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 ‘jeffrey goldberg’

« Older Entries

Wiesenfeld Calls Kushner ‘Kapo,’ ‘Jewish Anti-Semite’

Friday, May 6th, 2011

UPDATE: The NY Times reports that Dr. Benno Schmidt, chair of the CUNY board of trustees, is moving to reinstate Tony Kushner’s honorary degree. In the story, Schmidt acknowledges that a wrong was done to Kushner, that the board made a “mistake of principle,” and that he’s trying to right it.  Thank God for common sense and decency.  The executive committee will meet on Monday in special session to deliberate on the matter and it is anticipated a grave injustice will be rectified.  I presume Wiesenfeld isn’t a member of the executive committee and thus won’t be able to poison the well and the playwright’s candidacy, as he did before the entire board.

Jeffrey Goldberg, in the true spirit of “if you give a man enough rope, he’ll hang himself,” has a long, illuminating interview with Jeffrey Wiesenfeld in The Atlantic.  Now that Tony Kushner has exposed as a lie the CUNY trustee’s charge that the playwright supports an Israel boycott, Wiesenfeld has only one of his original smears against Kushner up his sleeve: the Nakba as ethnic cleansing.

Almost all my readers know the facts that nearly 1-million Israeli Palestinians were expelled (mostly forcibly) from their homes inside Israel before, during and after the 1948 war.  Most people know that the Israeli New Historians, including Benny Morris, in fact documented this act of ethnic cleansing.  Without their intensive historical research into Israeli archival sources on the subject, the charge would only rest on the claims of the victims themselves, and thus be less solid than it is.

So in the spirit of giving everyone, including Jewish idiots, a fair deal, let’s listen to the bubbe meisehs that Wiesenfeld spins in his interview:

Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, the bomb-throwing CUNY trustee who has blocked John Jay College from awarding the playwright Tony Kushner an honorary degree, told me…that, as the child of Holocaust survivors, he has no choice but to call out Kushner for making the “blood-libel charge” that Israel has engaged in ethnic-cleansing.

“My mother would call Tony Kushner a kapo,” he said in a telephone conversation earlier this morning. “Kapos” were Jews who worked for the Germans in concentration camps. “If I’m confronted by anti-Semitism in my face, I’m going to call it out.” I asked him if he had any doubt Kushner was an anti-Semite. He said: “Anyone who accuses the Jews of ethnic-cleansing is participating in a blood libel, so yes, he’s a Jewish anti-Semite.”

…”Ethnic-cleansing is a blood libel. You’ve crossed the line if you’ve said that. It’s Darfur, Bosnia, Nazi Germany. If you say the Jewish people engaged in ethnic cleansing, then you put them in the class of the Nazis.”

…”The Jews never did this on a systematic basis. The Jews don’t plan genocide. If there was ethnic-cleansing, how come there are more than a million Arab citizens of Israel today?”

At the end of the interview, Wiesenfeld graciously offers to support Tony Kushner’s honorary degree if he would come before the board (a right that was not accorded to him before Wiesenfeld slashed and burned his candidacy for the degree in the first place) and apologize for all the bad, bad things he’s said about Israel in the past.  Imagine, it’s CUNY’s board that should be apologizing to Kushner for their stupidity, but Wiesenfeld somehow gets it all backwards.

If I were Mike Bloomberg and Andy Cuomo I’d be saying right about now in a paraphrase of Henry II: “Will someone not rid me of this troublesome knucklehead.”

In a separate Times interview, Wiesenfeld makes even more damaging claims that Palestinians are not human because they “worship death.”  Being the Jewish ignoramus that he is, he’s unaware of the holy martyrdoms throughout Jewish history beginning with Masada, the Roman executions of the Rabbi Akiva and the nine other saintly rabbis, the deaths of tens of thousands during the Crusades which were likened to the sacrifice of Isaac and clearly seen in terms of martyrdom, followed by the deaths of Jews on the auto da fe during the Spanish Inquisition.  In the Israeli context, Michael Dorfman reminded me on Facebook, that Josef Trumpeldor apocryphally said before his own martyrdom at Tel Hai: “it is good to die for one’s country.”  To this day, IDF ceremonies for new recruits canonize the Masada martyrdom with the slogan: “Masada will not fall again.”  Baruch Kimmerling has written definitively on the cult of martyrdom in the latter-day Israeli context.

I have an unwritten rule of thumb in dealing with the ahistorical nonsense spewed by people like Wiesenfeld: whatever smears they level against the Palestinians are vices that also characterize Jews.  In other words, no one is solely guilty here.  We all have sins and weaknessnesses.  It is the hubris that your side is all good and the other side is all bad that gets us into profound trouble when dealing with complex historical claims of both Israelis and Palestinians.  Instead of hubris, what we really and desperately need is humility.  The concept that we may not know everything, that our enemy may have a legitimate claim we weren’t aware of.  And that we may be able to convince him or her of a legitimate claim we may have as well.

