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 October, 2011

State Department Flack Tacitly Concedes U.S. Opposition to Palestinian UNESCO Membership Stems From Protecting Israel

Monday, October 31st, 2011

IMPORTANT: I urge all my readers to make as generous a gift as you can to UNESCO to express your disgust with Obama administration policy toward the organization.  Support UNESCO when Obama deserts it.  I must say the organization makes it difficult to contribute.  You can only donate to three specific programs at this link and you have to register to do so.  I’ve found links to specific programs (and the children’s program here) within UNESCO to which you may donate.  But I haven’t found any way to do so directly to the overall organization.  If any readers know how to do this please let me know.

Reporter Matt Lee sticks it to State Department spokesflack Victoria Nuland (who is married to neocon analyst Robert Kagan) as she argues that U.S. opposition to the Palestinian bid for UNESCO membership and our immediate defunding of that body arises from our concern for a “rise in tension” it would cause.  After Lee repeatedly asks her what “tension” the vote creates except Israeli anger, she ends the interchange charging him with mounting a “polemic.”  In other words, she has just tacitly conceded that the only reason we oppose UNESCO membership is because it pisses off the Israelis.

Once or twice during the questioning a frozen smile creeps across her face–or I should say flickers on her lips.  It’s not really a facial smile, but rather an almost involuntary grimace that mimics a smile.  Really scary.  A mirror into the mind–though a jumbled, obtuse one it must be.

Among the other sophistries she tried to pass off were a claim that the membership bid would deflect from the goal of creating a Palestinian state; that the U.S. continues to support creating such a state; and that it continues to support UNESCO.

Of course, if you continue as a member of such a body after turning off 22% of its budget, you’re not going to be considered a member in good standing and your influence will decline dramatically.  This of course will hurt U.S. interests and the greater values that we’re promoting by belonging.  To say you support an organization after shutting off the spigot is a mite hypocritical.

Important to note that all the U.S. could muster in the vote was 12 other countries opposing the membership bid.  Twelve.  Over 100 countries defied us and Israel.  As Matt Lee says in the video, this should be telling us something.  100 other countries think the main tension caused in this conflict is by Israel, not Palestine.  Twelve agree with us.

Also, the U.S. claim that it supports a Palestinian state when it has now taken three decisively hostile votes against such a state within the UN framework (veto of the anti-settlement resolution, threatening a veto of a Security Council statehood resolution, and defunding UNESCO) are dramatic contradictions of our statements.  I’ve always believed that to know a politician’s true values you watch the way he votes, not what he says.  The same is true in international affairs.  We’ve flown our true colors today despite the white lies offered by Victoria Nuland.

U.S. policy is seriously off-track.  It is totally skewed toward Israel at a time when the rest of the world is moving in a diametrically opposite direction.  Though Obama has prided himself on a return to multilateralism in the aftermath of the fiasco of Bush era foreign policy, we are moving precisely in the direction of unilateralism in our relations with the Palestinians and Arab states supporting it.  We’ve seen the disaster that is unilateralism.  How can we return to it?  This is becoming a slow motion train wreck.  You see the train coming.  You see the eyes of the engineer and the brake handle right in front of him which he can’t or won’t grasp.  What’s going wrong?  Can’t he see disaster ahead?

Now the fun begins in earnest.  The Congressional chicken hawks will be screaming for us to cut off the PA and Israel will be considering sanctions as well.  Guys, I’ve got a few brief words for you: IT WON’T WORK!  Palestine has been financially destitute before.  Sure, it will hurt.  But the truth is that Israel has stifled the Palestinian economy, which might stand on its own without Israeli interference.  So the blame has always been upon Israel for a relatively stagnant economy.  The blame will still be on Israel, and now the U.S., when they shut off the tap.  Let’s be sure to show the world the pictures of the babies doing without medical care and proper nutrition from this anticipated aid cutoff.  Let’s show the world pictures of former UNESCO programs cancelled or curtailed due to U.S. obtuseness in enforcing a 20 year old law which violates stated U.S. policy recognizing a two state solution.

U.S. Plans Long-Term Gulf Military Presence to Combat Iran

Monday, October 31st, 2011

The NY Times reports that the Pentagon has drawn up plans to beef up its forces in the Persian Gulf region after its withdrawal from Iraq.  One of the primary reasons is to counter any supposed Iranian military threat to the region.  It is coordinating the plans with other Gulf states who presumably feel under some threat from the Iranian regime:

The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran

With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense…

Iran, as it has been for more than three decades, remains the most worrisome threat to many of those nations…

Domestically, this military move is motivated in part by the right-wing Republican group which advocates a hawkish, confrontational approach to Iran:

Twelve Senators demanded hearings on the administration’s ending of negotiations with the Iraqis — for now at least — on the continuation of American training and on counterterrorism efforts in Iraq.

“As you know, the complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq is likely to be viewed as a strategic victory by our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime,” the senators wrote Wednesday in a letter to the chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee.

Of most concern to me, is that such a force, now or in the future, could and likely would serve as a threat to any Iranian response to an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities.  If Israel strikes, it will do so with U.S. supplied weapons such as F-16s and bunker buster bombs used to penetrate the protective defenses erected around the plants.  In addition, Iran would have to calculate that if it responds directly to such a strike with a massive counter-attack, the U.S. would be able to join in any military response.

Any such U.S. action would create the type of regional conflagration that Israel and U.S. intelligence analysts like former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and Anthony Cordesman have warned of.  I believe that virtually any Iranian response causing serious Israeli casualties would cause almost unstoppable political momentum for the U.S. to intervene on Israel’s side.  Doing so would be a disaster, as it would turn all of the Gulf States who we’re supposedly trying to protect, along with most Arab and Muslim states ever farther against us than they already are.

Barak Says, Unconvincingly, Israel Hasn’t Yet Decided to Attack Iran

Monday, October 31st, 2011
barak and bibi

Barak: 'It'll be a beautiful war, Bibi, and Persia will be ours." (Emil Salman)

In a statement that raised more questions (and confusion) than it answered, Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister, said news reports that Israel had decided to attack Iran were not true.  In almost the same breath, he denied criticism by media commentators that a momentous decision concerning mounting such an attack had not been sufficiently vetted by the Israeli public saying, in effect, that such an attack had been properly debated (which only leads one to believe he’s actually defending mounting such an assault).  In doing so, he only revived concerns that Israel was indeed preparing for the very attack he denied:

Regarding the question as to why there was no public debate on a matter so fateful to Israel, Barak said, “the Iranian nuclear program has been publicly debated for years in Israel. There are countless interviews and public debates. We do not conceal our thoughts. However, there are operational matters that we do not discuss publicly, as that would make them impossible to carry out.”

This isn’t even barely conceded code for the fact that he, and Israel are indeed preparing for a strike against Iran.

As if he didn’t need to add to the confusion, he made the following two completely contradictory statements:

Barak reiterated that Iran poses a threat to stability in the Middle East and the world.

Followed by this:

Barak said that the Israeli public should not be concerned about the Iranian threat.

“I refuse to be intimidated, as if Iran could destroy Israel, ” Barak said. “Israel is the most powerful country, from Tripoli to Tehran. There is no reason to be afraid of anything.”

On second thought, I just realized that the second comment above might even be further confirmation of Israel’s intent to bomb Iran.  The only thing that holds back many Israelis from endorsing such a blow is fear of Iranian retaliation.  If Barak is in effect telling Israelis that even with an assault by Israel, that Iran could not mount a powerful counter-blow, then he’d be arguing once again for the very thing he denies advocating.

My conclusion is that he’s a bald-faced, and not very convincing liar.

Israeli Peace Activists Appeal to Supreme Court for Right to Return to Anatot

Monday, October 31st, 2011

Those brave Israeli peace activists who protested twice at Anatot and got the stuffings knocked out of them for their trouble, have notified the police they intend to return to demonstrate yet again.  They began by joining a Palestinian farmer whose access to his land is denied by residents of the Anatot settlement.  When the farmer unfurled a Palestinian flag settler thugs flocked to the site, smashed his skull sending him to the hospital and went on a rampage destroying all of his farming equipment.  Peace activists returned that night for a second protest in which the settlers were even more violent, which included a knife attack and sexual assault.

Not to be intimidated, Assaf Sharon (whose nose was broken by a settler thug), the leader of the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity movement applied for a permit to return to Anatot.  The police denied it.  Now he is appealing (today) to the Israeli Supreme Court for the right to do what people in any democratic country may do–demonstrate their views in public.  I hope that the hearing will vindicate the protesters and make the Israeli authorities realize that the whole world is watching the pogromists of Anatot and the State that is dancing to their tune.

Gilad Shalit: The Abusisi Connection

Sunday, October 30th, 2011

There has been much soul-searching in the Israeli media and within the intelligence and political echelons about the lessons learned from the Shalit affair.  Among them there have been a few references to the Abusisi kidnapping which reinforce the impression that Mossad took him because it believed he had some connection to Shalit, something I’ve reported here before (I’ve used the English version of this article and touched up a few vague points with my own translation from the Hebrew):

Particularly surprising is the fact that during the five-year period of negotiations, Israel hardly took as hostages any “bargaining chips” who were Hamas members involved in the Shalit abduction, or persons close to them.  Muawash Al-Kadi, a Hamas member from Rafiah, was kidnapped in 2007 and the engineer Dirar Abusisi was kidnapped this year in Ukraine under mysterious circumstances and brought to Israel.  In both cases, the kidnappings yielded nothing [useful to find Shalit].

What’s important about this passage is first that Muawash Al-Kadi is described as a known Hamas member and Abusisi is not.  It also indicates that the latter was abducted because Israeli intelligence thought he could provide information about Shalit and he didn’t.  This means that all the other nonsense about Abusisi being Hamas’ chief rocket engineer trained at a Ukraine military engineering academy; or that the Gazan planned, with the support of Hamas’ military wing to create a military academy in Gaza–all this is utter nonsense.

They took him because they thought he could lead them to Shalit and he didn’t and he couldn’t.  Everything else is hot-air, including the claim that he had any close affiliation with Hamas.  Let Israel’s spooks come down off their high horse and admit they screwed up.  Abusisi doesn’t belong in prison.  He belongs home with his wife and six children.  I’ve reported earlier that this innocent man suffers from painful kidney stones and accompanying sky-high blood pressure.  The medical care offered to him has been substandard.  Let Dirar go home.  Enough with this mess created by Israel’s Mossad.

 

Yediot’s Alex Fishman: U.S. ‘Very Afraid’ of Israeli Attack on Iran

Sunday, October 30th, 2011

Alex Fishman, following up on his powerful reporting on the potential for an Israeli attack on Iran, traveled to Washington to continue his reporting on the subject.  The title of his story, which is headlined on the newspaper’s front page is: The Israeli Threat.  This is an ironic play on the usual Israel media headline which blares about the “Iranian threat?”  Israelis are loath to think of themselves as the cause of any threat.

Fishman spoke to a “senior State Department official” (odds are he’s referring to Dennis Ross) who relayed to him that the U.S. is “afraid, very afraid” of an Israeli attack:

Articles about preparations by Netanyahu and Barak to take action against Iran frighten the Americans, frighten them a great deal.

There is much chatter about an expected IAEA report next month which, for obvious reasons, war hawks anticipate will provide proof that Iran is intensifying its efforts to turn its nuclear program to military, rather than civilian uses.  It’s completely unclear to me how these pro-war, largely Likud and neocon oriented sources know what the report will contain unless it’s been leaked to them (which none of them have indicated is the case).

Fishman’s State Department source uses this expectation regarding the report to bolster his warning about an Israeli attack:

Publication of the report, Washington fears, is liable to encourage Israeli action against Iran: action which may not necessarily fit U.S. interests in the region.

The Yediot correspondent notes that there had been a delay in Israeli plans to attack Iran after military exercises simulating such a strike several years ago.  Now the U.S. has a new appreciation of the seriousness of Israel’s resolve.  The administration has gone into overdrive regarding this with a single purpose:

To exert much heavier pressure on Iran in order to call Israel off  its “attack project.”

It has demanded the UN Security Council pass more draconian sanctions against Iran.  The thinking is that this would one way to convince the Israelis that sanctions can turn the Iranians around on the issue of their nuclear program (an assumption that seems doubtful in the extreme).  The U.S. official says it has jawboned with the Russians and Chinese, the two nations most opposed to a new round of sanctions, telling them that the alternative to no new sanctions may be an Israeli attack.  It remains to be seen whether this argument will work.  Frankly, if I were Russian or China it wouldn’t move me.  It would only move me if I were a U.S. ally and I was approached to help American interests, which certainly isn’t true of the Russians or Chinese.

The fact that the U.S. source says that warning of an Israeli attack on Iran may make nations opposed to further sanctions more amenable to voting for them, gives rise to doubts about the seriousness of the Israeli resolve to attack.  Are the U.S. and Israel merely exploiting this saber-rattling in order to get the Russians and Chinese to vote their way in the UNSC?  Many believe this.  If this is so, it is not only cynical, I doubt it will work.  It will merely convince the world that Israel is Chicken Little, whose word is never to be trusted (a condition Israel has suffered from for quite some time already).

I don’t think Fishman believes the Israeli threat is a ploy, otherwise he wouldn’t be wasting his time flying all the way from Israel to Washington to report on it.

The U.S. is also asking Iran’s supporters on the UNSC to release the IAEA report publicly as part of ratcheting pressure up on the Iranians.  But if the report says what Israel’s friends claim it does it will increase pressure to attack Iran and not necessarily create any sense of urgency from the Iranians to negotiate a resolution favorable to the west.

Fishman closes with this passage:

The fear of an Israeli attack on Iran is not just shared by those in the Israeli security establishment–but throughout the world, and certainly in the U.S.–which is also frightened of the possibility of such a strike, which is likely cause a big mess in the region.

Whistleblower Anat Kamm Gets Five-Year Sentence

Sunday, October 30th, 2011
anat kamm

Anat Kamm, a lonely figure in the face of the massive power of the Israeli military-intelligence establishment (Motti Milrod)

In the closing act of a travesty foisted upon Israel by its military-intelligence apparatus and tacitly supported by a quiescent media, Anat Kamm was sentenced to four and a half years in prison for passing secret IDF documents to Haaretz journalist, Uri Blau.  Now, Kamm becomes the Israeli version of Bradley Manning and Shamai Leibowitz, both of whom (Manning is imprisoned but not yet tried or convicted) were sentenced to jail sentences for obeying their conscience and revealing secrets that implicated their governments (or Israel in Leibowitz’s case) in acts that violated the law and drew the nation closer to war.

Long ago, an Israeli journalist pointed out that IDF generals and cabinet ministers all leak top-secret information to journalists.  It’s called doing their job.  They’re not imprisoned.  Often they’re promoted as a result.  As long as you leak in service to your commander and prime minister, no matter what the garbage you leak, you are in like Flynn.  But obey your conscience and cross the political/military elite, and you’ll be destroyed.

A journalist once pointed out that an IDF soldier of similar rank to Kamm once leaked secret documents to a reporter and received a sentence of a few days confinement to base from her commander.

The Israeli far right has demonized Anat Kamm.  They’ve vandalized her home where she served two years under house arrest.  They’ve painted graffiti on it calling her “traitor.”

After eight months of negotiations and a prosecution offer of a nine year sentence, which Kamm rejected, the judge imposed this harsh penalty.  Israeli media reports say that her attorneys plan to appeal it to the Supreme Court.  Perhaps a judicial body that lacks any guts in most national security matters will see its way clear to undoing at least part of this injustice by substantially reducing her sentence.  At the very least, the two years under house arrest should be included as time-served in computing the prison time she should serve.

This is sad day, a day of disgrace for Israel.  A day in which military malfeasance was endorsed (Kamm’s materials revealed that IDF general Yair Naveh ordered unarmed Palestinian militants to be assassinated in contravention of Supreme Court rulings–rulings the Court of course has refused to enforce in this case out of deference to the IDF supreme role in society).  A day in which a woman who should be a national heroine was made to grovel in the dirt.

Haaretz Calls on Peres to Torpedo Iran Attack

Sunday, October 30th, 2011

This may be the equivalent of a Hail Mary pass in the final moments of a deadlocked football game, but Haaretz’s columnist Amir Oren, always an interesting observer of the Israeli political scene, writes today (and in Hebrew) that the only political figure who may be able to stop an Israeli attack on Iran is Shimon Peres.  I don’t know if he’s right.  Though Peres is not a conventional Israeli president who fades into the woodwork, he is still president, a largely honorific and ceremonial post.  It’s debatable whether Peres has the power to do what Oren is asking.  Though it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that he does.

peres,ben gurion,dayan

Shimon Peres and David Ben Gurion (Moshe Dayan in background)

Oren’s column marks the 55th anniversary of the opening of the 1956 Sinai War.  This was a military enterprise in which Shimon Peres, along with Moshe Dayan and David Ben Gurion (Peres’ political patron) played decisive roles.  From Israel’s point of view there were numerous successes and failures.  But among the latter was this:

Israel stained itself morally by hatching a conspiracy with two fading European powers against North African national liberation movements…

This reminds us, that while Iran is certainly no representative of the Arab spring, an Israeli attack upon it will certainly arouse the combined ire of the entire Arab world and place Israel even more firmly among those resisting the forces of history which have swept the region and toppled authoritarian regimes.

The Haaretz columnist also points out that Israel went to war with Britain and France as partners, but without the foreknowledge or support of the U.S.  This was a fateful mistake as Pres. Eisenhower became enraged at the military adventure and demanded that conditions be returned to status quo ante, which is more or less what happened.  Today, Israel can no longer play this sort of game.  It has no military partners as it did in 1956 and the U.S. is its only remaining ally.  Without U.S. support or at least connivance, Israel will be hard-pressed to act.

The benefit to Bibi in this case is that Obama is no Ike. He has neither the stature nor the military command experience to face down Bibi if the latter decides to go for broke.  So the question is whether Leon Panetta gave Israel a green, yellow or red light (as Bush gave Olmert) regarding Iran when he discussed an attack on his last visit.  It may perhaps be in realization of this fact that Oren turns to the grey eminence, Peres, to stop the future war (Haaretz’s English translation is defective in the last paragraph, so I’ve partially used it and fixed the errors below):

An Israeli operation against Iran’s nuclear program is liable to recycle the cons of Operation Kadesh, without its benefits. Such a fear is harbored by those who oppose this possible military adventure; the list of negative effects outweighs whatever diplomatic or military advantages might be accrued by such an action, the critics believe. After all, Barak is no Moshe Dayan, and Bibi is no Ben-Gurion.

Only Peres, who is no mere symbolic President (as Yitzhak Ben Zvi was during the 1956 War), remains in power, this time exerting an influence against the military undertaking [as opposed to 1956, when he orchestrated it].  In today’s Theater of Fateful Decisions [as opposed to 1956], there is no playwright [Ben Gurion], director [Dayan], producer [Peres] or  actor [IDF].  He [Peres] is just like the esteemed critic, from whose mouth the creative team [Bibi and Barak] awaits word before presenting the play to the public.

His devastating criticism of the dress rehearsal might postpone the premiere or cancel the performance altogether.  Critic, don’t keep mum. Soon will come time for him to raise his voice.

Amir Oren is a reporter who enjoys speaking in elaborate allegorical terms especially involving secret intelligence or military operations and so the fact that he uses the theatrical metaphor here is natural.  But an Israeli friend notes that the “dress rehearsal” above could very likely refer to actual military maneuvers meant to simulate and prepare for an Iran attack.  Israel is known to have done such a preparatory operation a few years ago around the time that Meir Dagan says he talked the ministers out of initiating such an attack.  So the likelihood of such a military rehearsal now is very real.  The timing would still allow Israel to send its F-16s to bomb Iran before the heavy rains and cloud cover of the Persian Gulf winter sets in, making such an operation less feasible.