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 November, 2011

Israeli Cabinet Ministers Who Had Opposed Iran Strike Now Favor

Sunday, November 6th, 2011

FoxNews reports that those Israeli cabinet ministers who’d previously opposed a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities have changed their mind and now support it:

Sources close to senior Israeli cabinet officials told Fox News that senior ministers who used to oppose a strike are now for it.  They believe sanctions won’t be tough enough on Iran, and point to Israel’s 1981 attack on an Iraqi nuclear facility — which was never rebuilt — as compelling precedent.

But other analysts warn the situation 20 years ago in Iraq is not like the current situation in Iran, where nuclear sites are spread out and harder to penetrate.

Though the report doesn’t specify which ministers changed their view, even a shift of one would offer Netanyahu a majority in the senior ministerial committee which approves such major governmental decisions.  This would mean, if true, that Netanyahu has surmounted the final hurdle in gaining approval for an Iran attack.  Which would mean that unless the domestic and international campaign against an attack has any impact on the decision makers, an assault could begin at any time.

Though virtually all current and past Shabak and Mossad directors oppose a strike, there’s always one dissenting voice.  In this case, it’s Danny Yatom, former Mossad chief who supports an assault on Iran (Hebrew).  You’ll recall that Yatom was the fellow responsible for the botched assassination attempt on Khaled Meshal in Jordan.  That was the time when the assassins not only failed to kill the target, but they were caught doing so.  This allowed the Jordanians to demand the antidote for the poison in return for safe passage of the would-be killers back to Israel.  The entire mess caused a major rift between Israel’s formerly best ally in the Arab world.

Just as in the Meshal incident, Israel cannot possibly achieve its mission in attacking Iran.  At best, it can delay the inevitable.  Just think what was the result of the Meshal affair: the victim became a folk hero and rose through the ranks to become Hamas’ supreme leader and quite a capable enemy as far as Israel is concerned.  That’s what happens in nature too when you fail to kill an elephant or lion, but only wound it.  Your quarry becomes enraged and a far more dangerous creature than had you not attacked at all.

Israel can only wound Iran.  It cannot land a knockout blow.  A wounded Iran is a very dangerous creature.

U.S. Worried Israel Will ‘Go Rogue,’ Attack Iran Without Coordination

Saturday, November 5th, 2011

A few weeks ago I reported that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s last visit to Israel was quite acrimonious.  Now we know the reason why.  Or at least we know the reason someone in the U.S. government leaked to Haaretz’s Barak Ravid.  Until now, Israel had followed an unwritten agreement that it would not attack Iran without coordination (i.e. permission) with the U.S.  At his meetings with Netanyahu and Barak, Israel for the first time refused to give such an assurance, despite Panetta’s repeated demand that it do so.

It’s one thing when Sarah Palin “goes rogue” and an entire more dangerous one when a military power like the IDF does:

In his recent visit to Israel, American Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did not get a clear commitment from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak that Israel would not take action against Iranian nuclear facilities without coordinating any such operation with the United States.

According to American officials who were briefed about the visit Panetta made a month ago to Israel, the two Israeli leaders only answered Panetta’s questions regarding Israel’s intentions toward Iran in a general manner.

…Panetta raised the Iranian issue in his talks in Israel with both Netanyahu and Barak. He sought not only to hear about Israel’s intentions but also to underline that the U.S. was interested in full coordination with Israel on the issue of the Iranian nuclear threat. The American defense secretary hinted that the Americans did not want to be surprised by Israel. For their parts, however, Netanyahu and Barak avoided providing a clear response, answering vaguely and in general terms.

This is what led a Pentagon official yesterday to leak to CNN’s security correspondent that the U.S. not only believes Israel might “go rogue,” but that it required positioning surveillance satellites to observe potential Israeli preparations for such an attack.  This clearly isn’t the behavior of an ally.  More the behavior of a military power deciding to go out on its own.  Interesting also that U.S. relations with Israel are so poor on this particular subject that a U.S. official has to leak to an Israeli reporter word of how displeased the Obama administration is with Israel’s obduracy.

These are the actions of an Israeli leader who has taken the relationship to a whole new level.  Instead of close coordination, Bibi’s going to go his own way.  In the past, most U.S. presidents would’ve communicated in no uncertain terms that there would be consequences.  This president can’t or won’t do that.  Unlike any president I can remember, Barak Obama is being led by the nose by Bibi.  There is no will to establish an independent line that hews to a U.S. interest, which might be at all separate from Israeli interests.  There truly is no daylight, as U.S. politicians and presidential candidates like to say, between Israel and the U.S.  As the old UJA slogan used to say: “We are One.”

Contrary to the proud American Jews who used that slogan, this is not a good thing.  Nations are not Siamese twins.  They have separate interests.  If they don’t then one is a puppet and the other the puppeteer.  We needn’t specify who’s who in this scenario.  Has this country sunk so low, has its power and influence been so degraded that an Israeli prime minister pulls our strings?

Here’s two Israeli leaders who are telling the U.S. that they will go their own and that they don’t believe there will be any meaningful consequences as a result.  The Obama administration’s management of this relationship has failed utterly and abysmally.

Yossi Melman, with excellent sources within the Mossad, writes what his sources tell him the expected IAEA report will tell the world about Iran’s nuclear intentions.  Let’s keep in mind before we go farther that Melman may or may not be telling us what will be in the report when it’s released next week.  But he’s surely telling us what the Mossad and Bibi want and expect to be in the report.  A clue to how dodgy this leak is is that Melman won’t even tell his readers anything about his source.  He merely calls it “a leak:”

Iran is pursuing its nuclear weapons program at the Parchin military base about 30 kilometers from Tehran, diplomatic sources in Vienna say. The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to release a report this week on Iran’s nuclear activities.

According to recent leaks, Iran has carried out experiments in the final, critical stage for developing nuclear weapons – weaponization. This includes explosions and computer simulations of explosions. The Associated Press and other media outlets have reported that satellite photos of the site reveal a bus-sized container for conducting experiments.

…Parchin serves as a base for research and development of missile weaponry and explosive material. It also has hundreds of structures and a number of fortified tunnels and bunkers for carrying out explosive experiments.

…According to information leaked to the media, the report will include a 12-page appendix with details including documents and satellite photos that support the contention that, in violation of its international obligations, Iran is covertly developing nuclear weapons.

According to a Guardian editorial, the information that may appear in next week’s report is not new.  I have no doubt that IAEA has such photographs and documents or something similar to them.  But my concern is whether whatever information it has is reliable and credible.  The Mossad has a history of releasing documents and evidence of Iranian pursuit of nuclear triggering devices and other means towards weaponization.  Most such evidence has been highly suspect.  The question for the IAEA is what does it have and how trustworthy is it?

Israel of course wants the world to believe the report will be the smoking gun.  Then, according to who you believe, Israel will have sufficient grounds to launch an attack; or else it will expect the world to ratchet up pressure with a new round of sanctions and covert ops including assassinations and cyberwarfare.  For the life of me, I can’t see how Israel’s leaders will be satisfied more the same old-same old policies which haven’t moved Iran till now.

Another article in Haaretz today points out that the U.S. no-fly zone over Iraq ends on December 31st.  At any point afterward, Israel could violate Iraqi airspace with impunity on its way to attack Iran.

The Guardian lays blame for the impasse partially at Israel’s door:

The reality is that Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is seen as a threat for reasons partly of Israel’s own making – foremost its absolute reliance on a policy of military supremacy and deterrence to underpin security. A nuclear-armed Iran would hole that policy below the waterline, making it far more difficult, for instance, to launch the kind of war it waged against Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006.

This is a lot closer to the truth of the matter than any hysterical rhetoric about the “mad mullahs” or the year being 1938 and Teheran being Munich.  The truth of the matter is that Israel wants no competition for hegemony in the region.  When any country or militant group gets to bit for its britches and threatens Israel’s dominance, the IDF takes ‘em down a notch or two.  Israel knows it cannot take out Iran’s nuclear capability.  Further, it knows Iran will only redouble its efforts after an attack.  This won’t be like Saddam and Osirak.  But Israel’s goal isn’t to dismantle the Iranian program.  It’s to fire a warning shot across the bow warning the Iranians of who’s boss and plans to remain so.

Bibi is on record as being deeply suspicious of the goals of the Arab Spring.  Israeli hardliners believe it’s an ill wind that blows no good toward the nation’s shores.  The Middle East is increasingly a region in which Israel sees Islamists and global jihad–enemies and no friends (with the possible exception of Jordan).  That might further fuel Bibi’s desire to show his potential enemies how Israel treats those it views as hostile to its interests.

Now, you may say that this is an insane way to conduct policy putting most of your citizens at risk through counter-attacks solely in order to send a message in blood.  I agree.  But much of Israeli policy isn’t rational.  So what can you do?  I suppose some might argue that much of Iranian policy isn’t rational either.  That’s why Iran and Israel, their leaders at least, seem made for each other.  It’s hard to tell which is more delusional, taunting, and bellicose.

The last word goes to the Guardian editorial:

… Israel risks talking itself into a corner where it appears weak if it doesn’t act and perhaps weaker if it does, a country increasingly bereft of any notion of how to manage relations with its neighbours except through the threat of aggression.

I have an even deeper concern-that is, that this is not just the “threat of aggression,” but rather an act of aggression.  One of many in Israeli history when it feels even remotely threatened.

Iranian Blogger to Ynet: ‘Iranian Leadership is Crazy, Attacking Us Will Only Unify Regime’

Saturday, November 5th, 2011

Ynet reports on discussions its held with an Iranian blogger and journalist who warns Israel that attacking his country would be deeply counter-productive to the interests of those who oppose the regime.  While Hamid (a pseudonym), the Iranian, concedes that his country’s leaders are “crazy,” he warns:

You’d do yourself a favor if you took seriously the responses of the Ayatollahs to your threats.  We’re used to such threats.  We’ve heard them all before.  The Iranian people don’t attach any importance to them.

The blogger says that Iranians do not fear an Israeli attack nor do they have reason to:

If the Revolutionary Guards detect a real military threat they will start World War III.  Israelis understand that such a war wouldn’t be worth fighting.

Hamid believes it’s most likely that if Iran were attacked, its army would launch missiles at Israel, while at the same time its ships would attack American targets in the Persian Gulf.  He doesn’t discount the possibility that Iran would launch missiles at Iraq, Afghanistan and even Europe, if attacked:

This is a crazy regime.  Tell Mr. Netanyahu not to attack.

The Iranian source says that if Iran is struck that it will unite the entire nation around the extremist regime.  He believes that 70% of Iranians support the regime:

The number of opponents isn’t that large.  Many support them, and to the rest it doesn’t matter whether they survive or fall.

Hamid says that Iran’s media has given little attention lately to Israel’s statements about the former’s nuclear program.  He explains the way typical Iranians view it:

Iran needs to develop nuclear technology in order to become more industrially self-sufficient and to force western nations to take us more seriously.

He concludes by dismissing once again Israel’s threats:

We’ve been hearing the same threats for 20 years.  We no longer attach any importance to them.

I’m afraid I don’t agree with Hamid that there’s little chance Israel will attack Iran.  But I do agree that if Israel or anyone in the world thinks that Israeli threats will cause anyone’s heart to flutter or skip a beat in Teheran, they’re sadly mistaken.  That doesn’t mean they’re not prepared to receive such a blow.  They are.  They know Israel and its history of attacking enemies and imagined enemies.  But just as they fought a war for eight years with Iraq, so they’re willinig, if they have to, to defend against an Israeli attack and take the fight to the enemy.

France, Britain, Columbia, Bosnia to Abstain on Palestinian Statehood Vote

Saturday, November 5th, 2011

Most people concerned with the UN Secuity Council’s upcoming vote on Palestinian statehood have been focussing on the number 9.  Nine votes are required to pass a resolution and if it receives that many, a member may then veto the resolution.  Apparently, if Palestine fails to secure the nine votes (which would be followed by a U.S. veto), it is unlikely the General Assembly would then take up the matter.  This is what the U.S. hopes as it wishes to avoid the embarrassing phenomenon of vetoing a resolution supporting a policy it purports to support (Palestinian statehood).  With the statehood bid supposedly dead, the Obama administration would breathe a sigh of relief that it, and its ally Israel, had dodged a bullet.

But there is another eventuality few have considered and which could be almost as embarrassing.  Until now, the U.S. seemed assured of getting the No votes of its traditional allies on the Council, France, German and Britain.  But France has announced it will abstain and a BBC foreign editor tweeted yesterday night and the Telegraph reported that the UK will also abstain.  According to the latter, Colombia, another traditional U.S. ally will also abstain.  It appears likely that Bosnia too will abstain.  That means that Palestine will likely get 8 Yes votes and the U.S. will have a total of only three No votes.  In other words, only two other nations on the Council will likely join us in casting our vote.  I’d say that’s pretty damn pathetic.

The question now is whether German will as well.  If it does, it leaves the U.S. practically alone on the Council in voting No.  It will still mean the vote will likely fail, but it will be tremendously embarrassing that we couldn’t even carry our allies with us on this one.  If you are German, please urge your government to either vote Yes or at the least abstain.  In my view, an abstention is a tacit vote in opposition to the U.S. campaign against a Palestinian state.  Eight votes in favor and three opposed should tell the U.S. something and be yet another nail in the coffin of our bankrupt foreign policy regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Former Mossad Chief Halevy: Iran Attack ‘Will Impact Region for 100 Years’

Saturday, November 5th, 2011

Ynet reports (fuller Hebrew version) that Ephraim Halevy, a former Mossad director, said yesterday that Iran poses no “existential threat” to Israel and that attacking it must truly be a last resort.  Anyone considering such a strike must realize that it would impact not just Israel, but the entire region for the next 100 years.  If this was all Halevy said it would be important, but mere reinforcement of views already expressed forcefully by Meir Dagan, the most recent past Mossad chief.  What renders the former’s views even more interesting is that he identifies what he considers an even greater existential threat to Israel: the Haredim (ultra-Orthodox):

Haredi radicalism has darkened our lives.  It endangers us even more than Ahmadinejad.

His attack on Haredim is shorthand for an entire range of social developments within Israeli society that includes, but goes beyond merely the ultra-Orthodox.  Halevy, who himself was raised in the moderate Orthodox Bnai Akiva youth movement, refers to the increasing religious and political radicalization of the entire Orthodox movement in Israel.  There has always been friction between secular and religious within Israel.  But in the past, there were streams within the Orthodox movement which held moderate political and halachic views.  Parties like the National Religious Party were ones which accepted a separation between synagogue and state.  They participated in governing coalitions and were statist in orientation.  They didn’t believe the State should be subordinate to the Jewish religion or halacha.  Leaders like Josef Burg (Avrum Burg’s father) were also sober-minded and incorruptible.

Today’s Orthodox are increasingly extreme in their views.  The moderate religious parties are long extinct.  In their place are the ultra-Orthodox, who are much more socially separatist and militant.  They view Israeli secular society as a world–and a state apart from them.  They participate in politics because of the spoils it brings them in financial subsidies, and not for patriotic reasons.  For them, the State of Israel is not an end, but a means toward a successor regime that fulfills the tenets of Judaism as they see it.

Haredim generally don’t join the IDF and receive dispensation from military service as long as they are studying in yeshivot.  When Haredim do join the army they serve in military units which are among the most brutal in their treatment of the Palestinians.  Which brings us to Haredi political activism.  Many of them are the extreme among the settlers.  Their yeshivot and settlements produce the most virulent and homicidal of the Jewish terrorists in places like Yitzhar, Tapuach, and Itamar (among others).

So when Halevy calls the Haredim an existential threat the term is shorthand for a whole set of phenomena that have developed inside Israel over the past few decades and moved Israel from a place which suffered from a divide between secular and religious; into a society in which, while the secular still existed, they had been co-opted and subsumed into a state that moved more and more in the direction of racism, intolerance, and authoritarianism.  These noxious elements, while always present even among secular Israelis, became far more pronounced as Haredi culture did.

Though Halevy doesn’t mention this explicitly, I’m sure he’d liken the increasing militancy of the Haredim and their settler members with that of militant Islam.  Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda have their counterparts in Israel’s most violent settler rabbis and Kahanist MKs like Baruch Marzel, Michael Ben Ari, and a number of others.  While it is true that Jewish terror has not achieved the level of violence of the terror acts of Al Qaeda, that is because Jewish religious extremism has had to struggle against the secular, democratic values of Israel to find traction.  That’s why the process of radicalization has been gradual within the nation.  Within Muslim states like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, there were few countervailing influences to hold back this fundamentalist tide.

Going farther afield, the Ynet report noted Ehud Barak, while visiting London (yes, the British Parliament has removed any threat of arrest warrants against Israeli leaders possibly culpable for war crimes, thus enabling the Israeli defense minister to re-enter the global political marketplace), made some extraordinarily overblown, incendiary remarks about Iran.  Among them was his likening the Islamist regime to North Korea and his claim that an Iranian bomb would undo military arms treaties (which is ironic considering Israel has refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).  He also posited an Iran whose hegemony ruled the region through military threat:

Which would force the local actors to bend under the influence of Iran.  It would spread terror–they already finance terror–throughout the region.  This would bring them a form of immunity of the sort from which North Korea benefits.  In fact, they’re not producing Barbie dolls, but rather nuclear weapons and heavy missiles capable not just of hitting Israel but central Europe.

What Barak neglects to mention that Israel isn’t producing many Barbie dolls either and that it is rolling out far more nuclear weapons and heavy missiles than Iran.  That little fact seems to have slipped his mind though I hope it hasn’t slipped the minds of his listeners.

The above quotation is a perfect example of the near pathological language of jihad, which Israeli commentators have attributed to Barak and Bibi lately (in numberous posts I’ve published here referring to them).  I’ve truly come to believe that this is no longer mere political rhetoric and jawboning to get Iran to stand down from its nuclear program, or to get the U.S. to supply its most advanced weapons system.  This sort of language goes beyond the rational.  It’s the rhetoric of a Caesar dreaming of his next conquest.  Though this Caesar hasn’t nearly as decisive and effective a fighting machine as a Roman legion at his disposal (though of course the IDF can wreak far more havoc on the world than any Roman army).

Though U.S. officials have been studiously nonchalant in commenting on any chance of an Israeli attack on Iran, this report by CNN’s Pentagon correspondent shows that the U.S. military is taking this possibility quite seriously:

The United States has become increasingly concerned Israel could be preparing to strike Iran’s nuclear program, a senior U.S. military official told CNN on Friday.

The U.S. military and intelligence community in recent weeks have stepped up “watchfulness” of both Iran and Israel, according to the senior U.S. military official and a second military official familiar with the U.S. actions. Asked if the Pentagon was concerned about an attack, the senior military official replied “absolutely.” Both officials declined to be identified because of the extreme sensitivity of the matter.

Both the U.S. Central Command, which watches developments in Iran, and the U.S. European Command, which watches developments in Israel, are “increasingly vigilant” in watching potential military movement in both countries. U.S. satellites are a crucial method of gathering intelligence in both arenas, though the official did not specify that was the method being used.

…The military official told CNN that the United States is watching any Israeli military movements closely as well as those inside Iran. In the past, the U.S. officials felt they had assurances from Israel that it would give warning to the United States of any attack.

“Now that doesn’t seem so ironclad,” the official said.

The article also adds that the U.S. military envisions an Israeli attack including not just F-16s, but Jericho III ballistic missiles, presumably equipped with conventional, rather than nuclear warheads.  If the missiles, which presumably could include cruises and other land and sea-based weaponry, were accurate enough, it would take some of the burden off the IAF’s manned airpower.  Finally, an attack would offer Shock and Awe Israel-style.

Let’s return to an Israeli voice of reason and sanity, Halevy’s who said:

…No one should believe that there is an [Iranian] existential threat because this is simply not true.

The tragedy for Israel is that Dagan and Halevy, retired from active duty, cannot personally stop such an attack.  They’ve left the field to the megalomaniacs like Barak and Bibi, and there’s no telling whether they can be restrained.

If UN General Assembly Votes for Palestinian State, U.S. May Be Forced to Defund Entire UN System

Friday, November 4th, 2011

UPDATE: Thanks to readers who’ve pointed out that unless the Palestine resolution gets nine Security Council votes, the General Assembly cannot take up the vote.  But Haver’s comment below provides an interesting “end-around” that allows the Palestinians to avert this obstruction and come up with virtually the same result.

An interesting question given our defunding UNESCO for its vote in favor of accepting Palestine as a member.  Let’s presume the Security Council does not approve statehood and the issue goes to the General Assembly, and it does.  From what I understand of the law under which we defunded UNESCO, we’d also have to defund the entire UN system, or at least the General Assembly.  Can anyone imagine a scenario in which this happens?  And if it doesn’t happen won’t that make our UNESCO decision appear totally hypocritical and self-serving (or I should say “Israel-serving”)?

It seems to me that if there is a UN vote recognizing Palestine and the law forces us to withdraw funding against our wishes we’ll have only ourselves and our Aipac-dominated legislative system to blame.  Imagine the Israel Lobby has such a lock on these matters that a law passed twenty years ago which no one paid any attention to will now tie the administration up in knots.  We will truly become the impotent figure on the world stage which we only appear to be now to those watching this farce play itself out.  Not to mention the impact it would have on the UN itself, causing virtually all its day to day operations eventually to ground to a halt.

It’s ironic that throughout the Bush era senators like Jesse Helms withheld huge portions of U.S. dues to the UN, which then partially paralyzed the world body.  He did this with the tacit connivance of the Bush administration and its neocon hawks who hated the UN anyway.  The irony of a future GA vote for Palestine would be that a supposedly liberal Democratic administration would be forced to do what even Jesse Helms never accomplished: the total defunding of the United Nations.  And it’ll be Obama’s own damn fault for not fighting the good fight on behalf of a truly balanced foreign policy in which we play an honest broker, rather than Israel’s lawyer.

Matt Lee Takes It to State Department’s Nuland Again

Thursday, November 3rd, 2011


The AP’s Matt Lee is going to make himself a mini wonk-celebrity for his habit of making mince-meat of the State Department’s Victoria Nuland during her press briefings.  Yesterday, he took her on over the UNCESCO defunding and Israel’s announcement it would be building 2,000 new settlement housing units and withholding PA tax revenue in punishment for the UN organization’s vote to accept Palestine as a full member.

If you think about what has happened along the lines that Lee does, the UNESCO vote does not really cause any substantive change in Palestinian status in the international arena.  It doesn’t harm Israel in any specific, tangible way.  Yet in response to the vote the U.S. has ended its funding for one of the most important international bodies there is, Israel is withholding potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in Palestinian tax revenues, and Israel will build 2,000 new housing units on illegally held Palestinian territory.

Lee points out that Palestinians are suffering tangible material harm to their interests, while Israel suffers no punishment for its violations of the status quo and stated U.S. policy.  We offer $3 billion per year to Israel and yet we’re not willing to withhold a single penny when Israel contravenes our own policies regarding settlements.  What is the message Israel takes away from this:

…How is it U.S. policy to encourage peace talks if you’re unwilling to do anything against either side when they continue to ignore you and, in fact, not just to ignore you but to make matters worse, is what you said. You’re a parent. You have two spoiled children who are doing things that you don’t like. What do you do to get them to stop that behavior? You don’t do nothing. You punish them. You take some kind of action. You have, or you did have, leverage with the Israelis because you gave them $3 billion a year. You do have, or did have, leverage with the Palestinians because you give them millions of dollars a year. And yet, you’re not going to do anything with that?

…Is the Administration upset or embarrassed at all by the fact that two relatively tiny groups of people are running roughshod over American foreign policy?

…You do believe that your involvement in UN organizations such as UNESCO…that that’s an American national security interest or in an American interest. And you’re prepared to allow these two small groups of people to make you forfeit your national interests in international organizations. That’s what you’re saying to me.

The AP reporter does everyone a tremendous service by calling the Obama administration the emperor with no clothes.  He even uses the term “impotent” at one point.  If I lived in DC I might go there just to watch the fireworks.

I don’t envy Nuland.  She’s not given much to work with.  All she can continually say when pummeled by reporters is the U.S. is committed to the road map and Quartet process, components which are DOA as far as any serious observer of the process can tell.  If the State Department spokesperson wasn’t such a cold fish, you might actually feel a twinge of sympathy for her.

Returning to the press briefing, another reporter gets Nuland to tacitly concede that Hillary Clinton hasn’t had a substantive contact with an Israeli or Palestinian leader in the past six weeks, aptly summarizing the level of commitment of the administration to the issue.  This stasis of course works only to Israel’s advantage because it want to preserve the status quo as long as possible.

The reporters generally note that the U.S. election season is likely to continue to render our efforts pointless because no candidate, including the president would be willing to exercise any robust or muscular intervention in the process.  This means another year of paralysis and ineffectiveness, which is music to Israel’s ears.

Israeli Doctors: Torturing the Hippocratic Oath

Thursday, November 3rd, 2011

A Haaretz story publicizes a new report (full Hebrew version and English version) by the Israel Committee Against Torture and Physician for Human Rights Israel which documents the systematic violation by the Israeli medical community of the Israeli equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath.  Police and intelligence officials who abuse, torture or maim detainees and prisoners bring them to Israeli hospitals for treatment.  When they do so, the report notes, medical staff violate medical procedures by not reporting and documenting in their medical reports the clear evidence of violence.  By refusing to document the wounds and causes of them, it renders the victims unable to pursue official complaints against the perpetrators.

When a Palestinian was arrested, beaten by police and then bitten by a police dog near Ramallah, he was brought for treatment to Shaarey Tzedek Hospital.  Despite the fact that hospital staff treated this blindfolded, shackled man accompanied by police, they didn’t note the cause of the dog bite or circumstances under which he was brought to them.  The victim’s complaint against arresting officers was dismissed on the grounds that he couldn’t prove “culpability.”  Here is the hospital’s response:

“The medical documents state explicitly that he was treated for a bite, and the doctors have no way to determine the source of the bite.”

Besides the Hippocratic Oath for doctors, shouldn’t there be a prohibition against lying enforced on PR hacks for Israeli hospitals?

Another arrestee suffered a serious gash on his face inflicted by Israeli police.  He was brought to the famed Hadassah Hospital, which likes to boast that it treats all patients regardless of ethnicity, race or religion.  In this case, however, the medical report did not indicate how the victim received his wound.

After a complaint was filed on the victim’s behalf, this was the vaunted medical institution’s reply:

Hadassah said in a statement that it provides the best medical care to all its patients, regardless of the circumstances of the disease or injuries. It added that because the patient was referred by the Israel Prison Service and accompanied by Border Police officers, “It was clear that the authorities were aware of his arrival and did not need additional notification. Unfortunately, the medical records relating to the treatment provided by Hadassah were apparently taken by the patient or someone acting on his behalf.”

Can you imagine a hospital which gives all its medical records about a patient to an unknown party leaving the institution without any records of the treatment he received?  It’s simply unfathomable.

The torture report also notes that over 700 complaints of torture submitted to the Attorney General over the past decade have not been investigated.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE