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

Posts Tagged ‘bill clinton’

Bibi: Tom Friedman and Bill Clinton, Great Satans

Saturday, September 24th, 2011

As I mentioned in an earlier post today, Mahmoud Abbas spoke of Palestine’s campaign for statehood as a Palestinian Spring.  Bibi responded that it might result in an Iranian winter.  But I see Bibi’s trip as the winter of his discontent, or perhaps the September of his discontent.

Barak Ravid covers Bibi’s New York UN residency (Hebrew) and notes the poor prime minister’s anger at Tom Friedman, that otherwise impeccable servant of Israel’s interests, who wrote a double-barrel blast of a column lambasting Bibi and calling him the worst, most incompetent prime minister in Israel’s history.  In Bibi’s eyes that makes Tom the Great Satan, perhaps even greater than Ahmadinejad.  Ravid says that this passage in Bibi’s speech was an implicit swipe at Friedman:

Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel’s legitimate security concerns.

Imagine the ungratefulness of Tom Friedman not understanding that Israel’s security needs as defined by the Likud, trump regional peace and stability.  All this attention from Bibi is unfortunate in a way since it will likely further inflate Friedman’s rather large ego to know a prime minister took out after him in a speech before the entire UN.

And Bibi has other nemeses as well such as Bill Clinton, who threw a decent sized bucket of cold water on Bibi in the former president’s remarks which also placed blame for the current logjam squarely on Bibi.  It gives you a measure of Bibi that, according to Ravid, he demanded that his staff call the White House and request a demur from the Obama administration regarding Clinton’s remarks.  Can you imagine the leader of a foreign country insisting that a sitting president criticize a past president.  The guys has balls.  When such a rebuff wasn’t forthcoming, Bibi contacted reporters in his entourage and gave them the White House spokesperson’s phone number and asked them to call for a comment.

Ravid describes the reception of Netanyahu’s UN speech as a sorry affair.  Many of the delegates had left and the minutes-long applause that greeted Abu Mazen’s speech was withheld from the Israeli leader.  The only applause he received was mainly from his own delegation and other Jews who were in the hall at the time.  Ravid even says of Bibi: he refused to ask himself why it is that people throughout the world don’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth.  After comparing the warmth and effusiveness of the reception that greeted Abbas and the coldness that Bibi experienced, Ravid closes by saying:

For anyone who had any further doubt: this [Abbas' reception] is how a political tsunami looks and that [Bibi's] is how international isolation feels.

Lipsky Defends Clinton’s Pardon of Marc Rich

Monday, December 8th, 2008

I don’t know what’s going on in the N.Y. Times op ed section.  First they publish anti-Obama smears by Ed Luttwak, then a call for nuclear attack on Iran by Benny Morris.  Now they’ve given column inches to one of America’s foremost Jewish neocons who argues that Bill Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich was a perfectly valid and defensible use of presidential power.

This is really a novelty.  Almost every Democrat I know finds Clinton’s actions in the closing hours of his presidency to be reprehensible.  And here comes someone who long ago ceased (if he ever was one) being a Democrat.  What’s he doing defending Bill Clinton?  And what does it say about Clinton that someone like Lipsky, founding editor of the N.Y. Sun,  is his full-throated defender?

I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop as I read this column so that Lipsky would reveal what his real agenda was (it certainly wasn’t to defend Eric Holder’s attorney general nomination as Lipsky claimed).  I found it here:

Mr. Clinton mentioned foreign policy concerns as well: he’d been urged to pardon Mr. Rich by “many present and former high-ranking Israeli officials of both major political parties and leaders of Jewish communities in America and Europe.” He said they had cited Mr. Rich’s “contributions and services to Israeli charitable causes, to the Mossad’s efforts to rescue and evacuate Jews from hostile countries, and to the peace process through sponsorship of education and health programs in Gaza and the West Bank.”

All in all, the president’s explanation struck me as the statement of a man who, whatever faults he may have shown in office, understood the pardon power in the way the founders of America intended.

No, Seth, Clinton didn’t mention “foreign policy concerns.” He mentioned the Israel lobby, which was pushing hard for Rich’s pardon. As for whether Bill Clinton was channeling the founding fathers when he gave Marc Rich a free pass–that’s true only if the latter were greedy, unprincipled SOBs who believed doing favors for their friends, allies and fixers took precedence over the national interest. Only if the founders believed that lobbying by foreign powers and those associated with them should take precedence over sound judicial practice.

I’d really like to know just what “education and health programs” Rich sponsored on behalf of Palestinians.  I’ve never known Marc Rich to support Palestinians in any shape or form.

Personally, I don’t believe the Rich pardon should prevent Eric Holder from serving as Obama’s A.G. But to try to manipulate the issue in order to backdoor a defense of Bill Clinton and the Israel lobby’s reprehensible behavior in this instance is not kosher.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE