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 ‘j street’

Brad Burston Called Me an Anti-Semite

Sunday, October 31st, 2010
brad burston

Brad Burston called progressive Jews who deny Israel as the Jewish state 'anti-Semites'

Well, not precisely, but read on.

Burston is a Haaretz columnist with a set of quirky progressive ideas and a maverick streak.  You can’t pin him down precisely.  Sometimes he writes columns that make me proud and sometimes I want to throw a shoe at him (his phrase from a talk he delivered tonight) or at least his column on the computer screen.  A few months ago during the Anat Kamm case he wrote to me some lovely compliments about my coverage of the story.  He said I was brave and I was gratified to hear him say that.  Then I found that he’d been a very close friend of David Twersky, a former Jewish journalist and press officer of American Jewish Congress, who recently passed away from cancer.  Twersky and Burston were part of a garin that lived on Kibbutz Gezer in the 1970s.  I had spent a summer month on Gezer with an earlier American garin in 1972.  We had things in common.

So when I read that J Street would be hosting a talk by Burston tonight at my shul, I e mailed him and invited him to join me for a cup of coffee (which unfortunately didn’t happen).  I was looking forward to meeting him for the first time and made plans to attend his talk.  I was hoping to like him and his views as much as I had over the past few months.  But I was disappointed.  Not in Burston the person, but in his talk.

There are Israelis who, when they speak abroad deliver talks they never would in Israel.  They think their job is to rally the troops, to get them not to give up hope.  And I understand this impulse, I really do.  I too used to be a liberal Zionist (I’m still a Zionist, but that’s another blog post entirely).  But it doesn’t do anyone any good.  It sugarcoats Israeli reality.  It in a sense infantilizes the Diaspora audience by presuming that it either can’t take or wouldn’t understand a full-bore analysis of the extremity of the political situation in Israel.

At the present moment, an Israeli speaking in the Diaspora does a disservice when he makes things appear not quite as bad as they really are.  Only the truth suffices in the present situation.  Perhaps in 1972 or 1982 or 1992, one could perhaps understand the impulse to truncate one’s message.  But such bowdlerization of truth can no longer be justified.

So what did Burston say?  That brings me back to my title.  At one point, Burston said:

About the progressive Jew who sees nothing wrong with the many Muslim nations in the world, but who cannot allow the Jews to have a single state of their own anywhere in the world, I say that person is an anti-Semite.

That’s why I say that Burston called me an anti-Semite, though he didn’t do so personally.  But let me clear about my own views.  I do support an Israel that has a Jewish identity, just as I support an Israel that has a Muslim and Christian identity for those religious groups.  I do not support an Israel which affirms Judaism as its sole or primary national religion to the exclusion or detriment of others.  If Israel is to be a true democracy it must not favor one religion over others.  It must treat religions equally.  That does not mean that Judaism or Jewishness will be disrespected or ignored or subordinated.  But it means that this particular religion will take its place as one of several religions practiced by the nation’s citizens.

That’s why I believe Brad Burston called me an anti-Semite.

There were other parts of his talk that troubled me as well.  When Israeli liberals speak here they usually try to tell audiences things aren’t as bad as they are.  So did the Haaretz columnist.  He told his listeners that things weren’t as bad as they might seem, that Israeli democracy was strong.  As proof, he used a Yediot poll which asked respondents which Israeli politicians they felt most embodied ultra-nationalist, even fascist views.  60% named Avigdor Lieberman.  The speaker used this poll result to say that not only didn’t Lieberman represent a “real and present danger” to Israeli democracy, but Israelis saw through him and would never support him.

What Burston neglected to acknowledge was that the entire premise of the poll and accompanying newspaper articles about it was that fascism was a real and present danger in Israel.  There were other questions in this same poll whose results actually proved precisely the opposite of what he claimed: that is (for one example), that Israeli by large margins support curbs on free speech and democratic rights even when the issues addressed are NOT security related.

Burston argued that while it was true that the Israeli liberal concept of “land for peace” was dead, so was the far right vision of Greater Israel.  He denigrated the notion of the power of the Israeli right over Israeli political life by claiming that it doesn’t even truly represent its ideological legacy.  As proof, he cited the fact that by party, 96 of the 120 Knesset members support a two-state solution.  I find such a claim to be so weak and unpersuasive, I’m surprised anyone with Burston’s clear level of political intelligence would use it.  This presumes of course that every Likud MK supports a Palestinian state, which is ludicrous and Burston should know it.

In fact, the vast majority of Israelis say they support a two state solution but few are willing to actually make the compromises necessary right now to make it happen.  The same is true of Knesset members.  There are very few that, if you asked them–do you support a return to 1967 borders, sharing Jerusalem, and a negotiated resolution of the Right of Return allowing some refugees to return–would say yes.  So saying you support a two state solution means nothing in this case, since you’re not willing to face the compromises necessary to achieve it.

I left Burston’s talk during the Q&A when the local Stand With Us board member, David Brumer, began his question with the lie:

I don’t disagree with anything you said tonight.

I knew it could only go downhill from there, and I didn’t have the heart to listen to the rest of a statement from someone who once wrote me an e mail saying I should be spanked for my views.

I’m also struck by the phrase “love for Israel” bandied about by so many liberal Zionists including Burston tonight.  One of the reasons (there were others as well) I didn’t attend Daniel Sokatch’s (he is the CEO of the New Israel Fund) talk here in Seattle this month was its title, Loving Israel in Challenging Times.  I find the notion that one must profess love for Israel before criticizing it to be preposterous.  It’s one thing in a marriage to criticize one’s wife while doing so in the context of the love you have.  But Israel is not a wife.  It is a country.  Wives don’t kill people (not usually), countries do.  I don’t want to make love to Israel.  I don’t want to have children with Israel.  I want it to be a country of which I can be proud as a Jew.  But what’s love got to do with it?  Love is a red herring.  It disables critical debate.  Love means that Israel cannot be something I think it should be, a normal state.  Love puts Israel on a pedestal just as traditional male attitudes toward women put them on similar pedestals that prevented them from being normal human beings.

In the time when I was still on e-mail terms with Leonard Fein, he practically made a fetish out of my supposed lack of love for Israel.  To him, it proved I had left the Zionst reservation because you could only express criticism of Israel out of such deep concern and affection, that your criticism would clearly be couched as that of a concerned parent for a loved one gone astray.  Naturally, I don’t have patience in this hour in which Israel finds itself in extremis for such mollycoddling.

To me it is self-evident that I would not write this blog unless I loved Israel.  It would simply be a waste of time to devote as many tens of thousands of hours to this enterprise as I have unless there was deep emotion attached to the subject.  And there is.  Many decades of my life have been devoted to Israel.  I could not do so unless I loved it.  But I will not trot out such love as if it were a stamp on a passport in order to prove my Zionist bona fides.

It’s the same way with the American far right which accuses the left of hating America and similar nonsense.  No one on the American left owes any explanation, justification or defense to their political opponents on this matter.  I don’t need to confess my love for America in order to criticize it.  In that sense, criticism is love.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Burston has been touring the U.S. on behalf of J Street.  This type of pulling of punches regarding Israel is J Street’s trademark.  I have pretty much given up on J Street as having any useful purpose regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict.  But I had hoped for more from Brad Burston and his talk tonight.

It’s possible that Brad Burston would not deliver the same address to an Israeli audience.  That he would speak more unguardedly, more forthrightly, more directly to such an audience.  That I would admire the penetrating analysis he would bring to bear before such a group.  It’s possible that there’s a Brad Burston in there I can still admire politically.  But I don’t think tonight he did Israel or himself any favors.

‘Follow the Money’ of Jewish Neocons

Thursday, October 21st, 2010

I just came across this Ben Smith Politico post I missed when it came out during the J Street funding imbroglio.  It notes that, at least according to J Street, the IRS was at fault for posting publicly the names of the donors to its 501c4.  Here’s the organization’s statement:

We are also committed to protecting the privacy of our donors, which is guaranteed by law in the case of contributions to our 501(c)(4) and was egregiously violated by the Internal Revenue Service in erroneously and illegally making our donor schedule available to the public.

But there’s something here which doesn’t make sense (at least to me) and Smith notes it.  A 501c4 doesn’t have to report its donor lists to the IRS, so why did J Street?

…A politically conservative Jewish blogger, Jeff Dunetz…turned them [the donor list] up on a search for public form 990s on the Foundation Center’s database…which are the tax returns non-profit groups are required to make public. They are not, however, required to include publicly the pages listing their donors.

Personally, I’ve seen numerous 990s in which non-profits list their donors.  So blaming the IRS for this seems silly.  J Street didn’t need to include the names and it did.  Either it got bad advice from an accountant or it just bungled things.

matt brooks rjc

Matt Brooks, RJC's half-million dollar man

All of this is prologue though for some online digging of my own.  I did this because during my coverage of the Eli Lake-manufactured J Street story (especially in light of the U.S. Chamber’s massive infusion of foreign money into the current Congressional elections), I asked why journalists aren’t doing as much due diligence regarding the reports filed by right wing Jewish groups.  Unfortunately, my search didn’t bring up anything quite as explosive as George Soros’ “secret” gift, but there were a few eye-openers nonetheless.

A peek through Aipac’s 990 reveals that it raised $60-million in 2009 and $92-million on hand at that year’s end.  It paid Howard Kohr, its president, a cool $553,000.  And Richard Fishman, its executive director, $400,000 plus an unspecified “business transaction” totaling $370,000.  It also reveals transfers in the tens of millions to the American Israel Education Foundation, the Aipac arm which finances political junkets to Israel.

The Republican Jewish Coalition took in $6-million in 2009.  Of that, over $2-million went to Jamestown Associates for TV and print ads attacking Democratic candidates.  Ari Fleischer’s outfit made $120,000, a cool bit of change.  RJC paid Matt Brooks, its director, a paltry $500,000.   Some interesting names among its board of directors: Shelly Adelson, Jimmy Tisch, Bernie Marcus, Ken Mehlman, Fred Sands, Martin Selig, Mel Sembler, Ken Bialkin, Ari Fleischer, and David Frum.

The 990 form contains this hilarious RJC lie, which shows how such non-profits make a mockery of the non-profit tax code:

The coalition does not directly participate in political activities.

IDF Convicts Soldiers of Using Palestinian Boy as Human Shield During Cast Lead

Monday, October 4th, 2010
idf uses palestinian as human shield

2004 story documents earlier use of Palestinian child as human shield (Daily Mail)

They say justice delayed is justice denied, but not if you’re Israel and the subject is Operation Cast Lead.  Justice would have certainly been denied in this case were it not for Judge Richard Goldstone and his report documenting potential Israeli (and Palestinian) war crimes.  But Goldstone and the seriousness with which his report was taken by the world despite Israel’s campaign of demonization, has compelled the IDF to take action.  So justice has been delayed by two years.  But not fully denied.  Yes, the actions are token, the least the army feels it can do in order to get the world to concede it is acting.  And certainly these convictions are not enough.

Frankly, I would like to see Hamas react in parallel fashion by disciplining those who fired rockets that harmed Israelis before the Operation.  That kind of symmetry would help their cause, I think.

In the current case, two sergeants have been found guilty, during Operation Cast Lead, of forcing a 9-year-old Palestinian boy to open bags which they suspected might contain explosives, using him as a human shield.  What’s ironic about all of this is that the Israeli hasbara line is that Hamas are beastly cowards because THEY use civilians as human shields; when the truth is that there are multiple cases which I’ve covered here of the IDF using young children in this fashion and I’m not aware of any instances of the Palestinians doing anything similar.  And in fact, Judge Goldstone says in his report that they deliberately sought out documentation of such Palestinian stories because they wanted to bring them to light and use them in the report.  But they couldn’t find any.

Here is the story as Ethan Bronner reports it:

A summary of the court’s judgment provided by the military spokesman’s office said the two had rounded up civilians and come upon bags in a bathroom. They grabbed the child and ordered him to check the bags for booby traps.

“The boy, who feared for his fate and was pressured by the situation, wet his pants,” the judges said, pointedly noting that, “unlike the soldiers, the boy had no means of personal protection.”

After the boy emptied the contents of one bag and had trouble opening a second, one of the soldiers shot at the second bag. The boy was returned, terrified but unharmed, to his family.

One of my Israeli readers has sent me an expurgated version of a Facebook discussion among IDF soldiers about this case.  An individual who claims he was there, argues that they were not using the boy as a human shield, but rather were using him to search bags that the soldiers thought might contain valuables.  They were concerned that they might be accused of pilfering the bags if any valuable were missing.

Frankly, I don’t buy this and it sounds to me like a convenient excuse dreamed up after the fact.

I find it terribly amusing and ironic to read this passage which closes Bronner’s report:

At the military court where the two sergeants were convicted, several former comrades attending wore shirts with the slogan “We are victims of Goldstone.”

In fact, they are precisely right, but not in the way they imagine.  According to their terms, they are scapegoats offered up to world opinion and they did nothing wrong, certainly nothing that many other IDF soldiers haven’t done before them.  The truth is, of course, that they did something that violates IDF guidelines and international law so they deserve a serious punishment (and this hasn’t been meted out so it remains to be seen whether this will be meaningful or a slap on the wrist).  But what is true about this slogan is that, were it not for Goldstone there would be no accountability amongst the IDF at all.  No one would’ve been punished.  The victims would all be Palestinian.  The perpetrators all Israelis.  Suffering only on one side.  Abusers on the other.  But they are not victims of Goldstone.  They are victims of their own stupidity and the Occupation, which compels them to such inhumanity.

This doesn’t tip the scales so that they’re in balance.  But it is at least something.

I can’t for the life of me understand why the Israel lobby is now smearing J Street for making a few phone calls to Congressional staffs asking if their bosses would meet with Judge Goldstone when he made the rounds of Capitol Hill to lobby on behalf of his report.  If I were J Street, and seeing the news of these convictions, I’d be boasting of the group’s involvement.  They should be saying: “Look, the Israeli system has worked.  Soldiers are being held accountable.  And were it not for Judge Goldstone this might not have happened.  And we helped him.”

What angers me is that this is just what I argued to J Street staff when they put out their mealy-mouthed statement about the Report.  Yet, they didn’t have to foresight to understand the important role Goldstone was playing and that his role might end up being valued at some point in the future.  My problem with J Street is that it doesn’t think long-term.  It only thinks of short-term benefits and losses.  Goldstone was a long-term proposition and they needed to figure out how to finesse it and they didn’t.  Now they’re being made to pay the price when they should be shouting from the rooftops that they were right all along.

How Did Eli Lake Get Confidential IRS Documents for his J Street Story?

Sunday, October 3rd, 2010

I said my piece yesterday about Eli Lake’s fake expose on George Soros’ donations to J Street.  But a new question came to me today.  J Street is a 501c4.  As such the IRS does not publicly disclose donors to such groups.  So how did Lake get the names of Soros and the organization’s other major donors?  My money is on a few possibilities: a Republican operative (perhaps in Congress), a former J Street staffer, or someone at the IRS.  But however he got the data, my money is on Aipac, with its active intel capabilities, or the Republican Jewish Coalition (or someone perhaps freelancing who is closely associated with it) as playing a major role in facilitating this.

Think of the timing: there is only a month remaining before the mid-term elections.  Control of the House and possibly the Senate lies in the balance.  Even a few elections in states with large Jewish populations in which J Street could play a major role (think Joe Sestak)–even this could swing the balance from blue to red.  If J Street is wounded.  If its donations dry up at this vital juncture, then those few candidates will have less money to place ads on TV.  Their message will be stifled.  And even if there is only a marginal impact on the campaigns through this fake scandal, then big things could result for Republicans.

I’d guess my money would be on the RJC for that very reason.  They have everything to gain from these revelations.  Their past sleazy behavior has proven that they have little to lose in the scruples or morals department.  So there’s almost no downside for them even if eventually someone (not Eli Lake) discovers that they were involved.  The RJC is built on sleaze.  It thrives on it.  In fact, I bet, if they were involved, that Matt Brooks is high-fiving it up as I write this.

Yes, it’s true, this is speculation.  No smoking gun, yet.  But who knows.  The circle turns.  The joker is sometimes unmasked.

The media is rife with stories about how dirty political media campaigns have become in this election cycle, about how opaque the funding is.  But Lake’s story has proven that there can be a flip side.  If you have a highly motivated, well-funded, and skilled enemy, they can hurt you.  Once again, this proves the stupidity of the Supreme Court’s decision to turn U.S. federal elections into the Wild, Wild West.  It shows the virtue of full transparency in the sphere of campaign funding.  I say force J Street and every other 501c4 including ones financed by the fatcats of Aipac and RJC to publicly name their donors and how much they gave.

And I warn whichever Republican spook secured Lake’s scoop for him: what goes around comes around.  And I hope to God that you, and whatever 501c4 you’re affiliated with, are next.

NOTE: I just read Ron Kampeas’ fabulous blog post on this story.  Among his best lines is:

J Street has a “who am I” problem.

Which is precisely what I write above and have been writing here for a year or more.  Are they for Iran sanctions or agin ‘em (for ‘em now, agin ‘em before they were for ‘em)?  Are they for Goldstone or agin ‘im (a little of both)?  Are they independent and progressive or Obama’s “blocking back?”

Kampeas really nails Lake far better than even I can do, because he swims in the same pool as they do as a Jewish journalist and because Kampeas has far more experience covering this inside the Beltway political zone.  I apologize for including Ron in my challenge of yesterday as to journalists who should digging at this and related stories harder.  But I’d still like to see Ron and other work at unearthing the sugar daddies of the right wing pro Israel 501c4s.

Washington Times Smears J Street Over Soros Gifts

Sunday, October 3rd, 2010
DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 27JAN10 - George Soros

George Soros: Israel lobby's Wicked Witch of the East

Before I begin this post let me make a few disclosures.  I once thought very highly of J Street.  I don’t anymore.  I think it’s a useful organization, but little more than that.  At one time, I believed it would be an independent progressive voice for a just Jewish approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict.  Instead, it has become a Jewish rooting section for the Obama presidency and its Middle East agenda or as Jeremy Ben Ami has proudly put it: “Obama’s blocking back.”

At least, that’s what its public statements reveal.  I suspect that its leadership and donors may actually have a more genuinely progressive agenda which they are too cautious to display.  But again, this isn’t the face they show the public so there’s little way to judge whether or not this is so.  All this to say that I have no special axe to grind one way or the other in what I’m about to write.

eli lake

Eli Lake: caught a big fish this time (Washington Time)

The Moonie Washington Times, and its pro-Israel neocon correspondent Eli Lake, have mounted a full frontal assault on J Street and its director Jeremy Ben Ami.  The charges?  J Street, after telling the world at its founding that George Soros would not be a leader or donor, actually accepted $750,000 from him over three years.  Apparently, right-wing Jews like Eli Lake think George Soros is a cross between Beelzebub and the Wicked Witch of the East.  But the last I checked he was a U.S. citizen entitled to fund political groups with which he feels compatible, just as John Hagee is.  Why anyone in their right mind would be scandalized that Soros has funded J Street is beyond me.  And Lake has stirred up a tempest in a teapot.

Besides this, Lake has made egregious errors in his reporting.  He claims that Soros’ gift was “secret” and that the group “repeatedly denied” it.  His proof?  This statement at the J Street website:

“George Soros very publicly stated his decision not to be engaged in J Street when it was launched — precisely out of fear that his involvement would be used against the organization.”

The worst that can be said about this is that it is misleading.  But only the most partisan and uncharitable reading would claim this is a deliberate attempt to conceal Soros’ gifts.  Further, J Street reported the gifts to the IRS, as it was legally required to do, which is how Lake discovered it.  In this day and age, it’s almost impossible to conceal such donors and J Street did not do so from the IRS.

Lake reported the gift was “one-third” of J Street’s overall financial support for the 2008-2009 financial year, when according to figures from J Street published in The Atlantic, it was actually around 20% if you count it towards 2008 around 5% if you count it toward 2009.  Even the 20% number is taken out of context because it only covers a single year of the group’s three-year existence, and not even its most recent one.

Yes, Ben-Ami made a bonehead decision in not publicly revealing that Soros supported J Street (though since 501 c 4 donors are usually not publicly divulged, he may not have had Soros’ permission to reveal his status).  The best approach to these potential controversies is to be transparent to a fault.  If you’re not, you’ll be made to pay.  And Jeremy, telling a group of Florida donors that Soros was a donor at an off the record fundraising event doesn’t constitute full public disclosure.

On a personal note, I want to reveal my own person connection to one of J Street’s major donors, Bill Benter.  Bill is not a mystery to supporters of Israeli-Arab peace though he appears to be a sinister force (see also, More Donations to Radical, Anti-Israel Causes) for much of the right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere that has taken to chanting his name at their covens.  The Wall Street Journal has him pegged as one of the world’s most successful sports bettors, as if this is a grave offense against decency.  They seem to forget that Shelly Adelson and Irving Moskowitz have each raked in more cash from betting than Bill Benter ever lost from their respective gambling empires.  And Bill Benter doesn’t prey on poor addicted saps willing to part with their life savings and ruin the lives of their families for good measure–all for the sake of the big score.  It should be mentioned that Bill has earned his fortune honestly as the CEO of a medical transcription company.

I have met Bill, sat next to him during last year’s J Street conference, and frankly without good souls like him the peace movement would be a shadow of what it is.

Bill solicited a large J Street gift ($800,000) from a Hong Kong resident of whom none of the pro-Israel right have ever heard.  She too is a ‘sinister figure’ liable to have roots in Arab terror if you believe the whisperings of some journalists who’ve reported on this.  It appears that if you are from Hong Kong and wish to support a friend’s philanthropic activities around Israeli-Palestinian peace, you do so on pain of being likened to Suha Arafat.  Again, there is nothing illegal about a Hong Kong resident contributing to J Street.

Here is what Lake writes:

President Obama and the White House have expressed concerns about untraced foreign influence on the U.S. political system through donations to tax-exempt “501(c)(4)” nonprofit organizations in recent months.

First, this gift is NOT untraced since it was fully reported to the IRS.  Second, if there is something wrong with foreign influence on 501 c 4s, then perhaps pro-Israel groups shouldn’t be accepting any gifts from Israeli citizens.  Do Aipac and the RJC wish to claim that such groups with which their donors are affiliated do not do so?  Perhaps they should start looking through their own donor lists to make sure THEY don’t have Hong Kong donors.

Lake further claims that groups and candidates that Soros supports have distanced themselves from him.  The proof?  An assistant to an assistant press spokesperson for the Obama presidential campaign said that in 2008 Obama didn’t agree with an unspecified Soros criticism of Israel, saying “we agree to disagree.”  Sounds like they’re rats fleeing a sinking ship, doesn’t it?

The unstated implication of all this is that J Street should distance itself too if it knows what’s good for it.  Nowhere does Lake specify what specific views of Soros should make him anathema for a group like J Street other than he has made “sharp criticism of certain Israeli policies.”  Well, that means that J Street should return my money too because I’ve done the same.  How many of its 10,000 donors too have done the same thing? Perhaps J Street should return all their money as well.

Lake further reported that J Street “facilitated meetings” and “was associated with” Judge Richard Goldstone’s visit to Washington to promote his report on Operation Cast Lead.  Ben-Ami responds that J Street employees called the staff of “two or three” Congress members asking if their boss would be interested in meeting Goldstone.  I’d call that something short of “facilitating meetings.”  But again, if I were Ben-Ami, I wouldn’t shy away from this.  Why not help Goldstone get a hearing on the Hill?  What’s wrong with this?  Is there some reason why Richard Goldstone should be in herem?  Does he have political leprosy?

Lake claims the Goldstone Report accused “the Jewish state of systematic war crimes.”  It did not.  It said that there was enough evidence that such crimes may have been committed that it urged Israel and Hamas to investigate their respective acts leading up to and during the war.  Here is further mischaracterization of the reception of the report by Jews and Israelis:

The Goldstone Report is widely viewed as slanderous toward the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) among the American Jewish community and in Israel.

This is not true.  The vast majority of the American Jewish community doesn’t know a thing about the report.  The majority of wealthy conservative pro-Israel American Jewish leaders consider it slanderous toward the IDF.  But that is different from what Lake reported.  He claims “at least” 1,000 Gazans were killed during Cast Lead, when the true number is 1,400.

Lake claims that Morton Halperin, a “senior officer” of J Street, played a key role in organizing Goldstone’s Washington visit.  What Lake neglects to mention that Halperin is not employed by J Street and did not do so in his capacity as a J Street director.  He did this in his capacity as a senior political strategist who works for George Soros.

It’s also interesting that instead of being an American like Lake or me, Soros is the “Hungarian-born billionaire.”  Interesting how Lake can resort to zenophobia when it suits his purposes.  Lake reminds me of the Maariv smearmeister, Ben Caspit, who worked together with Im Tirzu to drag Naomi Hazan through the gutter for NIF’s alleged collaboration with Judge Goldstone against Israel.  In fact, Jeremy better watch out–the Washington Times is liable to feature a full page ad with him sporting a horn as Im Tirzu did to Hazan in every major Israeli paper.  Maybe Lake can provide the copy and Aipac or the RJC can pay for it.

Lake rests a good deal of his case on an interview with Colette Avital, a former Labor MK and J Street’s Israel liaison, who he describes as having resigned her positions with the group.  When Avital, in her public response, claimed not to have resigned, Lake fried her by posting the audio recording of her interview (warning: audio quality is atrocious) in which she explicitly confirms she is no longer affiliated with the group.

Frankly, this is again the problem with attempting to be a liberal Zionist organization having liberal Zionist allies who are constrained by ideological blinders and cannot name reality for what it is.  When you have to rely on “luminaries” like Avital to give you juice you are also burdened by whatever limitations they bring.  And Avital appears to have brought plenty, namely that she doesn’t understand that you can’t say one thing in an interview and then deny it later.

I’d venture to say that Lake didn’t tell her he was taping the interview, which probably means he broke the law depending on what jurisdiction he lives in.  If she knew she was being taped, then she’s stupider than even I thought.

All this goes to my main problem with J Street: they’re being too smart by half in trying to hide their true progressive views under a bushel.  If you want to be a Democratic version of Aipac as J Street has been over the past year, then do so and don’t take money from Soros or aid Goldstone.  Make Colette Avital happy, play in the sandbox with the moribund Labor Party, etc.  But if you want to be a truly independent progressive Jewish group why attempt to hide from anyone what you’ve done in taking Soros’ money or helping Goldstone?  Why make common cause with an unreliable figure like Avital?

Personally, I’d rather be saddled with defending to the neocon press taking George Soros’ money, than having to explain why I was too afraid to tell the world I was taking it.  That is why Jeremy Ben Ami is now on the defensive when he should be on the offensive.

All of this comes because J Street is successful at what it does.  It offers a liberal alternative to Aipac.  That means there are powerful forces running all the way from the Israeli embassy to Aipac to Republican Party offices that want to cut it down to size.  This is a mere blip on the screen and will have no long-term impact on J Street.  Of course, I wish it would embolden Ben Ami to become more independent and forthright when it comes to the issues.  But that probably aint’ gonna happen.

Just as laughable as Lake though, is the breathless reporting (J Street Keeps Accumulating Scandals) of Aipac’s favorite Israeli media stenographer, Natasha Mozgovaya, who’s written two “exposes” recounting Ben-Ami’s less than candor.  Apparently, the Israeli embassy and Republican neocons have done a lot of heavy breathing and persuaded her that this is a killer story.  Her writing is so partisan in supposed news articles that it makes Ethan Bronner look like Lenny Brenner:

For some, Soros’ name might be a sufficient reason to cut ties with J Street because of his confrontation with AIPAC and his sharp criticism of Israeli policies. But J Street’s “less than clear” explanation regarding the issue is the reason even the organization’s most stringent supporters are raising their eyebrows.

Of course, she doesn’t manage to name a single “stringent supporter” who has raised their eyebrows over this non-story.  Why should she?  Should she be a journalist and actually dig up sources and do real research when she can just as easily call her pals Eli Lake and Ben Birnbaum at the Washington Times who can regurgitate the talking points for her?

I raise a challenge to every honest journalist who’s reported this story as if they’re uncovering Moses’ revelation of the Ten Commandments at Sinai.  Go find the same IRS documents and tell us the major funding sources for Aipac and the Republican Jewish Coalition, the two groups who appear to be crowing loudest about this revelation.  And while you’re at it why aren’t you screaming bloody murder about John Hagee’s tens of millions supporting settlements and Irving Moskowitz’s tens of millions supporting the Judaization of East Jerusalem, all with tax-deductible U.S. dollars.  And if you don’t do this then you’re nothing but partisan hacks feeding from the Israel lobby trough.

Israel to Release All Gaza Flotilla Activists

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

free gaza flotillaIn growing recognition of the public relations disaster it faces on the world stage for its massacre aboard the Turkish aid ship attempting the break the Gaza blockade, Israel’s prime minister announced that all 700 would be immediately released.  It appears that continuing to detain them made Israel’s predicament even more untenable than it would otherwise be.  I’m also guessing that this was done under some fierce pressure from the U.S.  Bibi Netanyahu is not the politician who gives in of his own free will on these sorts of matters.  Malleable is not his middle name.

But what really caught my eye is that passengers who allegedly assaulted the IDF with knives, clubs and guns would also be released.  Frankly, this makes me doubt the IDF version of this story even more than I did before.  Israel is going to allow Muslims who stabbed and seriously injured their own soldiers off scot free?  It simply beggars belief.  I’m not making any definitive judgements as to what happened and who assaulted whom and in what order.  But I’m smelling something and it’s not very pleasant.

This still does not absolve Israel from its responsibilities to release the names of the dead and injured and their bodies to next of kin; along with any autopsy results.

Some extraordinary responses both good and bad from American Jewish leaders and intellectuals.  Peter Beinart, fresh from his attack on the Israel lobby in the pages of the NY Review of Books, has penned another slashing piece denouncing Israel for its policy of siege in Gaza.  It’s worth a look even though there are a few places in which Beinart’s liberal Zionism somewhat constrains his analysis.

On the down side is the response from J Street attempting to triangulate as usual as it did in denouncing the Goldstone report and urging the U.S. to veto it if brought before the UN Security Council:

There will undoubtedly be calls in the coming days for a UN investigation into today’s events. A credible, independent commission appointed by the Israeli government should provide the world with a full and complete report into the causes and circumstances surrounding the day’s events and establish responsibility for the violence and bloodshed.

I think J Street is coming to appear more and more a mouthpiece for Obama administration policy and less and less an independent organization.  Who in their right mind believes that Israel can or will conduct in full and complete investigation of this matter?  Did they do so after the UN demanded it in light of the Goldstone report?  Of course not.  What in Israel’s recent history would lead J Street or any serious person to believe this is possible?

Meanwhile the MV Rachel Corrie after setting sail from Ireland with a Nobel peace laureate aboard is currently bearing down on Crete and making its way to Gaza.  Will Israel botch it again?  Will Obama get off his ass and tell Israel that the siege is over?  Stay tuned.

For some broad satiric relief, take a look at this Twitter spoof account for Israeli global PR, which features some real hilarity:

* @whitehouse Thanks guys, knew you’d have our backs http://bit.ly/9avVch

* [In a reference to the Dubai assassination] Now that we have copies of their passports, Israel will release all foreigners from the flotilla

* Sticks and stones may break our bones, so we brought guns

* You should be grateful that we let you get so far, it would have been no trouble to deal with things before the ships even departed #mossad

* We forgive you for provoking us

* We’re not saying that the Gaza shore is a closed military area, we’re just saying that, if you do come, we will shoot you

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

If J Street Wants the Political Center, Why Not Join Aipac?

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

The first time I heard Alan Dershowitz lecture Hadar Susskind at the Aipac conference telling him that J Street should join Aipac, I thought it was typical grandstanding by the right-wing pro-Israel huckster (I still think that).  But the longer I think about what he said and J Street’s pronounced move from the left to the political center, the more sense he makes.

I can also remember how J Street, when it began, ran like the plague from any notion, at least publicly, of criticizing Aipac or setting itself up as an alternative to Aipac.  To most of us on the left, it was clear that if J Street was ever to represent anything it would have to take on Aipac and beat it at its own game.  It turns out though, that we should have read the tea leaves and understood that the J Street leadership’s allergy to criticizing Aipac was not a tactic, but a strategy genuinely expressed.

Now, Shmuel Rosner, aping Dersh, wonders if J Street feels so cozy with the Israel government why doesn’t it join Aipac. He wrote this on the subject:

An Israeli familiar with the content of J Street’s meetings in Israel this week had said that “they sounded not much different from the visitors we have in AIPAC delegations”…It raises an old question: Why can’t they just join AIPAC instead of competing with them?…But there’s another way of looking at it: Maybe as a separate organization with more credibility on the left J Street can help Israel more by way of helping curb the wacky initiatives of the far left (like divestment in Berkeley).

I’d never quite thought of the fact that J Street either intentionally or unintentionally may serve to co-opt the political energy of the American Jewish peace movement.  Progressives funnel their energy into the organization which transmutes it in turn into  faintly liberal pro-Israel substance that bears only a slight resemblance to the actual political values of many of those progressives.  In this way, J Street contributes to the dumbing down of progressive Jewish politics.

Before I note some more of Rosner’s portrayals of Ben-Ami’s statements, I should add that Rosner is a terrible journalist, totally incapable of allowing his own right-wing prejudices from distorting everything he reports.  So it’s possible that the characterizations below of Ben-Ami’s opinion, none of which are actual quotations of anything Ben-Ami says, may be less than accurate.  Not to mention that it is in Rosner’s political interest to paint J Street as deviating from its original progressive political agenda and drifting farther right.  But given what I’ve read of Ben-Ami’s views elsewhere, and the lack of complaint by Ben Ami about misconstruing his views, we’ll take them as more or less accurate:

He seems quite happy about the bettering of relations with Israeli officialdom. My interpretation: He’d like this to continue, and is willing to pay a price for it.

Not once in the conversation – not once! – was there a word of criticism regarding Israeli policies. The only word of criticism I heard from Ben Ami this week was directed at the Palestinian leadership and its reluctance to go back to negotiations.

Is Netanyahu serious about negotiations? Ben Ami says he was convinced that Netanyahu is serious…

this is significant: Ben Ami doesn’t criticize Netanyahu and says he is serious about negotiations. Some J Street enthusiasts back home aren’t going to be happy – and Ben Ami knows this, and doesn’t seem to care much.

Ben Ami emphasized that J Street will not support boycott or divestment. Such position will also drive the more radical elements of the Jewish-sphere away from the organization.

In a related story, J Street’s national spokesperson scolded a local Brandeis chapter leader who criticized neocon University President Yehudah Reinharz’s choice of Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren as commencement speaker.  She said her organization “welcomed” Oren as commencement speaker.

There was a time when I might chalk all this up to the organizational leadership allowing itself to get boxed in or outmaneuvered on issues.  But the logic of having a sulha with Michael Oren, and breaking bread with Shimon Peres, and expressing a willingness to meet with settler leaders seems to be a deliberate move to the center.  And this move to the center precisely mirrors the Labor party’s gradual movement away from its founding principles under the tutelage of none other than Shimon Peres (till he was moved by Sharon’s blandishments and abandoned Labor for Kadima) and now Ehud Barak.

Many of us over many years held out hope for the Israeli liberal Zionist parties that they could represent a distinct political voice for peace and justice.  That same romance some of us may have had with J Street before it began and up until its national conference seems to be cooling rapidly.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

J Street Official Praises Aipac, Touts Group’s ‘Moderate’ Positions

Monday, April 26th, 2010

I often defend J Street from my readers who accuse it of being “Aipac lite.”  But I find it harder and harder to do this.  And interviews like the one given by Jeremy Ben Ami to Haaretz make clear that there is less and less daylight between J Street and Aipac.  The interview comes on the heels of a meeting between Ben Ami  and Israeli ambassador Michael Oren in which J Street was brought in from the cold and welcomed to the Israel lobby tent.  At least it would appear that way from these troubling statements from the interview:

Q: There were some claims that on some positions you were flip-flopping, some left-wingers said you weren’t persistently left on some cases. As if you were checking the boundaries trying to generate some consistent agenda.

A: “Well, our consistency is that we are nuanced, that we are finding a middle ground between those who run on the extreme on the left and right, and we do get criticized from both sides. Those who thought we are far-reaching left-wing are perhaps now disappointed, and those who are taking us as too conservative are figuring out what we really are. We represent what I call ‘passionate moderates.’ People who have a very mainstream, rational view. We do support Israel – we don’t want a one-state solution, we don’t want Israel to lose its Jewish character, and we also want it to compromise and survive and give the territory necessary to create a Palestinian state. These are nuanced positions and some people like some simple reflective answers that go to one side or another, but we’ve never provided those.”

Q: Apparently you are more open toward AIPAC than vice versa. Did you have any open conversations with them?

A: “I can’t speak for them. We express deep respect for AIPAC and what they’ve accomplished. It’s hard not to be impressed over what they have done over many decades to establish such a deep US-Israel relationship.

I’m sorry, but saying you are a political “moderate” in terms of Israeli politics is meaningless.  Labor is “moderate.”  Kadima is “moderate.”  What do either represent?  Not even Israelis know.  Kadima and Labor MKs themselves couldn’t even articulate what their political philosophy is.  This is a BANKRUPT approach.  If you want to be “mainstream” you can’t be progressive.  “Mainstream” means Israel lobby.  Mainstream means the same old liberal pablum which is full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.  Mainstream is supporting a two state solution but doing nothing decisive to bring it about.  It means opposing the Occupation but allowing it to continue unabated.

And what’s the deal about fawning all over Aipac?  Yuck.

Truthfully, I am becoming more and more uncomfortable with J Street’s walk to the middle.  They joined together with one of the most reprehensible pro-Israel advocacy groups, Stand With Us, to oppose the Berkeley student divestment initiative.  My local Seattle chapter promoted the Noa-Mira Award concert here despite Noa’s raving hatred against Hamas, her support for its violent overthrow and of the Gaza war.  When I chided the move, Ben Ami stood behind the chapter and criticized me for being intolerant.  They encouraged the U.S. government to veto the Goldstone Report if it ever came to the Security Council.  They support Iran sanctions.

The funny thing about all this is that I attended the J Street national conference and I am virtually certain that the rank and file supports none of these positions.  So what you have is a national organization whose politics are controlled by wealthy donors who are more conservative than the full membership.  In fact, this is precisely the reason the Seattle chapter promoted the Noa-Mira Award concert, as a favor to an important donor and national leader.  When you follow the voices of the wealthy and ignore your rank and file then you run the risk of losing contact with those who support you.  That’s what is rapidly happening to J Street.  It is becoming a prisoner of its own success.  It has raised mountains of cash to support pro-peace Congressional candidates.  That’s good.  But not if those who give the cash dictate your political agenda.

I should be clear and say that there were a few heartening points Ben Ami made in the Haaretz as well.  His Israel delegation will meet with Palestinian and Arab leaders unlike Aipac missions to Israel.  He also acknowledges differences between his group and the Israeli government and Aipac.  This is all well and good.  But it’s simply not enough.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]