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 ‘conference-of-presidents-of-major-jewish-organizations’

Hoenlein Disses Obama

Thursday, February 14th, 2008

Malcolm Hoenlein is the paragon of Jewish communal apparatchiks. He’s one of the chief pro-Israel enforcers among the leadership–sort of the like our very own J. Edgar Hoover. He runs the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and so has his own bully pulpit with the emphasis on “bully.”

Barack Obama has come out on the short end of Hoenlein’s stick in a recent Haaretz story which fretted that the candidate’s thirst for change could bode ill for Israel:

“All the talk about change, but without defining what that change should be, is an opening for all kind of mischief,” Hoenlein said at a press conference in Jerusalem…

Indeed. The fact that Obama might want to change U.S. policy toward Israel and might soften U.S. support for the Occupation. That an Obama administration might actually pressure Israel to withdraw from West Bank settlements and engage in final status negotiations. That would frighten a true believer like Hoenlein.

Hoenlein was careful to stress, “It’s not the candidates themselves we are concerned about,” pointing out that Obama, like the other major candidates, has signed on to found a national committee to celebrate Israel’s 60th anniversary in the U.S.

“Of course Obama has plenty of Jewish supporters and there are many Jews around him,” Hoenlein said. “But there is a legitimate concern over the zeitgeist around the campaign.”

He also cited the fact that Obama has criticized his rival, Democratic candidate Senator Hillary Clinton, for her vote in favor of including the Iranian Republican Guards in the list of terror organizations.

Again, Obama is dangerous because he isn’t sufficiently bellicose toward Iran. I mean, my God, he’s even in favor of negotiating with the Iranians before bombing them to Kingdom Come. Have you ever heard of anything so audacious and threatening to Israeli interests?!

The U.S. Jewish leader warned the American presidential campaign could signal a shift toward declining U.S. support for Israel.

“Support for Israel is at an all-time high, [but] our polling suggests that as broad as the support is, it is also thin, and most Americans see Israel as a dark and militaristic place,” he said.

Now, where would they ever have picked up that wild idea?

He termed the current election season “transitional” and said that it “could bring about a shift in the political life.”

Hoenlein said that Israel’s supporters should be worried by “the heightening of the bar and the greater tolerance of anti-Israel statements that wouldn’t have been allowed in the past.”

He singled out the book by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer on the Israel lobby, which “has become a bestseller and a college textbook,” and said that there “is a steady poisoning of the elites, mainly on campuses, that could trickle down.”

Now, that’s a new anti-Walt/Mearsheimer slogan…The Israel Lobby and the Poisoning of the Elites! Maybe it could be the title of Abe Foxman’s next book attacking the two learned professors. Have you ever heard of rhetoric so overblown? Hoenlein is our very own Chicken Little crying: “the sky is falling” and gnashing his teeth when a presidential candidate shows the least amount of independent judgment regarding the I-P conflict.

Conference of Presidents Swats Olmert Over Jerusalem

Sunday, December 23rd, 2007

Malcolm Hoenlein must have Tzipi-Condi envy because he arranged for the Conference of Presidents to plot Jerusalem policy on Israel’s behalf this week. Don’t you just love it when busybodies like Hoenlein and his minions decide they’re sufficiently wonkish that they can plot foreign policy on Israel’s behalf?

The Conference passed one of those utterly meaningless resolutions declaring the city the eternal, undivided capital of Israel. In this, it took a swat at Ehud Olmert who, as we speak, is negotiating with Mahmoud Abbas and Condi Rice over the parameters for a peace settlement. Everyone knows that the final settlement will call for a sharing of Jerusalem between the two sides for which it will become a dual capital. Israelis, according to opinion polls, have come to accept this outcome. American Jews, unfortunately according to the latest AJC survey have not, declaring opposition to such an outcome by 58 to 36 percent. It’s important to note that the group (Israelis) which will bear the brunt of this decision is decidedly more pragmatic and realistic than the one that won’t (American Jews).

The Conference, along with other right-wing groups like ZOA and the Orthodox community have been organizing a rump caucus to foil any attempt to “negotiate away” Jerusalem. They’re fighting more of a rear guard action I think as they appear to realize that if there ever is a settlement it won’t be going their way. My hope is that their opposition will amount to little more than did the extremist settler opposition to during the Gaza withdrawal.

Dovish members of the Conference like Seymour Reich and Eric Yoffie railed against the decision. But what can they do? They’re always outnumbered, always outgunned. I’m not really certain why the liberal groups continue to participate in the Conference. Does it really bring them any benefits? It certainly brings them headaches–like this.

Middle East Bulletin Debuts, to Disseminate Media Analysis of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Sunday, May 6th, 2007

The Center for American Progress has done the Mideast peace community a tremendous service in creating Middle East Progress (MEP) and the Middle East Bulletin. MEP’s website describes its mission this way:

Middle East Progress helps develop…practical approaches to, and voices involved in…resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, with a primary focus on achieving a sustainable, secure, democratic Palestinian state alongside sustainable, secure, and democratic Israel. We believe such action will improve U.S., Israeli, and regional security, and America’s global standing, and reflects the will and aspirations of a vast majority of Israelis and Arabs…

A hat tip to Muzzlewatch for turning me on to this invaluable new addition to the progressive Mideast landscape. Nathan Guttman at The Forward provides some background to the Bulletin portion of the new project:

The Center for American Progress is set to launch the Middle East Bulletin, which will be arriving in subscribers’ inboxes beginning next week. It aims to take on Daily Alert, published by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by a right-wing think tank in Israel.

Sources involved…said that frustration over what they see as bias in Daily Alert sparked the idea of publishing a product that is similar, but in support of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“We see ourselves as filling the vacuum that now exists,” said Jim Gerstein, a consultant who came up with the idea for the Middle East Bulletin. “We want to take all the good work that is being done by groups working for a two-state solution and amplify it.”

Those of us who’ve been in the trenches of the Israeli peace movement for lo these many decades can only rejoice in the broadening and strengthening of our efforts through initiatives like this. The AIPACs and Conference of Presidents of the Jewish world must be taken on at every opportunity. Alternatives to their hegemonic grip on the Israel message disseminated by the Jewish communal leadership must be developed. It is especially important that we present alternative media sources that can reinforce the message that peace is possible and that it must come through compromise between the parties.

The Mideast consultant who brainstormed the project pinpointed where he hoped its influence would be felt most:

Jim Gerstein hopes that the Middle East Bulletin will become a leading voice for a two-state solution within the Jewish community, but mainly among decision makers who deal with Middle East issues. The bulletin will be sent to Capitol Hill offices and to administration staffers, foreign policy experts and journalists. It will also be spread through already existing e-mail lists of dovish Jewish organizations.

The project is sponsored by the Center for American Progress through its recently launched Middle East Progress initiative. This marks the first time that the center — headed by John Podesta, who served in the White House as President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff — is taking a high-profile public position on issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…Now it is launching its first effort to sway American public opinion.

“The American public debate on the Middle East is missing significant parts of the robust discussion which is taking place in Israel,” said Mara Rudman, who heads the Middle East Progress program.

The Forward piece also provides interesting background about the partisan slant of the Daily Alert:

The…Daily Alert, an e-mail bulletin [is] widely considered to be one of the most effective focused on Middle East news…Estimates of Daily Alert’s circulation range from 100,000 to 250,000. It is prepared for the Presidents Conference— an umbrella group representing 52 Jewish organizations — by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. The center is a think tank in Israel led by Dore Gold, who is a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and a close adviser to former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

…Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Presidents Conference, did not respond to the Forward’s questions regarding Daily Alert.

While Daily Alert states that its mission is to bring “Israel-related news stories from mainstream English and Hebrew media sources,” critics argue that the summary fails to reflect the mainstream of Israel’s public discourse and that it shuts off news and views associated with the Israeli left.

“It is very skewed to the right,” said M.J. Rosenberg, Israel Policy Forum’s director of policy analysis. IPF is an American Jewish advocacy group that supports aggressive American efforts to help secure a two-state solution. “When you read it, you get the feeling it is coming from the Israeli right wing and from the Jewish right wing.”

Every month seems to bring news of a strengthening of the work and message of the Israeli-Palestinian peace movement. May it go from strength to strength.

Sign yourself up (fill in e mail field at bottom of page).

Pro-Israel Jewish Groups to the Ramparts Against Palestinian Prisoner’s Document

Monday, June 26th, 2006

Ori Nir reports in The Forward that pro-Israel neocon, Malcolm Hoenlein and his Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations “umbrella” group have entered the fray against the Palestinian Prisoner’s Document which seeks Hamas’ acceptance of a two-state solution and an end to terror attacks outside of the Green Line (among other things). Many Palestinians, Israelis and Mideast analysts have welcomed this initiative as a possible breakthrough that might eventually lead to Israeli-Palestinian final status peace negotiations. In this blog, I have attempted to address the Prisoner’s Document cautiously but optimistically as have a number of stories in the Israeli press. I don’t think any of us is oblivious to the difficult road ahead if the Document is to be turned into a long-range plan leading to peace negotiations. There is oh so much that can go wrong. Just look at the events of the last two days as a perfect example of an attempt to derail the Document.

But Hoenlein, apparently fearing that the Document might take on a life of its own in world opinion has taken to the ramparts to do battle against it:

American Jewish organizations are strongly criticizing the document guiding national unity talks between Hamas and Fatah officials…

For Palestinians, observers said, the purpose of hammering out a unified platform is not to trigger talks with Israel. Instead, the negotiations surrounding the document appear aimed at preventing an internal civil war and breaking the financial siege that the international community has imposed on the Palestinian Authority…

“This is not a platform for negotiations with Israel, but for negotiations between Palestinians,” Haim Malka said. Malka is a Middle East expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank…

Several Jewish groups — including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the 52-member umbrella group widely seen as the Jewish community’s main united voice on Middle Eastern affairs — are complaining that the Palestinian document driving the Hamas-Fatah talks has wrongly been described in the media as a “peace plan.”

“Not only is this not a peace plan, but it expresses positions that are much more hard line than the ones believed to be Fatah’s position on issues such as the right of return [of Palestinian refugees] and what they call the right of resistance” to Israel, said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Presidents Conference.

The document, Hoenlein told the Forward, could only hinder future negotiations with Palestinian moderates, because it would blur distinctions between them and militants tied to Hamas and to other terrorist groups. “What this would say is that Hamas and Fatah of Abbas have now become the same thing,” Hoenlein said.

Any reasonable observer will note the inanity of much of this poppycock which passes for “analysis.” First, the Prisoner’s Document is clearly meant to lead eventually to “triggering talks with Israel.” Merely stating that the Document is not intended to lead to negotiation is what passes for well-reasoned political argument in the pro-Israel community. Those who suggest there is no intent to lead to negotiation are little more than propagandists and utter fools to boot.

This doesn’t mean that the Document isn’t also meant to break the PA’s international isolation as the above passage indicates. Those two objectives are by no means in conflict nor does one preclude the other. Second, the Document clearly IS a peace plan. Yes, it does contain different provisions than ones previously endorsed by Fatah. But the problem with the Hoenlein view is that it neglects to take into account that Fatah is no longer in power. Hamas for now holds the reins and until now Hamas has not endorsed any of the provisions in the Document.

Further, Hoenlein conveniently neglects to mention a key provision of the Document calling on Hamas to accept previously negotiated agreements (like Oslo) adopted by the PLO. If Hamas signs on to this provision then it will in effect be endorsing precisely those positions which Fatah has endorsed (recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence, etc.). There goes Hoenlein’s argument out the window!

In other words, the Prisoner’s Document is a complex one which must not be reduced to a few propaganda sound bytes. Those who do, like Hoenlein, will convince no one but their own acolytes of the rightness of their analysis.

One small piece of carping about Nir’s coverage. Certainly, Malcolm Hoenlein and CPMJO’s views on the Prisoner’s Document are important and worth covering. But could he not find any other commentator to provide an alternate view? By not doing so, Nir in effect cedes the field to the mainstream pro-Israel groups allowing readers to believe that the Jewish community speaks with one voice on this issue. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, I’m willing to bet that if you polled American Jews providing them with the basic provisions of the Prisoner’s Document and asked whether it was a worthwhile proposal which deserved consideration by Israel–that a majority of us Jews would agree with the proposition. The fact that a majority of the American Jewish fatcat pro-Israel leadership does not, merely indicates how much they exist in their own isolation chamber, a place that is divorced not only from the majority of American Jewry but from Israeli interests as well.

There are Israeli commentators and this blog as well which espouse an alternate view of the Document. Could one of us have not been cited by Nir so as to provide some balance to the article? I’ve written to Nir about this–we’ll see what, if anything, is his response.