This is the problem when you give an ignoramus power.  He uses it to bully those who are smarter, better read, more articulate and more learned than he.  His actions thus pollute the political discourse in a community because they aren’t based on real ideas, but rather on half-baked notions having little to do with reality.

Let’s take the idea that his mother, a Holocaust survivor, would call Kushner a “Kapo.”  Without knowing his mother, I’m willing to bet that as a survivor she would do nothing of the sort.  She, unlike her son, likely met real Kapos and knew the horror of what they did and the genuine suffering they caused.  She likely would never call someone a Kapo for merely being a critic of Israeli policies.  I have met many Holocaust survivors and I have never heard a single one use the term in any other way than to refer to that specific historical period.  The notion of exploiting it in a contemporary context having nothing to do with the Holocaust comes from the pro-Israel far-right and the Kahanist crowd, which has always been obsessed with linking Israel to the Holocaust and claiming that those who oppose Israel will cause a new Holocaust.

So Wiesenfeld is exploiting the sacred imagery of the Holocaust and Jewish suffering in a contemporary context in which it does not belong.  He abuses the term “Kapo” to score cheap political points against those who legitimately raise their voices out of concern that Israel’s policies are taking it down the wrong road.  There is a term in Hebrew for what Wiesenfeld is: am ha’aretz.  An ignorant, ahistorical, Kahanist, lying boor.

If this troubles you half as much as it does me, go to Jerry Haber’s blog and post a version of his letter to the CUNY trustees, whose e mail addresses he provides.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 12 Comments »

Goldberg-Ibish: Peace Process Not Lost, Bibi-Abbas Can Still Pull Iron Out of Fire

Wednesday, January 26th, 2011
mahmoud abbas

Abbas: 'I thought these were supposed to be my X-ray lenses allowing me to see through Bibi's bullshit'

Jeffrey Goldberg and Hussein Ibish published an absurd op-ed in today’s N.Y. Times touting the ‘radical’ idea that the peace process isn’t dead, just sleeping.  Given the release of the Palestine Papers over the past few days and their profound impact, signalling the entombment of the current process, they bring to mind two guys sitting on a lawn chair before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, watching the streaming line of humanity fleeing the advancing storm.  When asked why they didn’t join in the flight they looked up at the sky and said: “Doesn’t look like rain to us.”  Their lawn chairs, without them in them were last seen floating just offshore in the Gulf of Mexico a few days after Katrina blew in.

Readers of this blog will know that I rag on Ethan “Eytan of Arabia” Bronner quite often here.  But Goldberg and Ibish are in a class by themselves. The sheer delusion and nonsense spouted in this column boggles the mind.  I would wonder at the editor who commissioned this piece if I didn’t recall that likely the same editor published similarly wishful nonsense by Benny Morris and others about the Israeli-Arab conflict.  It seems to be a requirement of the position that the op-ed editor periodically has to publish a few embarrassing pieces in order to satisfy the pro-Israel powers that be.

Personally, I wonder whether the idea of publishing this monstrosity came from the authors or the editors; or perhaps they were spurred to do it be some desperate souls in the State Department, Israel’s foreign affairs ministry, or PA headquarters in Ramallah begged them to.

The basic premise of the piece is this: we two moderate, sensible observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one Palestinian, one Jewish, are saying to you that all is not lost.  That the two-state solution is not dead.  The two sides can still salvage this thing.  And now we’re gonna tell you why things are better than you think.  In reality (as in the actual peace process itself), the Goldberg-Ibish proposals tilt very heavily toward Israel and its interests.  Ibish, who is a strong Fatah man, gets very little from his Jewish interlocutor.  In fact, the article appears from its tone and frame of reference to be more the work of Goldberg, with a few concessions to Ibish and the Palestinian cause thrown in for good measure.

To get a real sense of the nonsense, I’ll quote the more egregious passages and then offer a response.  Get a load of this sunshine oratory:

…We have recently seen startling shifts in both Israeli and Palestinian attitudes on the need for compromise. The Palestinian Authority government, led by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, two of the most conscientious and sober-minded leaders the Palestinian people have had, continues to push forward a remarkable state-building program, and has been innovative in working against violence and incitement.

These two guys have had three days to read the damning evidence exposed by the Palestine Papers (which interestingly they call “alleged diplomatic documents”) and yet they still attempt to palm off Abbas as “conscientious” and “sober-minded.”  What are they thinking (if anything)?  Have they been in a Tibetan monastery for the last three days cut off from their Blackberries and PCs?  Or more likely, are they like the little boy who doesn’t like what his mommy is saying, so they just put their hands over their ears and hum loudly so they don’t have to listen to what they don’t want to hear?

Interesting also, that they tout the PA’s “remarkable state-building program,” while ignoring the fact that there is no state, no likelihood that there will ever be a state, no inalienable territory that will comprise this state, no borders recognized for this state, and–given Tzipi Livni’s touting of contemporary Nakba as a solution to Palestinian “overpopulation” within the Green Line–not even a clear notion of what population will comprise this state.  So one might ask: what sort of state are they building?  Where will that state be?  Who will live there?  Who will run that state?  How will they run it?

Goldberg-Ibish reinforce that tired hoary meme that Bibi has done a remarkable turnabout in “embracing” the two state solution:

In Israel, the shift is also startling. Prime Minister Netanyahu — the leader of the Likud Party, which was previously the guardian of the ideology of territorial maximalism — has openly endorsed the creation of an independent Palestine. A majority of Knesset members plainly realize the necessity of a two-state solution. (Even Israel’s truculent foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has said that he was “ready to quit my settlement home to make peace.”)

It’s rather laughable to claim that Likud was “previously” the guardian of territorial maximalist ideology.  Of course, it still is–in spades.  This passage ignores the fact that Bibi in one speech which was forced upon him by the Obama administration, spoke of the need for a two state solution.  But frankly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard him repeat himself on this subject (except in front of microphones and in the presence of the U.S. president) and he has done absolutely nothing since that vaunted speech to bring such a vision into reality.  Bibi supports the two state solution in the same way that the closet alcoholic swears to his loved ones that he’s sober as a judge.  In other words, he’d like to be sober and he knows that being sober is the healthiest way for him to live.  But he just can’t do it because deep down he’s an addict.  Neither the leopard nor the son of Ben Zion Netanyahu changes his spots.

This is, after all, the same man who in 1995 egged on a crowd that bayed for Yizhak Rabin’s blood shortly before his assassination.  A man who as a junior minister in 1987 publicly advocated expulsion of Israeli Arabs from Israel.  If you believe Bibi supports two states I have a bridge in Brooklyn and ocean front property in Florida to sell you.

Let the nonsense continue:

Mr. Netanyahu, in a quiet way, has also encouraged a greater normalization of life on the West Bank. On his watch, the overall pace of settlement growth has slowed, especially when compared with previous Labor Party-led governments during the years of the Oslo peace process. He allowed the Palestinian flag to be raised in his private residence during a formal meeting with Mr. Abbas, and now employs the diplomatic term “West Bank” instead of the biblical term “Judea and Samaria.” He has also condemned an initiative offered by a group of Orthodox rabbis that sought to forbid Jews from selling or renting homes to non-Jews.

Jeff Goldberg here is simply pimping for Bibi Netanyahu.  There’s no other proper way to describe it.  He’s been doing this for a long time in The Atlantic.  Now he brings it to the august pages of the Grey Lady.  Settlement growth has slowed?  With thousands of new units both being built and in the approval process, Goldberg has the chutzpah to try to pass this off as reasonable?  And Bibi raised a Palestinian flag and used the term “West Bank?”  Got news for ya Jeff.  This is known as a ‘gesture.’  Gestures aren’t meaningful unless accompanied by substance.  In this case, the gestures are devoid of meaning because there is no substance.  As for Bibi’s criticism of the rabbi’s letter…that and a few bucks will buy you a cappuccino at Starbucks.  I can show you 50 equally noxious racist acts or statements that Bibi ignored, including an editorial by three prominent religious nationalist rabbis calling for the creation of extermination camps for Palestinians.  What does this prove?  That Bibi all of a sudden has become an anti-racist?  Or a peace campaigner?  Or even a two-state advocate?

There are, in the column claims presented as established wisdom, which go unexamined.  Like this one:

…No peace treaty will end the conflict so long as Hamas is in power.

What proof do they offer?  None except to say that Hamas adheres to the “uncompromising” Muslim Brotherhood ideology, meaning peace can never be possible.  I guess that neither Ibish nor Goldberg read this week’s eye-opening profile of the contemporary Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which presented the movement as extremely solicitous of the political establishment to the point of being disdained by the Young Turks who’d left the movement for its vacillation.  In other words, a statement regarding Hamas that may’ve held true in years past doesn’t necessarily hold true today.  Hamas has, in fact, publicly stated that it would allow the PLO to negotiate a peace deal with Israel and that it would accept such a deal if ratified in a national referendum.  That means that Goldberg is willfully falsifying the public record while presenting no evidence that his claim is correct.

Get this spin on the Palestine Papers, which note the almost Quisling-like collaboration between PA negotiators and Israel even in the assassination of Fatah’s own fighters in Gaza:

It is, in part, the high level of Palestinian security cooperation with Israel — involving intelligence sharing and on-the-ground measures — that has reduced violence so significantly.

Well, that’s one way of putting it.  But actually even this claim is false because Israel only cooperates with the PA to the extent that it can enforce Israel’s needs in the West Bank.  When Israel feels the need to go it alone, it simply busts into West Bank villages and cities and carries out security operations that often involve assassinations or even the killing of innocent Palestinians.  So in fact, Israel does what it wishes in the West Bank, the erstwhile home of this new Palestinian state which Goldibish claim Fatah is a-building.  Israeli forces ignore Palestinian sovereignty even in areas where Israel officially concedes that the PA is the sovereign authority.

Now let’s deal with the “galvanizing” steps Bibi could take to open Palestinian eyes to the beneficence of their Israeli neighbor.  I swear to you this is what Goldberg is claiming will flood Palestinian hearts with gratitude: allowing Palestinian security forces to develop “advanced counter-terror” capabilities.  And he has another remarkable suggestion: Bibi should actually allow the PA to rule territory that Israel itself has conceded it will control in a future peace settlement.  Wow, I stand humbled before the brilliance and self-evidence of this proposal.  That Goldberg should have the temerity to incorporate this into his column as something that would make Israel look like good guys to Palestinians is astonishing.

There are something like two, maybe three serious, even shocking points in this essay which actually criticize Israeli policy and attitudes.  They should be noted both in being fair (or as fair as possible) to the authors and in marking how even an Israel partisan like Goldberg can sometimes (though rarely) embrace surprisingly progressive positions.  Goldibish actually warn Bibi that his “economic peace” proposals for the West Bank are insufficient because they don’t address political dimensions of the conflict.  This point is actually so spot-on that I’m half-tempted to attribute it to Ibish rather than Goldberg.  But who knows where wisdom comes from these two?

Notable too is that the two seers also call for an attenuated (they call it “modified and limited,” whatever that means) settlement withdrawal:

…No Palestinian state will emerge on a West Bank blanketed with settlements…A modified and limited, but very public and systematic, withdrawal of settlers from remote or particularly confrontational settlements, especially from the so-called outposts that even Israel considers illegal, would have a powerful effect on Palestinian perceptions about Israel’s long-term intentions.

…We believe even a modest effort by Israel to reverse the pattern of settlement growth could strongly improve conditions for negotiations — and improve Israel’s sinking image.

So Goldibish would have us believe that Palestinians will shower Israel with rose petals if it would forcibly remove a few Hilltop Youth and their settlements, all the while building thousands of new housing units in East Jerusalem and environs?  As for Israel’s “sinking image,” it will take a lot more than cosmetic gestures to improve that.

In the following passage, the two begin with a remarkable (for Goldberg) admission that the theft of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem is inadmissible.  But they end on a note that is so weird and discordant as almost to wipe out the benefit of what they wrote first:

…The forced removal of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem to make way for settlers simply cannot continue….Israel has no future as the occupier of Palestinians who don’t agree to be occupied. One hopes that Mr. Netanyahu shares that insight, although one must also recognize that politically he has every incentive to remain ambiguous.

What in heaven’s name does this mean?  In one breath you call on Bibi to recognize that Israel cannot be an occupier or thief of Palestinian land and in the very next one you say that it’s understandable that Bibi remains ambiguous on this score.  Why?  Even Ariel Sharon told the Israeli public that Israel had “conquered” the Territories, a term the far-right NEVER uses.  If the Israeli right’s patron saint can say it why can’t its junior pledge?

I think it’s awfully rich that Ibish, who is pro-Fatah through and through, actually signs onto an op-ed which criticizes a policy of the Fatah-led PA.  Not only that, but he criticizes davke a PA initiative that is one of the more promising it has attempted–securing recognition of an independent Palestinian state from other nations.  Ibish actually and astonishingly calls that a bad idea:

Things have been further complicated in recent weeks as several Latin American states have recognized the Palestinians and upgraded the diplomatic status of their missions. Many Israelis are discomfited by this. The P.L.O. should be as clear as possible that these efforts do not constitute an end-run around an American-brokered negotiated agreement, but are an adjunct to both negotiations and the state-building program.

Oh the poor, poor Israelis who’ve been ‘discomfited’ by other nations recognizing Palestine.  Doesn’t your heart just go out to them?  Actually, very few Israelis I know or have heard from are discomfited by this.  What Goldberg really means to say is that his buddy Bibi and the latter’s government has gotten its nose way bent out of joint by this.  It’s a big slap in the face to them.  You see, they thought they could stick it to the Palestinians and that the ol’ geezers would have no recourse but to grin and bear it.  Bibi didn’t reckon that there was still an ounce of fight in the old dogs in Ramallah.  And it irks the Israeli prime minister that he can’t get his way and stop this nonsense.

So someone tell me why these acts of recognition shouldn’t be an end run around the dead U.S. brokered peace negotiations?  Is there any sentient being besides these two who believes there even is such a process extant?

I think it’s mighty white of Goldberg to tell us what the Palestinians believe about any number of issues, including this one:

Palestinians understand, of course, that at the end of the day, their independence depends on one country, Israel, more than any other, since it is Israel that controls the land that would comprise their state.

You know, something tells me that the notion that the fate of Palestine or the Palestinian people depends on Israel may just be part of what got Palestinians into the mess that they’re in in the first place.  That’s why Palestinians and the rest of the peace movement are moving to alternate forms of resistance like BDS and the diplomatic recognition campaign.  Forms that don’t depend on Israel for anything.  Forms that demand that Israel change and impose penalties if it doesn’t.

You didn’t think we’d get out of this thing without the required denunciation of BDS did you?  What surprises me (but only a bit) is that a Palestinian would actually attack BDS.  But I guess this tells you something about Hussein Ibish and his bona fides:

THERE are…Palestinian initiatives that are completely counterproductive. Continued threats to unilaterally declare independence are pointless and provocative. Support for boycotts against all Israeli products and companies also serve only to convince Israel and its supporters that the Palestinians seek its elimination.

You almost want to give Goldberg credit for embracing at least one small part of BDS with the following statement, until you realize that it’s formulated in such a way that Goldberg actually doesn’t have to embrace what he appears to embrace:

It is understandable that Palestinians are supporting boycotts of products made in settlements, however, since the settlements are illegitimate and must not be legitimized.

In other words, this sophistry allows Goldberg to say that he understands Palestinians who resort to settlement boycott, but he doesn’t himself.  How’s that for weaseling?

The touching conclusion of this bi-national manifesto calls for a “softening of hearts.”  I really had to take out a handkerchief and dab my eyes it was so moving:

The other step is even more difficult to achieve, because it requires the softening of hearts…

Imagine, then, what would happen if Mahmoud Abbas were to visit Israel and tell Israelis he acknowledges that they have national and historical rights on the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, and that he understands their suffering. And imagine what would happen if Benjamin Netanyahu were to visit Ramallah, acknowledge Palestinian suffering and also Palestinian national and historical rights, particularly to a country of their own, on their native land.

Parse this carefully now.  He’s expecting Abbas to go to Israel and tell Israelis that they have the right to realize the Betar dream of a Zionist state between the Jordan and the Sea.  Note that Goldberg doesn’t say here that Abbas should recognize Israel’s right to exist within the Green Line or 1967 borders, but within the expanded Greater Israel borders of the Jordan to the Mediterranean.  Why again (sorry for invoking the deity twice in this post) in heaven’s name would any Palestinian leader endorse the views of Jabotinskyian Revisionism?

Again, the fact that a Palestinian-American who supposedly supports Palestinian national rights would sign on to such an articulation boggles the mind.  But I don’t pretend to understand what may be going on in Hussein Ibish’s mind.

Finally, note what Goldberg asks Bibi to do: he would go to Palestine and tell the natives he’s mighty sorry for their suffering, but that if they expect any relief they’ll have to get it from the other guy, and not him.  In other words, no mention of Nakba (God forbid).  No mention of Return.  Yes, you guys suffered.  And here’s what we Israelis are prepared to do for you: drumroll please…You go live with Abbas over there and leave us alone.

Again, that’s mighty white of him.  But somehow I have a sneaking suspicion it ain’t gonna mollify anyone.  So there you have it.  What passes for wisdom from the greatest Palestinian and pro-Israel minds the NY Times op-ed page can muster.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 26 Comments »

Iran: It’s Not Munich, 1938–It’s Cuba, 1962

Friday, September 10th, 2010
fidel castro

Fidel sees danger of nuclear war between Israel-U.S. and Iran (Reuters/Desmond Boylan)

Bibi Netanyahu is fond of saying, regarding Iran, that it’s Munich and the year is 1938: what the west does now will determine whether Iran will get nuclear weapons and whether Israel’s existence will be endangered as a result.  Capitulate and we will have another Holocaust.  Resist Iran’s nuclear ambitions and we will stop the next Hitlerian nation from threatening world domination and conquest.  So goes his thinking.

But it’s not Munich and it’s not 1938.  Rather, it’s Cuba and it’s 1962.

I was 11 years old then and I remember the panic, fear and hysteria that we faced in the run-up to a possible nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the U.S. over Cuba.  I remember the, in retrospect, laughable duck and cover drills in which we dropped under our desks, as if that would protect from Soviet nuclear fallout.  And what I’ve read since then indicates we were even closer to such a potential conflagration than we knew at the time.  All I can say is thank God Khrushchev blinked.

Jeffrey Goldberg just interviewed Fidel, who told the former a few things he may not have wanted to hear.  One of them in particular fascinated me.  Castro, it appears, is deeply frightened of a Middle East war between Israel and Iran.  And he’s frightened precisely because of his own personal experience during the Cuban missile crisis, in which he strongly advocated that the Russians protect their nuclear missiles with a counter-assault should the U.S. attack his island.  Such an act would’ve undoubtedly involved, or led to the use of nuclear weapons:

Castro ha[s] become preoccupied with the threat of a military confrontation in the Middle East between Iran and the U.S. (and Israel, the country he calls its Middle East “gendarme”). Since emerging from his medically induced, four-year purdah early this summer…Castro has spoken mainly about the catastrophic threat of what he sees as an inevitable war.

I was curious to know why he saw conflict as unavoidable, and I wondered…if personal experience – the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 that nearly caused the annihilation of most of humanity – informed his belief that a conflict between America and Iran would escalate into nuclear war.

Somewhat incredibly, Castro in retrospect thinks he was a fool (though he didn’t use that term precisely) to have allowed things to get that far.  That immediately made me think, even before I read Goldberg’s piece, of the crisis that both Bibi and Barack face in contemplating their own Iran Waterloos.  Do we face a prospect in 50 years time, in which leaders of Israel and Iran will look back on this period and say what fools they were that they came this close to war over this?  Or will they look back, having gone to war, and regard with horror the carnage that resulted from the massive miscalculations that led to bloodshed?

Here’s how Castro, in his twilight years, both analyzes the current conflict and his own behavior during the missile crisis. It’s eye-opening stuff:

Castro went on to analyze the conflict between Israel and Iran. He said he understood Iranian fears of Israeli-American aggression and he added that, in his view, American sanctions and Israeli threats will not dissuade the Iranian leadership from pursuing nuclear weapons. “This problem is not going to get resolved, because the Iranians are not going to back down in the face of threats. That’s my opinion,” he said. He then noted that, unlike Cuba, Iran is a “profoundly religious country,” and he said that religious leaders are less apt to compromise. He noted that even secular Cuba has resisted various American demands over the past 50 years.

We returned repeatedly…to Castro’s fear that a confrontation between the West and Iran could escalate into a nuclear conflict. “The Iranian capacity to inflict damage is not appreciated,” he said. “Men think they can control themselves but Obama could overreact and a gradual escalation could become a nuclear war.” I asked him if this fear was informed by his own experiences during the 1962 missile crisis, when the Soviet Union and the U.S. nearly went to war other over the presence of nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba (missiles installed at the invitation, of course, of Fidel Castro). I mentioned to Castro the letter he wrote to Khruschev, the Soviet premier, at the height of the crisis, in which he recommended that the Soviets consider launching a nuclear strike against the U.S. if the Americans attack Cuba. “That would be the time to think about liquidating such a danger forever through a legal right of self-defense,” Castro wrote at the time.

I asked him, “At a certain point it seemed logical for you to recommend that the Soviets bomb the U.S. Does what you recommended still seem logical now?” He answered: “After I’ve seen what I’ve seen, and knowing what I know now, it wasn’t worth it all.”

“It wasn’t worth it all.” Telling words. I hope someone’s whispering them into Barack Obama’s ears as I write this. I have less confidence that either Ahmadinejad or Netanyahu understand what Castro is saying. They, like him in 1962, are absorbed in the moment and not contemplating the impact of decisions they make today or tomorrow on history. That’s why Fidel’s words are so important. This is a man who lived through it all. In fact, with the death of Robert Macnamara, Fidel may be the last active participant in the crisis left living. He now can look back with historical perspective on what he did and said then, and say in retrospect, it was rubbish.  This is an incredibly valuable perspective.  I only wish Obama could hear those words directly from Castro himself.  If our own stupid policy towards his country was reformed, he might be able to do so.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 9 Comments »

Jeffrey Goldberg, Like a Broken Clock, Gets Things Right Once in a Great While

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

And it’s worthy celebrating when he does (since it happens so rarely):

“I don’t believe that time is on Israel’s side in the American Jewish community,” he said. “I think the average 55-year-old American Jew thinks something very, very different about Israel than the average 25-year-old American Jew. Just think of a kid today at Berkeley or Yale. Do they seem like the natural constituency for AIPAC?”?

–Gal Beckerman, Strain in U.S.-Israel Ties Spurs Anxiety About ‘Dual Loyalty,’ The Forward

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tags: , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace | 1 Comment »

State Department on Rosenthal: Stand by Your Woman

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Rosenthal: State stands by their woman

Despite the controversy stirred by the right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere and Israel lobby usual suspects against Hannah Rosenthal for her remark in a Haaretz interview that Michael’s Oren’s dissing of the J Street conference was “unfortunate,” the State Department has issued a statement of full support for her:

“Special Envoy Rosenthal has the complete support [ed. italics added] of the department. As a matter of longstanding policy the United States has supported a peaceful solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To that end the U.S. government encourages broad dialogue among responsible partners for peace.”

Many of us were worried after State slapped her on the wrist and said that she had spoken out of turn, that this might signal a capitulation to the forces of pro-Israel darkness who were itching for her scalp.  In particular, Jeffrey Goldberg, who called Rosenthal “dopey” and Shmu Rosner, who called her “not smart” were leading the Jewish male sexist charge against Rosenthal.  They’re bound to be disappointed that they didn’t have enough juice to get her fired.

Rosner in particular wrote breathlessly every time he picked up a crumb that could be used to besmirch Rosenthal, even writing in the Jerusalem Post that she had “new problems” because Phil Weiss, Steve Walt and Andrew Sullivan were supporting her.  Phew!  I was offended that he didn’t even bother to include me in the supposedly anti-Israel Murderer’s Row.  But he assured me he wouldn’t omit me next time.

Also, a few comments on the deliberate or unintentional inaccuracy of some blog and media reports about Rosenthal’s background.  One of the main reasons she was targeted was that she was affiliated with J Street, the target du jour of the Israel lobby these days.  Contrary to Ron Kampeas’ coverage, for example, she was never an “officer” of J Street and had nothing to do with running the group or dictating policy.  She was one of 200 honorary members of its advisory council.  Every Jewish organization has one of these and they are there to showcase VIPs who endorse the group but have nothing whatever to do with its day to day operations.  So much for yoking Rosenthal to J Street.

Now, maybe Shmu & Goldberg can go back to finding some other perfectly innocuous Jewish progressive to tar and feather for holding less than sufficiently pro-Israel views about something or other?  And mazel tov to Secretary Clinton and the Obama folks for standing by their woman.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 2 Comments »

Look Who’s Calling Hannah Rosenthal ‘Dopey?’

Saturday, January 2nd, 2010

Yup, you guessed it, Jeffrey “The Brain” Goldberg.  You see, Jeffrey’s on the journalistic gravy train over the Hannah Rosenthal story accusing her of being “dopey” for attacking Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren for his refusal to participate in J Street’s first conference and his subsequent lies about J Street being against “every policy of every Israeli government.”  Rosenthal had the temerity to call Oren’s refusal “unfortunate.”  Apparently, that’s a hangin’ offense as far as the Israel lobby is concerned.

And yes, Jeffrey, you’re carrying water for Mort Klein, Malcolm Hoenlein and the Aipac boys on this one.  They all want her scalp.  And you do too because you smell blood in the pro-Israel water.

One of Goldberg’s arguments claiming that opposition to the nominated anti-Semitism czar is bi-partisan is Alan Solow’s blast against her.  Solow claims to be a liberal Dem and supported Obama’s presidential campaign.  But The Atlantic’s Jewish politics maven neglected one small fact about Solow’s statement.  It probably wasn’t written by Solow at all.  Much more likely it was written for him by that doyenne of the Jewish neocon movement, Malcolm Hoenlein, who is the power behind the Conference of Presidents (which Solow chairs).  So much for the “Get Hannah” movement being an equal opportunity bi-partisan cabal.

You’re dead-wrong, Jeffrey, about both Rosenthal’s brain power and the appropriateness of her comments.  Michael Oren is a liar.  As such, he had Rosenthal’s comments coming to him.  He lied about J Street and he lied in his comments about Nofrat Frenkel’s arrest at the Kotel (why no word from you about Oren’s “misspeaking” on that incident, Jeffrey?).  Or is protecting the ass of your personal pal, Michael Oren one of your job descriptions over there at The Atlantic?

You know who else called Rosenthal stupid?  That other Israeli neocon “brain” Shmu Rosner:

(It) seems quite obvious that Rosenthal isn’t smart…

Not only that, Shmu’s just written a new smear of Rosenthal for JPost which breathlessly exposes a “new problem” she has.  What’s the problem?  No, there are no revelations about all expense paid trips to Iran or weekends at Osama’s Afghan ranch.  Rosenthal’s new problem is that she actually has supporters in the blog world.  Supporters who are…[drumroll please] ANTI-ISRAEL!  Whoo.  Who are these Israel haters?  Andrew Sullivan for one.  And Phil Weiss and Steve Walt.  Anti-Semitn’ every one!

I couldn’t help expressing my chagrin at being excluded from the club as I’ve defended Rosenthal as well.  What, I wondered, had I done wrong to be left off Shmu Rosner’s enemies list?  Insufficiently critical of Israel, perhaps?  Or maybe I’m not a big enough target, in which case I beg you dear Reader to drum up more readership for this blog so we can make it on Shmu’s anti-Israel blog list.

There’s one other unfortunate fact I’ve noticed about the campaign to Get Hannah: have you noticed anything about the gender of her major detractors?  Yup, all old Jewish guys: Hoenlein, Klein, Goldberg, Rosner, Solow.  The cracks about her being “dopey,” “not smart,” etc. begin to reek of women-baiting.

Not a single female Jewish leader criticized her.  Or perhaps its a man’s man’s man’s man’s Jewish world out there and there are no female Jewish leaders left since Golda and Shoshana Cardin left the stage.  At any rate, this bit of unseemly piling on against Rosenthal bespeaks too much pro-Israel testosterone.  You know what it is that the Jewish boys don’t like about Hannah?  She speaks her mind.  And what can be worse for a nice Jewish girl than speaking her mind in a boychik’s world.  A shande!  Get that girl and put her in her place, back knitting yarmulkes and baking babke where she belongs.

Someone ought to tell the boys to cut out the bullying.  It’s unseemly.  Didn’t your Jewish mothers ever teach you any manners?

Tags: , ,
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 24 Comments »

Somebody Tell Jeffrey Goldberg That Orrin Hatch Doesn’t Do Hip-Hop

Wednesday, December 9th, 2009


UPDATE: Jeffrey Goldberg would like all my readers to know that he knows hip-hop from borsht and is indeed a child of the Hood (in Hebrew that would be ben-Hood). I withdraw this particular claim in my article. But his taste in music still leaves much to be desired.

Ugh, why do they give me such good material?  No sooner does a settler leader claim that Jews aren’t popsicles then Jeffrey Goldberg cajoles a Mormon U.S. senator to write a dreadful Hanukah song, which Goldberg promptly (and erroneously) labels “hip hop.”

You’ve really got to see this video to believe it.  In it, Hatch, who wrote the lyrics (but clearly not the music which was written by a liberal Jewish composer specializing in Christian music–I kid you not), clearly seems uncomfortable with the music written for his song.  Unless it’s just his goyische Mormon woodenness exhibiting itself.

There’s far too much irony to go around here. First, Goldberg, who ignorantly claims that all Hanukah music is dreck, challenges Hatch to write a Hanukah song which turns out to be just that. Second, Goldberg calls a pure pop song “hip hop.” Perhaps someone should tell him that nice Jewish boys who’ve never gotten closer to the Hood than driving down the West Side Highway shouldn’t pretend to know anything about such things. Third, the song is performed by a bleached blond Syrian-American from Indiana.

I also take strong issue with the N.Y. Times reporter who calls this song “catchy,” unless you’re talking about it in the same terms as catching a case of H1N1. It also grieves me endlessly to learn that while this is Hatch’s first Jewish song “it won’t be his last.”

“Anything I can do for the Jewish people, I will do,” Mr. Hatch said…

I think you’ve done quite enough, senator. Now, can you just leave us alone to celebrate our holiday without the help of philo-Semites like yourself? Perhaps Jewish philanthropy, known for its fundraising prowess can raise a substantial sum and give it to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir on condition that Hatch never set foot in the realm of Jewish music again.

Mr. Hatch keeps a Torah in his Senate office.

“Not a real Torah, but sort of a mock Torah,” he said. “I feel sorry I’m not Jewish sometimes.”

Look, if we make you an honorary Jew do you think you could go away and adopt some other religion as your mascot??

He said his ultimate goal would be for his idol, Ms. Streisand, to perform one of his songs. “It would be good for her and good for me,” Mr. Hatch said…

Barbara, if you’re reading this, take the phone off the hook, screen your calls and mail and stay away from Congressional Christmas-Hanukah parties. Otherwise, you might be blackmailed into singing this piece of dreck at your next Kennedy Center concert.

This passage really gave me the willies:

In short, he loves the Jews. And based on an early sampling of listeners, the feeling could be mutual.

“Mutual?” Says who?

The online Jewish culture-news portal which Dan Sieradski so aptly calls “The Tabloid” is the beneficiary of this super shlock and its editor is kvelling (unjustifiably in my opinion):

“Watching Orrin Hatch in the studio, I said to myself that nothing this great will ever happen to me again,” said Alana Newhouse, the editor-in-chief of Tablet.

Well, I guess if you’re a Jewish Mormon-lover who admires old, white, right-wing U.S. senators who write corny, white-bread lyrics…

The reporter, Mark Leibovich, does the word “mensch” a deep disservice by calling Goldberg a “well-known mensch about town.” He’s no mensch in my book. And I don’t believe in using that term in a corny, sentimental way as Leibovich has done. It should only be used as a term of deep respect, one which Goldberg in no way deserves, at least not based on his published record.

Tags: ,
Posted in Folk & World Music, Humor, Jews & Judaism, Politics & Society | 17 Comments »

Jeffrey Goldberg: Take That, You ‘Hard-Core Anti-Zionist Leftist!’

Thursday, October 29th, 2009
Jeffrey Goldberg: in his Israel lobby element

Jeffrey Goldberg: in his Israel lobby element

If you’re one of the supposed hard-core haters of Zion who’s attempting to turn J Street into a Manchurian Candidate of anti-Zionism, I’ve got news for you.  Jeffrey Goldberg has your number:

…The group [J Street] runs the risk of being hijacked by haters of Israel. I don’t doubt that most people who join J Street are motivated by love for the Jewish state, as a Jewish state, and anguish over its government’s decisions. But there are those who would like to use J Street to weaken the bonds between the U.S. and Israel. The challenge to Jeremy Ben-Ami, the founder of J Street, over the next year, is to keep the group pro-Israel in the face of concerted efforts to move it in the direction of the hardcore anti-Zionist left.

The level of paranoia in this statement reminds me of the fear with which anti-Communist liberals greeted the New Left during the 1960s.  They seemed to be fighting the battles of the 1930s to avoid allowing such groups to be hijacked by the Communist Party.  Instead of reacting to contemporary reality, they were acting out an old script.  Goldberg too seems to see enemies of Israel everywhere, even hiding out in the dark corners at the J Street conference.

I don’t know what Goldberg is nattering about.  Who’s trying to hijack J Street?  All of those so-called radicals, even some who attended the conference, are expressing skepticism about J Street.  They’re not attempting to bore their way in and take over from the inside.  Specifically, those bloggers at our I-P session who he’s attacked so intemperately have no desire to fulfill Goldberg’s paranoiac nightmare scenario.

I fear that Jeffrey Goldberg, along with J.J. Goldberg and other Jewish liberals like them are sinking further and further into dyspeptic irrelevance.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 21 Comments »

« Older Entries
Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE