call itself Jewish and should be tried at a Nuremberg-like tribunal for crimes against the Jewish people. I’m not makin’ this stuff up:

The security of Israel is…endangered by the presence of what can only be called a Jewish “fifth column”. These are renegade individuals, who exploit their Jewish ancestry, who work obsessively and maliciously to undermine the security of the Jewish people in general, and the State of Israel in particular.

Although a small minority, they have infiltrated the centers of power. They hold positions of influence in: labor unions, academia, the courts, the media, political office, and even the military. They also include self-styled ‘activists’ who elbow their way to prominence and claim to speak for the masses. They consistently denigrate and subvert legitimate Jewish rights in favor of advancing antagonistic Arab interests, often by way of deception, malicious falsehoods and double standards. They readily misinterpret Judaism for ideological purposes and even demonize those Jews who are religiously observant. They often hold ideological allegiance to the militant international left, which raises the question of their having dual loyalties.

Claiming to be promoting peace they push lopsided and unworkable schemes such as the Oslo Accords, the Geneva Accords and now the Roadmap, all of which undermine Jewish rights, endanger the Jewish character of the country and endanger Israel’s physical security.

It is this radical Jewish left whose activities increased Israel’s vulnerability to Arab terrorism resulting in many additional Israeli and Arab casualties. It is the radical Jewish left that contributed to the immense moral and political corruption that pervades the Israeli government and many institutions. The destructive influence of this Jewish “fifth column” has caused hundreds of thousands of patriotic Israelis, who had their fill of this corruption, to emigrate to other countries.

These individuals have long forfeited their claim to be considered legitimately Jewish and to live freely in the Jewish State of Israel.
…These Jewish “fifth columnists” are consciously malevolent and know full well what they are doing. They should each stand trial before a Nuremberg-style tribunal on the charge of perpetrating war crimes against the Jewish people and for crimes against humanity. Those found guilty should be given a near-term date to emigrate voluntarily, forfeiting only their real property, or face physical expulsion minus all their assets. This would be extremely lenient considering that many victims of their treasonous actions have been killed and wounded. Just as they vigorously supported the expulsion of Jews from Gaza, even under brutal conditions, in the name of peace and security, they cannot now object to their own removal, also, in the name of peace and security.

This propaganda is, of course, entirely reminiscent of the ideology that drove Yigal Amir to assassinate Yitzchak Rabin. It is also perfectly consonant with the racialism of Meir Kahane, who railed against Jewish traitors in our midst. This extremist rhetoric is reflected as well in Neuwirth’s pathological harassment and abuse of Jews who support Mideast peace as I noted, with examples, in a recent post.

So why is this important? Because the director of a major Jewish organization has essentially endorsed the type of views espoused by Neuwirth and her ally, Allyson Rowen Taylor. Today, at my earlier post about Seidler Feller’s settlement with Neuwirth, Gary Ratner, AJCongress regional director, continued to defend both Neuwirth and Rowen Taylor despite their deranged attitudes toward some of their fellow Jews. In addition, Ratner keeps up the ideological attack on Seidler Feller, which shows unfortunately that the Jewish right continues to have him in its crosshairs. Here are some selected passages from his comment:

This attack [my earlier post] on her [Neuwirth] is completely unwarranted and wrong. Please note that she won a lawsuit against Rabbi Seidler Feller [ed. she settled a claim against him but did not "win a lawsuit"]…

How can the writer of this article accuse her of anything but being a victim of a “Rabbi” who had to undergo anger management. It is Seider-Feller that should and has fessed up to his hostility to fellow Jews. Whatever Rachel’s views are she is entitled to and if one believes in freedom of expression, I dont understand how one can attack her.

At this point, one has to ask: does the AJCongress believe that Neuwirth is “entitled to her view” that some Jews should be tried for crimes against humanity? Is this the type of ideological profile they approve of in their board members? After all, the website where the above hate exists, MideastSolutions, predated her service on the AJCongress board. He could’ve easily looked this stuff up. I’m simply dumbfounded that Ratner would’ve accepted such a despicable human being for service with his organization.

Ratner defends even more vigorouly Rowen Taylor (links to posts I’ve written about her):

As for Allyson Rowen Taylor, she is a dedicated fighter and advocate for Israel and the Jewish people. Maybe in the heat of an argument she may have said some words she regrets, but that does not take away from all the good she has done. She did not physically attack any person. Also, she has a son who put his life on the line by serving in the IDF and can personally attest from his accounts as to the real reality in Judea and Samaria. How many of those who made comments against her say that they had children serving in the IDF??

