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 ‘israeli foreign ministry’

Israel Fires Deputy Ambassador to U.S. Over Iran Leak, Original Haaretz Story Exposed for First Time

Thursday, October 6th, 2011

Two days ago, with the help of an Israeli source I broke a gag order concerning the arrest of a dubious suspect in the mosque burning in northern Israel, naming him as Yisrael Katz.  Today, various Israeli media published portions of what I wrote (though only Yediot mentioned his name, and then strangely only his last name).  Of course, none of these sources mentioned that the story broke here first, probably because they can’t conceive of an American blogger breaking stories before them.  They’d do well to pay closer attention to what’s published here.

Today, we’re going to break another important story.  Or at least a part of an important that’s already been partially reported by Israeli media.  In 2009, Haaretz published a detailed report concerning Iran.  Until tonight, the original publication hasn’t been known (except to a few Israeli and U.S. diplomats who were named in it and the newspaper that published it).

When this story was first published, the U.S. diplomats named in it blew their stacks.  They severely reprimanded the Israeli foreign ministry for the leak.  It promptly went about searching for the leaker.  Suspicion immediately fell on Alon Bar, who served at the time as director of strategic initiatives in the foreign ministry in Israel.  Part of the reason was that he was named in the article itself (Hebrew version only) as one of the diplomats involved in the story.

dan arbell

Dan Arbell: his leak damaged Israel-U.S. relations

Bar was fired all the while protesting his innocence.  The Shin Bet was brought in to investigate and subsequently cleared him of any wrongdoing.  He then rejoined the MFA and as a sort of consolation prize, was named ambassador to Spain.  The domestic intelligence agency continued its probe and attention finally landed on Dan Arbell, deputy ambassador in the Israeli embassy in Washington.  When approached, he admitted his involvement and he was fired.  The MFA announced this development two days ago.

Now, a senior Israeli politician reveals the original story that was leaked.  It was published by Barak Ravid, someone I’ve noted here in the past as a trusted stenographer for the Israeli political establishment, in 2009.  The story concerned high level meetings with senior U.S. and Israeli diplomats (all of whom were named)  about Iran.  It laid out the U.S. strategy for ratcheting up pressure on Iran, specifying which types of sanctions were next (financial, oil, etc.), which legislation punishing Iran would receive a fast track in Congress, and exposed everything short of war that was in the U.S. arsenal against Iran.

Besides the exposure of U.S. strategy for all the world to see, the leak made it appear that the U.S. consulted with Israel before advancing any policy initiatives involving Iran.  It puffed up Israel at U.S. expense and probably told the truth–it’s often hard to tell who’s driving U.S. policy more, our own State Department or Israel.

My source says that the U.S. reaction was prompt and fiery:

“You Israelis just don’t know to keep your mouths shut. If we told you secretly we’re going to attack Iran tomorrow, you would leak that too!”

Though I don’t know who spoke those words, I wouldn’t be surprised if they came from Dennis Ross’ mouth as I’m sure Ross (and certainly his close friend, Israel) would shed no tears if the U.S. did attack Iran.  Even using this example half-jokingly, indicates a certain predisposition to favoring the idea.

Interestingly, the story in Haaretz announcing Dan Arbell’s firing was written by…Barak Ravid.  It’s a bit ironic that he calls the pursuit of Arbell a “witchhunt.”  That does sound a bit self-interested on Ravid’s part, since his report caused Arbell to lose his job.

Another salient point is that when Dan Arbell leaks information that offends Israel’s most important ally he only loses his job.  But when Anat Kamm leaks similar-value information she faces nine years in prison.  A bit of a double standard, no?  If you’re a diplomat your leak serves the national interest.  If you’re a whistleblower, you’re a traitor.

Israeli Diplomats Complain Foreign Ministry Abandoned Them During Siege, Mossad Agents Were In Cairo Embassy

Monday, September 19th, 2011

As they return to Israel, according to a story in Yediot Achronot, diplomats and their families who escaped the siege against the Israeli embassy in Cairo last week are washing their dirty laundry in public concerning their displeasure with their treatment by the foreign ministry: “While the riots raged in Cairo, Jerusalem abandoned us.”  They are claiming that they were ignored when they earlier warned about the possibility of a mass takeover of the embassy and that if they’d been listened to, they could’ve managed an orderly closing of the embassy instead of the dangerous military operation that eventually was necessary to extract them from Egypt.  They also complain that the MFA treated them dismissively compared to how the Mossad treated its personnel in the embassy.  Further, they claim the ambassador, during the rioting, tended only to his own needs and ignored those of his staff.

Some of the complaints sound petulant and petty.  For example, there is carping that the Mossad personnel were met at the airport by individual limousines which took each to his or her home, while the diplomatic staff had to make due with a bus that waited for them.  There is a bit of justice here: the diplomats were quite upset that they left Cairo with nothing but the clothes on their backs and that all their personal property remained in Cairo (which they never expected to see again).  Do I hear echoes of the way Israel treated the Mavi Marmara passengers?  All the embassy personnel were given to tide them over was a $100 check to buy basic necessities when they returned.

By the way, this is the first admission by any Israeli media that there were Mossad agents in the embassy during the takeover.  In the blog post I wrote earlier, when I discussed the papers which were thrown out of the building by protesters, I imagined the possibility that in their haste personnel might’ve left secret intelligence materials unsecured.  It would be interesting to know whether any secrets were compromised during the takeover.

Israeli Foreign Ministry Sponsoring U.S. BDS Lawsuits

Monday, September 19th, 2011


olympia food coop logoElectronic Intifada and I have been reporting on the Olympia Food Coop BDS lawsuit brought by five members who claim the business violated its procedures by approving a boycott on nine Israeli products in its stores.  Up till now, we knew that Stand With Us and the Israeli consul general, Akiva Tor were instrumental in the process of initiating the suit as the SWU website indicates they attended key meetings at which decisions were made about the legal case including hiring of an attorney.

But now Tzinor Layla, Israel’s Channel 10 news program (at 3:04 of the above video) confirms via an interview with Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, that the Israeli government itself is willing to sponsor these lawsuits and presumably paying the legal bills.  Frankly, I find it astonishing that a foreign government would sue a U.S. company for such an alleged infraction.  First, I’ve never heard of a foreign government suing any overseas company for supporting a boycott against it; and second, I’ve never heard of a government initiating a lawsuit against an overseas company for political, as opposed to pecuniary reasons.

In interviews they gave to Electronic Intifada, Rob Jacobs of StandWithUs and Akiva Tor, Israeli consul general in the Pacific NW lied when the first claimed he knew nothing about where the funding for the lawsuit was coming from and the second lied when he claimed that he, and by extension his government had nothing to do with the suit.  You’d have thought that Tor and Jacobs would’ve coördinated things better with their bosses back in Tel Aviv.  Let’s watch to see how Tor and Jacobs worm their way out of this one.

In my earlier post I called this the pro-Israel version of lawfare, that noxious concept touted by Alan Dershowitz to deride human rights activists having the chutzpah to demand Israeli accountability for their actions.  It is a deliberate attempt to interfere with, and destroy American businesses willing to take a position that angers the Israeli state.  I say this is un-American and that it violates basic rights to free speech.  Besides lawfare, this is a perfect example of a SLAPP (strategic limitation of public participation) suit.  That is, a frivolous use of the legal system to strategically limit public participation in an issue that is rightfully part of social discourse.  On its merits, the Washington courts should throw this sucker out.  But the problem, as I’ve found, is that judges sometimes either get the law wrong or wish to allow a plaintiff to get his or her moment in court.  So they refuse to do the right and proper thing.  We’ll have to see how this plays out.

Concerning Stand With Us’ involvement in this process, an Israeli journalist who’s followed the group’s activities inside Israel and abroad told me: “Stand With Us is an unofficial arm of the Israeli government.”  In this blog, you’ve heard me often talk about groups like NGO Monitor, Im Tirzu, Middle East Forum, The Israeli Project and Stand With Us as doing the bidding of the Israeli government.  You’ve heard me claim that they closely coördinate their activities with the government and in effect become its mouthpiece.  But this is the first direct confirmation that SWU, at the very least, is literally joined at the hip with the MFA. In the video Ayalon specifically confirms the government’s “partnership” with SWU and acknowledges it has similar partnerships with other Jewish and non-Jewish American organizations. No sense of discretion here. Israel, under the Lieberman-Ayalon Plan, will throw its weight around the world, even attempting to smash food coops in Washington State.

Personally, I don’t mind having Israel lobby type organizations advancing their political agenda.  After all, that’s free speech and the American way.  But where I do begin to have a problem is when these groups become agents of a foreign government.  Of course, people like Rob Jacobs and Roz Rothstein are oblivious to the implications because for them loyalty to Israel is the same as loyalty to the U.S.  The interests of the two are virtually the same.  That’s the poison of this notion of pro-Israelism which posits no free will or independence on the part of American Jews and their leadership.

I’m hoping to inform the five litigants suing the Olympia Food Coop that they are fronts for the Israeli government in this matter.  It may not change their minds, but I hope it will at least give them pause.

One aspect of the legal strategy of the plaintiffs I find odd.  Since they are members of the coop they are filing their suit AS the coop.  They are claiming that they truly represent the coop and its interests whereas the board and staff and everyone else who voted to endorse the boycott are either impostors or abusers of the coop’s bylaws.  Keep in mind, that these five all ran for the Coop board and lost by a wide margin.  Another shrewd aspect of the legal thinking in this case is not to argue the merits or demerits of BDS.  The litigants know that not only will they fail if they put the issue to a vote, they know that a U.S. court would throw out a lawsuit against a company that was purely politically motivated.  The only possible legal grounds they have is to argue that the coop board violated its own bylaws in endorsing BDS.  Keep in mind too that all this brouhaha is over nine Israeli products taken off the shelves.

Israeli Consul General Demands to Speak at Ilan Pappe Seattle Talk

Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

pappe rosenblum eventContinuing his intrusive intervention into the local and regional political environment, Israel’s Pacific NW consul general, Akiva Tor, strongly urged St. Mark’s Cathedral to allow him to speak at an event featuring Israeli new historian, Ilan Pappe and American Friends of Peace Now founder, Mark Rosenblum.  They will speak on at Town Hall’s Great Hall in Seattle on Monday, September 19th at 7PM.  Those of you following this blog know that Tor and Stand With Us were instrumental in ginning up a lawsuit against the Olympia food coop after it endorsed a boycott of Israeli food products.  It seems Tor is continuing in his ways with this chutzpadik attempt to force his way into the St. Mark’s program.

In the e-mail below, which Tor and American Jewish Committee chair Wendy Rosen sent to a Church official, note how he describes Rosenblum’s political beliefs:

I wanted to request the opportunity to take part in the panel you are organizing on “Israel and Palestine’s Future: Why is Navigating a Two State Solution So Difficult?” The reasons I ask to take part are the following.

Firstly, the topic is an excellent one. It is indeed perplexing that 18 years after the Oslo Accords, an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty had not been concluded even though it is in the strong  self-interest of both peoples. This is a topic that needs to be unpacked and analyzed by any group of people that wants to help and achieve peace between the two peoples.

Second, I think it is really necessary in such a conversation to hear the perspective of the Israeli mainstream. Professor Pappe is an important academic but represents a non-Zionist view on the far left of Israeli politics.  Professor Rosenblum is an important proponent of the Zionist Israeli peace camp which is a valued viewpoint, but not presently at the helm of Israeli politics today, where the general position is more cautious and frankly, somewhat depressed, about the prospects for peace in the immediate future. Ideally, the panel would include a Palestinian Authority perspective as well, although Professor Pappe may approximate this position.

In any case, I just think it is very important that you hear and better understand the thinking from the main body of the Israeli body politic. I would present the positions of the Israeli government, but would also try to present to the best of my understanding the thinking of the majority of the Israeli public today. I know the Bishop’s Committee holds strong positions on the conflict,  and wants to play a helpful role in its resolution – and I think hearing where Israel stands and how it understand the meaning of the Arab Spring and the current state of Israel-Palestinian relations would be helpful in your endeavor.

Thirdly, I happen to be in Seattle on September 19th  and therefore hasten to embrace the chance to engage with you.

Now, can you imagine the U.S. ambassador to Israel going to an Israeli sponsor of a conference about American politics and demanding the right to be added to a panel which includes two Israelis discussing the issue?  Why would he do this?  Why wouldn’t he simply allow Israelis to discuss American politics and let it go at that?  Note as well, how Tor distinguishes between the views of Rosenblum, a quite distinguished liberal Zionist supporter of Israel and his own views, supposedly representing the “majority of the Israeli public.”

Tor neglects to mention that on September 18th, the day before, and in the same venue, former Jerusalem Post military affairs correspondent, Hirsh Goodman will be speaking.  If Goodman doesn’t represent a mainstream Israeli point of view then no one does.  So, in essence Israel’s consul general is saying that it’s not enough to balance a program critical of Israel with one supportive of Israel on successive days, U.S. churches must actually balance every program they host with the voice of Israel’s hardline rightist government.

Not to mention that we’re supposed to accept the specious view that Israel’s current government represents the thinking of the majority of the Israeli public.  That would be akin to claiming that George Bush’s policies represented the majority of Americans during his presidency.  What is true is that Bibi Netanyahu managed to pull together a coalition in Knesset allowing him to form a government.  It didn’t mean that the majority of Israelis support his pro-Occupation, anti-Palestinian policies (though certainly many do).

Surely, one of Tor’s most important purposes is combatting the (in his view) noxious propaganda offered by an anti-Zionist like Pappe (who he actually calls “an important academic” while biting his tongue), who was hounded from his academic appointment at the University of Haifa by right-wing campus inquisitors.  The current Holy Grail concept for the Israeli far-right is “delegitimization,” and Pappe is a king of them all.  They likely want to bird-dog him around the world at every speaking engagement he has, just as they bird-dogged Reps. Keith Ellison and Brian Baird before the traveled to Gaza in 2009.

I find Tor’s behavior in Seattle simply beyond chutzpah (sorry, Alan).  By what right does an official of a foreign government get the right to say he should be heard whenever Israel fears the contents of a program sponsored in this country?

Thankfully, the local church committee organizing the event politely declined the consul’s offer of participation, but said it was willing to continue a dialogue with him on these issues.

In his response, Tor made clear that he was eager to inveigle his way into the local discourse on Israel-Palestine within the St. Mark’s church community:

I’m disappointed, as we view the Palestinian diplomatic effort at the United Nations as deeply counterproductive to a negotiated peace and it would probably be important for such a viewpoint to at least be presented at an open and meaningful discussion on the topic.

In any case, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with the Bishop’s Committee or with an audience constituted by you at a future, hopefully not too distant, time. Please let me know at your convenience when might be a good occasion and venue.

You do have to hand it to Tor.  He’s a nervy sorta guy.  It takes guts to want to butt your way into the Seattle progressive church community when hardly anyone in it has a good word to say about Israel’s current policies.  But once a flack, always a flack.  I have a feeling that Israeli diplomats earn points for the most unlikely venues to have done hasbara.  Speaking from the altar of one of Seattle’s premier progressive churches would earn Tor big points back home at Hasbara Central (aka the Israeli foreign ministry).

Israeli Consul, StandWithUs Engage in Lawfare Against Olympia Food Coop

Saturday, September 10th, 2011
akiva tor

Akiva Tor: Israeli Pacific NW consul harrasses U.S. businesses supporting BDS

The eavesdropping transcripts Shamai Leibowitz leaked in 2009 contained information about covert Israeli penetration of the American political environment. If I had transcripts of current Israeli diplomatic traffic now, I’d be hearing conversations concerning the story I’m about to tell. Electronic Intifada reports that the Israeli consul in the Pacific Northwest, Avi Tor, has colluded with StandWithUs’ Northwest director, Rob Jacobs to gin up a lawsuit against the Olympia food coop because it voted for a boycott of Israeli products on its shelves.

In 2009, one of the major themes for Israeli diplomats in this country was provoking hostility and fear of Iran. Today, priorities have shifted somewhat and a new major theme is what the Israeli government falsely calls “delegitimization.” That is, campaigns like BDS and the Gaza flotilla which aim to end the Occupation, but not, as Israel claims, to destroy that nation. You can be sure that the diplomatic traffic and telephone conversations between Israel and its outposts here are filled with this sort of chatter. As will be the conversations between diplomats and American Jewish leaders, who aid and abet Israeli interests in this country.

Let’s return to the food coop lawsuit. This is a prime example of another fake concept dubbed “lawfare,” and popularized by pro-Israel hucksters like Alan Dershowitz to characterize alleged campaigns by pro-Palestinian groups to delegitimize Israel. He’s referring to international arrest warrants filed by human rights groups against Israeli military officers and government officials seeking accountability for potential war crimes like Operation Cast Lead. Of course, the ultimate goal of such suits, aside from actually punishing Israelis responsible for violating international law, is forcing Israel to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict–and again, not to destroy Israel.

The Olympia food coop lawsuit and similar MFA-inspired operations aren’t designed to uncover any real wrongdoing (as the war crimes cases are). But rather, they’re simply designed to destroy the credibility of movements viewed falsely as attempting to destroy Israel.  The tools Israel and its agents here use in their campaign are ones of lies and fear.  For example, one of the claims in the letter threatening a lawsuit was that last year’s vote had instilled ““a climate of fear and terror for Jews.”  Say what?  A vote for a boycott instills terror and fear?  This is food folks, not the Warsaw Ghetto.  Only unbelievably audacious hucksters like SWU could come up with such a tissue of lies.

EI points out that a SWU video promoting its work in Olympia against the coop boycott displays a flyer with a Nazi swastika superimposed on a Star of David and calls it an “actual image from a handout.”  It doesn’t specify where the handout was distributed or who produced it.  It could be a document from anywhere.  Once again, this is typical of SWU’s three-card monte style of political agitprop.

Another proof of the fakery behind this lawsuit is that it doesn’t at all contest BDS or the boycott that members approved.  Instead, it claims unspecified technical rule violations disqualified the measure.  Not only does it not indicate what the board did wrong, it doesn’t indicate how the vote could be taken properly.  And further, the litigants have refused an offer from members to gather 300 signatures necessary to reopen the question and take a new vote.

I would have less problem with this lawsuit if it was one genuinely generated from within the food coop by members who conceived of the idea themselves and organized it themselves. In reality, the lawsuit was conceived, organized and promoted by the State of Israel through its official agents in this country, and by StandWithUs, working as a thinly concealed extension of Israeli government interests.

What’s more, Akiva Tor and Rob Jacobs have lied in characterizing their roles in order to conceal it.  I’ve written before about Jacobs’ tendency to lose track of the truth. Again, I would have less problem with this entire arrangement if SWU and the Israeli consulate was transparent about their actions. Something like what the Minneapolis JCRC did when confronted by its local Jewish independent newspaper. The JCRC director put out a statement essentially conceding that they worked on behalf of the Israeli foreign ministry in monitoring Rep. Keith Ellison, deemed by both of them, at least privately, as hostile to Israel.

But Tor and Jacobs conceal and lie rather than admitting their role and actions involving the lawsuit. This is perfectly of a piece with the behaviors and subterfuge laid out in the Leibowitz transcripts. So the question for Americans and American Jews is: is this the sort of behavior you approve of for a foreign power? And for Jews, is this the Israel that makes you proud? I’d like to be proud of Israel. I really would. But not THIS Israel.

Here is something like what I believe happened: Olympia has been on the radar of SWU and the Israeli consulate for quite some time due to the alleged anti Israel activism on the Evergreen College campus. Through its campus activism, SWU has been recruiting in the community for some time. As did the David Project at Columbia, it found willing students or local community members prepared to claim their religion had been disrespected and they had been harrassed merely for being Jews. Anti-Semitism is a powerful canard. And young Jews who have never experienced real anti-Semitism, and have been politically “attuned” to SWU’s skewed version of it, will be inclined to become student soldiers for the pro-Israel movement.

So when the food coop announced it would vote on a BDS resolution, SWU either asked its local recruits to join the coop or, if it was lucky, they already belonged. That’s how SWU and the consulate recruited the current crop of litigants. And to be clear, you’ll hear the consulate shrey that they had nothing to do with this and that it was solely an internal matter worked out among the complaining coop members. But in this matter I make virtually no distinction between SWU and the Israeli government. The two are working hand in glove and whatever the consulate can’t or won’t do because it is a foreign entity, SWU does for it. In that sense, SWU in this matter really is what many accuse Aipac of being, an agent for a foreign power.

Now, once they had the litigants they needed to recruit a willing local pro-Israel Jewish attorney. Through the good graces of SWU or the consulate they found Avi Lipman, who’s taken the case. Rob Jacobs again lies when he claims he knows nothing about how the lawyer was recruited and how he’s being paid. Jacobs swears that SWU isn’t funding the lawsuit. Perhaps he’s right. But if he isn’t, then a fatcat SWU donor (like say, Aubrey Chernick or someone like him) is. And that donor was, I’d be willing to bet, recruited either by SWU or the consulate (but more likely SWU).

There’s another chilling aspect of this story as reported by EI. Ali Abunimah writes, quite convincingly, that SWU may be trying to establish a record of violations of Jewish civil rights on campuses like Evergreen (UC Santa Cruz is another campus afflicted with SWU-like complaints of Jewish harassment) in order to lobby the federal government to file suit against these campuses for creating environments hostile to the civil or religious rights of students.

If he’s correct, this would be a further ratcheting up of pressure against the BDS/anti-Occupation movement on U.S. campuses. It would take the struggle out of the realm of the purely soapbox and bring it into the the courts and the halls of government. This is lawfare perfected to a high art.

To any who might dismiss the assault against the Olympia coop as a trivial matter think on this: if SWU and the Israeli foreign ministry are willing to lavish this amount of attention and effort on a grocery store, imagine how much effort they’d be willing to devote to plying the halls of power on behalf of Israel. Imagine how slavishly SWU or the Seattle federation’s political lobbyist or Aipac are willing to monitor our local Congressional delegation seeking tell-tale signs of flagging devotion to the cause.

Returning to Rob Jacobs, he fudges or lies outright a number of times in his interview with EI.  For example, he claims SWU is really a shoestring operation and that he’s devoted no more than a few hundred dollars worth of materials to the effort.  What this obscures is that SWU’s national budget is over $4 million and that Jacobs himself earned nearly $100,000 in 2008.  Rob Jacobs didn’t tell his interviewer how many hours he and his assistant have devoted to Olympia.  If we add that to the tally this is undoubtedly a major expenditure of resources for SWU.

Jacobs attempts to downplay his role in the lawsuit:

Jacobs told The Electronic Intifada his group’s contact with the five letter writers [litigants] was largely limited to providing printed materials, helping bring in speakers and offering advice…

Although Jacobs did acknowledge working with and meeting repeatedly with the letter writers, he characterized the relationship to any potential lawsuit as arms length:

“Since we’re not actually a party to anything down there, frankly we’re not in any of the loop regarding the legal matters. Just from an attorney-client privilege standpoint anything we would do with anybody would be violating some kind of potential privilege. So, we know that they’re doing some stuff. I know they’ve been working with an attorney. I know which firm it is but beyond that we have not in any way participated in the legal discussion.”

Jacobs acknowledged attending one meeting related to the potential lawsuit.

“We were at one meeting, I don’t know how many months ago, before anything actually happened,” Jacobs explained.

“We had been asked by some of the folks down there if we knew any attorneys up here [in Seattle], so we mentioned a number of names. But I was at a meeting where they had an initial — they had not retained any attorney or developed any permanent relationship with an attorney — when they had someone there talk off-the-cuff about what an attorney could do for them.”

Compare this mumbo-jumbo to SWU’s website’s characterization of its activity in Olympia (by the way, meeting reports are no longer publicly accessible on the SWU site, makes you wonder what Rob feels he has to hide):

“Weekly Status Report” of StandWithUs Northwest, for the week of 5-11 March 2011 states that the following meetings took place:

“Rob [Jacobs] and Carolyn in Olympia with Olympia activists, Akiva Tor and Avi Lipman on Thursday – Presentation of legal case, discussion of Evergreen strategy and Olympia community speaker opportunities.”

EI raises an important question: why did the Government of Israel find it necessary for its official representative to be present at a planning meeting for a lawsuit against the Olympia food coop.  Let’s put the shoe on the other foot: would it be appropriate for the U.S. consul general in East Jerusalem to be present at a meeting during which Palestinians planned to sue the State of Israel; or at a meeting where settlers planned to sue their opponents?  What does this tell you about Israel’s priorities in this country?

Jacobs’ lies are further refuted here:

The agenda for an upcoming 27 September 2011 StandWithUs Northwest Executive Committee meeting includes the following items:

Project Status

  • The civil rights complaint against Evergreen State College
  • The law suit against the Olympia Food Co-op
Note that SWU describes the coop lawsuit as one of its “projects.”  This from a guy who only moments before had the chutzpah to tell EI that SWU had an arm’s length relationship with the coop legal challenge.  I don’t mind activists who wear their hearts on their sleeve and speak forthrightly about their goals and actions.  But I can’t abide bluffers like Jacobs.  At least Akiva Tor has the excuse of all diplomats who sent abroad to lie on behalf of their country, as the old saying goes.  What excuse does Rob Jacobs have?

Minneapolis JCRC Confirms Monitoring Activities, Travel Schedule of Congressman Israel Deemed ‘Hostile’

Thursday, September 8th, 2011
steve hunegs

Minneapolis JCRC director admits monitoring Rep. Keith Ellison's schedule on behalf of Israeli foreign ministry

Due to the excellent shoe leather journalism of Mordecai Specktor of American Jewish World in Minneapolis, the local Jewish Community Relations Council has confirmed that it regularly monitors the activities and schedule of local House members like Rep. Keith Ellison, who Israel considers hostile to its interests, on behalf of the Israeli foreign ministry.

Yesterday, Specktor and I had a long discussion about my recollection of conversations contained in surveillance transcripts I read.  After approaching the JCRC regarding this, Specktor drew a denial from JCRC director Steve Hunegs that it dealt with the Israeli embassy in Washington.  But then I recalled a tremendous amount of activity in the transcripts concerning the Israeli consulate in Chicago (which diplomats confirmed would become a key diplomatic outpost because it was the home of the new president and incoming Conference of Presidents leader).  When Spektor returned to the JCRC and asked whether it had had such conversations about Ellison with the Chicago consultate, Huengs released this statement:

As part of our work fostering a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, the JCRC communicates from time to time with the Consul General’s office in Chicago. As you might imagine, some of our conversations necessarily concern federal legislation and policy towards Israel and the Middle East. Accordingly, the JCRC’s conversations with the Consul General’s office have included discussions about members of Minnesota’s Congressional delegation, including Representative Ellison.

The transcripts showed that JCRC staff and consular officers evaluated Ellison as hostile to Israel’s interests.  They specifically pointed to his planned trip to Gaza with fellow House member Brian Baird (who formerly represented a hometown Seattle district) just after Operation Cast Lead and to his recent hosting of a trade delegation to Saudi Arabia.  They compared Ellison unfavorably to another new member of Congress who was also an African American Muslim, Andre Carson.  Carson was someone who, as Margaret Thatcher said about Gorbachev, “we can do business with.”  In other words, Carson was a “good Muslim,” Ellison not.

It appears from Hunegs statement that he’s attempting to put his best foot forward and suggest that the Jewish community’s interests overlap those of Rep. Ellison and his constituents.  I applaud this.  Let’s let the JCRC go back to doing what they do best, which is representing local Jewish interests.  If we put Israel above those local interests we will only make enemies, and unnecessarily.

If you read between the lines of Huneg’s statement above, you will find a confirmation of the monitoring the local Jewish community was offering as a service to the Israeli foreign ministry on behalf of Israeli interests.  One has to ask, if this type of activity is standard for the Minneapolis JCRC and presumably others across the country, where do the interests of Israel and those of the U.S. diverge?  Or do they at all?  Is it the role of the official representatives of the American Jewish community to consult with Israeli government officials about local Representatives who Israel (and they) feel are “bad for Israel?”  Is it right to peruse Congressmember’s travel schedules to inform the Israeli government when local Representatives may be taking trips deemed harmful to Israel’s interests?

Look, I hate the dual loyalty charge.  I think it’s a load of malarkey.  But when our Jewish federation staff members essentially collude with Israel’s official representatives on behalf of explicitly Israeli interests, it’s much harder to defend against this charge.

We have to understand as American Jews that there are times when American interests are different from Israeli.  When Israel asks us essentially to inform on our elected officials that’s not right and not in our interests as Americans.  And I’m not just including this specific incident.  The transcripts revealed that American Jewish leaders were willing to sign their names to ghost written op-ed pieces (written largely by embassy or consular staff) in the Boston Herald attacking Iran.  They revealed that Aipac and the foreign ministry were sponsoring “bash Iran” conferences in major cities throughout the country (as they did here in Seattle).  They revealed intense coördinated lobbying by Israeli diplomats and American Jewish leaders on behalf of harshly punitive legislation against Iran.

This isn’t right.  It isn’t kosher.  And it isn’t American.  I should make clear that I’m not opposed to American Jews lobbying on behalf of American Jewish interests.  I’m not opposed to American Jewish lobbying on behalf of a strong, safe Israel.  But I am opposed to crossing the red line so that we become mere extensions of Israel’s interests in this country.  I am opposed to those such as Aipac who claim that there is never such a distinction.  This is wrong and this is pernicious both for Israel and American Jews.

Protesting Israeli Diplomat Joins Sheikh Jarrah Demonstration

Sunday, March 6th, 2011
ilan baruch sheikh jarrah

Former Israeli ambassador Ilan Baruch at Sheikh Jarrah protest (Solidarity Sheikh Jarrah)

Among those joining last Friday’s weekly Sheikh Jarrah demonstration was recently retired Israeli senior diplomat Ilan Baruch.  This offers the government a double whammy.  First Baruch resigns in protest over the government’s charade of a peace plan which “disgusted” him and drove him into retirement.  Then within days he attends the Sheikh Jarrah protest, one of the most visible and vociferous public protests against the government’s land grab policies in East Jerusalem.

Haaretz reports that this week’s demonstration was especially violent and pitted the Solidarity activists and Palestinians against security forces and right-wing goons itching for a fight.

Senior Israeli Diplomat Quits in Disgust, Can No Longer Support Government Policies

Thursday, March 3rd, 2011
ilan baruch

Ilan Baruch, veteran Israeli diplomat, could no longer defend the indefensible (Guy Raivitz)

An Israeli diplomat with over 30 years of foreign service experience has quit his job in disgust, saying he can no longer defend or interpret to a foreign audience the policies of his government under the leadership of Bibi Netanyahu or Avigdor Lieberman.  Ilan Baruch, a decorated IDF veteran, served in numerous major diplomatic postings including stints as ambassador to South Africa and the Philipines.  Several months ago, after one too many stiff diplomatic cables from Lieberman chiding his colleagues for braying insufficiently loudly on behalf of Israel, Baruch decided he’d had enough.  He put in his papers and retired though he was not scheduled to do so for several more years.

He wrote a letter to his colleagues in which he noted a few of reasons for ending his career prematurely:

“Over the past two years the political and diplomatic messages by the state’s leaders, which have grown more pointed, have infuriated me and given me no rest. I find it difficult to represent them and explain them honestly.”

…Baruch said there is a great deal of frustration brimming below the surface at the Foreign Ministry.

The veteran diplomat explained the genesis of his discontent:

…He sensed an initial warning sign, he added, the day Lieberman took office as foreign minister and gave a speech in which he rejected the possibility of peace with the Palestinians.

“Lieberman completely denied [Israel's] role in the failure of the peace process,” Baruch said. “The outcome is not good and it is not only because of the Palestinians’ conduct.”

Baruch is not alone is his “disgust” at the course Israel’s diplomatic efforts are taking:

“It has become impossible to explain Israel to others these days,” one ambassador said. “There is no clear policy and it is very difficult to respond to international criticism.”Another ambassador said: “The diplomatic impasse is dangerous to the State of Israel, and it doesn’t seem as if the prime minister has a solution in the form of a diplomatic initiative. Under such circumstances, the international community will simply force a solution on us.”

It is always tempting in circumstances like this to read too much into the courageous act of one individual.  One wants to see a groundswell of opposition and hopes that this is but the beginning.  But the truth is that Israel’s Occupation regime is entrenched.  There are many others in the system waiting for their chance to replace someone of Baruch’s high rank.  His leaving may only be a blip on the screen.

Nevertheless, it is a cri de coeur that some will hear and heed both within the foreign ministry and perhaps outside it.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE