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 ‘jimmy-carter’

The Israel Lobby Published Today

Tuesday, September 4th, 2007


My blogging friend, Phil Weiss, has a good post up today about The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy:

This book is too powerful, and the ground has been prepared by Jimmy Carter’s book. So it will be passed around, it will be taught. Serious people will press it on other serious people. Political aides will hand it to other political aides. It may have to wear brown-paper covers in Congress, at the State Department and at Hillels, but it will be read hungrily. Young progressive Jews will read it. Arabs will translate it into Arabic. It will go like lightning around Europe. Israelis will snap it up (the book is actually very respectful of Israel; it’s America that has the big problem), and someday it will come out in Hebrew. It will work on people. It will show what independent people ought to do when they form ideas, and others will chime in. A politician will finally speak out, with Walt and Mearsheimer as his or her role model.

The most important thing the book will do, it is doing: legitimizing the discussion.

The publishers are sending me a copy but I haven’t read it yet. I have read the earlier essay version and agree with Phil that it was an important statement. Not having read the actual book, I don’t know that I’d endorse his ringing affirmation of its eternal value in the literary firmament. But there’s no doubt that this is an important book and one that anyone with any interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should read.

The fact that it is important is indicated by the fierce reaction against the book by the actual Israel lobby organizations like the ADL. Abe Foxman wasted at least a few days of his life penning a venomous screed attacking both the book and Jimmy Carter’s and Tony Judt. I’m delighted to note that The Israel Lobby is #33 in Amazon ranking while Abe’s shmate, The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control (the title alone is a hoot and indicative of the fearmongering at which Foxman is so adept), is # 2,400. Though I can’t quite figure out why there are any people interested in reading his book. I did once note that the ADL website is ranked quite highly by Alexa and they have a solid rank and file membership to whom the group is probably flogging the book like crazy. I guess some people will read just about anything.

Beilin Calls Carter’s Book ‘Impassioned Personal Narrative’

Thursday, January 18th, 2007

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
No, the sky is not falling despite what Alan Dershowitz, Marty Peretz, Abe Foxman and the other “professional Jews” are telling us about Jimmy Carter’s “dangerous” new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Unlike what the professional Jewish alarmists will tell you, Carter is no anti-Semite. He is not an Arab-lover. He doesn’t hate Israel. His book is not an part of a Jew-hating offensive started by Walt and Mearsheimer with their essay, Israel Lobby.

Don’t believe me. Let no less a personage than Yossi Beilin, former Israeli justice minister and current Knesset leader of the dovish Meretz party, reassure you:

Carter’s use of the word “apartheid” is first and foremost metaphorical. Underlying Israel’s policy in the West Bank, he argues, is not a racist ideology but rather a nationalist drive for the acquisition of land. The resulting violence, and the segregationist policies that shape life in the West Bank, are the ill-intended consequences of that drive…

If we are to read Carter’s book for what it is, I think we would find in it an impassioned personal narrative of an American former president who is reflecting on the direction in which Israel and Palestine may be going if they fail to reach agreement soon. Somewhere down the line — and symbolically speaking, that line may be crossed the day that a minority of Jews will rule a majority of Palestinians west of the Jordan River — the destructive nature of occupation will turn Israel into a pariah state, not unlike South Africa under apartheid.

In this sense, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” is a stark warning to both Israelis and Palestinians of the choice they must make. That choice is between peace and apartheid, for the absence of one may well mean the other. Carter’s choice is clearly peace, and, for all its disquieting language, the book he has written is sustained by the hope that we choose peace, as well.

Unless you wish to argue that Beilin is a traitor to Israel for his peace efforts like the Geneva Initiative, which he created together with a Palestinian leader, shouldn’t we trust the word of a veteran Israeli politician more than arm-chair pundicrats like Dersh or Peretz? Beilin is trying to tell us that what Carter writes is really in Israel’s best interests–and not against them.

Carter is telling us that while peace and compromise are painful and frightening propositions, the alternative–constant hatred and violence–is far worse. Those American Jews who are trashing Palestine are opposed to compromise. They prefer continuing violence to taking a chance on peace. It is they, and not Carter, who are gambling with Israel’s future.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why Amazon features under its Editorial Reviews, a full-length slasher review of Palestine by New Yorker contributor, Jeff Goldberg (who, by the way, was once a military guard at Israel’s notorious Ketziot Prison). This space is usually reserved for two short reviews from professional journals like Kirkus or Publisher’s Weekly. I’ve never before seen Amazon feature a review so prominently that trashes the product. I thought Amazon was a capitalist enterprise whose goal was to sell books. I guess I was wrong. I guess just as important is to curry favor with American Jewish leaders and individuals (perhaps large stockholders?) who must’ve lobbied Jeff Bezos to do what he could to dampen sales of the book at his site. It doesn’t appear to be working as the book is #26 in sales at the site. If you agree with my and Beilin’s perspective on this book, why don’t you write your own review at Amazon? Include a link to either this post or Beilin’s column in the Forward for balance to the spite of the Goldbergs of this world.

If you want to buy the book but don’t want to contribute to Amazon’s coffers through my link above, I’d urge you to buy it through Powell’s Books.

Foxman Calls Beit Hanun UN Fact-Finding Mission Headed by Tutu ‘Kangaroo Court’

Thursday, November 30th, 2006

God Has a Dream: A Vision of Hope for Our Time
It must be Hate Nobel Peace Laureates Month for Abe Foxman and other Jewish leaders who first denounced Jimmy Carter’s allegedly ‘anti-Israel’ book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Now, Foxman is on the warpath against another Nobel Peace laureate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The latter was appointed by the UN Human Rights Council (remember, in the Jewish greybeard leadership playbook all UN bodies hate Israel and are up to no good as far as it is concerned) to investigate recent incidents of IDF brutality in Beit Hanun. Here’s what Abie had to say:

“The appointment of Desmond Tutu as head of the fact-finding mission to Beit Hanun is an extension of the anti-Israel kangaroo court tactics used by the UN Human Rights Council…

“No fact-finding mission can produce balanced and trustworthy results if its leader professes to know all the answers beforehand.

“Tutu has already publicly expressed his anti-Israel views and his opinions regarding what happened in Beit Hanun, and combined with the one-sided anti-Israel mandate provided by the resolution, the results of the mission are all-but preordained…”

And what was Tutu’s sin? What “unbalanced,” “anti-Israel views” has he expressed about Beit Hanun?

“It is an outrage that cries out to heaven and we must condemn it unequivocally as we do the atrocities committed by suicide bombers against Israeli civilians.”

Could it be that in that Evelyn Wood speed reading class Abe took they never taught him to read complete sentences? Or is ANY criticism of Israel, even if balanced by criticism of Palestinian terror ipso facto unfair and biased?? C’mon all you ‘defenders of the faith,’ you know Tutu could’ve danced the hora and sang Hatikva, but if he still denounced IDF massacres of Palestinians he’d be a ‘perfidious Israel-hater,’ at least as far as the Foxmans of the Jewish world see it.

I am not defending the overall work of the UN Human Rights Council which people like Foxman detest as being heavily biased against Israel. There may be valid criticisms of the body’s work. But as far as I’m concerned Desmond Tutu is a towering moral figure who has earned, through his courage in fighting injustice, my trust that he will conduct a fair-minded inquiry. That’s all I’m saying here.

Actually, it is Foxman who not being fair-minded in this instance. It is Foxman who is being overly defensive and downright churlish. Let’s wait till Abie wins his own Nobel before we accord him the right to denounce the world’s towering moral figures. Oh, and in case Mr. Foxman or one of his major domos is reading, I don’t have any upcoming speaking engagements you can sabotage like you did Tony Judt’s.

Carter’s New Book Deplores Lack of U.S. Debate About Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Friday, November 17th, 2006

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
You’ve got to give some credit to The Forward. Among the mainstream Jewish leadership, possibly the most unpopular figure alive today would have to be Jimmy Carter. As recently as the Congressional elections, the Republican Jewish Coalition attempted to demonize his allegedly anti-Israel views in order to goad on-the-fence Democrats to switch parties. The strategy backfired miserably as 88% of American Jews voted Democratic.

Another reason it backfired is that the masses of American Jews, those outside the narrow confines of the communal leadership, understand that the charges against Carter are a canard. Carter has an exemplary record as president of not only supporting Israel but achieving perhaps the only major peace agreement ever signed between Israel and an Arab nation. And Carter’s criticisms of Israel today, while they are potent, are totally within the bounds of legitimate political discourse. You hear Israeli commentators saying precisely the same thing as Carter virtually every week, if not every day. The difference of course is that Carter is an ex-President and Nobel Laureate, as such, has a bully pulpit the envy of Howard Kohr, Abe Foxman and David Harris. The only way these folks can deal with Carter is by trying to cut him down to size with these vicious and false propaganda attacks.

So, let’s give The Forward credit for bringing a supposed pariah to its pages and allowing open American Jews to hear what he has to say. Among his interesting remarks are sentiments I’ve expressed here about the paucity and impoverishment of political debate here on Israel:

…I’ve seen the coverage given to Israel’s activities in Europe and in Israel itself — a highly contentious debate over [Israel]. There is no such debate in the United States. There’s not any debate in the Congress. There’s not any debate in the White House…and in the news media of the United States there is very rarely any editorial comment that would criticize some of the practices of Israel which I consider to be deplorable — and that is the persecution of the Palestinians, and the occupation and confiscation and the colonization of Palestinian land. So there’s no open debate in this country if it involves any criticism of the policies of the Israeli government, even though many people in Israel debate and condemn some of the policies of the right-wing governments under Sharon and Netanyahu and others.

Implicit in this passage and in the question he was asked by the interviewer is a criticism of the stifling power of Aipac to close off such serious debate. Again, while Jewish leaders howl in protest at such sentiments, there is nothing in Carter’s points that people like me and Israeli commentators haven’t been saying for years, if not decades. The only difference now is that the chinks have begun to show in Aipac’s armor. It is still powerful, but no longer all-powerful. It has faced defeat in its legislative efforts thanks to a combined lobbying effort by various progressive Jewish groups to thwart its legislative agenda.

Almost everyone (except the leadership) recognizes that as long as Aipac continues along the bullying path it has pursued for decades; and as long as Israel refuses to renounce the Occupation, Aipac’s strength will continue to be tested and gradually decline. The only question is how fast it will be. It might be a slow process of erosion or it might be something like sliding downhill on a toboggan–especially if it continues getting embroiled in spying scandals and influence schemes like the recent one involving Jane Harman.

In this passage, the interviewer returns to another charge leveled against Carter, who once stated that the majority of Democrats embrace his views of the conflict:

Q: Do you think that most Democrats agree with your views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

A: If you talk about members of the Congress, I would say no, because the Congress members are almost universally silent as far as any criticism of anything that the Israeli government does. But I think that’s an anomaly among Democrats in the entire country, and, in fact, among Americans all over. I think there’s a tremendous concern that Israel has refused to accept the premise that Israel can have peace if it’s willing to define its borders along the official internationally recognized line — that is, the Green Line — modified, if necessary, and I think it would be necessary, by good faith negotiations with the Palestinians

Of course, polls show Carter’s view to be dead on. Democrats and even most Americans believe that the U.S. has shown too much favoritism toward Israel. They want America to be an honest broker and not an advocate for only one side. Even American Jews are strongly in favor of an independent Palestinian state and withdrawal from settlements in return for a secure peace. Again, all this is borne out in opinion polls. But of course this makes Aipac apoplectic. They would rather BE American Jewish opinion regarding Israel rather than measuring what that true opinion might be. Or if they would try to measure it they’d ensure that all the questions would be phrased to come up with the right answers.

When you read this passage, you will weep if you are like me in remembering the past great achievements like the 1978 Camp David Accords. You will weep because you must know that given Aipac’s stranglehold and the gagging of American political discourse, that no such bipartisan agreement in Congress could drive forward the peace process nowadays and that is precisely as Aipac would have it:

Q: Have Democrats in Congress become less willing to criticize Israel since your administration?

A: I think when I was in office, there was a lot of flexibility among Democratic members of the House, and Senate. I had great help from strong Jewish senators, like Senator Jacob Javits, and from Hubert Humphrey, who was a champion of Israel’s, and so they all supported me as I went through the process of inducing Israel to withdraw from Egyptian land, that is the Sinai, and of accepting the commitment that Menachem Begin made and the Knesset approved, of Israel’s withdrawing its political and military forces from the West Bank, and giving the Palestinians full autonomy, with the right to choose their own government. And so all of that is in the Camp David agreement, which Democrats approved both publicly and privately.

Jimmy Carter’s New Book Calls Occupation ‘Apartheid,’ Stirs Anger Among Pro-Israel Jews

Friday, October 20th, 2006

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid
Jimmy Carter is a bete noir for a certain type of American Jew who supports Israel to the hilt and sees Aipac as THE address for Israel activism in this country. Why? Carter’s views about the Mideast are probably not far from Bill Clinton’s. So why is Carter despised in some quarters and Clinton revered as a true friend of Israel? Certainly, there’s an element of Clinton’s charm and guile which prevents his enemies from laying a glove on him much in the way Reagan did. Jimmy Carter is what you’d have to call a relatively guileless politician. He said what he meant. He didn’t have time for the studied statement or the art of diplomatic doublespeak which so many American presidents have exhibited on this subject.

So what are they up in arms about this time? The book’s title for one: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. You see “apartheid” is a treif term for the ultra-Israel crowd. You must not equate Israel with South Africa. Israel, so the argument goes, isn’t racist. The difference between the two countries is that Palestinians are a true existential threat to Israel’s existence whereas Blacks were not in South Africa. Besides, Jews find it deeply offensive in the light of the Holocaust that Israel should be accused of racism.

This article from The Forward quotes a few salient passages on this subject from the new book:

Israel’s current policy in the territories, Carter writes in the book’s summary, is “a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights.” In a separate passage in the advance draft, the former president stated that “Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.”

In addition, Carter takes what is being interpreted by some critics as a swipe at the pro-Israel lobby. “Because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned,” the former president writes.

Strong stuff, yes. A bit provocative? Perhaps. But inaccurate? Certainly, the pro-Israel crowd will take deep offense at the attack on Aipac. Aipac is a group which some Jews are so defensive and protective of, that when it is attacked they circle the wagons and prepare to defend to the last Jew. But he’s absolutely right about the power of the lobby. Israel will NEVER be criticized in Congress due to Aipac’s stranglehold over Mideast policy. Israel will very rarely be criticized from the steps of the White House for similar reasons. Some see that fear and intimidation as a good thing for Israel. Carter and I don’t.

Some Israel supporters will take strong issue with Carter’s contention that Israel and the Occupation is the “primary obstacle to a comprehensive peace agreement.” I don’t. They’ll argue that Palestinians rejectionism and terror are the primary obstacles. No doubt, they are obstacles. But as obstacles they have much less obstructive power than Israel’s hand on virtually all the levers that control this conflict through its ironclad control of the Occupied Territories.

But is Jimmy Carter anti-Israel or anti-Semitic as his enemies claim? Of course not. Jimmy Carter is CRITICAL. And being critical, especially if you’re a notable world leader, is an unpardonable sin in the eyes of the ultra-Israel community. Keep in mind that you can read opinions and analysis virtually identical to Carter’s in the pages of virtually every Israeli newspaper or public affairs periodical, on TV and radio. His views are certainly not a majority there, but they are a sizable minority as they are in this country. So why shoot the messenger when it’s the message you hate?

So why all the fuss? Because Aipac can make lots more hay and lucre by having a “monster in the closet” to trot out when necessary. Iran is one of their current big monsters. Just mention their president by name and you can hear the sounds of pens scribbling lots of 0′s on donation checks. Similarly, Carter instills anxiety and fear among these folks like no other former president. He’s good for an episode of fear-mongering among the pro-Israel community.

For a final word on Carter’s supposed anti-Israel bias, does this 1977 speech sound like the words of an Israel hater?

“It’s absolutely crucial that no one in our country or around the world ever doubt that our number one commitment in the Middle East is to protect the right of Israel to exist, to exist permanently, and to exist in peace.”

Carter’s critics should pay very close attention to this statement from Aaron Miller, currently of Seeds of Peace, who served in several Administrations including Carter’s. Miller is not fully supportive of all of Carter’s current Mideast views. But nevertheless he says:

Carter has a “demonstrated track record of success,” said Miller, now a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, referring to the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty that the former president helped broker at Camp David in 1978. “He’s the only American president that’s succeeded in brokering a permanent status agreement between Arabs and Israelis, the only one, and you know, he deserves an enormous amount of credit for that,

OK, you Little Green Footballs and Bushite types, name me a single Republican president (or any President for that matter) who presided over a signed peace agreement between Israel and an Arab nation. Can’t think of one, can you. That should tell you something.