I personally have tried to work with Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller asking him to co-sponsor some speakers in spite of our differences, but he did not even have the courtesy of a response. So who is trying to work together on behalf of the Jewish people. Not the Rabbi. His most recent comments about the movie “Obsession” in the New York times on Feb 26th are shocking in their naivete.

I made a detailed rebuttal to Ratner’s meretricious argument in the comment thread so I won’t repeat myself here. Except to say that Rowen Taylor accused a fellow Jew working for the American Friends Service Committee of supporting the “murder of your fellow Jews,” in addition to accusing former Pres. Jimmy Carter of “being in cahoots with Islamofascism.” How can any of this be construed in any way as “doing good?”

Ratner is also slightly schizophrenic in his attitude toward Neuwirth and Rowen Taylor, as I spoke with him by phone twice on this subject. Each time he disparaged both and made clear that he felt he was well-rid of them. Rowen Taylor, he felt was a disaster for his organization. So I’m puzzled why he feels compelled to come to their defense so vigorouly in public.

Barack Obama’s first major address to an AIPAC forum since announcing his presidential bid happens Friday in Chicago. Considering his fairly outspoken independent position regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict thus far, I’ll be very curious how he will “package” himself for this audience. If he says the things he’s been saying he will disappoint them since AIPAC expects a far more pro-Israel position. If he says things much different from what he said during his 60 Minutes interview in which he flatly supported U.S. negotiations with both Syria and Iran, he will disappoint American Jews supporting Israeli-Palestinian peace. Plus, he will make supporters wonder at his change of heart. It promises to be interesting.

tags obama-addresses-aipac-on-israel

Thank God for realists. And I just wish there were a few more of 'em within the Bush Administration' and the Shin Bet and IDF military intelligence. Ephraim Kam of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies released a report earlier this month on the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel, A Nuclear Iran: What Does It Mean, What Can Be Done (pdf). If you've been reading the bellicosity of folks like Dick Cheney and the Israeli government rattling their sabers for war, you'll be amazed at the sanity and level-headedness of this study. Would that Israeli policymakers read it and memorized it. I should make clear that these are not wild-eyed radicals claiming that Iran ...

My original post, Obama and the Jewish Vote, has been published at The Guardian's Comment is Free blog where it's now titled A Breath of Fresh Air. Thanks to Brian Whittaker for accepting it for publication. Some wild notions in the comment thread. Did you know that the 'smear Soros' crowd claims he isn't Jewish because he's allegedly an atheist? Leaving aside that both his parents were Jewish, Judaism never has had a litmus test that required belief in God to be identified as a Jew.

The bad news is that Pan's Labyrinth didn't win the Oscar for Best Foreign Film. But the good news is that it won THREE other awards (Best Cinematography, Best Makeup and Best Art Direction). And in those categories it was truly deserving. The fantasy characters in the dream sequences of this film are stunning--like very little you've seen before in film. If you haven't yet seen it read my review and go. I was also pleased that West Bank Story won for Best Live Action Short, the first Israeli film to do so. Don't be put off by the hokey website. Kenneth ...

Did he say it or didn't he? Peter Bart, in Variety, paraphrases a statement allegedly made by John Edwards at a Hollywood fundraiser: John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close. Edwards is backpedaling as fast as his feet will carry him: "The January 19th Variety article is erroneous," said Edwards spokesman Jonathan Prince. "Senator Edwards did not say nor does he believe that the greatest short-term threat ...

Things may be changing at the New Republic with their new owner. But what was this NY Times reporter thinking when she wrote: The New Republic, the thinning, left-leaning weekly magazine... Left-leaning? In her dreams. And given this news, how much can The New Republic really change? Martin Peretz, the magazine’s editor in chief, known for his neo-conservative bent and support for Israel, will retain his quarter interest in the company. Can anyone explain how a magazine with a "neo-conservative" editor in chief can be "left-leaning?" Mr. Peretz, who said he had disagreed with many of the magazine’s editorials over his 33 years there, said he was not troubled by Mr. Foer’s moves [away from neoconservatism]. “I don’t fear or feel that my ...