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 ‘jewish-forward’

« Older Entries

Jewish Forward Attack on Penn BDS Neglects Iarael Lobby’s Restraint on Free Press

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

This past week, Penn students held a three day conference on the BDS movement. The conference had been preceded by coverage from the local Jewish community pro-Israel newspaper and the Penn student newspaper which was not only antagonistic and unbalanced, but specifically, a professor penned an op Ed accusing BDS supporters of being “kapos.”

Not surprisingly, the BDS event organizers were a tad sensitive about who would be reporting from these media outlets. They ultimately decided to refuse access to the event for the Exponent’s reporter and a far-right pro-Israel filmmaker. Personally, I think they made a mistake. I would’ve negotiated with the Exponent for an op ed by a Penn faculty member who supported BDS in return for allowing a hostile reporter to have access. If the newspaper refused, then let them slam BDS while you point out how unfair they were in refusing to allow you to present your point of view in the newspaper.

It should e noted that The Exponent’s former editor, Jonathan Tobin, now graces the editorial masthead at Commentary. So the Exponent is certainly no exemplar of diversity on the question of coverage related to Israel or BDS.

Jane Eisner, the Forward’s managing editor decided to pile on, writing an editorial criticizing the decision to bar the reporter, as an infringement on free speech. This is wrong for all sorts of reasons. One, because the pro-Israel media has a monopoly on access to the mainstream community through it’s media outlets. That means that they present their slanted version of BDS to their readers without allowing the BDS movement to portray itself in their pages. If anyone is repressing free speech and the diversity of debate it is the Exponent and Forward.

But even more important is the fact that the Israel Lobby routinely restricts media access to reporters it doesn’t like at events they host. Aipac provided press credentials to The Guardian’s Chris McGreal to cover it’s 2007 national conference. When McGreal arrived to pick up his credentials and registration packet, he was not only denied access, but Josh Block, Aipac’s then PR capo di tutti, had the reporter frog-marched out of the hall escorted by security guards. I reported this story in my blog at the time and in the Guardian’s Comment is Free. But The Forward never took up the matter. Somehow, when the BDS movement stifles the press it’s newsworthy, but when Josh Block and Aipac do it they get a pass.

Further, if Jane Eisner wants to talk about freedom of speech in the media, she should look in the mirror. I, for example am blackballed from appearing there. How do I know? Let’s just say a little birdie told me. My crime? Criticizing The Forward’s decision to take Republican Jewish Coalition ads in 2008 which accused Barack Obama of being racist. You see some journalists can be very thin skinned about criticism. Which is ironic because those same editors refuse to allow activists to be equally thin-skinned about critical coverage.

Mao, who himself didn’t brook much dissent, said “let a thousand flowers bloom.”. Why can’t we in the Jewish community do at least as well?

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Film-TV-Media, Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 6 Comments »

Morgenstern Claims Forward Publisher Interceded to Soften Zeek Coverage of Hagee

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

Ari Morgenstern, John Hagee‘s PR flack for the Jewish community, has now weighed in on the controversy surrounding Zeek’s suspension of coverage of Christian Zionism and Pastor Hagee.  For the background: Rachel Tabachnick contributed regularly to Zeek and that was her beat.  In April, Morgenstern approached editor Jo Ellen Kaiser complaining about Tabachnick’s coverage.  Zeek did extensive fact-checking and found she had not misrepresented anything Hagee had said or written and there were no errors in her reporting.  On the strength of this, Zeek told Morgenstern to take a hike.

Then Morgenstern went higher up the food chain to Sam Norich, the Forward’s editor.  Here is how the former characterizes that interaction:

Christians United for Israel (CUFI) contacted the editors of Zeek to request that they seek comment from our organization if the publication was to run further stories concerning Pastor John Hagee, CUFI, or Christian Zionists.This request is in accordance with the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, specifically the second statement in the first section of the code which states “Journalists should:” “Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.”

Initially Zeek’s editor did not agree to this request; that decision prompted CUFI to contact the Forward’s publisher due to the two organizations’ co-marketing agreement. Zeek has now agreed to our request, therefore CUFI considers this matter closed.

At no point in time did anyone affiliated with CUFI threaten Zeek or the Forward with legal action.

So according to Morgenstern, if he can be believed, Sam Norich interceded with Jo Ellen Kaiser to allow CUFI to respond to anything Zeek intended to publish about Hagee, CUFI or Christian Zionism.  And Zeek agreed.  Again, if this is true it is extraordinary.  In fact, I’ve never heard of any serious publication agreeing to allow a specific organization to comment whenever it planned to publish anything about that organization, its leader or the general movement of which the organization is a part.

That might explain why Kaiser suspended publication of any articles on this subject because every single one would have a reply appended from Hagee and his henchmen.  It just wouldn’t look good.

Now to Sam Norich’s characterization of his own role in this:

I cannot speak for Zeek…We host that publication on our web site, TheJewishDailyForward.com [ed. actually someone should tell him that the Forward's website is actually Forward.com]. That brings the editorial offerings of each publication to the attention of the other’s online readership, but they have no say about our editorial judgments and we have no say about theirs.

In other words, we have a he said-he said situation here in which Norich claims he had no involvement in any editorial decision Zeek made about this matter.  I’ve written to Norich and asked him if he’d like to clarify or respond to Morgenstern’s claim.  But given that Rachel Tabachnick has been removed from the Chrisitian Zionism beat at Zeek, it would appear that Morgenstern’s version is more credible than Norich’s.

What I cannot understand is why Sam Norich would think it was a good idea for Zeek to go easier in its coverage on John Hagee .  Maybe the reason he wouldn’t talk to me about this was that it would be hard for him to explain it too.

We ought to return to Morgenstern’s comment for a little analysis.  First, his little quotation from the Society of Professional Journalist’s code of ethics is a total non sequitur since Zeek was not accusing Hagee of “wrongdoing” in the sense that the code intended.  It wasn’t accusing him of a criminal act or lawbreaking or even immorality.  It was attacking his views and his statements.  So there is absolutely no reason for Zeek to have agreed to this nor any reason Norich should’ve pressured Zeek to do so.

The fact that Zeek and The Forward did so indicates a callow sense of journalistic standards.  Instead of standing by their newspapers, their product and their authors, they retreated and did the bully’s bidding.  I feel ashamed really of both since they both, at their best, represent good journalism and humane values.

There is one portion of Morgenstern’s statement which is either a lie or a gross misrepresentation of fact.  I know for a fact that after a conversation with Sam Norich, who’d just spoken with Morgenstern, that Kaiser wrote to others that she fully expected Hagee to sue.  I know for a fact that she hired an attorney to represent Zeek in the event of such a suit.  If I have to, I will bring forward the proof that Morgenstern is grossly dissembling.

Jo Ellen Kaiser too has weighed in with a comment on this affair.  She seems to be engaging in a bit of revisionism regarding decisions she made about Zeek’s editorial approach to Christian Zionism and Israel:

Zeek has not ceased coverage of Israeli politics or even of Christian Zionists. I decided to put our coverage of Christian Zionism on hiatus for three months while we determine our editorial direction. I communicated this to all our writers. We will continue to publish articles about Israeli politics in the next three months, and I believe it is likely that we will resume some coverage of Christian Zionist activity in Israel–I just wanted to take a breather to reassess our editorial position. Zeek is a catalyst for conversations about the Jewish tomorrow. Our role is to engage Jews around questions of Jewish identity. How American Jews relate to Israel, and specifically the Israel-Palestine situation, is critical to our understanding of Jewish identity…

I know for a fact that besides Rachel Tabachnick, whose writing has been suspended, other writers who covered Israel changed their status.  One resigned and one was told not to write about Israeli politics.  So if Kaiser does intend to publish on Israel in the next three months either she’s going to find a new writer to do so or she’s changed her mind.

Further, she has specifically said that she intends for the Diaspora to be the central focus of Zeek and that coverage of Israel (and for some reason she sees Hagee as associated with Israel) is “tangential” (her word) to the magazine’s mission.  So once again this seems to be revisionism.  Either she’s changed her mind and Israel is no longer tangential or she’s not being fully honest with herself.

My final word on this affair to Sam Norich and Jo Ellen Kaiser is that if you lie down with dogs you’ll get up with fleas.  Both of them played the game by Hagee’s rules and it makes them look all the smaller for it.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace | 3 Comments »

My Quarrel With Sam Norich

Monday, May 24th, 2010

Sam Norich, the publisher of the Jewish Forward, disappointed me today.  After e mailing him twice and leaving an office voice mail message asking him to answer questions I had about Ari Morgenstern’s threats against the Forward and Zeek and related matters, all he could muster was the feeble virtual non sequitur below published as a comment at my blog.

A little background for those new to the story.  The Forward’s right-wing op-ed editor Daniel Treiman published a mendacious op ed by John Hagee which I critiqued (with the assistance of Rachel Tabachnick) here on Sunday.  In the course of that post, I was critical of Treiman’s editorial judgement and some other related matters.  But the vast majority of my post was a point by point rebuttal of Hagee’s miasma of lies and deceit.

Note that there is not a single word defending what Hagee peddled to Forward readers.  Not a single substantive rejoinder to my post.  Here is Norich’s response:

To Richard Silverstein,

I received your email early Saturday morning asking to speak with me, and intended to contact you on Sunday, until I read your post of Saturday night titled “Jewish Forward helps Hagee wash away his sins.” Having read your smashmouth treatment of the Forward I saw no point in responding to your request, not even after your second email, on Sunday evening, asking for “an opportunity to hear your side of the matter before I publish.” A peculiar sequence.

But your readers deserve better. I would guess that many of them would welcome a clear expression of John Hagee’s views on issues of concern to Jews in particular, though not only to us. It’s precisely because the op-ed in question is so markedly different in tone and emphasis compared to some of Pastor Hagee’s previous statements that it bears serious consideration by the audience it was addressed to. To be sure, the piece should raise questions in the minds of knowledgeable readers, about the evolution of the author’s own thinking about these issues, about the differences between his views and those of some other spokesmen for Christian Zionists and evangelicals, and indeed about how those views will inform the positions that Pastor Hagee and Christians United for Israel will be taking in the months ahead. I’m proud of our editors’ decision to run the op-ed and eager to see where it takes us. Your readers and ours can be sure that the Forward will continue to report on this subject, and that we’ll continue to do so independent of the forces and agendas arrayed on these issues inside and outside the Jewish community.

I cannot speak for Zeek. We have a co-marketing agreement with Zeek and as part of that arrangement we host that publication on our web site, TheJewishDailyForward.com. That brings the editorial offerings of each publication to the attention of the other’s online readership, but they have no say about our editorial judgments and we have no say about theirs.

Finally, I want to correct just one error of fact in your post, for the record. Neither Daniel Treiman nor anyone else at the Forward removed the comments that had been posted to the Hagee op-ed. We’re still trying to understand how that happened, and how a second, identical version of the op-ed was posted for several days, before we removed it. Our tech team have reason to doubt that it was the result of foul play; they are looking into whether an improper character in one of the tags or in the text of a comment could have taken down the connection between this piece and our commenting system. We’re working to restore that connection.

Samuel Norich, Publisher, The Forward

Apparently, the publisher and managing editor (after writing this critical post I was blacklisted by her) of The Forward are so thin-skinned that they cannot accept serious criticism of their editorial judgment.  Norich’s response is sophistry.  Instead of dealing with the fact that Hagee lied through his teeth and sold The Forward readers a bill of goods, Norich says that the piece reveals the “evolution of Hagee’s thinking.”  I’ve got news for Norich.  Megalomaniacs’ thinking doesn’t “evolve” except in ways that allow them to aggrandize themselves further.  And I call Hagee a megalomaniac because he sees himself as God’s agent in the world whose job is to midwife the End Times.

We Jews would never accept such a figure (though we did in earlier times in the form of Shabbtai Tzvi and Jacob Frank and look how well that ended).  It pains me to think that The Forward has aided and abetted Christian fundamentalism‘s answer to Shabbtai Tzvi.

Norich calls my treatment of The Forward “smashmouth” which is patently untrue.  The vast majority of the post dealt with the content of Hagee’s op ed which I treated with the derision it deserved.  In one paragraph, I criticized the editorial judgement of Dan Treiman and called him right wing (which he is).  That is the sole basis of Norich’s claim that I smashmouthed The Forward.  Gee, it makes you wonder how they would react if someone really took ‘em to the woodshed.

A few comments on Norich’s statement.  Normally, it’s a good thing for a publisher to stand by an editor.  As long as the editor has performed his job properly.  But when an editor has not done so, for a publisher to defend him may appear honorable and proper, but it does a disservice to the newspaper they both serve.  I can only hope that Sam Norich has the qualities of a politician who is able to speak to a public audience differently than an internal one.  I can only hope that Norich understands how deficient and damaging the Forward piece was and will deal with it in ways he would prefer not to reveal publicly.

Norich’s claim that the Forward and Zeek are independent entities and that he does not get involved in the latter’s business is not entirely true.  In fact, Ari Morgenstern, when he wished to complain about Rachel Tabachnick’s in Zeek which criticized Hagee did so to Sam Norich.  There is a danger in making claims that shade the truth as Norich has done.  In fact, Ari Morgenstern threatened Zeek with a lawsuit via Norich.  What I wanted to ask Norich, and which he refused, was what was said in that conversation.  Perhaps the reason he won’t talk to me directly is that the contents of that conversation might not be flattering.

I do know that the conversation Norich had with Morgenstern concerned Kaiser enough that she said she fully expected a lawsuit.  I also know that she found herself a pro bono attorney to represent the publication in the event of such a lawsuit, which she fully anticipated.  And Norich would’ve been derelict in his duties had he not consulted The Forward’s own attorney to determine whether the Forward had any liability in this matter.  Undoubtedly, the attorney would’ve responded, No.  But The Forward, in the person of Norich, was very much involved in this matter.

Might John Hagee’s piece have become part of this entire conversation between Hagee’s side and The Forward?  This again is a question Norich could’ve answered if he’d had the guts to talk to me.

And here’s another derelection of editorial duty on the part of  Treiman in vetting this piece before publication.  I know Hagee’s rhetorical style.  I’ve also consulted others who’ve followed Hagee’s career, preaching and writing for years.  We both agree that the Forward piece contained nothing of Hagee’s normally flamboyant, dramatic style.  It contained nothing of the vividness or imagery of his standard theological rhetoric.  So in fact, I suspect (without having a smoking gun to prove it) that Hagee did not write this piece.  I strongly suspect that he trusted his Jewish advisors to do so for him and it was submitted in his name.  But Dan Treiman doesn’t know enough about Hagee’s MO nor his writing style to have sussed this out.  So here’s a question for you, Sam. Did you or Dan at any time ask whoever submitted this piece whether Hagee wrote it himself?  And who sent you the piece?  Was it Morgenstern or did it come from Hagee?  Did you ever see any notations, edits or even a signature from Hagee on the piece he allegedly submitted?

I know that normally a newspaper can accept on faith that a writer who submits a piece has written it himself.  But this case is different.  Here we’re dealing with an author who has lied about his views in the piece he is attempting to publish.  An author attempting through artifice and deceit to inveigle himself into the good graces of The Forward’s largely suspicious readership.  Did Dan Treiman know this?  If not, why not?  And how does Sam Norich with a straight face defend The Forward’s accepting a piece for publication such as this?  And has he gone back to Morgenstern and Hagee to demand an explanation of the multiple deviations from his previous theological record that are evident in what he wrote for the Forward?

Finally, Norich’s claim that I made an error in saying that Tabachnick’s comments in the Hagee article thread were deleted is only partially true.  As a webmaster, I have never faced the type of technical glitch he describes in which the Hagee article was “disappeared” from the Forward site and the comments lost.  But I do know that any decent webmaster retains copies of his website for just such an eventuality.  It is not very hard to go back to the last iteration of the site and find the lost post and restore it with its comments.  And if somehow the comments became separated from the article itself there is a site online which retains all the comments for this article and if Norich really wishes to restore them I can get him the URL.  Finally, why does the current iteration of the Hagee article online not offer any opportunity to post comments?  In essence, they’ve closed comments for the article.

I’m sorry to be so harsh, but I think Hagee has performed a type of malpractice on The Forward and the publication has been taken.  And I say this as someone who has admired The Forward over the years and written very strong positive statements about it in this blog.  I do not say this as an enemy.  I say this as someone who is deeply disappointed when a friend has let them down very badly.

One final note: John Hagee and Avi Morgenstern are very litigious fellows.  So I make crystal clear that everything stated above about John Hagee’s authorship of this article is my considered opinion and not a statement of fact.

The title of this post is a reference to the seminal Chaim Grade story, My Quarrel With Hersh Rasseyner, about a quarrel between two Jews, one who has lost his faith and another who has retained his, despite being a Holocaust survivor.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace | 2 Comments »

Jewish Forward Helps Hagee Wash Away His Sins

Saturday, May 22nd, 2010
john hagee

Hagee ♥ Jews--or so he claims

Many Jews know John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel and leading Christian Zionist zealot, as an anti-Semite who believes Hitler was sent by God to help create the State of Israel.   They may also know he supports an Israeli attack on Iran and that he likens Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler.  They may also know that he is a pro-settler, not-one-incher, who believes every bit of Biblical Israel was given to the Jewish people by God.  Hagee condemns any peace settlement or Israeli leader who considers withdrawing from a single settlement and labels withdrawal or territorial compromise a betrayal of God’s covenant with Israel.  Perhaps he is most notoriously known for embracing an End Times narrative that calls for Jews who refuse to convert to be killed with the remaining remnant coming to Jesus to be reborn in the blood of the Christian lamb.  Less well-known is his classical anti-Semitic view that the world economic order is controlled by a group like the Illuminati, one of whose primary members are the Rothschild family:

Our economic destiny is controlled by the Federal Reserve system that is now headed by Alan Greenspan. Think about this. It is not a government institution. It is controlled by a group of Class A stockholders including the Rothschilds of Europe…So get this one thought : The value of your dollar is controlled by an organization that is not controlled by America.

Jewish leaders like Rabbi Eric Yoffie have railed against Hagee in the pages of the Jewish Forward, urging their members not to collaborate with or participate in events sponsored by CUFI.

So imagine my surprise when I read John Hagee’s name plastered on The Forward’s website this week.  Astonishingly, the liberal Jewish publication had given the uber-Zionist. anti-Semite a platform for his noxious views.  The piece the Forward published is extraordinary in so many ways.  I have read many speeches and sermons by John Hagee.  While they are always deeply disturbing, the Forward op ed is startingly different because it advances a revisionist version of Hagee as philo-Semite, two-stater, land-for peacer that is entirely at variance with his preceding career.  It’s as if a plastic surgeon took a flabby, balding, flat-footed, nondescript man and turned him into George Clooney (or to be more political accurate, Charlton Heston–when he was alive at least).

In fact, the Forward column is so poles apart from the Hagee that anyone who’s read him knows that I half-believe it wasn’t written by him; but rather by a Jewish ghost-writer (possibly like his PR flack Ari Morgenstern or political lobbyist, David Brog).

In short, the Forward piece is a tissue of lies easily disproved by the most basic Google searches of his previous writings.  For the most detailed and cmprehensive refutation of Hagee’s claims read this primer researched and published by Talk2Action’s Rachel Tabachnick, one of the most authoritative of the former’s Jewish critics.  The main howlers are his claim that he is willing to accept a two-state solution (although he doesn’t endorse this path himself even in this column) if Israel itself does:

Another concern that some individuals have expressed is that Christian Zionists will use our influence to stand in the way of efforts to advance a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Such a claim shows a complete disregard for our record.

What is Hagee’s record?  Just after 30 evangelical leaders wrote a letter to Pres. Bush endorsing a two-state solution, the good Pastor penned his own letter which laid out his negative views of a two-state solution.  It read in part:

Mr. President, we write this letter to state we are opposed to America pressuring Israel to give up more land for any reason.

…Simply stated, land for peace is a policy is a failed policy of the past that has produced nothing but more war.

And further:

There will be grave consequences for the nation or nations that attempt to divide the land of Israel… This is not a time to provoke God and defy him to pour out judgment on our nation for being a principal in the division of the land of Israel.”

–from Hagee’s Jerusalem Countdown: a Warning to the World

In this video, Hagee argues that if the U.S. pressures Israel to give up land for peace that God will judge this country be releasing a terrorist who will wreak havoc on us:

To give up more land for peace, Joel 3:2, says any nation that tries to get Israel to divide my land, I will bring it into judgement,  I want those of you in the State Department and in Washington to hear this..  If America does not stop pressuring Israel to give up land I believe that God will bring this nation into judgment because I believe what this book says.  And if God brings this nation into judgement he will very likely release the terrorist that you’ve already let here  through the ridiculous immigration policy that you refuse to stop and this nation is going to go through a blood bath that you have permitted because of what you have done.”

In fact, Hagee defines for us what he believes Israel’s legitimate modern borders should be, which if implemented, would be a whopper of a land for peace deal in Israel’s favor!

“In modern terms, Israel rightfully owns all of present-day Israel, all of Lebanon, half of Syria, two-thirds of Jordan, all of Iraq, and the northern portion of Saudi Arabia.”

–The Battle for Jerusalem

So, if you read Hagee’s Forward screed carefully you will see what he is really saying is I detest a two state solution and land for peace.  But if Israel embraces it, I won’t stand in the way. But even that is undermined by his seeming endorsement of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin as detailed by Max Blumenthal in The Nation:

…In his 1996 book The Beginning of the End, Hagee described the murder of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as fulfillment of prophecy and suggested admiration for Rabin’s assassin, Yigal Amir.

Imagining Amir’s mindset as he prepared himself to kill Rabin, Hagee wrote, “Tonight, if God was good, an opportunity would show itself. No longer would Rabin be able to transfer Israeli lands to Palestinians. The damage he’d done in the West Bank and Gaza was enough. Israel had a divine right to the land, and to give it away was an act of treason against Israel and an abomination against God.”

Does this suggest to you someone who’s prepared to accept an Israeli peace plan that betrays such principles?

Hagee claims, in the Forward, to be uninterested in the conversion of Jews:

The first rule adopted by Christians United for Israel was that there would be no proselytizing at our events. CUFI exists only to honor and support the Jewish people, never to convert them.

Well, get a gander of this:

“There are several purposes [in the Tribulation which accompanies the End Times], and the first is to bring Israel to the place where she will recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah…

While CUFI itself may not proselytize, Hagee has in fact endorsed a Christian ministry preaching to Jews in Israel:

“Your gift to support the ongoing work of Maoz Israel Ministries enables us to continue on our mission – to bring the Good News of the Gospel of Messiah to the people of Israel until ALL ISRAEL IS SAVED!”

A CUFI director, Stephen Strang, who publishes much of Hagee and CUFI’s materials also brings out a magazine, Charisma, which offered this appraisal of missionary work in Israel :

“In this issue, we offer a look at the Christian peacemakers who are taking the gospel of Jesus Christ not only to Jews and Muslims but also to Russian and Ethiopian immigrants, prisoners, unwed mothers, drug addicts and tourists who visit this unique land. We hope that when you visit Israel you will look beyond the stone monuments, churches and biblical sites to discover the people of faith who are transforming the land.”

Hagee claims to have nothing but respect for the Jewish religion.  Yet, this is what he had to say about Rabbi Hillel, perhaps the most important rabbinic figure of the Talmudic era:

“Hillel was an extremist...

–Final Dawn Over Jerusalem

And this concerning those stiff-necked Jews who refused to accept the divinity of Jesus:

“When will the divinely imparted spiritual blindness upon the Jewish people end concerning the identity of Jesus Christ as Messiah?

–Jerusalem Countdown

Do feel some pity for the poor godless Reform Jews Hagee excoriates here:

“I think if I could put a dividing line, the Orthodox and Conservatives who have a Torah appreciation give us wholehearted support. The rest who are not driven by the Word of God have a liberal agenda. And the liberal agenda is they are pro-abortion. They’re pro-homosexual. They’re pro-gay marriage — they want men to marry men and women to marry women…

–San Antonio Express, July 2006

And then there is the whigged-out Hagee devising a theory of Jewish demons so convoluted that it would drive even a conspiracy theorist to drink:

“The case of Esau and Jacob is the pinnacle of divine election.  Each was a pure-blooded Jew…Esau’s descendants would also produce a lineage that would attack and slaugher the Jews for centuries…It was Esau’s descendants who produced the half-breed Jews of humanity who have persecuted and murdered Jews beyond human comprehension.

Adolph Hitler was a distant descendant of Esau.”

In the following passage from Hagee’s Forward article, he addresses the End Times scenario of which so many Jews are leery:

Other [Jews suspicious of us] posit that our Zionism is tied to an effort to speed the second coming of Jesus. [This] allegation is flat wrong…

…The fact is that the vast majority of Christian Zionists and Evangelicals do not believe there is anything we can do to hasten the second coming of Jesus. Our theology is clear that we humans are utterly powerless to change God’s timetable. Yes, like many Jews we do believe that the creation of Israel was the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. And like our Jewish friends we also search the Scriptures to understand what may come next in God’s plans for His creation. But since we are powerless to change these plans, our motives for standing with Israel come from elsewhere.

In other words, Hagee’s belief in an apocalyptic future in which Jews are fated to die (curiously any discussion of this theological belief of his is missing from the Forward)  is nothing personal.  Rather it is a divine plan over which Hagee has no control.  So if Jews have any problem with it don’t take it up with Hagee, take it up with the Guy Upstairs.  Further, he would have us believe that he and his followers are quiescent folks who sit back and wait for the Lord’s will to be done.  That they do nothing in order to hasten God’s plan.  And whatever they do do, they do for the purest of motives having nothing to do with End Times theology.

In fact, this view of Hagee and CUFI flies in the face of everything we know about them.  The truth is they are an activist group and the purpose of their activism is to hasten the Second Coming.

Hagee in The Forward is only too happy to play the religious hate card by making Israel’s and America’s chief enemy, Islam:

Christian Zionists also recognize that Israel is not the cause of militant Islam’s hatred of America, but an ally in the fight against militant Islam. Until 9/11 and the ensuing events, Israel largely confronted this threat alone. And to this day the frontline of this conflict remains Israel’s backyard. But Christian Zionists understand that Israel is merely militant Islam’s first target. While American and Israeli soldiers do not fight on the same battlefield, they defend the same values.

In penning this bilge, Hagee is oblivious to the fact that Israel’s chief opponent is not “militant Islam,” but the Palestinian people, who are not motivated primarily by religious hatred, but rather by a political grievance, that is 42 years of Occupation.  Even if you argue falsely that Hamas is no different from Al Qaeda and it is motivated by religious hatred of Israel, how do you explain the equally implacable resistance of Fatah and West Bank Palestinians to Occupation?  Such nuance is lost on Hagee.

Finally, the idea that American and Israeli soldiers defend the same values is ludicrous, unless you want to argue somehow that U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are parallel to Israel’s Occupation of Palestinian lands.  This, of course is Al Qaeda’s argument and it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find the latter in agreement with John Hagee, as they are both religious extremists.

Finally, I take strong exception to The Forward’s decision to publish this execrable nonsense. The paper’s op-ed editor, the right-leaning Daniel Treiman commissioned this piece and he should have his license to practice journalism suspended. Did he do any fact-checking before publishing this? Or did he feel his author was of such impeccable reputation that such rudimentary editorial review was unnecessary?

Furthermore, the Forward deleted comments posted by Rachel Tabachnick and Bruce Wilson of Talk2Action, Jewish opponents of Hagee, in the thread for this article. Their contributions offered Hagee quotations like the ones above to rebut the claims he made. I’m assuming that Treiman as op-ed editor made the decision to excise these perfectly reasonable comments. Did he or did someone higher in the food chain? If so, why?

Until recently, Rachel Tabachnick contributed articles twice a month to Zeek, a progressive Jewish publication which shares a website with The Forward, about Hagee and Christian Zionism. Her work on this subject has been suspended by Zeek’s editor, Jo Ellen Kaiser. No one can now write for Zeek about either matter.

This is the first in a series of posts I’ll be writing about Hagee’s relationship with The Forward and Zeek, threats levelled against them by Hagee, and questions raised about the suspension of Tabachnick’s work. Stay tuned…

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace | 17 Comments »

Obama Administration Hangs Rosenthal Out to Dry for Criticism of Oren

Saturday, December 26th, 2009
Rosenthal suffers the slings and arrows of Israel lobby

Hannah Rosenthal suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous Israel lobby

I find myself deeply disturbed by the Obama administration’s abandoning its support of its State Department anti-Semitism official, Hannah Rosenthal, for her mild rebuke of the Israeli ambassador for his refusal to attend the J Street national conference.  Rosenthal has become the bete noire of the Israel lobby and attacked for her former role as a member of the J Street board.  Supposedly holding such a position identifies her as being insufficiently supportive of this Israeli government.

The Israeli response to Rosenthal’s remarks has been the equivalent of a firestorm and characteristically disingenuous:

Senior government officials told Haaretz on Friday that “We were surprised at Ms. Rosenthal’s remarks, as reported in Haaretz.” The officials stressed that he comments “don’t reflect the nature of the relations between Israel and the U.S., nor do they reflect the great respect and appreciation of the ambassador and his staff felt both in Jerusalem and in Washington.”

Does Israel really believe that the Obama administration is pleased that Oren stiffed J Street, when the former sent its national security advisor as the conference keynote speaker??  As for holding Oren in “great respect” such respect is in the eye of the beholder, in this case, Israel.  I can’t speak for the Administration, but Oren is held in disrepute by most peace-loving American Jews.  He’s a weasel and little more than an elegant fob for the rightist Israeli government.

I’d like to bring further proof of my claim.  The Forward reports that Oren gave a deeply disingenuous report to a Conservative Jewish gathering in DC in which he claimed that a Conservative Jewish supporter of Women of the Wall was NOT arrested by Israeli police at a demonstration a few weeks ago.  This despite the fact that Haaretz reported that she WAS forcibly arrested, questioned at a police station for 2 1/2 hours and forced to sign a statement that she would refrain from coming to the Kotel for 15 days.

Based on a highly reliable source, I believe that Oren knew he was lying when he made this statement.  The Forward has reported that Oren has withdrawn with his tail between his legs and now blames the Israeli officials who briefed him on the matter for misspeaking.  He didn’t misspeak.  He thought he could get away with lying.  Only when he was called on it did he attempt to backtrack, rather feebly.

He promised a further “inquiry” to clarify the matter.  Don’t hold your breath.

Further, this meeting with Conservative Jews was the same one at which Oren blasted J Street claiming fraudulently that it never supported the policies of any Israeli government.  They say that a diplomat is a man who happily lies in service to his country.  That couldn’t be truer in Oren’s case.

Returning to Rosenthal, the Israelis have exhibited further chutzpah in this statement:

Senior Israeli officials told their American colleagues that it was unacceptable for an administration official to publicly criticize Israel’s ambassador over his relationship with Jewish organizations…

Why?  What’s sacred about the ambassador’s non-existent relationship with J Street such that it cannot be faulted by an American Jew who happens to serve in the Administration?

What disappoints me most about the Rosenthal affair is the Administration rolling over in the face of Israeli displeasure:

U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, issued a statement distancing himself from Rosenthal’s remarks. Statements were also delivered to the Israeli embassy in Washington stating that Rosenthal’s sentiments do not reflect the position of the U.S. administration.

Cowards.  Wimps.  Rosenthal was right.  She said nothing radical or uncivil or embarrassing to the U.S.  They should’ve released a statement saying merely that Rosenthal was speaking in a personal capacity and that her views don’t necessarily reflect those of the Administration.  To renounce what she said is chicken-shit.

Of course, one has to understand that the reporters who wrote this story are two of Israel’s great stenographers on behalf of the government and power elite.  Neither Barak Ravid nor Natasha Mozgovaya ever deviate from the party line in government ministries in Israel.  So whether they’re reporting accurately the U.S. government response, or merely reporting the response as their government minders would like them to isn’t clear.

The Conference of Presidents, run by that neocon Israel-firster, Malcolm Hoenlein, has denounced Rosenthal and asked for her head:

Alan Solow, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations…issued a condemnation of Rosenthal’s remarks, casting doubt over her ability to fulfill her responsibilities as an opponent of anti-Semitism.

“As an official of the United States government, it is inappropriate for the anti-Semitism envoy to be expressing her personal views on the positions Ambassador Oren has taken as well as on the subject of who needs to be heard from in the Jewish community. Such statements have nothing to do with her responsibilities and, based upon comments I am already receiving, could threaten to limit her effectiveness in the area for which she is actually responsible,” said the statement.

What Solow (I’ll bet this statement was written for him by Hoenlein or his PR flack) really means to say is that Rosenthal has no right to criticize any Israeli official even when his actions are detrimental to U.S. policy, as Oren’s were.  That notion of the Israeli ambassador as sacred cow is preposterous.  J Street represents an entirely legitimate Jewish organization that supports U.S. policy and advances the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace.  Oren’s refusal to engage with them is a slap at J Street and indirectly a slap at Obama administration Middle East policy.

While I have no doubt that Rosenthal’s views were deeply personally held.  That doesn’t make them personal views alone in this context.  They were legitimate views about policy and as such she had a right to make them and her government should’ve supported her more fully.

I hope someone in the Administration will slap down the Conference and Hoenlein before they get too big for their britches.  If they don’t, the next thing you know they’ll be on the warpath for Hannah Rosenthal’s scalp.  We owe her support in that eventuality.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 13 Comments »

Jewish Forward on Goldstone Gaza Report, BDS

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

The Forward publishes several magnificent articles in its current issue. The first is an important interview with Richard Goldstone, who directed the UN Human Rights Council report on the Gaza war, which recommended that war crimes charges against both Israel and Hamas be referred to the International Criminal Court. The story is a perfect antidote to the poison being spread about both Goldstone and the report by the Israeli foreign ministry and right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere. In it, the South African jurist talks about his deep personal and family commitment to Israel.

The article fairly notes that while Goldstone took on a mandate to investigate the crimes of both sides in the Gaza war, it remains to be seen how a UN Council, known in the past for pro-Palestinian partisanship will deal with his report. One hopes that the Council will refer the entire report to the Security Council for deliberation. Anything less may harm the credibility of the document.

Gal Beckerman also wrote a masterful account of the growing impact of the BDS movement on the debate around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is an article that was crying out to be written given the increasing level of success of this human rights effort.  It’s critically important it was publised in a Jewish media source like The Forward.

The reporter nicely summarizes the recent string of BDS victories and also notes the concerns even some progressives have about the amorphousness of the political agenda of the international effort:

The BDS movement is highly decentralized, with each group in the coalition allowed to choose its own targets as it sees fit. It has no articulated political vision. such as a one- or two-state solution to the conflict. The principles that guide the movement — as set out in a call for boycott, divestment and sanctions issued in June 2005 by a wide group of Palestinian civil society organizations — demand instead that Israel adhere to international and human rights law. The amorphous structure and broad goals appear to be responsible for many of the group’s appeal.

In a debate here with Alex Stein, who claimed BDS was anti-Zionist, I noted the studied unwillingness of the group’s mission statement to take a firm position on the issue.  I think this is one of the strengths of Jewish Voice for Peace as well.  The refusal to lay out a political solution to the overall conflict doesn’t mean, as enemies would claim, that these groups are obfuscating their more radical principles.  Rather, it means they are trying to bring as many activists together around basic core principles.

Omar Barghouti, leader of BDS movement

Omar Barghouti, leader of BDS movement

Here, Omar Barghouti, one of the Palestinian leaders of BDS, expands upon the strategy:

…The BDS movement “does not adopt a particular political solution to the colonial conflict.” The main strategy, he wrote, “is based on the principle that human rights and international law must be upheld and respected no matter what the political solution may be. This was key to securing a near consensus in Palestinian civil society and a wide network of support around the world, including the Western mainstream.”

The exclusive focus on rights rather than on a political prescription for the conflict brings together both those who want to target Israel’s existence as a whole and those—mostly American activists—who stick to the more narrow issue of the occupation and settlement activity.

As far as Barghouti is concerned, BDS is a “comprehensive boycott of Israel, including all its products, academic and cultural institutions, etc.” But he understands “the tactical needs of our partners to carry out a selective boycott of settlement products, say, or military suppliers of the Israeli occupation army as the easiest way to rally support around as a black-and-white violation of international law and basic human rights.”

I was slightly concerned about the middle paragraph since it seems to imply there are those in the movement who wish, to use that tired pro-Israel locution, to “destroy Israel.”  But I’m very leery, on such sensitive subjects, to trust a reporter who paraphrases the views of a subject.  I’d prefer to see this in Barghouti’s own words before I’d trust that Beckerman got it right.

Barghouti, by the way, is a grad student at Tel Aviv University.  He recently wrote his Masters thesis on BDS and there was a huge uproar on campus.  To his credit, the University president refused to cave in to pressure and ensured that Barghouti was not ejected from his program.  Unfortunately, Neve Gordon did not receive the same support from his University’s president when he published his piece endorsing BDS.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace | 21 Comments »

American Jewish Left in Transition

Sunday, September 6th, 2009

The American Jewish left is amidst a huge transition and I didn’t even realize it until I read Nathan Guttman’s article in The Forward.  When J Street first began two years ago, there were talks of all the Jewish peace groups merging with it.  But everyone seemed concerned about turf and that didn’t happen.  But now that J Street has emerged as a triple-threat type progressive group, it has sucked a good deal of the oxygen out of the world of the Jewish left.  Face it, J Street gathers most of the headlines, funding and opprobrium of the pro-Israel right.  They wouldn’t waste their energy on a group that was a nothing.  You don’t see Marty Peretz, Jonathan Tobin and their minions poring over public statements by Israel Policy Forum or Americans for Peace Now and waving them like Joe McCarthy to show the world all the Communists he’d found.

Brit Tzedek, a group which in my opinion has left a good deal of its potential unrealized, has seen the light and is in advanced merger talks with J Street.  Guttman’s story though, describes a convoluted structure of a proposed deal.  Though I used the term “merger,” Brit Tzedek won’t exactly be merging with J Street.  There will be no formal combination.  But J Street will absorb Brit Tzedek’s lobbying organization and those members who wish to transfer to the former group.  The old Brit Tzedek might remain in some form (or not).  That’s the part that makes no sense to me.

I suppose there may be some leaders of BT opposed to the deal who refuse to move over to J Street.  This format allows the majority of BT to switch and also allows the diehards to carry on a rump version of BT is they wish to do so.

Guttman describes IPF as being almost on life-support.  I don’t know if this is true as the mainstream Jewish press seems to love to report the demise of groups it views as outside the “communal consensus.”  One development that shocked me was that M.J. Rosenberg, a senior IPF staff member since the group’s launch has left.  He will be moving to Media Matters as senior foreign policy analyst.  It is a progressive media watchdog group where Eric Alterman also blogs.

M.J. made one good point in his blog post announcing his plans:

My move is part of a general trend toward making Middle East policy not a boutique issue, but a mainstay of liberal politics and journalism. I have long believed that it is impossible to be a liberal (or progressive) and yet support Middle East policies that perpetuate the deadly status quo. With Media Matters joining this fight, we can help progressives of all stripes understand that supporting occupation and settlements (or wars with various regional players) is antithetical to a progressive world view and, most important, is bad for America.

For far too long, the Israeli-Arab conflict has remained the territory of niche specialists, mostly Jewish or Arab, for whom it was a deep personal mission.  But the rest of the liberal-progressive community wanted nothing more than to stay out of the perceived quagmire.  Daily Kos and Markos’ deep aversion to this subject is a prime case in point.  I’m not sure M.J. is entirely right in that his move marks a sea change in attitudes among the progressive camp toward the region.  But I will say in the traditional Jewish wish: “From his mouth to God’s ears.”

I should make it clear that J Street, while it has done much right since its launch, is not perfect.  But one example is its upcoming conference which is being co-sponsored by seemingly every progressive American Jewish group with an interest in the Israeli-Arab conflict.  There is one catch: if you’re not a two state group you’re not invited.  That leaves out Jewish Voice for Peace which, in my opinion, is in its particular community almost as effective and enterprising as J Street–and with a lot less money and staff.

I understand the reason J Street feels it must place JVP outside the tent.  There are lots of Jewish rightist warriors who are gunning for it.  If they invited JVP, then they’d be spending time explaining their decision.  And they’d rather be advocating for Obama Mideast policy than explaining why they invited JVP to their conference.

But I have a real problem with the impoverishment of the Jewish left that comes from this sort of exclusion.  I believe in making the tent as big as possible not using artificial criteria to decide who is kosher and who is treif.  While I could understand excluding an anti-Zionist Jewish group, JVP is not anti-Zionist.

I also felt J Street’s public statement about Neve Gordon’s BDS article in the L.A. Times and Guardian was weak and attenuated.  There is a better way to tell the world you support academic freedom and free speech while not necessarily supporting a boycott, than the way J Street did.  So you’ll hear me criticize J Street in as constructive a way as I can.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace | 18 Comments »

Jonathan Tobin’s Fever Dream of Jewish Leftist Revolution

Friday, December 5th, 2008

My goodness, Jonathan Tobin, rightist pro-Israel editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent says in The Forward that M.J. Rosenberg is a brazen vulgarian.  I’m sure M.J. will never live this down.  I guess being that Tobin edits a newspaper, he must not spend much time on the internet or he would understand that the phrase “stick it up their ass” is considered fairly benign discourse.  Of course, it wouldn’t be considered civil in the Jewish Exponent nor would M.J. write anything like that there if Tobin would accept him for publication (which is doubtful).  Nor would M.J. write any such thing at the Israel Policy Forum website.  But Tobin seems to have missed the distinction between online discourse–and the fact that M.J. maintains a personal blog at TPMCafe, where he wrote this–and other media forms.  It wouldn’t be the first time that the Jewish mainstream media turned tone deaf when it came to understanding the web.

Here’s another news flash from Tobin to his right wing pro-Israel allies:

…A portion of the Jewish left believes Obama’s victory will mean the pursuit of policies that will lead to a confrontation with many of Israel’s supporters.

Goodness gracious!  Tobin’s telling us that if Obama pursues an Israeli-Arab peace agenda he’ll come face to face with Aipac, Bibi, and…Jonathan Tobin.  The horror.  I’m sure that Obama will find them an immovable wall, a veritable tower of strength in the face of the “existential threat” to Israel represented by this crazy effrontery.

Here’s another “nutty Jewish left-wing” notion Tobin wants to shoot down before it gets wings:

…That peace between Israelis and Palestinians is readily achieved. All it will take is an administration willing to face down any Israeli or American who stands in the way — which, in this view, includes virtually the entire Jewish organizational establishment.

My oh my.  It seems we’ve left out a whole range of Jewish organizations Tobin can’t abide–because they disagree with him: J Street, Brit Tzedek, Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum.  What are they, chopped liver?  You see, in the past they were.  But no longer.  In an Obama administration all the Jewish organizations will get a respectful hearing.  But the above groups are new kids on the block and a force to be reckoned with.  J Street helped elect 30 new Congress members who support a peace agenda.  Aipac, the RJC, and Morrie Amitay wasted their shekels on Republican candidates and got gornisht for their trouble.  Tobin fears that the Israel lobby will be left out in the cold and the J Streeters will be warming themselves by Rahm Emanuel’s office fireplace.  I hope it turns out to be true.

Tobin makes clear that the Israel lobby wants nothing to do with an Obama initiative to resolve the Israeli Arab conflict:

Now, his agenda is to govern and manage a failing economy as well as juggle wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — goals that would hardly be advanced by wantonly picking fights with mainstream Jewish groups in a quixotic quest for a peace deal.

That’s the view of the Jewish right.  Peace is impossible.  There is no Palestinian partner.  Wait till developments are more auspicious in another century or two.  Jonathan, I’ve got news for you.  Obama isn’t using your playbook.  The fact that he wants to make an address in a major Arab capital in his first 100 days in office is bad news for your side.  That indicates that, unlike the current White House resident, this president means business when it comes to negotiating peace.

It may be that he will come down hard on the Israelis and Jonathan isn’t going to like that.  But he will come down equally hard on the Palestinians, all in the pursuit of a real peace.  The Israel lobby doesn’t like that.  But the rest of the reasonable Jews out there will.  And they will support Obama.  In fact, many of us will be cheering such an effort on, while Tobin sits on the sidelines flicking a raspberry.

And dear oh dear, Jonathan is shaking in his boots at the prospect that the “Jewish left” is about to attempt a palace coup to topple the reigning Jewish power brokers at Aipac:

Jewish doves’…long-shot goal is to topple the centrist and bipartisan Aipac as the pro-Israel community’s voice and replace it with voices from the left. Overturning the realities of the Middle East may be beyond their reach, but that’s not going to stop them from trying to “stick it” to anyone who opposes pressuring the Jewish state to do things that its democratically elected leaders may find ill-advised.

“Centrist and bi-partisan?”  It’s the same old song we’ve heard a million times before.  So often, in fact that the needle has gotten stuck in the groove.  Aipac is not centrist by any stretch of the imagination.  And while Democrats participate in Aipac, most Democrats find themselves having a lot more in common with J Street than Aipac.

Contrary to Tobin’s fever dream of leftist revolution, the Jewish peace lobby isn’t out to topple Aipac, even if it could.  There’s plenty of room for all of us.  None of us have to get paranoid and think that anyone’s out to “get” them.  What we’d ask though is that just as we accept the existence of the Israel lobby, that the other side would stop demonizing us and excluding us from the corridors of Jewish power as they consistently do.

On a final note,  it’s unfortunate that Jonathan Tobin’s querulous, out of touch ramblings found a home in the Forward.  They’d be more appropriate at other blatantly right wing sites where he publishes like The Jewish Press, Jewish World Review, and Arutz Sheva.

I was tickled by the unintentional humor in this passage from Tobin’s Wikipedia entry:

Blogger Luke Ford has called Tobin “the most right-wing editor of a Jewish weekly in the US,” but according to Tobin, “I lost my credentials as a real right-winger any number of times because I’ve taken stands on issues they disagree with. I’ve taken shots at the right consistently when I think they’re wrong. More consistently than when my colleagues on the left take shots at the left.”

If Luke Ford calls you “right-wing,” you KNOW you’re right-wing. As for the ratio of times Tobin took shots at the right compared to the times he mouthed right wing platitudes, I’d guess charitably it might be 1,000 to 1.

UPDATE: I’ve just been informed that Tobin will shortly become editor at Commentary Magazine. It was bashert. A match made in heaven. Do you think he’ll keep taking those shots at the right from his perch atop the epitome of Jewish neocon media?? Maybe once in a while he’ll take a shot at the Podhoretz boys or Der Dersh?? Don’t hold your breath.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Blogs-Tech-Science, Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE