Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Just about everyone knows about Abe Foxman’s one track mind. Well, maybe two tracks. One track is anti-Semitism and the other is his conservative pro-Israel politics. In a JTA essay, Abe has tried to branch out into new territory with disastrous results. The result should embarrass Abe as well as JTA, though I doubt it will. I call it JTA enabling Foxman’s fictions and follies.

In his piece, Foxman attempts to cast aspersion on Switzerland’s recent energy deal with Iran. He claims that the former has broken with the international community in its effort to isolate the Persian supposed nuclear state-in-the-making.

The only problem with Foxman’s argument is that Israel too has energy dealings with Iran, albeit ones it tries to disguise as best it can. Writing in the Swiss newspaper Sonntag, Shraga Elam reveals (in German) that Israel purchases large amounts of Iranian oil through European third parties. With Shraga’s cooperation I reported his story at Comment is Free last week. In European ports like Rotterdam, the oil’s paperwork is changed so that it can be imported into Israel without any markings indicating its real origin.

This oil trade takes place through a joint Iranian-Israeli company established during the Shah’s reign and now controlled by Israel. Iran has demanded the return of the firm’s assets and claimed they were worth $5-billion as of 1998. You can imagine how much more the firm is worth ten years later. This sum is an indication of the size of Israel’s oil trade with Iran.

So come off it, Abe. What are you and Israel complaining about? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And may I ask Abe to explain this statement by Israeli energy minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer defending the oil trade (followed by Elam’s summary of the foreign ministry’s attitude toward the dealings):

“Every attempt for contact with an enemy state that serves Israeli business and economic interests, strengthens the stability of the region.” And from the Israeli foreign ministry one could hear that it is not their business to inquire where the oil comes from.

Ben Eliezer has no problem buying Iranian oil. The foreign ministry casts a blind eye. But Abe Foxman is in high moral dudgeon over it. Where does Abe get off being holier than the Pope on this?

Such Iran-Israel trade is technically legal since Iran is not defined under Israel law as an enemy country. However, it smacks of the utmost hypocrisy for Israel and the Israel lobby to be complaining about the Swiss when Israel itself can’t get rid of its sweet tooth for high-quality Iranian crude. I should add that Iran itself displays equal hypocrisy because it has imposed its own boycott of Israeli trade which it is violating.

Next, Foxman really goes to town on the Swiss for their extraordinary temerity in advocating for Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Geneva Accords are the focus of Abe’s wrath:

[Swiss foreign minister] Calmy-Rey has also tried to undercut Israel’s diplomacy. Brazenly disregarding Israel’s sovereignty and democratically elected government, Switzerland sponsored negotiations between private Israeli and Palestinian individuals, known as the Geneva Accord.

Unlike the Oslo negotiations, which were backed by the Israeli government after the first couple of private meetings, the Swiss project was officially rejected by Israel and the Swiss ambassador summoned to receive a protest.

Regardless of the content of the resulting document, the Swiss action represented an inexcusable intrusion by a foreign government in the peace process and an end run around the “road map” that reflected the will of the international community and demanded an end to Palestinian terrorism as a condition of further Israeli steps.

Foxman is really off the deep end here. Instead of welcoming any nation’s sincere efforts at advancing the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace, Foxman sees Geneva and the Swiss involvement in it as intended to harm Israel’s interests. It doesn’t matter that former Israeli and Palestinian government ministers participated in the talks. They were still, to Foxman’s mind, hostile to Israel. This is beyond far-fetched.

You knew that Abe couldn’t leave this subject without his other bete-noire, anti-Semitism, rearing its ugly head. Because Switzerland trades with the Iran and hosted the Geneva Accords this means they are somehow continuing their tacit historic support for Nazism and anti-Semitism:

In the battles against the Nazi regime during World War II and communism during the Cold War, Switzerland pursued its narrow self-interest by professing neutrality.

Today the Swiss appear to be taking the same approach in the current global war against the radical Islamist threat, spearheaded by Iran, which menaces Israel’s existence and the security of the West.

But let’s get to Foxman’s fictions. Anyone who follows the Israeli press accounts of the incident in question will immediately smell a rat:

In one egregious example, Israel’s raid on a Jericho prison in 2006 was denounced for “violat[ing] the principle of proportionality.” In that incident, Israeli soldiers had surrounded the prison, which five armed terrorists, including the assassins of an Israeli government minister, had taken over.

One prisoner and one prison guard were killed in an exchange of fire…

Here’s what really happened: several Palestinian militants associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine were imprisoned for their involvement in the assassination of Israeli minister Rehevam Zeevi. They were guarded by British and U.S. personnel. When those nations decided their security guards were not receiving the protection they expected they withdrew them. The PA (then controlled by Hamas) made noises about releasing the prisoners, though it did not do so. Ehud Olmert, then in the thick of an election campaign, decided to take advantage of the situation by orchestrating what I called a “jailbreak in reverse.” He sent massive amounts of firepower to Jericho, bulldozed the jail, arrested (”kidnapped” might be a better word for it) the PFLP prisoners, spirited them back to Israel. The Palestinian prisoners were paraded in their skivvies before a world audience to their utter humiliation. Israelis loved the spectable and Olmert promptly watched as his poll numbers skyrocketed.

Contrary to Foxman, Haaretz reports that three PA security guards were killed. By the way, these guards were supervising the prisoners. At no time were the latter either armed or in control of the prison as Foxman claims. No prisoners were reported killed as Foxman claims.

You can see that Foxman’s description is nothing like what actually happened. But he relies on his readers’ implict trust that what he purveys is truth when it is at best slanted and at worst lies. Which leads one to question his credibility in general. I’ve written extensively here about JTA errors involved in its Israel reporting. The last time I wrote about one, JTA even issued a correction (but only after another journalist picked up on my post). In this case, the error is only secondarily that of JTA since it merely enabled Foxman’s falsehoods by publishing them without properly vetting them. But it’s still a shoddy piece of journalism whatever way you look at it.

Thanks to Sol Salbe for his usual eagle eye in spotting this story.

When JTA yesterday ran a story about an initiative backed by George Soros (or not yet backed if you believe Rosner’s reports below) and other powerful dovish American Jewish leaders, it noted that one of the purposes of the initiative would be to present a progressive counter to Aipac. All of this seems perfectly reasonable to any reasonable American Jew. But the 900 lb. gorilla Goliath has taken notice of little David standing beneath him and he’s roared his annoyance. As a result, it’s humorous to see the erstwhile progressives scurrying like ants to backtrack. No, they don’t oppose Aipac. Aipac is a useful Jewish organization, etc., etc.

Jewish organizational officials who have participated in the meetings said JTA’s characterization of their aim in a story earlier this week, as an alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, was wrong…

Those currently leading the effort say they’re happy to work with AIPAC.

“My involvement is that Mort Halperin’s an old friend,” said Mel Levine, a former U.S. Democratic congressman who is now a high-powered West Coast lawyer. “Mort asked me to go to an initial exploratory meeting about a pro-Israel advocacy organization that would focus on a two-state solution, that would focus on Israel and was not in competition with anyone else.”

That did not usurp AIPAC’S role of advocating for a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, Levine said.

“It is possible to have a value in other groups communicating different themes,” he said.

A statement from the Israel Policy Forum said the idea was to explore common ground, not expand on differences.

IPF “engaged in these very preliminary discussions in order to seek commonality with other American pro-Israel groups and individuals who share IPF’s conviction that a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state living alongside one another in peace and security — best serves the interests of Israel, stability in the Middle East and American foreign policy,” it said.

Shmuel Rosner, who should be writing for the Jerusalem Post instead of Haaretz, publishes a story today in which the group’s organizers adopt a strikingly more abject attitude to Aipac. Since Rosner is a journalistic advocate of an Aipac-like approach to Israel, one has to take what he writes with a grain of salt. In addition, a few items he mentions seem to contradict JTA, which had the original story. But it’s an interesting take nonetheless, which shows how much deference even those Jews who take issue with Aipac feel the have to exhibit towards it:

Yesterday, David Elcott of the IFP called Howard Khor [sic], executive director of AIPAC, and promised that he would not support any initiative whose purpose is to challenge AIPAC.

Khor is certain that the damage has already been done: Presenting AIPAC as an organization that does not represent the overall Jewish community necessarily unermines [sic] its power.

Either way, nine of those involved in the initiative were interviewed by Haaretz yesterday, most anonymously, and all adopted the same stance: We do not oppose AIPAC, but want to act alongside it and further a cause we consider important - namely, encouraging a growing U.S. involvement in finding a solution to the conflict.

Someone ought to tell Haaretz’s Washington D.C. correspondent who spends a great deal of time covering Aipac that Howard Kohr does not spell his name “Khor.”

The organizers are careful to distinguish their goals from attacking Aipac. They say they aim to influence U.S. policy toward greater engagement with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They claim there’s more than enough room for two groups with slightly overlapping, but not inimical missions. While some of this is no doubt true, to me it seems like a sop to the rightist group’s supporters. Those involved with the new group may rightly be saying: “if we have to face off against Aipac, let’s not do it now. Let’s wait and do it on our terms and when the stakes are high enough to warrant it.” If they are thinking that then I grant some validity to such a perspective.

But Elcott’s protestations to the contrary, this new initiative, if it gets off the ground, must challenge Aipac’s hegemony over U.S. Israel policy. There is simply no way around that. By its very nature, Aipac sucks up all the air in the room and demands that you acknowledge it as American Jewry’s sole and singular voice on this matter. Any other well-funded, well-organized alternative will be seen as inimical to Aipac’s interests. And it will be. It must be if it is to really represent an alternative. And if it’s founders do not want it to represent an alternative there is simply no reason for it to exist. We already have namby pamby national Jewish organizations whose positions on Israel are milder than Aipac’s, but no threat to it like American Jewish Committee. Why would we need another milquetoast Jewish group like it when it comes to Israel policy? We wouldn’t.

And did you ever hear such whining in the passage above by Kohr (”Presenting AIPAC as an organization that does not represent the overall Jewish community necessarily unermines [sic] its power.”) The idea that Aipac represents “the overall Jewish community” is a delusion in the minds of Aipac’s true believers. And such hegemonic statements only prove many of Mearsheimer-Walt’s criticisms regarding the group to have been right on the money.

And at least one of the organizers of the group who spoke anonymously seems to “get,” even if obliquely, the need to take on Aipac:

We put out a model of a product and go into the marketplace of ideas and compete. We are a group of people who are looking for the best way to ensure Israel’s survival and future,” said one organizer, who asked not to be identified. “We’re going into existence because this product is not being offered right now. We want to make sure that this point of view has a clear and loud voice.”

I never write about Rosner’s hidebound, parochial views of the Israeli-Arab conflict since they shed almost no light that is useful in my opinion. And his characterization of Aipac here illustrates my point perfectly:

The real fuss surrounding the new group stems from the perceived challenge it poses to AIPAC…the prominent pro-Israel lobby group whose character is perceived by some of its more dovish members as being overly on the right...

It is fair to say that American Jewry leans toward the dovish end of the political spectrum. It can also be said, and to a great extent proved, that AIPAC does not always rush to represent this dominant dovish sentiment. Many are angered by this omission, but others agree that this is not enough to undermine an institution whose existence and success they consider important.

Notice, Rosner cannot bear to come right out and say that Aipac IS a rightist organization so he raises the issue in as non-threatening way as he can: “[a] group whose character is perceived by some…as being overly on the right.” And the statement “Aipac does to always rush to represent this dominant dovish sentiment” wreaks of understatement. Aipac NEVER represents this dovish sentiment. The group doesn’t have a dovish bone in its body. There may be dovish American Jews who are members or even leaders of Aipac, but they will never represent the prevailing political views of the group. The group is hawkish to the bone. It fetes wingnuts like Michael Ledeen and John Bolton at its annual conferences. It advocates war with Iran.

If this new group doesn’t take on these noxious positions that are diametrically opposed to those of the majority of American Jews, then it should not exist. I have confidence that if such a group does come into existence it will take on these issues and Aipac. But the fact that Elcott and the other organizers have had to do this delicate minuet to prove their fealty to Aipac proves yet again that Mearsheimer and Walt were not far wrong in their characterization of the stranglehold which Aipac has on the American Jewish community when it comes to Israel.

Finally, Rosner’s take on Soros’ involvement contradicts both of JTA’s stories which claim that Soros and his chief political strategist, Morton Halperin, are key leaders of the initiative. Also, Rosner’s “take” on Soros’ views about Israel are laughably hysterical:

The most intriguing donor whose assistance the group will try to solicit is financier George Soros, who will meet them later this month. A Soros aide, Morton Halperin, took part in the group’s meeting.

So far, Soros has only promised to meet, and it is not clear whether his views on Israel will not prove to be an obstacle. Some consider Soros anti-Zionist, and in the past, he has accused Israel’s policies of fomenting anti-Semitism in Europe.

Rosner appears to believe in the “litmus test” approach to Israel activism. You may be able to get away with critcizing Israel. But you must do it in a delicate, and never combative way. So the idea that Israel’s recalcitrance in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has raised the temperature to a boiling point in Muslim communities around the globe and perhaps ignited extremist terror in places like Europe–this type of statement makes you anti-Zionist in Rosner’s world. You notice Rosner didn’t say HE considered Soros anti-Zionist. He used that journalist’s tired crutch: “some consider Soros anti-Zionist.” Who is “some?” No doubt, the very Aipac staffers and leadership that are charting the progress of this potentially threatening new organization with suspicion. I’ve got news for Rosner. Soros’ views on Israel WILL NOT prove to be a problem (except to Aipac). I just heard Soros last night on Charlie Rose and his comments on the Israeli-Arab conflict are completely consonant with my own and probably 60%+ of American Jewry.

But certainly Soros’ views make Rosner and his friends in Aipac very nervous. And as this project gets going Aipac will not let a moment go by without reminding the world of Soros’ alleged perfidy toward Israel. They did the same thing to Cynthia McKinney and many others. It will be harder, however, to impeach George Soros’ character and Jewishness, but they will try using information like this. But I think he has some pretty good credentials to combat such attacks.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency and Jewish Republicans are schepping such nachas over Josh Bolten’s appointment as White House chief of staff. They remind me of expecting grandparents when the little tzozkele arrives. Oooh, isn’t he cute! Doesn’t he have Aunt Sadie’s nose?! But seriously (or at least as serious as I can be over such a ridiculous piece of “journalism”), aren’t you proud that Josh Bolten’s now on call as George Bush’s court Jew? Not only can he get a call from Ehud or Shimon through to the prez, he also caters great jelly doughnuts for the White House Chanukah party. I kid you not. This is what this little piece of JTA puffery taught us about Uncle Joshie aka Good Jew Joshie:

When Josh Bolten walked into his first meeting as a member of President Bush’s Cabinet in the summer of 2003, he was asked to lead the president and the Cabinet in prayer. He chose to pray for the welfare of the American government, both in Hebrew and English, a sign of his strong Jewish identity.

I don’t know about you but the cockles of my Jewish heart are warming already!

And leave it to Josh to bensch lichten (”bless candles”) on Chanukah and arrange for a megillah reading at the Big House:

He frequently has been seen at White House Chanukah candle lightings, and participated in a Megillah reading at the White House during Purim this year.

While the article quotes a United Jewish Communities (successor to UJA) executive boasting of what terrific access Bolten will provide the Jewish power elite, it doesn’t appear the same will hold true for Jewish groups critical of Administration policy:

several Jewish groups have complained in the past about the lack of White House access for liberal organizations that do not share the Bush administration’s mind-set on issues such as the Iraq war and faith-based initiatives.

Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum and Brit Tzedek, you can enter the White House through the servant’s quarters if you’re liucky enough to get in at all.

And I don’t know about you, but an endorsement from Chabad sure makes me feel good about Josh’s yiddishkeit:

Rabbi Levi Shemtov, Washington office director of American Friends of Lubavitch, called Bolten a “quintessential American Jewish public servant.”

“He’s a Jew who’s constantly seeking to learn and understand more about the Jewish traditions,” Shemtov said. “He’s someone who identifies proudly with the Jewish people and is always there for the community.”

This encomium from one of Josh’s former subordinates is just so touching I had to share it with you:

Noam Neusner, a former White House Jewish liaison, served as Bolten’s communications director at OMB and described his former boss as “brilliant.”

“He’s extremely genial and extremely hard-working,” Neusner said. “He’s a great guy to know.”

Indeed.

And you’ll schep endless nachas to know that Josh keeps kosher in the midst of all those Bush ranch Texas BBQ pork ribs:

Bolten first began working for George W. Bush when he was campaigning for president in 1999. Laura Bush and others made sure barbecues for campaign staffers had vegetables on the grill for Bolten, while the rest ate barbecued pork, colleagues said.

For the piece de la resistance, I simply have to tell you about Josh’s great love for Chanukah fun:

Once at the White House, he would bring dreidels and chocolate gelt to senior staff meetings at Chanukah, and has a mezuzah on his White House door.

Don’t know ’bout you but I sleep easier at night knowing Josh is there to take care of our Jewish interests. George, you’ve picked a marvelous court Jew in Josh Bolten.