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 ‘michael-oren’

« Older Entries

Settlement Freeze Dies, Settlers Celebrate, Resume Building; Israel’s Trash-Talk Trashes Talks

Sunday, September 26th, 2010
settlement freeze ends with celebration

Settlers celebrate freeze's death by renewing settlement building (Rita Castelnuovo)

If you read Ethan Bronner’s warmed over reporting on the death of the settlement freeze you realize that he, like Israel and perhaps the Obama administration, has a deeply skewed view of reality.  To them, it is a given that the freeze is over and should be accepted as such.  All that remains is for Mahmoud Abbas to get over it, get used to it and get on with whatever’s supposed to happen next in the process.

Read this article and tell me where there is any recognition of the fatal bullet fired by Bibi into both the freeze and the talks by his refusal to renew it?  Where is there any understanding of the Palestinian point of view?  Where is there any sense that Israel’s refusal has led to this crisis?  Read this closely and you will discover that it is really up to Abbas to find a way to continue the talks.  There seems to be almost an expectation that he will do so.  If he does not, the implication here is that it will clearly be Abbas’ fault and not Israel’s.

Consider these passages:

Israel allowed a politically charged freeze on Jewish settlement building in the West Bank to expire on Sunday, but the Palestinians did not carry out a threat to quit peace negotiations…

American officials spent Sunday desperately seeking a formula to satisfy both sides — an effort that failed to produce a compromise from the Israelis but that may have helped persuade the Palestinians to delay a decision on abandoning the talks…

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel issued a statement calling on Mr. Abbas “to continue the good and sincere talks that we have just started, in order to reach an historic peace agreement between our two peoples.”

…Israeli officials said that Mr. Netanyahu felt bound by his promise not to extend the moratorium beyond 10 months.  He is also hemmed in by his right-leaning coalition government…

The immediate question was whether the Palestinians would keep negotiating. Much of the diplomacy in the past few days was aimed at Mr. Abbas to persuade him to find a way to do so.

…Mr. Abbas told the pan-Arab daily newspaper Al Hayat in an interview published on Sunday that if the building moratorium was not extended, his next step would be to consult with the Palestine Liberation Organization and Arab League leaders. This seemed short of actually ending the talks…

United States officials have said in recent weeks that the Arab world is eager for the talks to continue.

The officials making these statements and even the reporter writing this story are in Alice in Wonderland, where black is white and white, black.  So let me make it clear to them in case they needed this: the talks are dead.  Israel has trashed the talks with its version of trash talk (i.e. ending the freeze).  Even if Abbas comes back to continue talking without any “give” from the Israeli side, he will have no Palestinian or Arab support for doing so.  The past has proven that Abbas is a lackey.  But even he realizes when he has no support and will walk back from the edge of the branch before it breaks.

There are no present terms under which such talks can be successful.  Bibi really has everyone playing from his own deck and that deck is stacked in his favor.  For instance, Bronner writes that Bibi can’t possibly compromise because he is hemmed in by rightist partners in his coalition.  When who the hell says those have to be his partners?  If Bibi really wanted peace he would ditch his partners and form a centrist coalition with Kadima.  Then he might be able to reach a peace agreement despite the howling of his far-right former partners.  But read my lips: Bibi will NEVER do this because he will never betray his ideological soulmates for an alliance with moderates in Kadima.  Bibi is not a moderate, he will never be a moderate and he shuns moderates like the plague.

I deeply regret saying this but peace is dead for the time being.  We should prepare for another war.  Whether it will be in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon or Iran I don’t know.  My guess is that if Abbas breaks off the talks and talks with Syria produce little or nothing, then Bibi will attack Iran.  His bellicosity against the Ayatollahs has served in the past to distract the world’s attention from some of Israel’s worst Occupation policies.  To let off steam from world opinion which might begin to blame Israel for the failure of the talks, I think it may be possible Bibi will use a distraction like a raid on Iran or one of the other front-line states.

If Bibi does pursue such a path he will be sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.  He believes that military conflict favors Israel both in military and hasbara terms.  But the truth is that every new war Israel fights its support in the world community declines.  And it can go lower, much lower.

Though Bibi issued a faux request that Israel not celebrate the end of the freeze, his own Likud betrayed him.  And can he blame them?

“For 10 months you have been treated like second-class citizens,” Danny Danon, a member of Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud Party, said at the settlement ceremony. “Today we return to build in all the land of Israel.”

And to close with a bang, not a whimper, read this utter sophistry by Michael Oren justifying Bibi’s hard-headed position on the freeze.  The man outdoes even Mark Regev in the department of chutzpah and sheer mendacity:

“It is a read-my-lips moment,” said Michael B. Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States. “This establishes credibility, not just for the Israelis but for the Palestinians. Establishing that the man is true to his word is going to be a very important asset going forward.”

Whatever you want to say about the man, he sure earns his keep in the pure fiction Hasbara department.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 4 Comments »

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

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 22 Comments »

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

Monday, April 26th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace | 33 Comments »

Israel Plants Shills at U.S. Events

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

In the annals of hasbara, some interesting developments.  First, in an attempt to shoot itself not in one foot but both, deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon refused to allow a J Street Congressional delegation to meet with government officials.  Why?  Well, certainly because J Street is anathema to his rightist political agenda.  But Ayalon demanded that the delegation exclude Jeremy Ben Ami, the J Street leader accompanying the mission, from such meetings.

Mossad killers in tennis outfit disguise

Think about this.  Aipac brings Congressional delegations to Israel regularly.  Its staff routinely accompany members to all of their meetings on these trips.  So Ayalon wishes to throw up a wall between the “bad” J Street and the “good” Aipac.  It’s ludicrous.  Beyond that, these four members of Congress actually vote on foreign aid appropriations which are critical to Israel’s well-being.  Does Ayalon really think he can take their votes for granted?  Does he care?

What I hope will happen is that the next J Street delegation will contain 25 members and then Ayalon will be forced to meet with them or at least allow them to meet with officials under his thumb.

I’m pleased that Tzipi Livni has bucked Ayalon and met with the delegation.  As a leader of the opposition I would expect she’d welcome an opportunity to stick her finger in Ayalon’s eye.  And he’s made it oh so easy for her to do so.

Some true dufus from Israel’s UK embassy thought the accompanying tweet was cute, alluding to Shahar Peer’s tennis victory in a Dubai tournament and Israel’s alleged “hit” against a Hamas operative.  Rememeber too, that the Mossad hit men wore tennis gear to disguise their evil intent.  Next time you see overweight middle aged men with beards or mustaches in your hotel, beware.  This is what passes for wit at the MFA these days.  Keep in mind this is the very same embassy whose ambassador has been summoned by the foreign office to explain how the Mossad managed to steal the identities of five British nationals and use them to murder the Hamas leader in Dubai.  Now, that’s effrontery.  Thanks to a commenter noting this true oddity of Israeli hasbara.

Here’s more from the Israeli foreign ministry.  Apparently, they’ve been stung by the hostile reception meted out to Michael Oren at UC Irvine and Ayalon himself at Oxford on recent speaking engagements.  So how are they going to respond?  Listen to this from M.J. Rosenberg:

The Israeli daily, Ma’ariv, reported on Tuesday that the foreign ministry has devised a plan to counter the demonstrators who turn out whenever an Israeli diplomat appears on a campus.

“The Foreign Ministry intends to include groups of Israeli university students on trips of high-ranking Israelis overseas. The goal is to counter the heckling,” Ma’ariv reported.

“The students [in groups of five] will wave Israeli flags, will blow whistles and call out.”

Talk about a couple of hare-brained schemes. Once upon a time, Israeli policies were defended by people who thought they were right and spontaneously turned out. Now the government is enlisting ringers.

I’m sure that’s going to be welcomed by security personnel at campuses around the world.  As if they didn’t have enough to worry about keeping the peace at these events.  Now, they’ve got a foreign, non-student element with a built in goal of provoking hostility from students.  Have you ever heard of such an idiotic plan in your life?

I’ve already written here about the new Israeli Hasbara Ministry (yes, that’s literally what it’s called in Hebrew) headed by settler leader, Yuli Edelstein.  Of course, Bronner won’t tell you about Edelstein’s rightist background because that’s the kind of pro-Israel reporter he is.  The Hasbarists plan to enlist Israelis who travel abroad and all of world Jewry, according to Ethan Bronner, in a campaign to rebut the negative image Israel has around the world.  What will they tell those who have yet to appreciate Israel’s virtues?

One main message of the campaign is that Israel is a technically advanced and diverse society and that its government policies are not the source of regional conflict. It notes that a number of important agricultural breakthroughs have occurred here, including drip irrigation and the development of the cherry tomato.

Yes, that’s the way to dispel notions that Israel is a blood-thirsty nation that represses millions of Palestinians and engages in all out war with its neighbors: remind the world about drip irrigation and those delicious cherry tomatoes they eat every day.  Not to mention Israel’s other major export–high-tech lame-brained political assassinations.  If that doesn’t turn things around for Israel, nothing will.

What other elements of the campaign will bring the world around to Israel’s point of view?

…It also seeks to puncture what the ministry considers common myths about Israel — that it is a big and primitive country, that its food consists of little more than hummus and falafel, and that Israelis as a group do not seek peace.

Yes, tell ‘em that Israelis also eat schwarma and schnitzel and all those other wonderful foods gracing their own western kitchen tables.  That’ll do the trick.  And peace?  Of course Israelis want peace.  If only those pesky Palestinians would realize they don’t need all that land in Judea and Samaria which God promised to the Jews anyway.  Then we could have peace.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace | 14 Comments »

Israel: Criminalizing Jewish Women

Thursday, January 7th, 2010


The Forward reports that the Israeli police detained Anat Hoffman, director of the Israel Religious Action Center and Women of the Wall, questioned and fingerprinted her, and warned her she could be charged with a felony for her involvement in last month’s Rosh Chodesh prayer service at the Kotel. What did she do that was so nefarious? She and some of her female co-religionists have argued that women should be allowed to read Torah and wear a tallit at the Kotel! I know, it is hideous. Busha v’cherpa!  Shameful. Some of the Orthodox men rushed the women’s section and shouted disgusting epithets at them calling them Nazis and spitting at them.

Anat Hoffman displays inked finger marking her as criminal suspect (Forward)


This is what Orthodox Judaism has become in Israel: debasing women who long for nothing more than to be equal religious partners with men.  It brings to mind the cry of the angels on witnessing the martyrdom of Rabbi Akiva: Zo Torah v’ zo sechorah? (“This is Torah and this its reward?!). This is Anat Hoffman’s “reward”:

Hoffman said that the police told her that she was being investigated for violating a decision of the Israeli Supreme Court that prohibits women from wearing prayer shawls at the Wall. But the Women of the Wall claim to have accommodated themselves to the ruling; instead of donning the black-and-white tallit, traditional for men, they each wear a smaller, multi-colored shawl like a scarf around the neck and under a coat, so as not to offend the strict sensibilities of other men and women at the Wall.

“It’s a sad moment,” said Hoffman. She has gone to the police station in Jerusalem many times to lodge complaints against people who she says have attacked and occasionally physically hurt members of her group; none of those people have ever been arrested, she said. But this is the first time that she has been subject to interrogation herself. A lawyer and skillful advocate, she said that the questioning did not bother her, but the fingerprinting did. “There is something very violating about it,” she said.

What has the (Orthodox) Jewish religion become in Israel that it seeks to criminalize Jewish women for religious expression?  What will they prosecute her for?  Being a Jewish ho?  Carrying a Torah?  Wearing a tallit?  These are ritual objects that Jewish men have died for over the centuries.  Now you would deny them to Jewish women?

Similarly, it reminds me of another egregious social phenomenon in Israel by which the Egged bus company has approved lines in which women must enter from the back of the bus and sit in a section segregated from men.  Not only should this be a violation of secular law, it doesn’t even conform with Jewish halacha.  Be ashamed, Haredi Jews, be very ashamed.

I’m waiting for Michael Oren to go to another American Jewish organization and lie about Hoffman’s arrest as he did about the arrest and detention of Nofrat Frenkel on similar charges.

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

Oren Smears J Street–Again

Friday, December 11th, 2009

Israeli ambassador Michael Oren has had an awkward relationship with J Street.  Despite much tender wooing by the group’s director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, Oren stayed away from its first national conference.  This was viewed as a something between a slap in the face and a slap on the wrist for the Jewish peace lobby, which often disagrees with the views of the current rightist Israeli government.

Writing in The Forward, Josh Nathan-Kazis reports that Oren has not only taken the gloves off, he’s taken leave of truth:

Addressing a breakfast session at the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism’s biennial convention December 7, Ambassador Michael Oren described J Street as “a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments. It’s significantly out of the mainstream.”

…This is not a matter of settlements here [or] there. We understand there are differences of opinion,” Oren said. “But when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion.

This is patently a lie.  And Oren certainly knows this.  But the fact that he somehow believes that American Jews interested enough in J Street or what he has to say about it will not know it is a lie, indicates he is beyond cynical.

We should add to this that an inside source informed me that Israel’s consul general in San Francisco, Akiva Tor, told a prospective major local donor they should not give to J Street because it is supported by Arab extremists.  When I queried him, the consul general flatly denied the charge and told me anyone making it was lying.  Which is interesting because the person who informed me, heard this directly from the prospective donor.  So in effect, Tor is accusing the prospective donor or his confidant of lying.

On a different subject, Oren again engaged in sophistry when asked his opinion about a Conservative Jewish woman arrested at the Kotel for removing a Torah scroll from the handbag she was carrying.  The Orthodox mafia controlling the Kotel insisted that she be arrested for violating an agreement that found women could not read Torah or carry it at the Kotel.  Here is Oren’s response:

“It is not a perfect situation.” Oren said. “We in Israel have to strike a balance between our respect for pluralism and our respect for tradition.”

What is disingenuous in this response is that the Conservative movement represents Jewish tradition just as much as the Orthodox mafiosi do.  So to presume that “tradition” is only represented by the Orthodox sets up a false dichotomy between the latter and Conservative Judaism.

In this statement as well, Oren dissembles:

Oren said that original reports stating that Frenkel had been arrested were mistaken, and that she was simply led away from the Kotel area.

Actually, Haaretz (and Nathan-Kazis in this article) confirms she was detained by Israeli police and taken to a police station and questioned there for an extended period.  Frenkel herself wrote in The Forward of her detention at a police station.  She may not have been arrested.  But much more was done to her than leading her away from the Kotel.

How does it look when the Israeli ambassador, supposedly a well-respected academic expert on Israel-U.S. relations before his appointment, has such an elemental disdain for truth and facts?  To me, this signifies his basic disrespect for American Jews and our intelligence.  I have no problem with an Israeli diplomat disagreeing with my views or those of liberal groups I support.  But I expect at the very least an accurate depiction of what those views are before expounding on our differences.  Oren can’t even give us that respect.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 15 Comments »

Aipac Pressures Israeli Ambassador to Punish J Street

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

Apparently, the Israeli embassy has moved slightly off its position rejecting an invitation from J Street to the ambassador to attend the group’s national conference later this month.  Nathan Guttman reports in The Forward that “Jewish groups” have exerted great pressure on Michael Oren not to attend the event allegedly because J Street has “attacked” them.  Of course, this is totally untrue and J Street’s opponents never present any evidence of specific individuals associated with the organization doing or saying anything in the way of attacking another Jewish group.  Besides, it’s quite laughable for these groups to be so sullen towards the progressive Jewish lobby by claiming it doesn’t “play well with others.”  In truth, it is the Israel lobby itself that feels its turf encroached on by the new kid on the block.  It is they who don’t like the competition and want to shut the new guy out.  It’s classic commercial behavior.  Reminds me, in fact, of a N.Y. Times story of how NYC food vendors go out of their way to sabotage the competition when it attempts to encroach on their traditional selling locations.

I have learned through a reliable source that the lobbying against J Street is coming from none other than Aipac.  It should surprise no one that this is the case.  Josh Block, if you’re reading this, call me to deny this and I’ll be happy to print your denial.  But I think most of the rest of us know different.  This surreptitious behavior follows the Aipac M.O.  They want to wound their perceived enemies but refuse to leave their fingerprints on the weapon.

[UPDATE: Josh Block must use Google Alert because I received an e mail from him like clockwork.  It was not only a denial it was a very convincing, strenuously demonstrative denial:

What you write is an absolute, flat out lie.  It can only be based in your or someone else's fantasy, or perhaps paranoia.

If you care at all about accuracy or choosing fact over fiction, you will take it down or remove any reference to AIPAC.

Aipac's denial is duly noted.]

Guttman quotes the embassy spokesperson relaying the Israeli government’s slightly more nuanced position toward the conference:

“We decided to move ahead in a measured and cautious way,” the spokesman said, adding that the embassy has yet to make a final decision on whether Oren will speak at the upcoming J Street conference.

One can only hope that petulance will not vanquish common sense on this matter.  Oren and his boss, Bibi, don’t have to like J Street.  But they have to accord them a minimal level of respect unless they want to brand themselves as ideological extremists before the entire American Jewish community.  Jeremy Ben Ami of J Street is playing this very well having extended a respectful personal invitation to Oren both by letter and in the pages of the rightist Jerusalem Post.  The ball’s in Oren’s court.  I hope he doesn’t muff it.  Letting Howard Kohr determine the Israeli government’s position toward J Street is preposterous.  I hope it won’t happen.

Eric Alterman has an excellent op ed in today’s Times. The money quote is this:

Commentary’s Noah Pollak called J Street contemptible, dishonest and anti-Israel; James Kirchick of The New Republic called it the Surrender Lobby; Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard said it was obsequious to terrorists and hostile to Israel. Perhaps, but it is at least equally plausible to view the intemperance of their language as evidence of panic. The days of right-ruled American Jewish debate appear to be numbered, and with good reason.

…So the paradox is that while American Jews remain committed liberals — they voted overwhelming for Barack Obama…— they fund and support a neoconservative-dominated lobby when it comes to the Middle East.

Jerry Haber and I will be hosting a progressive blogger session at the J Street conference on Monday, October 26th at 12:30PM.  If you’d like to hear me, Jerry, Phil Weiss, Kung Fu Jew, Matt Duss, Helena Cobban, Ray Hanania and Laila el-Haddad talk on the issues facing Israel-Palestine bloggers, come by and join us.  Our event is NOT officially sponsored by J Street nor is anything said by the bloggers endorsed by it.  We are all independent.

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

U.S. Policy ‘Drafted in Tel Aviv?’

Sunday, October 4th, 2009

Is Barack Obama Israel’s running dog?  Yes, I know it’s harsh.  But how else can you think about Michael Posner, the U.S. representative to the UN Human Rights Council, when the ambassador of Israel, a nation accused of mass murder and war crimes praises you so effusively?

Oren…stress[ed] how pleased Israel was with the US criticism of the Goldstone Report and its efforts to keep the United Nations from taking action based on its findings of Israeli violations during the Gaza war last winter. He particularly lauded the US statement on the report.

“It could have been drafted in Tel Aviv, it was so wonderful. The statement upheld the morality of the IDF, it upheld Israel’s right to defend itself against terror, it upheld the integrity of the Israeli legal system,” Oren said.

“I spent several hours calling people in Washington, thanking them [for being] willing to show such courage and such commitment to the US-Israel alliance. It was very, very inspiring.”

This does make you wonder to what extent U.S. policy, especially concerning the Goldstone Report, IS drafted in Tel Aviv.

You’ll have to excuse me Mr. Ambassador, but I saw nothing in the U.S. statements that were as sweeping as you’re making them out to be.  Posner said Goldstone was “one-sided” against Israel.  But he didn’t justify the killing in Gaza.  Posner may’ve said Israel deserved a chance to prosecute breaches within its own justice system.  But he never said that the U.S. would continue making such statements if in March Israel has done as poorly at investigating itself as it’s done thus far (only one soldier found guilty of stealing a Gazan credit card).

Obama may want to examine whether having the Israeli ambassador state publicly that the U.S. is committed to an “alliance” with Israel is useful for its Mideast diplomacy and overall relations with Arabs states in the region.

H/t to Rabbi Brian Walt.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Mideast Peace | 9 Comments »

« Older Entries
Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE