September « 2009 « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Archive for September, 2009

Rabbis and President’s Conference Say High Holidays Time to Hurt Iran

Monday, September 7th, 2009

The Conference of Presidents, one of our most right-wing pro-Israel groups, has managed to organize five Jewish religious denominations including the putatively-liberal Reform and Reconstructionists for a High Holiday rabbinic statement that lays the groundwork for the Israeli government’s march toward war with Iran. I always thought the High Holidays were a time of chesbon nefesh, when you contemplated in tranquility your weaknesses of the past year and resolved to do better in the coming one.

Which angel will save Iran's children from sanctions?

The joint statement does away with that concept–unless you believe that the past year in which the Obama administration attempted to engage Iran diplomatically was an error and the way to go in the coming year was to punish all Iranians with the type of universal sanctions invoked by the world against Saddam’s Iraq. These sanctions, by the way, contributed to the death of 350,000 Iraqi children from 1990-2000 as documented by scientific surveys. Now that seems like fine use of the High Holidays: urge rabbis and Jewish educators to tell their flocks that Iran is a danger to the world and must be stopped either by sanctions or any means necessary. And we’re willing to punish Iranian children to do it. Have we forgotten the concept of rachmanut especially during these Days of Awe when we repeatedly invoke God’s mercy?? Not to mention the fact that the Rosh Hashana Torah reading invokes the Akedah, Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son, Isaac. Shall we put Iranian children up on that altar too? Who will save them?

Ori Nir of Peace Now told JTA that Iran sanctions targeting the average citizen and not specifically the country’s leaders and government were:

“…Not only morally wrong but…also strategically perilous.”

If you belong to a synagogue, PLEASE write to your rabbi and tell him or her that you disagree with this statement and urge that if any message is delivered from your shul’s bimah, it be carefully modulated and nuanced, rather than bellicose and jingoistic. If you are a rabbi, please express your concern and displeasure at this one-dimensional anti-Iranian statement issued in your name.

Here is the political agenda suggested by the Common Call which urges Jews to engage in:

…Mobilizing their communities; contacting their elected officials about the importance of divestment from Iran and tightening sanctions against banks and industries that do business with Iran; writing letters to the editor and op-ed pieces supporting diplomatic and financial pressure on Iran; and displaying signage on institutional and synagogue property urging that we prevent a nuclear Iran.

It is quite interesting that Israel advocacy groups like the Conference of Presidents, under the tutelage of the Israeli foreign ministry, are emphasizing the issue of divestment from Iran. It’s as if that crafty political bouncer, foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman decided that if Israel-Palestine peace activists were going to support a divestment strategy against the Occupation, then he’d turn around and use the very same strategy against Iran. The only problem with this is that the Occupation, like South African apartheid, has simmered for decades. Unlike the Occupation, the world does not yet share any consensus about how to deal with Iranian nuclear development, and divestment does not, and will not resonate until it does. The fact that Malcolm Hoenlein, Avigdor Lieberman, Bibi Netanyahu and a bunch of naive American rabbis are telling the world to divest from Iran means very little in the greater scheme of things.

What is disingenuous about the statement is that it purports to agree with Obama administration policy:

The organizations declare that they support President Obama’s diplomatic initiatives, but…

In other words, those who signed this ill-conceived statement don’t support the actual current policy. But they support what they would LIKE the policy to be: draconian sanctions, increasing isolation, and if all else fails–a military attack. I should be clear that nowhere in this statement are those two words used. There is no mention of what happens if sanctions don’t work (they won’t). But for Israel’s purposes there doesn’t need to be such a reference. When George Bush began the march to war against Iraq he too was careful to couch his regime of sanctions and UN resolutions in modulated diplomatic terms. But many of us knew where he was going then just as many of know where Israel would like to go now.

The question is how many American Jews will be duped by these tactics into believing Israel does NOT want to or intend to attack Iran. In 2002, there were millions of Americans who drank the Bush Kool Aid on Iraq. They believed in the mushroom clouds and WMD that Bush’s team sold us. But I say now in 2009 we must not drink this forbidden drink unless we’re prepared to go down the same road to war Bush trod in 2003.

One passage of the Call to Prevent a Nuclear Iran, quoting the rabbi who organized the statement, grieves me and should cause other rabbis to take offense:

The religious leadership of our Jewish community, with one voice, is urging our people to continue all efforts to confront the danger posed by a nuclear Iran.”

If you are a rabbi, is this “one voice” expressing what you believe? If it isn’t, it is incumbent on you to raise your voice in your High Holiday pulpit for a sane articulation of the issues.

There is more blather in the statement:

“This statement reflects a broad consensus within the Jewish community in addressing the danger of a nuclear Iran.

No, what this statement reflects is the agenda of the pro-Israel advocacy organizations which have been shrying about Iran for the past few years. Now, it seems that every Jewish denomination has fallen in with Chicken Little to cry that the sky is falling and unless we knock out Iran’s nuclear capability the world will be embroiled in a nuclear Armageddon. Well, pardon me if a few of us look up and see the sky seems to be doing just fine though a tad stormy.

The Conference of Presidents, in the statement, urges rabbis and their congregants to participate in the nationwide September 24th Stand for Freedom in Iran program. Though this program appears to be a motherhood and apple pie call for Iran to end its human rights abuses, we should review a bit of the Conference’s past anti-Iran activism to give of the real views of the Conference toward Iran.

Malcolm Hoenlein produced a video last year addressed to Iranians calling on them to free themselves from the clerical yoke. In other words, the Conference’s director supports Iran regime change. Now if you’re considering how to address this issue in your pulpit this High Holiday, ask yourself how regime change would happen? Do you believe Hoenlein is calling for peaceful change within Iran? Of course not, he’s calling for overthrow of the mullahs by whatever means necessary.

Malcolm Hoenlein believes that Iran is evil, that Iran wants to carry out a nuclear Holocaust against Israel, that Israel is justified in using whatever means necessary to protect itself. Do you? I say to any rabbi considering using this Call this High Holiday: know who your friends are. They may not be your friends or real friends of Israel either.

I am not arguing here that Iran does not present a danger or that Iran has not engaged in egregious human rights abuses. I am arguing that there is only one way to deal with Iran and whatever outstanding issues we have with them: negotiation. Sanctions, blockades, divestment, war–these are all tactics that will fail. Some will fail with a dull thud. And some, if tried, will fail spectacularly leading to the spilling of much blood: Iranian, Israeli, perhaps American.

Tags: conference-of-presidents-of-major-jewish-organizations, iran-attack, iran-nuclear-program, malcolm-hoenlein, rabbi
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 13 Comments »

Kampeas Criticizes J Street for Being Out of Touch on Iran Sanctions

Monday, September 7th, 2009

Ron Kampeas has written a new JTA piece in which he uncovers a supposedly major story about the disconnect between the Israeli and American Jewish left on sanctions. The purpose, whether intentional or unintentional, is to point out to readers that J Street is out of touch with the Israeli left on the issue of Iran; and that a dovish pro-diplomacy strategy has no support on the Israeli left.

The article makes a few fundamental mistakes like this one:

Israel’s highest-ranking female soldier, Brig. Gen. Yisraela Oron…at the tail end of a U.S. tour for the left-wing pro-Israel lobby [J Street] [ had a] conversation with a group of reporters th[at] turned to Iran and its nuclear potential, and Oron was unequivocal: yes to engagement, but on a timetable that would be tied to punishing sanctions.”The thing that worries me and that worries other Israelis is that it is not limited in time,” Oron said as the faces of her J Street hosts turned anxious, adding that “I’m not sure I’m expressing the J Street opinion.”

She was not. J Street explicitly opposes a timetable and has reservations about proposed additional sanctions.

The awkward moment pointed to a potential split between left-wing pro-Israel groups and the Israeli constituents for whom they claim to speak. Unlike the Israeli-Palestinian issue, little dissent exists among Israeli politicians over how to deal with Iran.

Kampeas, a veteran Jewish journalist, has the same press releases I have which made clear that J Street is an AMERICAN JEWISH organization. Unlike Aipac, it does not pretend to represent Israeli political opinion or parties. It represents the views of American Jews and seeks to impact U.S. policy on that basis. Of course it is helpful if there are Israelis who support the views that J Street espouses. That’s why Oron came to the States. But on no account should J Street’s positions be judged on whether there is support or opposition to them within Israel.

Equally important is that there essentially is no organized Israeli left within Israeli electoral politics. Labor’s Knesset faction is minuscule compared to the ones it fielded in past Knessets. Meretz is down to 3 seats I believe. This is a pitiful showing and indicates the traditional Israeli liberal (not “left,” Ron) parties are virtually dead. And one of the reasons they are is because they long ago stopped representing an alternative in Israeli politics. Their endorsement of sanctions against Iran is yet another example of their problem. The Israeli liberals outdo themselves to represent the left of the Israeli nationalist movement. They ape the Likud in a liberal guise because they have no program of their own.

So for Kampeas to make the claim that the Israeli left endorses punitive sanctions against Iran is a misnomer. Again, Kampeas should know this being an experienced reporter in dealing with Israeli politics. Does Ehud Barak support a sanctions regime? Yes. Is he the Israeli left? Hardly. Maybe the left wing of the Likud governing coalition, but that hardly constitutes being on the left.

I’m very sad to say that if the American Jewish peace movement waits for its Israeli liberal counterparts to revive and develop their own effective political agenda we’ll be waiting till God tells Elijah at the gates of Rome the time has come to welcome the Messiah. That’s why it’s important that J Street be an independent American Jewish organization that collaborates with Israelis when possible, but doesn’t coordinate or officially join with any Israeli counterpart.

To put this in other terms, J Street’s endorsement of diplomatic engagement is good policy, period. The fact that one Israeli general or the Labor party believes differently has no bearing on whether diplomacy is the best policy for the U.S. government to pursue.

Kampeas also mischaracterizes U.S. policy in this passage:

…The administrations of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama are virtually on the same page on the need to confront Iran, and soon.

Pres. Obama has talked about the need to revisit U.S. policy in the fall if diplomacy fails. But he has never said explicitly that the U.S. “needs to confront Iran, and soon.” That is Kampeas’ interpretation of statements Obama has made. And it exaggerates those statements to make Bibi and Barack appear to be on the same page when they aren’t. Not yet and hopefully not ever.

Here Kampeas creates a hypothetical to again falsely make J Street appear to be a group without a mandate:

“If Iran engages and the Obama administration argues that a deal has been made, the Israeli government will be very wary,” [Yossi] Alpher said. “This could immediately create a whole world of suspicions.”

Under those circumstances, the vast majority of American Jewish voters who backed Obama last year would be faced with the first either-or U.S. vs. Israel issue in decades, and groups that describe themselves as pro-Israel and pro-peace will find themselves for the first time speaking for virtually no one in Israel on a critical issue.

First, the idea that Obama will accept a deal that Iran proffers and that Israel will reject it and that all Israelis will fall into line and accept the rightist Netanyahu government’s view on the matter is wildly speculative. Second, the idea that American Jews will also fall into line behind Israel because there will be no American Jewish groups besides J Street supporting the U.S. administration’s deal is also arguable. If 80% of Jews voted for Obama they aren’t all (or even most) going to abandon him because he has a disagreement with Bibi. Even over an issue as important (for Israel) as Iran.

The reason Kampeas’ reporting is especially pernicious is that Israel is engaging in a massive campaign here in the U.S. that would lay the groundwork for a massive Israeli attack on Iran. Articles like this attempt to weaken those forces working to avert such an Israeli attack. I’m not saying that this was Kampeas’ conscious intention. But that’s the effect it has and that’s why it’s especially important to rebut these media hit pieces that take aim at the one group that might slow down Israel’s march toward war.

Tags: iran, j street, labor-party, ron-kampeas
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 3 Comments »

American Jewish Left in Transition

Sunday, September 6th, 2009

The American Jewish left is amidst a huge transition and I didn’t even realize it until I read Nathan Guttman’s article in The Forward. When J Street first began two years ago, there were talks of all the Jewish peace groups merging with it. But everyone seemed concerned about turf and that didn’t happen. But now that J Street has emerged as a triple-threat type progressive group, it has sucked a good deal of the oxygen out of the world of the Jewish left. Face it, J Street gathers most of the headlines, funding and opprobrium of the pro-Israel right. They wouldn’t waste their energy on a group that was a nothing. You don’t see Marty Peretz, Jonathan Tobin and their minions poring over public statements by Israel Policy Forum or Americans for Peace Now and waving them like Joe McCarthy to show the world all the Communists he’d found.

Brit Tzedek, a group which in my opinion has left a good deal of its potential unrealized, has seen the light and is in advanced merger talks with J Street. Guttman’s story though, describes a convoluted structure of a proposed deal. Though I used the term “merger,” Brit Tzedek won’t exactly be merging with J Street. There will be no formal combination. But J Street will absorb Brit Tzedek’s lobbying organization and those members who wish to transfer to the former group. The old Brit Tzedek might remain in some form (or not). That’s the part that makes no sense to me.

I suppose there may be some leaders of BT opposed to the deal who refuse to move over to J Street. This format allows the majority of BT to switch and also allows the diehards to carry on a rump version of BT is they wish to do so.

Guttman describes IPF as being almost on life-support. I don’t know if this is true as the mainstream Jewish press seems to love to report the demise of groups it views as outside the “communal consensus.” One development that shocked me was that M.J. Rosenberg, a senior IPF staff member since the group’s launch has left. He will be moving to Media Matters as senior foreign policy analyst. It is a progressive media watchdog group where Eric Alterman also blogs.

M.J. made one good point in his blog post announcing his plans:

My move is part of a general trend toward making Middle East policy not a boutique issue, but a mainstay of liberal politics and journalism. I have long believed that it is impossible to be a liberal (or progressive) and yet support Middle East policies that perpetuate the deadly status quo. With Media Matters joining this fight, we can help progressives of all stripes understand that supporting occupation and settlements (or wars with various regional players) is antithetical to a progressive world view and, most important, is bad for America.

For far too long, the Israeli-Arab conflict has remained the territory of niche specialists, mostly Jewish or Arab, for whom it was a deep personal mission. But the rest of the liberal-progressive community wanted nothing more than to stay out of the perceived quagmire. Daily Kos and Markos’ deep aversion to this subject is a prime case in point. I’m not sure M.J. is entirely right in that his move marks a sea change in attitudes among the progressive camp toward the region. But I will say in the traditional Jewish wish: “From his mouth to God’s ears.”

I should make it clear that J Street, while it has done much right since its launch, is not perfect. But one example is its upcoming conference which is being co-sponsored by seemingly every progressive American Jewish group with an interest in the Israeli-Arab conflict. There is one catch: if you’re not a two state group you’re not invited. That leaves out Jewish Voice for Peace which, in my opinion, is in its particular community almost as effective and enterprising as J Street–and with a lot less money and staff.

I understand the reason J Street feels it must place JVP outside the tent. There are lots of Jewish rightist warriors who are gunning for it. If they invited JVP, then they’d be spending time explaining their decision. And they’d rather be advocating for Obama Mideast policy than explaining why they invited JVP to their conference.

But I have a real problem with the impoverishment of the Jewish left that comes from this sort of exclusion. I believe in making the tent as big as possible not using artificial criteria to decide who is kosher and who is treif. While I could understand excluding an anti-Zionist Jewish group, JVP is not anti-Zionist.

I also felt J Street’s public statement about Neve Gordon’s BDS article in the L.A. Times and Guardian was weak and attenuated. There is a better way to tell the world you support academic freedom and free speech while not necessarily supporting a boycott, than the way J Street did. So you’ll hear me criticize J Street in as constructive a way as I can.

Tags: j street, jewish-forward, jewish-voice-for-peace, ngo
Posted in Mideast Peace | 18 Comments »

Weissglas, Sharon’s Pro-Settler Warrior: ‘Every Single Settler Will Have to Go’

Saturday, September 5th, 2009

Dov Weissglas sees the handwriting on the Wall?

Frankly, I don’t know what to make of this story. Dov Weissglas has the reputation of being one of the harshest of Ariel Sharon’s political attack dogs. I once wrote a post here decrying an incredibly cynical comment he made about Israel’s manipulation of the Bush administration accompanied by a claim that Sharon’s Gaza withdrawal had put the peace process “in formaldehyde.” He famously bragged that the Israeli siege of Gaza amounted to putting its residents “on a diet.”

Can the leopard to change its spots? In today’s Haaretz, Weissglas is quoted as giving an another astonishingly candid speech in Israel in which he recounted how Israel was forced to mark it agricultural exports originating in the Territories with special labels for EU countries. Originally, Ariel Sharon refused the EU’s demand. Only when Marks & Spencer, one of Israel’s major customers, began returning millions of dollars worth of product and all Israeli produce was threatened with a 15% surcharge did Sharon relent.

The reason this story is quite suggestive and important is it indicates that Israel understands the language of economic power. When it’s going to be hurt in the pocketbook, ideological considerations are quite properly jettisoned as being less important. All of which should tell the Obama administration to ignore the Israeli pundits and Lobby naysayers who tsk-tsk about what a raw deal the president is giving poor Bibi; and who ask the former to have a little heart for a poor, set-upon ally like Israel. The lesson Weissglas teaches is that tough love is not only called for–it is often the only thing that works.

Weisglas continues with these lightning flashes of nationalist apostasy:

Weissglas said Sharon decided to begin evacuating the occupied territories as early as 2002, out of the recognition that no other country, including Israel’s top allies, supports the settlement project.

“Only one state out of 188 supports the settlement project, and that’s Israel. The world doesn’t care about historic rights, it cares about reality. The reality is that there are 2 million Palestinians living in the territories, but only 300,000 Israelis.”

Weissglas said Israel is dependent economically on Europe, and militarily on the United States. “$4 billion, a quarter of all American military aid, goes to Israel.

Without Europe and the States we’d be like the Palestinians, surviving on $200 a month,” he said.

“Now that we’ve left the Gaza Strip, we will give back the rest of the territories sooner or later, and every single settler will have to leave,” he said.

I don’t know what has given Dov Weissglas such a change of heart. Is he a political bomb thrower who likes to provoke even his allies and friends? Is he a cold, hard pragmatist who doesn’t need a weather vane to know which way the wind blows? I’d prefer to see him as the latter. Whatever the reason for Weissglas‘ brutal realism, it’s quite bracing and astonishing to read it coming from one of Sharon’s great political warriors. It makes one yearn for the days when Sharon was premier and a certain pragmatism seemed to creep into the Israeli leader’s agenda.

There is little or no hope that Bibi Netanyahu sees the same things that Weissglas does, though it would behoove him to.

Tags: bds, israeli settlers
Posted in Mideast Peace | No Comments »

Bronner’s Mischaracterization of Hamas Continues

Saturday, September 5th, 2009

Ethan Bronner gets it wrong on Hamas (Center for Study of Ethics, Utah Valley University)

Not an article Ethan Bronner writes goes by without the obligatory claim that Hamas is dedicated to Israel’s destruction. Today’s story about the tension in Gaza between Islamizers and moderates within the Islamist movement is true to form:

It [Hamas] rejects Israel’s right to exist and remains doctrinally committed to its destruction. However, its leaders have said several times that if Israel were to leave all land taken in the 1967 war, Hamas could accept a Palestinian state limited to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem…

If Hamas would accept a Palestinian state consisting of the current Occupied Territories, then ipso facto it does not reject Israel’s existence nor can it be committed to its destruction. In fact, many Israeli political, military and intelligence analysts concede that Hamas’ acceptance of a hudna is a tacit acceptance of Israel’s existence.

In fact, no senior leader of Hamas for several years has put forward the incrementalist notion that it may accept a hudna as a creeping process leading to Israel’s destruction and absorption into Palestine. Are there Palestinians who wish this outcome? Certainly, just as there are many Israeli Jews who wish Israeli Palestinian Arabs could be expelled from Israel. But the notion that Israel’s Arab citizens will be transferred out of the country is as far-fetched as the notion that Hamas will or can cause Israel’s destruction.

It’s long past time for Bronner to get with the program and acknowledge the myriad interviews of senior Hamas officials like Khaled Meshaal and others who have documented the moderating of the movement’s positions on these matters. Let’s put it plain and simple for him: Hamas currently does not reject Israel’s right to exist nor is it committed to its destruction (and for those of you out there who are anti-Palestinian partisans clamoring to bring up the Hamas charter, please point me to any evidence that any Hamas leader pays any attention whatsoever to it). The fact that Bronner stays stuck in the past is yet another proof that his reporting is neither careful nor balanced.

Yet another proof of this is a recent profile he wrote about the weekly Bilin demonstrations at the Separation Wall. He interviewed IDF officers and peace activists about their respective views of both the Wall and the demonstrations. But curiously, he noted the IDF claim that 170 soldiers had been wounded over time there (part of the claim that the demonstrators are not non-violent peace activists, but violent hoodlums). But Bronner somehow forgot to mention the Palestinian casualties at the Wall, which include one murdered Palestinian and one American left in a vegetative state by IDF fire in the past four months alone. Altogether, 19 Palestinians have been killed during demonstrations against the Wall. Why wasn’t this fact even whispered in Bronner’s article? Because he wanted his readers to focus on the flesh wounds suffered by Israeli soldiers when a few odd rocks are thrown their way by young Palestinians who violate the discipline invoked during these protests? Why did Ethan Bronner forget Palestinian suffering?

Tags: bilin, ethan bronner, hamas, palestinians
Posted in Mideast Peace | 28 Comments »

Was ‘Hijacked’ Russian Ship Intercepted by Mossad, Carrying Missiles to Iran?

Friday, September 4th, 2009

The Arctic Sea after its "liberation" by Russian navy

The case of the ship Russia claims was hijacked on its way to deliver lumber from Finland to Algeria is becoming curiouser and curiouser. First, one has to wonder how a ship can be hijacked in a place where none has been hijacked since the days of the Vikings. Second, the EU rapporteur for marine piracy, an Estonian admiral, said it was likely the ship had been intercepted by the Mossad, a claim also made by Russian media sources. Third, the Russian ambassador to the EU, no friend of Estonia or Estonian admirals, told the rapporteur in the bracing Russian colloquial equivalent–shut your pie hole. Fourth, Time Magazine’s Russian correspondent has added to this story of spookish intrigue revealing new, previously unpeeled layers of the onion.

The Russian government, which strangely ended the hijacking without firing a shot, claims the ship Arctic Sea was hijacked two days out of port. Its tracking device was supposedly disabled by the hijackers. It’s unclear what the hijackers expected to find when the Russians claim there was only $2 million worth of lumber aboard.

One has to ask how and why a ship disappears in European waters for four weeks; why no one could locate it (though the Russians later claimed they knew where it was all along); why no crew member set off a distress signal even before the hijackers boarded; and why it was found near the Azores, hundreds of miles from where it was supposed to be.

The EU’s Admiral Kouts has offered perhaps the most convincing hypothesis thus far:

In an interview with TIME, he says only a shipment of missiles could account for Russia’s bizarre behavior throughout the month-long saga. “There is the idea that there were missiles aboard, and one can’t explain this situation in any other way,” he says. “As a sailor with years of experience, I can tell you that the official versions are not realistic.” Kouts says an Israeli interception of the cargo is the most likely explanation.

Following on this claim, is the strange and suggestive fact that Israeli president (and former intelligence master) Shimon Peres, made a surprise to visit to Russia precisely one day after the ship was “rescued.” Might it be possible that Peres went to avert a major crisis in bilateral relations after the Mossad assaulted a Russian ship on the high seas; and that he and Russia’s Medvedev were getting their stories straight for the world media?

Time’s story also raises some other intriguing questions:

There are also questions surrounding the Arctic Sea‘s rescue. On orders from the Kremlin, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov sent a completely disproportionate force, including destroyers and submarines, to look for the vessel. It took five days for them to find it, the Defense Ministry said, even though the Foreign Ministry later announced that it was fully aware of the Arctic Sea‘s coordinates the entire time. To fly the alleged pirates and the crew back to Moscow — a group of only 19 men — Russia dispatched two enormous military-cargo planes. And then on their arrival, the ship’s crew was detained along with the alleged hijackers for days of questioning, with no access to their families or the media.

“Even from the basic facts, without assumptions, it is clear that this was not just piracy,” says Mikhail Voitenko, editor of the Russian maritime journal Sovfrakht, which has been tracking unusual incidents on the high seas for decades. “I’ve never seen anything like this. These are some of the most heavily policed waters in the world. You cannot just hide a ship there for weeks without government involvement.”

If the cargo was highly sophisticated military hardware intended for a Middle Eastern country like Iran (Hebrew only) or Hezbollah, who would have sent it? Clearly, this would not be a rogue Russian operation (though if it is, it indicates that the Russian government has rather feeble control over rogue elements wishing to perpetrate such mischief). Inyan Mercazi‘s article linked above argues for the rogue operation hypothesis. In its favor, is the fact that both the supposed pirates and the original crew remain imprisoned and a brother of one of the hijackers told Estonian TV:

They went to find work and ended up in a political conflict. Now they are hostage to some kind of political game”?

The Israeli media source says the government and the Russian arms traffickers are caught in an “internal power struggle” which explains the imprisonment.

If the shipment was sanctioned by the government itself this would mean that the Russians are willing to sell Iran (or whichever nation was the ultimate destination) advanced weaponry though attempting to do so in secret. It also means that Israel is willing to confront Russia by intercepting and possibly destroying or disabling the weaponry on the high seas.

If this is what the Mossad did, it would not be terribly surprising or out of character. Israel has assassinated weapons experts trafficking with its enemies. Its air force recently destroyed a Syrian facility which may or may not have been a North Korean nuclear reactor. In 1981, of course, its air force destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plant in Osirak. Boldly intercepting Russian weapons shipments on the high seas would also send a robust signal to one of Iran’s best friends that Israel is not willing to stand for any reinforcement of Iran’s offensive or defensive capabilities.

Though it does remain unclear to me how Israel expects its action will encourage Russia to sign on to draconian sanctions against Iran which it would be likely the UN Security Council would have to approve. The sanctions program, as with Iran in 2002-3, is viewed by U.S. neocons, pro-Israel advocates, and Israeli officials as a necessary precursor to any possible military attack by Israel on Iran. Israeli policy always seems curiously improvised, as if they hadn’t thought this far ahead as to how their immediate action will impact the chessboard in five or ten moves.

I seriously doubt we’ve heard the last of this story.

Tags: european-union, mossad
Posted in Mideast Peace | 107 Comments »

Turn in Your Favorite Jewish Young Person for Zionist Indoctrination

Friday, September 4th, 2009

Yesterday, I wrote a post about an insidious ad campaign for an Israeli program, Masa, that brings Diaspora youth to Israel for 6-12 month visits designed to bolster their Zionist identity. I can’t believe that I missed perhaps the most egregious aspect of this $800,000 promotion: that it actually asks Israelis to report the name and contact information for Diaspora youth allegedly in danger of assimilating by dating or marrying non-Jews:

The campaign, which launched on Wednesday, urges Israelis to report the particulars of acquaintances living abroad so that these people, who are “in danger” of marrying non-Jews, can be persuaded to come to Israel…

About 100 of the callers reported unmarried Jews aged 18-30 living in France, the United States and New Zealand. Callers also left their acquaintances’ Facebook and Twitter names as well as email addresses so that MASA people could contact them.

In Judaism, there is a very strong taboo connected with informing on one’s fellow Jews to the authorities. But apparently, Masa believes there’s no harm in turning in one’s children and other young people for such an admirable cause as Zionist re-education.

Haaretz’s story today also reveals serious opposition developing to the project. Let the opposition begin here.

Tags: jewish, zionism
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace | 5 Comments »

Pro-Israel Proselytes

Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

Judaism, with the exception of Habad, generally frowns on active proselytizing. But apparently the Israeli government hasn’t heard the news, as they’ve launched a new campaign designed to insult the Diaspora by claiming that any Jew who doesn’t go on a Birthright-type trip will be lost of the nation of Israel forever. It’s one of those typically feeble, shallow hasbara campaigns offered by Masa, the agency designed to promote Israel youth trips. [Correction: Joel Katz of Religion and State in Israel clarifies a few mistakes that crept into my post: "MASA basically is an umbrella organization for all the 6-month - year programs. Its aimed at 18-30 yr olds -- so its looked at as a POST-BIRTHRIGHT experience." Joel also notes that an astonishing $800,000 has been wasted (my term, not his) on this project.] It’s basically a government-sponsored promotion of Birthright (or possibly a Birthright competitor, this isn’t clear), which should be ashamed of the naked manipulation of the video. The latter provides vague, misleading “statistics” which amount to a claim that any Jew who isn’t an ardent lover of Zion will assimilate and disappear from Jewish history. Here is how Haaretz describes the project:

“More than 50 percent of young Jews assimilate,” the filmed commercial informs viewers through the voice of Ayala Hasson, a top reporter for Channel 1. “We are losing them,” she adds, as soft, melancholy flute music plays in the background.

The ad then asks anyone who “knows a young Jew living abroad” to call MASA. “Together, we will strengthen his or her bond to Israel, so that we don’t lose them,” the announcer concludes.

The 50% statistic consists of a specious supposition that every Jew who marries “out” is totally lost to Judaism. We know that this is completely wrong since some who intermarry either remain Jewish, persuade a spouse to convert, or raise their children Jewish. Haaretz freelancer Roi Ben Yehuda is a perfect example of this, and parodies the video quite well at his blog in an imagined phone call between Masa and his grandmother.

A few other comments on the video. The Hebrew notes that the subject has halach l’ibood, which can mean “committed suicide.” [Correction: Joel Katz also notes that halach l'ibood means simply "lost." I confused the phrase with l'hitabed and ibade l'daat both of which do mean "committing suicide."] So in effect, Masa is making an even more draconian claim–that unless your child goes on an Israel trip they are committing Jewish suicide. Further, the last image in the video displays the shameless slogan: “A year in Israel, life-long love.” It’s not clear whether Masa is promising the trip participant a life-time of good Jewish sex, or a life-long love of Israel (or both).

Finally, this campaign makes an additional grievous error by equating Zionism with Judaism: if your child becomes a Zionist he will remain a Jew. If he doesn’t, nothing can save him or her (not even Judaism). Zionists are known for having a dismissive attitude (known as shlilat ha-galut) toward both the Diaspora and Judaism. Interestingly, this video essentially does away with Judaism and replaces it with Zionism. I wonder what the rabbis, Jewish educators and Jewish communal leaders who labor so assiduously here in the Diaspora to strengthen Jewish identity feel about having their efforts dissed so decisively by such know-nothing Israeli Zionists.

Even Haaretz, not known for such editorializing, calls the campaign a “scare-tactic.”

Tags: jewish
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace | 12 Comments »