Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Archive for April, 2009

Khaled Meshal: Hamas Accepts ‘Palestinian State Based on 1967 Borders’

Monday, April 13th, 2009

In the N.Y. Times, distinguished Australian journalist Paul McGeough writes of a recent interview with Hamas’ Khaled Meshal. There is some interesting new mood music coming out of Damascus from the Hamas Diaspora leadership:

Pressed on policy changes that Hamas might make as a gesture to any new order, Mr. Mishal argued that the organization has already shifted on several key points: “Hamas has already changed — we accepted the national accords for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, and we took part in the 2006 Palestinian elections.”

The reporter follows up with his own interesting portrayal of Meshal’s views comparing them with those of Bibi Netanyahu:

Over the long term, Hamas accepts the concept of two states in the Levant, which arguably puts Mr. Mishal’s terrorist movement closer to Washington than Netanyahu is — he now proposes only “economic peace” between Jews and Palestinians.

I think perhaps McGeough is a bit too kind to Meshal.  Saying that he accepts a two-state solution in the long term can mean everything or nothing.  But I do agree with him that Hamas is closer to accepting a two-state solution than it has ever been and that Meshal’s statement above is tacit acceptance of this position.

Beyond this, it is very suggestive to compare the relative acceptance of this position by the leaders of Hamas and of Israel.  Even if one wishes to argue that Hamas does not accept Israel’s existence and never will–Israel’s new leadership is much closer to this view of Palestinian statehood than almost any previous leadership going back perhaps to Menachem Begin. In other words, if you think ill of Hamas you must also concede that Netanyahu’s rejectionist views are much closer to those of Hamas than Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni or even Ariel Sharon.

Unfortunately, Meshal rebuffs McGeough when he asks whether the Charter will be rewritten.  The latter reminds his readers that this is not a diplomat or leader seeking to curry favor in the west, but rather a hardened leader skilled in the ways of political combat and resistance.  In other words, he’s not eager to be at anyone’s beck and call merely to make a favorable impression in the west.

Another part of the mood music that McGeough picks up is the streams of politically-connected international visitors beating a path to Meshal’s door.  This too is an indication that the ice is slowly melting and while Hamas isn’t exactly being welcomed with open arms by the world community, it is finding a more receptive audience than it ever has before.  All this, provides opportunities (and possible pitfalls) for would-be peacemakers like Barack Obama.

I hope that Ethan Bronner reads this column before he next writes the word ‘Hamas’ in one of his reports, which he inevitably follows with the qualifier, “which advocates the destruction of Israel.”  This is a simplistic and dismissive  assessment which isn’t worthy of the pages of a serious newspaper.

Sholem Aleichem’s Seder, the Sarajevo Haggadah, Moses’ Hidden Identity and Dayenu

Saturday, April 11th, 2009
sarajevo haggadah ma nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah, 'Mah nishtanah' page (Talmud.de)

For some reason, I haven’t felt motivated to write a specifically peysadika post this year. But I’ve published some interesting material in years past to which I’ll draw attention:

Sholem Aleichem’s story, Elijah the Prophet is a children’s fable about a young boy faced with a seder dilemma: if he falls asleep after drinking the cups of wine Elijah will take him away and he’ll never see his parents again.  I’m proud to say that I translated this story and that it is not available as far as I know anywhere else (in English).  I’m not proud to say that every Jewish publisher I’ve approached has rejected it.

A few years ago I produced a Jewish music radio program on Passover music which you might enjoy.  It features contemporary Israeli, Sephardic, and American Jewish traditional and original compositions.

I wrote a post about the amazing nine lives of the Sarajevo Haggadah.

A few years ago, I also wrote this meditation on the lives of Moses and Abraham in the context of modern Jewish identity.  The Moses portion of the essay, in particular, deals closely with the Passover-exodus story.

I wish you all a sweet and joyous holiday: a zisyn Pesach.

David Hare and the Wall

Saturday, April 11th, 2009

Thank God, I’ve somehow got the American Task Force on Palestine’s daily news bulletin to work via its RSS feed. Though they ostensibly have a direct e mail subscription, mine stopped working long ago and I couldn’t get anyone there to help figure out what was wrong. ATFP’s daily bulletin is a tremendous resource that covers the globe finding the best media material about the Israeli-Arab conflict.

The bulletin informed me about a rich meditation by playwright David Hare on Israel’s Separation Wall.  Hare also wrote a play about the conflict, Via Dolorosa.  Unlike another distinguished British playwright, Harold Pinter, Hare’s analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is balanced enough to acknowledge the tragedy posed by the Occupation for both peoples.  He is willing to criticize both sides and appreciate that moral weakness and bad judgment is not a monopoly owned solely by Israel or Palestine.

As I found myself highlighting and saving a few choice passages for future use, I realized I had a post in the making.  So here are some of the choice bits.

I can’t begin to tell you how many pro-Israel apologists have argued here that the Separation Wall has reduced terror.  Hare quotes Sari Nusseibeh making one of the shrewdest and and most acute observations I’ve ever heard on the subject:

It’s like sticking someone in a cage and then when he starts screaming, as any normal person would, using his violent temper as justification for putting him in the cage in the first place. The wall is the perfect crime because it creates the violence it was ostensibly built to prevent.

Hare also quotes another famous, but unnamed Israeli writer opining on the odd sense of self-doubt that afflicts Israelis:

Israel, he says, has no real confidence in its own survival. “Israelis have a very fragile sense of the future,” he says.

“It’s incredible but the country itself still feels provisional. Of what other state can this be said? I notice when I am in Britain that you plan for 2038, you say there will be this railway or that airport. But no Israeli plans so far ahead without feeling a pang in his heart which asks whether we shall be here at all. We look so strong from the outside, we have such a large army, so many nuclear weapons, we’re so certain in our expansion, and yet from the inside it doesn’t feel like that. We feel our being is not guaranteed. You might say we have imported from the Diaspora the Jewish disease—a sense of rootlessness, an ability to adapt and make do, but not to settle. After sixty years, Israel is not yet a home.”

The Israeli describes a phenomenon I’ve often portrayed here in this blog–not just a belief system of Israelis but of Diaspora Jews as well.  It is a notion borne largely of the Shoah and historic Jewish suffering, which anticipates disaster just around the corner.  And of course, the person who expects the worst not only will find it–but will inadvertently cause the worst to happen in a cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy.

I thoroughly reject the writer’s notion that this is a Diaspora “Jewish disease.”  In fact, if Israel developed some of the survival skills and sense of humility learned by Diaspora Jewish communities it might find more success in acclimating itself within the Middle East.

It’s important to note as I said above, that Hare doesn’t shrink from portraying the ways in which the Occupation has twisted the Palestinians as well.  In a West Bank cafe, he turns and sees a poster of Saddam Hussein and has one of those out of body experiences:

On the wall, in this decaying spot, the only new thing: a bright gleaming poster of Saddam Hussein.

It’s one of those moments. I know as soon as I look I’m never going to forget. How do you react to that? If you were going to choose a hero, could you choose a worse? If you were going to choose a future, could you so completely misconceive it? If you were going to choose a leader to take you precisely nowhere, could you do better than Saddam Hussein?…You choose as your poster boy someone who has done the world, and the Arab world above all, nothing but harm. The master of mass graves and untold massacres.

I turn to my companion. “What is this?” I ask…He shrugs, embarrassed. “Well, Saddam stood up to the Americans didn’t he?” And is that the only reason? He shrugs again. “We hated Saddam Hussein. Like everyone else. We despised him. We couldn’t stand him. Until he stood up to the Americans.”

“But he didn’t believe anything you believe.”

…At least now I know why the wall’s gone up. The Israelis want to separate themselves from people who display posters of Saddam Hussein. Who can blame them? Or—hold on, the old conundrum—do they display posters of Saddam Hussein because somebody just put up a wall?

In the final sentence you read a writer who has fully mastered the strangeness and duality that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  He can write something that lambastes the delusions of the Palestinians, while at the same time acknowledging that the crimes of the Israelis may be the cause of the delusion.  This is the work of a master observer.

Hare notes more delicious ironies in his conversation with Raja Shehadeh, author of Palestine Walks:

Coming into Ramallah now. Raja Shehadeh, a lawyer who lives here, says that it is Ramallah’s greatest good fortune not to be mentioned in the Bible. For that reason Ramallah is left alone, of no interest to fanatics, because its religious significance is precisely nothing. Nothing divine happened in Ramallah. What a stroke of luck for any town that wants to survive! Not to be named in any Holy Book!

Hare once again understands the tragic irony of these world religions fighting over sacred ground.  Jewish history in land of Israel and our relationship with God as it played out here is supposed to infuse us with a spark of the divine.  It is supposed to make us better, more humble human beings.  It should make us love God, our fellow Jews and our fellow human beings.  Instead, it turns us into animals, into haters.

And in this sentence, the English playwright captures my own sense of Israeli governments going back at least to 1967, if not earlier.  Here he quotes Benjamin Disraeli, whom he provocatively calls England’s “only Jewish prime minister” (though I believe Disraeli did not consider himself Jewish):

“You can tell a weak government by its eagerness to resort to strong measures.”

Israeli governments seems always weak and on the verge of disintegrating, and always resort to bellicosity and wars to make whatever political point needs making.  Yet the weak government never seems to find success in its strong measures.  On the contrary.

Avigdor Lieberman’s American Jewish Enablers

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

American Jewish leader like to give the impression of being vaguely centrist and pro-Israel.  Nisht ahin, nisht aher, (“not too much of this, nor too much of that”) as they say in Yiddish.  But every once in a while the hopelessly compromised rightward slant of their views is illuminated like a lightning flash.  That’s happened in James Besser’s latest Jewish Week story on the reception Yvet is getting among the American Jewish leadership.  Certainly no one expected a rapturous reception and he’s not getting one.  But what IS surprising is the “live and let live” attitude adopted by some of the more prominent Israel lobby organizations.

When confronted with the ugly face of Israeli racism and fascism, the AJC’s David Harris confronts the issue squarely and firmly and…attacks J Street!  That’s right.  The problem isn’t Yvet, it’s those no good anti-Semit’n who pass themselves off as Jews.


J Street, you see, really took the bull by the horns and posted a hard-hitting video which laid out Lieberman’s views for all the world to see and, has v’halila, distributed it on Youtube, thus washing Jewish dirty linen in one of the most popular web venues in the world.  Not nice, and just not done by groups that truly love Israel—like the AJC, of course.  So this is Harris’ response:

“It doesn’t help Israel,” said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee. “[Instead of J Street attacks on Lieberman] we need much more focus on the eight ball; what does demonizing the new foreign minister get you?”

…“I’m not sure what they accomplished…He was portrayed in the worst possible way; the images seemed chosen to portray him as a dark, almost demonic figure. He’s there, give him a chance, judge him not by what he says by what this government does.”

“A dark, almost demonic figure…”  Gee, maybe that’s because it’s what Lieberman IS.  Arabs certainly see him that way.  Even American Jews see him that way.  He had only a 27% approval rating in the recent J Street poll.  Israeli voters aren’t much more positive in the latest Haaretz poll.  The Israeli and American Jewish mainstream has a distinct distaste for Lieberman’s hatemongering.  The only ones pleading for patience on Yvet’s behalf are the leadership elites like Harris and a few others.

Another one of the pro-Israel elites stumping for the Yisrael Beitenu leader is Jennifer Mizrahi, chief ideologue for the Israel Project.  Her comments were even more telling than Harris’:

Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, founder and president of The Israel Project, conceded that Lieberman, dramatically different from the suave, Americanized Netanyahu, is a lightning rod for many American Jews.

Different can be scary,” said Laszlo Mizrahi, whose group works with media to present Israel favorably. “There were people who thought Barack Hussein Obama was scary because of his middle name.”

But ultimately, the issue is “Prime Minister Netanyahu, and what his new government stands for and what it will deliver in terms of peace and security for Israel and its neighbors.”

Now that IS rich. Lieberman is merely ‘different.’ Not aberrant mind you. Not pathological. Not racist. Not violent. Not corrupt. Just “different.” That must be the reason he scores so poorly in the polls I mentioned. People just don’t like his accent.

Also rich, is Mizrahi’s comparison of Lieberman and Obama, as if Lieberman’s Russian name Yevgeny, like Obama’s middle name Hussein, is what puts people off. Considering that Mizrahi was likely one of those neocon Jews who was circulating the Obama smears noting his middle name and accusing him of being anti-Israel and a Muslim, it’s quite humorous to see her try to anesthetize American Jewish hostility to Lieberman by telling us we don’t like him–not because of what he stands for–but because he’s a little different than what we’re used to.

Instead of worrying about Lieberman, she said, Jewish groups should be focusing on “the fact this prime minister wants to create a better economic future for the Palestinians, which is tough to do at a time when Israel itself is experiencing massive unemployment.”

Here again Mizrahi takes us for rubes by passing off Bibi’s avowed aim of bringing economic betterment to Palestinians in place of political freedom, as something substantive. It’s as if she’s saying our fear of Lieberman is merely the fear of the bogeyman, while what’s real and important is Netanyahu’s economic plan. The truth is precisely the opposite: what is real is Lieberman’s racism; what is fake is the new prime minister’s “plan” to improve Palestinians’ lives.

She echoed another theme of mainstream pro-Israel groups: Lieberman isn’t the radical firebrand portrayed in the press.

“I think one of his most significant quotes was that if there’s a sustainable peace, he would give up his own home. How many political leaders can say something like that?”

More importantly, how many political leaders would you BELIEVE when they say something like that? And if you’d believe Lieberman then you’re probably the proud owner of a certain New York City bridge and some beautiful swampland in Florida.

Mizrahi doesn’t understand that with Israeli pols, talk is cheap. It means nothing. Lies mean nothing. Actions speak louder. Inaction speaks louder still. And a frozen status quo practically screams.

If David Harris and Jennifer Mizrahi want to pimp for Lieberman that’s their perogative. But as a character says in Hester Street, “you can’t piss on my back and tell me it’s rain.” Everyone else in this country knows the true Lieberman and “won’t be fooled again.”

Three Demands of Hamas: Two Can Play at This Game

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

I picked this up from the Pulse. Note the delicious irony of the PA now demanding of Netanyahu precisely what Israel and the U.S. demand of Hamas before it can be recognized as legitimate by the world.  The story is by Ben Caspit in Maariv:

The PA will not hold any talks with the Netanyahu government until three conditions are met: the settlements are frozen, Israeli recognizes all the agreements signed between the sides and all the agreements appended to them, and Israel recognizes the solution of “two states for two peoples,” high-ranking Palestinian figures told Ma’ariv.

This is a…decision that was made after Netanyahu’s victory, and refers to any talks between the sides, including sending messengers such as Attorney Yitzhak Molcho, who was and remains Netanyahu’s personal envoy to the Palestinians. Molcho has been taking part in the last few days in the feverish consultations that Netanyahu is holding as part of the “reassessment” he is making on the Palestinian issue. Naturally the Palestinian decision also refers to meetings of the leaders, Abu Mazen and Netanyahu, which will not be held, as said, until the conditions are met.

The Palestinian decision casts in a problematic light the Netanyahu government, which is now operating in a vacuum, without a clear or declared policy, except for general mutterings about a commitment to the peace process. Israel is cast as the rejectionist, similar to Hamas, which also refuses to meet the three conditions set by the international community. Abu Mazen himself said in the last few days, in closed meetings as well as in open forums, things from which it could be understood that there would be no negotiations or talks with Israel until these conditions were met.

Let it not be said that Abu Mazen is not an excellent ironist. A very deft flanking move on his part. It defines Netanyahu as the rejectionist before he’s even had a chance to define himself. Not that Netanyahu has many cards to play here. What can he say in his own defense?

Jerusalem Post’s Norwegian Anti-Semitism Hoax

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

If I had a dollar for every commenter here who quoted the Jerusalem Post and with a straight face tried to fob it off as a serious, centrist, non-partisan newspaper, I’d probably be able to buy myself dinner at a very nice Seattle restaurant.  And the shock and consternation that greeted my claims that the Post was little more than a right-wing scandal sheet was indignant.  How dare I criticize the Post because it didn’t share my “leftist” views.

One of the high points of this was my attack on the Post and Aussie Dave for their hosting of the left-rein Jewish and Israeli Blog Awards a few years back.  I was critical in writing here of the fact that the Awards either overlooked or deliberately ignored almost every blogger who was left of Bibi Netanyahu on the Israeli political scale.  My oh my the pro-Israel blogosphere, including Aussie Dave and David Abitbol among them, was up in arms.  The very idea that there was no ideological parity in those nominated offended them no end.

And then we shouldn’t forget the Post’s attempt, without even interviewing me, to paint me as someone who rationalized the murder of the Mumbai Chabad Jews by denying an anti-Semitic motivation to the assault.

Thanks to Phil Weiss and Bruce Wolman for amplifying in the Jewish blogosphere the deserved shame befalling the Post for the incredible Norwegian anti-Semitism hoax.  It appears that one of its reporters accepted the bona fides of an informant who claimed to be a Norwegian Jew and an officer in the Norwegian army.  Despite the fact that the reporter exhibited reprehensible journalistic standards, I do have to say that another Israeli living in Norway did vouch for the impostor making it harder to smell the rat.

Returning to the hoaxster, naturally he complained of rampant Norwegian anti-Semitism and the reporter used him as a significant witness to the supposed scourge within Norwegian society.

Luckily, local newspapers did their job and began trying to find “David Weiss” and could not do so.  The army had no record of an officer by that name.  It turns out that David Weiss does not exist.  And the hoaxster is not only not an officer, he isn’t a member of the Norwegian army.  Amazing that the pro-Israel right feels it has to wrap itself in a military uniform in order to bolster its bona fides.

And all the other claims of anti-Semitism, including one that the country’s finance minister shouted “death to Jews” at an anti-Gaza war rally?  Also a fraud.  The Post itself finally had to admit that life for Jews in Norway is about the same as it is in any typical western democracy:

In general, they [real Norwegian Jews the Post finally found and interviewed] say, Norway does not suffer from widespread anti-Semitism. Norwegian Jews are an accepted and respected part of the country. But, they add, there are rare incidents of tension over their Jewishness, usually with children being teased in school or with Muslim immigrants bringing their politics into their day-to-day meetings with Jews.

Simply amazing that it took them multiple stories, retractions and apologies and a few thousand words to end up finally where they were before they published the “expose”–in other words, there is no serious anti-Semitism in Norway.  Also amazing is the final sentence in which the Post attempts to do a “yes, but.”  Yes, we have egg on our face and embarrassed ourselves before the entire world journalistic community; but, there is teasing of Jews in schools and Muslims actually have the temerity to speak their mind about their views when in the presence of Jews.  It’s almost as good as a government minister shouting “death to Jews,” isn’t it–the Post seems to be saying.

The most important lesson from this incident, that further shines a light on the ideological pro-Israel straightjacket in which the Post has placed itself, comes from the editor of the local Norwegian paper which helped uncover the hoax:

Once upon a time The Jerusalem Post was an important newspaper. For all of us who had worked on-and-off in Israel, it was indispensable. The Post solidly and analytically reported all about Israeli society.

But that was long ago. It has since been overtaken by owners and staff who are firmly positioned far out on the Israeli right, and it has been a long time since one could find reliable information there…

This has been dramatic, and there is no doubt that Norway is one of the western countries with the strongest engagement in the Mideast and clearest critiques of Israel. The reasons are complicated, but one of the many important elements is the fate of the Oslo-accords.

But there is a long distance from an active Israeli critique to something comparatively as nasty and as dangerous as anti-Semitism.

…The extreme Israeli Right [represented by the Post]…considers nearly all criticism of Israel as synonymous with hatred of Jews…For if they can succeed in placing the criticisms within the stinking stall of anti-Semitism, then they have also neutered the criticism. Hence, it becomes very important for them to widen the concept of anti-Semitism itself – and to make use of it.

Obama in Ankara: ‘Jews Have to See Palestinian Perspective’

Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

I’ve never felt prouder of being a blogger than in writing this post.  I’ve never felt prouder of being an American.  In my entire life, this country has never had a president who made me entirely proud.  Yes, I respected Carter and admired Clinton (politically that is).  But I never felt they entirely represented me or my views.  But Barack Obama has changed all that and I simply can’t adequately describe the feeling.

Maybe you’ll feel that way too after you read this.  It is taken from a conversation Obama held with Jewish, Muslim and Christian students in Ankara just before he left to fly home:

I believe that peace in the Middle East is possible. I think it will be based on two states, side by side: a Palestinian state and a Jewish state. I think in order to achieve that, both sides are going to have to make compromises. I think we have a sense of what those compromises should be and will be. Now what we need is political will and courage on the part of leadership.

…I have to believe that the mothers of Palestinians and the mothers of Israelis hope the same thing for their children. They want them not to be vulnerable to violence. They don’t want, when their child gets on a bus, to worry that that bus might explode. They don’t want their child to have to suffer indignities because of who they are. And so sometimes I think that if you just put the mothers in charge for a while, that things would get resolved.

And it’s that spirit of thinking about the future and not the past that I just talked about earlier that I think could help advance the peace process, because if you look at the situation there, over time I don’t believe it’s sustainable.

It’s not sustainable for Israel’s security because as populations grow around them, if there is more and more antagonism towards Israel, over time that will make Israel less secure.

It’s not sustainable for the Palestinians because increasingly their economies are unable to produce the jobs and the goods and the income for people’s basic quality of life.

So we know that path is a dead end, and we’ve got to move in a new direction. But it’s going to be hard. A lot of mistrust has been built up, a lot of anger, a lot of hatred. And unwinding that hatred requires patience.

…But it will depend on young people like you being open to new ideas and new possibilities. And it will require young people like you never to stereotype or assume the worst about other people.In the Muslim world, this notion that somehow everything is the fault of the Israelis lacks balance — because there’s two sides to every question. That doesn’t mean that sometimes one side has done something wrong and should not be condemned. But it does mean there’s always two sides to an issue.

I say the same thing to my Jewish friends, which is you have to see the perspective of the Palestinians. Learning to stand in somebody else’s shoes to see through their eyes, that’s how peace begins. And it’s up to you to make that happen.

As bloggers, we expound on issues, we critique, we interpret.  This is one of the first times as a blogger when I simply didn’t think I could add anything that wasn’t in the original.  Read it and enjoy!  For more coverage of this story and its background, read the Jerusalem Post.

On a related matter, the Obama administration has begun briefing Democratic congressmembers telling them to expect a confrontation with the new Netanyahu government over the direction of the peace process:

In an unprecedented move, the Obama administration is readying for a possible confrontation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by briefing Democratic congressmen on the peace process and the positions of the new government in Israel regarding a two-state solution. The Obama administration is expecting a clash with Netanyahu over his refusal to support the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

In recent weeks, American officials have…prepared the ground for the possibility of disagreements with Israel over the peace process, according to information recently received. The preemptive briefing is meant to foil the possibility that Netanyahu may try to bypass the administration by rallying support in Congress.

Once again, this is a development that is unheard of.  Presidents simply don’t telegraph these sorts of things in advance to the Israelis and Aipac and their diehard supporters in Congress.  Usually presidents prefer to pretend that all’s well and there can never be a divide between them and the Israelis.

The only comparable situation I can think of is George H.W. Bush and Jim Baker, who really put Yitzchak Shamir’s feet to the fire (and he didn’t like it one goddamn bit) leading up to the Madrid conference.  That made for some very cool relations between the two nations for quite some time.

I think it’s imperative that Obama, in disagreeing with Netanyahu, needs to appeal over his head to the Israeli people (just as Netanyahu will attempt to do the reverse here) and American Jews.  The president needs to act both here and in Israel as if he is the nation’s best friend and that it is Netanyahu who is the obdurate one.  It is Bibi who endangers his own people with his policies.  While Obama wants only what is best (and fair) for Israel.

For the first time in a generation, it is clear that the only way to bring peace is by exerting pressure on an Israeli government to compromise.  The U.S. will need to get the EU on board as this needs to be a coordinated strategy.  Netanyahu cannot be allowed to play various nations, blocs and constituencies off against each other.  He must see that wherever he turns everyone wants him to make peace.  No one must give him an “out.”

In another dramatic parting from the policies of the Bush administration, Obama has let it be known that the U.S. has no objection to a Hamas-Fatah unity government.  Of course, this is mitigated by the fact that the U.S. is still insisting that Hamas recognize Israel before the former will accept Hamas within such a government.  But progress happens in small increments.  You’ll recall that the Bushites objected so strongly to the Hamas-led P.A. that it sent David Welch to foment an armed rebellion by Fatah against Hamas.  This led to the latter’s Gaza counter-coup.  Thank God, there will be no such shenanigans in the coming four years.

Apparently, another development we will not see is an Israeli attack on Iran, at least according to Joe Biden:

In the [CNN] interview, Biden was asked whether he was concerned that Netanyahu might strike Iranian nuclear facilities.

“I don’t believe Prime Minister Netanyahu would do that. I think he would be ill advised to do that,” Biden said.  “And so my level of concern is no different than it was a year ago.”

My God, I feel we’ve hit a political trifecta: a president who “gets” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is willing to pressure Israel (and the Palestinians) to get to peace, and who will not allow Israel to embroil itself in a military adventure against Iran.  Pinch me–I must be dreaming!

Obama in Ankara: ‘U.S. is Not, and Will Never Be at War with Islam’

Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

Barack Obama’s Ankara speech contained many interesting ideas that are worth reviewing.  Of course, the most important feature of the speech was that an American president was giving it at all. In other words, relations with both Turkey and the Muslim world have been so dismal that just being there provided a tremendous amount of drama. Then of course, there was the right wing smear campaign waged against Obama during the campaign in which hatemongers like Daniel Pipes and others accused the candidate of being Muslim (or in Pipes’ case, of being a Muslim “apostate”). Thus the Ankara speech seemed a throwing off of shackles both for the U.S. and its relations with the Muslim world, and this president and his right wing detractors.

In some ways, I was struck in this speech by the ease with which the president addressed questions that as recently as a year ago were tying our entire nation in knots.

In encouraging the Turks to pursue the path of democracy and political reform that is gradually leading them toward entry into the European Union, Obama served up a lesson from our recent political past:

…Democracies cannot be static — they must move forward. Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state…An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens.

I say this as the President of a country that not very long ago made it hard for somebody who looks like me to vote, much less be President of the United States. But it is precisely that capacity to change that enriches our countries…This work is never over. That’s why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That’s why we prohibited — without exception or equivocation — the use of torture. All of us have to change. And sometimes change is hard.

You have to admire the forthrightness with which Obama addresses America’s sins and weaknesses along with his unwillingness to become mired in it.  It’s as if merely acknowledging it publicly is a redemptive act that allows everyone, whether victim or perpetrator to move on.

The N.Y. Times noted the implict rebuke to Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s foreign policy ‘czar,’ who recently renounced Israel’s commitment to the Annapolis peace process.  What I like about this passage is Obama’s cool, dignified, and insistent reaffirmation of all the values Lieberman and Netanyahu resent and reject.  It’s as if the power of the U.S. leader’s words could wipe away all the negativity exemplified by Lieberman:

Let me be clear: The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of goodwill around the world. That is a goal that the parties agreed to in the road map and at Annapolis. That is a goal that I will actively pursue as President of the United States.

We know the road ahead will be difficult. Both Israelis and Palestinians must take steps that are necessary to build confidence and trust. Both Israelis and Palestinians, both must live up to the commitments they have made. Both must overcome longstanding passions and the politics of the moment to make progress towards a secure and lasting peace.

The United States and Turkey can help the Palestinians and Israelis make this journey. Like the United States, Turkey has been a friend and partner in Israel’s quest for security. And like the United States, you seek a future of opportunity and statehood for the Palestinians. So now, working together, we must not give into pessimism and mistrust. We must pursue every opportunity for progress, as you’ve done by supporting negotiations between Syria and Israel. We must extend a hand to those Palestinians who are in need, while helping them strengthen their own institutions. We must reject the use of terror, and recognize that Israel’s security concerns are legitimate.

Another important element here is Obama’s explicit praise for the peacemaking role Turkey played between Israel and Syria. Unfortunately, Ehud Olmert trashed this relationship by waging the Gaza war just days before a potential announcement of the opening of direct negotiations between the parties (thus angering Turkey’s prime minister). Obama is putting Netanyahu on notice that he believes the Syria track and Turkish mediation is an avenue worth pursuing. It will be up to the new Israeli prime minister to try to weasle out of it if he dares.

The heart of the speech is in this passage where, with a few words, Obama wipes away seven years of hostility, suspicion and mistrust between the U.S. and the Muslim world. It is truly amazing the power of the bully pulpit wielded by a president. Obama here uses it masterfully to tell the world there’s a new hand at our nation’s wheel of state and that a new day is dawning in relations between this country and Muslim nations like Turkey:

I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam. (Applause.) In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical not just in rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths reject, but also to strengthen opportunity for all its people.

I also want to be clear that America’s relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them. (Applause.)

Above all, above all we will demonstrate through actions our commitment to a better future…In the months ahead, I will present specific programs to advance these goals. Our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership with people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes and our common dreams. And when people look back on this time, let it be said of America that we extended the hand of friendship to all people.

…There’s some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together.

And if you were Turkish how could you not be seduced by the beauty of these words?

Turkey’s greatness lies in your ability to be at the center of things. This is not where East and West divide — this is where they come together. (Applause.) In the beauty of your culture. In the richness of your history. In the strength of your democracy. In your hopes for tomorrow.

All in all a masterful performance. Can anyone doubt that this man potentially has a rendezvous with presidential greatness?  Let anyone who doubts that Obama could play an instrumental in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict take notice. This man means business. I wish him well and hope that those who oppose him, whether their name be Lieberman or Netanyahu or Pipes or Klein, run and hide.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE