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

The following is the Comment is Free article published last Tuesday when J Street launched. Before you read it, if you haven’t already visited the J Street site to join its mailing list, please consider doing so. And even more important, consider making a generous donation so J Street can begin to make a difference in Congress by promoting candidates who will engage with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and pressure our next president to make every effort to promote peace, not war. Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their country if we are ever to see peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Recently, I attended a private Seattle dinner featuring J Street co-founders Daniel Levy and Jeremy Ben Ami. On April 15th, J Street will launch. It will be the first American Jewish PAC dedicated to promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace:

For too long, the primary and often only voices policy makers and politicians have heard regarding American policy toward Israel and the Middle East have been those of a vocal minority at the far-right of American society.

…Neoconservative, right-wing Jewish leaders and radical Christian Zionists have turned their definition of “pro-Israel” into a driving force in the American political process…

These voices do not…represent the mainstream of American Jews or the broader community that cares about Israel or American interests in the Middle East. Their efforts have skewed American policy, undermined Israeli and American interests, and constrained the domestic political and public debate about American foreign policy.

It is time for the mainstream of Americans–Jews and others–to establish a bold, political voice that advocates for the best interests of the U.S. and Israel, including a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the 1967 borders with agreed reciprocal land swaps, and for American policy that will lead to real security for Israelis, Americans and the entire Middle East.

J Street proposes an overarching U.S. approach to the Middle East that eschews military conflict and embraces diplomatic negotiation; that advocates multilateralism over unilateralism; and dialogue over confrontation. It proposes negotiation with Syria and Iran rather than diplomatic isolation and threats. And it will advance these goals both in the legislative and electoral process as well as the media.

Daniel Levy is a British Jew and son of the leading fundraiser for Tony Blair’s Labor Party, Lord Levy. The younger Levy made aliyah to Israel in 1991, where he worked on the peace process with Labor governments. He moved to DC two years ago to become a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress, where he writes the well-respected blog, Prospects for Peace. Levy is the passionate, thoughtful, philosophical member of the duo. He is the deep thinker who ponders the big questions. Ben Ami, a former deputy domestic policy advisor in the Clinton administration is the operations chief. He knows the campaigns and the politicians. He is inside the political process. They make a good team.

J Street plans to do two things. First, it will be a traditional PAC raising funds to support a limited number of candidates for Senate and Congressional races. Second, it will lobby for and against Israel-related bills and legislation. Regarding the PAC portion of its mandate: in its first year (the current election cycle), it hopes to raise around $300,000 to funnel into three to five races in which it can make a significant impact in swing districts. According to the co-founders, it sees no benefit in going after long-serving Democrats who take doctrinaire pro-AIPAC positions because they are too entrenched. Rather, J Street sees its best efforts devoted to choosing races in which there is a weak incumbent with an anti-peace agenda running against a candidate who is open to J Street’s political agenda. Norm Coleman is someone high on the group’s list since he is such a weak incumbent and is opposed by Al Franken, who is already sympathetic to a pro-peace agenda regarding the I-P conflict.

In the following (2010) election cycle, J Street hopes to raise several million dollars and target a slightly larger number of races. Ben Ami noted that he and Levy had studied two critical AIPAC campaigns against Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard. By cross-checking the donor lists they discovered that AIPAC wields an enormous amount of clout with a rather limited amount of donations (in the low millions).

However, it should be noted that AIPAC has a reach that extends far beyond merely punishing those it deems hostile to Israel. After all, it has a $60 million annual budget along with a deep volunteer base. Its power flows in many directions. In this sense, J Street really has its work cut out for itself.

The new group is studying AIPAC’s example and plans to use its tactics while turning them inside out on behalf of peace. Both co-founders reinforced that this effort is not meant to oppose, criticize or attack AIPAC. The idea is that there is room for AIPAC in this political debate while there is also room for a variety of other voices, including J Street.

Ben Ami, who was deputy domestic policy advisor in the Clinton administration, said they’d sounded out scores of politicians and their staffs about how J Street would be received. He is convinced that its message is welcomed with open arms almost universally. Of course, there will be some dyed in the wool Old School holdouts. But he believes that J Street is something the DC pols have been waiting for for a long time. They’ve been eager to break away from heterodoxy but needed the political cover to do so. J Street would help provide it for them.

In talking about what J Street planned to do differently from the mainstream Israel lobby organizations, I was heartened that it planned to pay lots of attention to voices of young people especially those represented by bloggers like Ezra Klein and Matt Ygleisias and others. Ben Ami sees the younger generation as the hope for the future as they haven’t yet bought “their father’s Oldsmobile” in terms of embracing the stereotypes and accepted wisdom of the established groups. The Israel lobby groups are heavily populated and led by the older generation and Jewish opinion surveys show that the younger generation is both more liberal on Israeli politics and more turned off by the Israel-centric issues dear to the heart of the Old School.

The J Street leaders also addressed their relationship with the three existing Jewish peace groups: Israel Policy Forum, Americans for Peace Now and Brit Tzedek. They said that J Street would not duplicate their efforts nor was it meant to replace them. Rather, J Street is the next logical step in the development of a pro-peace political agenda in which candidates would be encouraged to take an independent look at the I-P conflict and throw out old orthodoxies.

Levy, in his talk to the dinner group, emphasized that while Israelis realized that they were primarily responsible for resolving the conflict, that they also needed a good swift kick in the rear end from an energized American Jewish community and U.S. president. An Israeli prime minister like Olmert might welcome pressure coming from America to adopt a more forthcoming approach to the idea of compromise. He could then turn around to the Liebermans (Avigdor, not Joe) on his right and say: “If you want to buck our American friends, be my guest. But where will you turn once you do and they’ve abandoned you?” Levy believes that this narrative will resonate in Israeli political circles.

In fact, the group has recruited a group of distinguished Israeli academics, political analysts and former senior military officers to sign a letter of support for J Street. Among others, it includes former IDF chief of staff Amnon Lipkin Shahak, former foreign minister Shlomo Ben Ami, and former directors general of the foreign ministry David Kimche, Alon Liel, and Uri Savir.

It’s always important with efforts like this to examine the board member names. There are of course leaders of the main American Jewish peace groups. There are rabbis and academics. But most important there are heavy hitter political donors (Alan Solomont), policy wonks (Rob Malley), U.S. ambassadors to Israel (Samuel Lewis), high level political operatives (Eli Pariser of Moveon), Hollywood liberals (Robert Greenwald), business leaders, George Soros’ top aide (Morton Halperin), and even a former Republican senator (Lincoln Chafee) and former Congressman (Tom Downey). The major political donors and business leaders are critical to provide the funding necessary to have an impact on political campaigns.

The group founders believe that Barack Obama and his staff “get” J Street’s perspective while they believe a Clinton candidacy might not advance J Street’s mission as aggressively. In particular, Ben Ami mentioned Tony Lake, Obama’s chief foreign policy advisor as someone who was probably responsible for the candidate’s bracing Cleveland speech in which he admonished American Jews not to believe that a pro-Israel presidential candidacy need also be pro-Likud.

I came away from the dinner heartened by the J Street effort. Trying to be a realist after feeling burned by previous similar efforts, I’m not yet firmly convinced it will succeed. But it is bold, ambitious, well thought out, and doable. Many other dovish political efforts in the past had one or even two of those qualities going for them, but few have had all of them. That is in J Street’s favor.

One big question will be how AIPAC responds to the new initiative. As the big kid on the block it has the most to lose from J Street becoming a major success. So it’s got to feel threatened in some way. My only question is whether it feels defensive and threatened enough that it would take on J Street in its infancy. Already, AIPAC’s former director Morris Amitay has denounced J Street in the pages of the Jewish Forward. Amitay seems to be a surrogate for the group, which doesn’t want to lay down a marker in public yet on the matter. It remains to be seen how the big guns of the right-wing Israel lobby like Malcolm Hoenlein and Abe Foxman will react. If they do, they will only be endorsing the idea that J Street is a force to be reckoned with.

tags aipac, daniel levy, israel, israel-lobby, j street, jeremy-ben-ami, Mideast Peace, norm coleman, palestine, political-lobbying, tony lake

Bradley Burston, Haaretz columnist, is a real dragon-slayer when it comes to putting the lie to cherished notions of the anti-Palestinian camp within Israel and the anti-Israel camp within Palestine. He’s written another masterful column, The Lie of Victory, which eviscerates ten sacred principles that right and left lives by regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

10. The lie of ‘We Were Here First’

What Palestinians tell themselves: We are the descendants of the Canaanites, we were here before you. We are the heirs of Ishmael…Your claims to be the descendants of the Hebrews are specious. You are Russians, Americans, Khazars. We were here before you. We have been here forever. Nothing can make us leave.

What Israelis tell themselves: We are the direct and genuine heirs of Abraham…whose son took the name Israel. Your claims to be Canaanites are specious. Many of you came from neighboring Arab lands a few generations ago. We were here before you. We have been here forever. Nothing can make us leave.

9. The lie of ‘the State They Don’t Deserve’

Right-wing Israeli version: There is no such entity as a Palestine, and no Palestinian people, as such. They are artificial constructs, to serve the aim of ousting the Jews from their land. Moreover, terror has shown them undeserving of a state.

Militant Palestinian version: The Jews are a foreign growth in the body of Palestine. They came here from Europe and America, expelling Palestinians in the process, and it is time for both to return to their respective homes. The state of the Zionists is illegal, it is build on land that was part of the nation of Islam, and will not endure.

The truth:…The principle of self-determination and the history of national movements, to say nothing of the development of Zionism and the Palestinian statehood movement, suggest that peoples themselves are empowered to decide if they constitute a people, and if that people legitimately aspires to independence.

This lie is close to, but not the same as:

8. ‘We don’t recognize them’ [ed., or "They don't recognize us"].

But we do, of course. Hamas talks about Israel incessantly. Israel talks about Hamas in nearly every breath. Then sides have an endless array of go-betweens managing every conceivable aspect of indirect contacts.

This lie is, in turn, similar to but not the same as:

7. ‘There is no partner’

The fact is that the lack of a partner serves the needs of both Ehud Olmert and Ismail Haniyeh…Olmert has given indications of a preference for unilateralism, a position made much easier by an internationally shunned Hamas government.

At the same time, the last thing Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyeh needs is to be viewed as a collaborator with Israel. “There is no partner,” may have a different meaning when Hamas says it, but the advantage is mutual.

6. The lie of ‘National Socialism.’

Palestinian version: They are as bad as the Nazis.
Israeli version: They are as bad as the Nazis.

5. The lie of ‘the Only Language’

Both versions: Force is the only language they understand.

4. The lie of ‘will.’

Both versions: Our will is stronger than theirs, our cause more rooted, our stubbornness more pronounced, our endurance more bottomless, our tradition more timeless, our defiance more directed, our rage more justified, our presence more entrenched.

3. The lie of ‘revenge’

Arguably the hardest lie of all to resist. The lie that suggests that we alone have been wronged, that we have a duty - as well as a gut drive - to avenge that wrong, and that in so doing, we will somehow put an end to the injustice. The lie that masks the fact that the need for revenge is the engine of escalation, the breeder fuel of perpetual war.

2. The lie of ‘victim monopoly’

Both versions: WE…are the victims. We kill in self-defense, our enemy kills innocents in cold blood. The moral high ground is clearly ours. The news media are demonstrably biased toward our enemy.

1. The lie of ‘victory’

In the Middle East, there is no such thing as victory. Ask George Bush. Ask the victors of the Six Day War. There is no such thing as Mission Accomplished, clear-cut triumph, a simple win.

We want to believe in victory, because the prospect of no hope for triumph, for some meaning to all the suffering, is beyond unbearable. Nonetheless …

In the Mideast, today’s victory is tomorrow’s nightmare. In a situation pitting Western concepts of defeat and victory against the Islamist view of martyrdom, no one can win.

Next time you hear any of these “old chestnuts” dragged out in an argument, you have only to point your opponent to this post or Burston’s column to put it to rest (not that a right-winger will accept Burston’s as the last word on this).

tags bradley-burston, haaretz, israeli-palestinian-conflict, Mideast Peace

Tony Judt uses Israel Independence Day as a foil for an interesting rhetorical conceit: like any person at the age of 58, Israel should’ve learned a few lessons from life by now. It should’ve learned a little humility in facing the obstacles that life throws one’s way. It should’ve learned that no one’s perfect and it most of all. But instead, Israel is still the teenager seeing itself as victim, Israel is the adolescent who does no wrong and who is invincible:

By the age of 58 a country - like a man - should have achieved a certain maturity. After nearly six decades of existence we know, for good and for bad, who we are, what we have done and how we appear to others, warts and all. We acknowledge, however reluctantly and privately, our mistakes and our shortcomings. And though we still harbor the occasional illusion about ourselves and our prospects, we are wise enough to recognize that these are indeed for the most part just that: illusions. In short, we are adults.

But the State of Israel remains curiously (and among Western-style democracies, uniquely) immature. The social transformations of the country - and its many economic achievements - have not brought the political wisdom that usually accompanies age. Seen from the outside, Israel still comports itself like an adolescent: consumed by a brittle confidence in its own uniqueness; certain that no one “understands” it and everyone is “against” it; full of wounded self-esteem, quick to take offense and quick to give it. Like many adolescents Israel is convinced - and makes a point of aggressively and repeatedly asserting - that it can do as it wishes, that its actions carry no consequences and that it is immortal. Appropriately enough, this country that has somehow failed to grow up was until very recently still in the hands of a generation of men who were prominent in its public affairs 40 years ago: an Israeli Rip Van Winkle who fell asleep in, say, 1967 would be surprised indeed to awake in 2006 and find Shimon Peres and General Ariel Sharon still hovering over the affairs of the country - the latter albeit only in spirit.

The author appropriates a common Palestinian term, the Nakba (”The Disaster”), and turns it inside out by using it to refer to Israel’s own moral predicament in the wake of its military “victories”:

We can see, in retrospect, that the victory of Israel in June 1967 and its continuing occupation of the territories it conquered then have been the Jewish state’s very own nakba: a moral and political catastrophe. Israel’s actions in the West Bank and Gaza have magnified…the country’s shortcomings and displayed them to a watching world. Curfews, checkpoints, bulldozers, public humiliations, home destructions, land seizures, shootings, “targeted assassinations,” the separation fence: All of these routines of occupation and repression were once familiar only to an informed minority of specialists and activists. Today they can be watched, in real time, by anyone with a computer or a satellite dish - which means that Israel’s behavior is under daily scrutiny by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The result has been a complete transformation in the international view of Israel. Until very recently the carefully burnished image of an ultra-modern society - built by survivors and pioneers and peopled by peace-loving democrats - still held sway over international opinion. But today? What is the universal shorthand symbol for Israel, reproduced worldwide in thousands of newspaper editorials and political cartoons? The Star of David emblazoned upon a tank.

Judt portrays a transformation that’s taken place over the past forty years (since the 1967 War) in the minds of the rest of the world regarding Israel. What was once a tiny, beleaguered country beset on all sides by vengeful enemies out to destroy it–has now become a nuclear power with a huge ego, a huge sense of entitlement, and one which brooks no opposition from its neighbors. Israel has gone from a country worthy of the world’s empathy and support to a pariah who can count only on the support of a single all-important nation: the U.S.

The NYU professor notes that America’s obsession with Israel and its willingness to support her unerringly cannot be counted on forever. He urges Israel to use this time, when it has almost unconditional American support, wisely in a genuine search for peace. If not, there may come “a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph” on the American scene. The winds of fortune may at some point no longer blow favorably on Israel. If it hasn’t used the time is has wisely to sue for an honorable peace with its enemies, it will have only itself to blame.

Judt’s argument is, in some ways, a logical extension of the debate begun by Walt and Mearsheimer’s provocative The Israel Lobby:

…The disastrous Iraq invasion and its aftermath are beginning to engineer a sea-change in foreign policy debate here in the U.S. It is becoming clear to prominent thinkers across the political spectrum - from erstwhile neo-conservative interventionists like Francis Fukuyama to hard-nosed realists like Mearsheimer - that in recent years the United States has suffered a catastrophic loss of international political influence and an unprecedented degradation of its moral image. The country’s foreign undertakings have been self-defeating and even irrational. There is going to be a long job of repair ahead, above all in Washington’s dealings with economically and strategically vital communities and regions from the Middle East to Southeast Asia. And this reconstruction of the country’s foreign image and influence cannot hope to succeed while U.S. foreign policy is tied by an umbilical cord to the needs and interests (if that is what they are) of one small Middle Eastern country of very little relevance to America’s long-term concerns - a country that is, in the words of the Mearsheimer/Walt essay, a strategic burden: “A liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.”

That essay is thus a straw in the wind - an indication of the likely direction of future domestic debate here in the U.S. about the country’s peculiar ties to Israel. Of course it has been met by a firestorm of criticism from the usual suspects - and, just as they anticipated, the authors have been charged with anti-Semitism (or with advancing the interests of anti-Semitism: “objective anti-Semitism,” as it might be). But it is striking to me how few people with whom I have spoken take that accusation seriously, so predictable has it become. This is bad for Jews - since it means that genuine anti-Semitism may also in time cease to be taken seriously, thanks to the Israel lobby’s abuse of the term. But it is worse for Israel.

tags haaretz, israel-u.s.-relations, Mideast Peace, tony-judt

Thomas R. Pickering, former number 3 in the State Department and U.S. ambassador to Israel (1985-1988) spoke some interesting truths in a speech last week covered by the Daily Star’s Rami Khouri. Pickering, who was once in the running to become Secretary of State (but lost out to Madeleine Albright), is attempting to inject some hardheaded realism into the discussion of what should be reasonably be expected of Israel for final status talks:

[Pickering] argued that a two-state solution required a return of Palestinian land occupied in 1967, “approaching 100 percent, with negotiated tradeoffs,” giving Palestinians control over their own internal security and foreign guarantees for their external security. Jerusalem’s status would be resolved according to the Ehud Barak-Bill Clinton ideas of 2000 (essentially: what’s Arab is Arab, and what’s Jewish is Jewish).

Pickering’s call for Israel to recognize the right of return of the 1948 Palestinians is noteworthy. No serving or retired American official of such stature and firsthand personal knowledge of the conflict has ever explicitly called for Israeli recognition of the Palestinians’ right of return. I pursued the matter privately with Pickering after his public talk, and asked if he was referring strictly to the generation of Palestinians who became refugees in 1948. He replied affirmatively, and explained:

“The right of return is controversial and the Israelis don’t want to actually admit or honor this right, for the simple reason that they see it as a slippery slope. Over a period of time they think that the Palestinian and Arab objective is to flood Israel with returning refugees, and therefore, in a sense, ‘demograph’ it out of existence. The real question is whether a right of return could be recognized within negotiated limits. This would give to the Palestinians the recognition they feel is important for themselves, but at the same time protect Israel against a flood of returnees.”

How would his proposal work in practice? “I would say there are three or four steps,” Pickering explained. “First, recognize the right of return. Second, define it. One way to define it in the narrowest way would be to say that anybody who left in 1948 could return, but not their progeny born after 1948. Another way would be to say anybody who left in 1948 could return, along with some family unifications, up to a limit of, say, 25,000, 50,000, 100,000 or whatever the two sides agree on. Third, the other individuals who were involved over the years in one way or another obviously have to be dealt with in a serious way, including by the international community. There, I suggest those others who live elsewhere - Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Brazil, wherever - would have a right within some limits set by the Palestinians themselves to go to the new state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza. Obviously [the Palestinian state] could not absorb everybody. So point number four would be an international program, very liberally funded, for relocations, in places like Canada, the United States, Australia - whoever is willing to offer to take individuals who have no place [to go] but want to start a new life somewhere and who need international help to do that.”

Pickering’s call for a virtual “100% return” to ‘67 borders seems necessary to me as well. I’d perhaps tinker with the 100% number as Clinton did at Camp David by attempting to incorporate some large West Bank settlement blocs within Israel in return for Israeli territorial offsets in the Negev or elsewhere.

The ambassador’s proposal for a “modified” Right of Return is similar to my understanding of the Geneva Accords on this subject. If hardline pro-Israel forces would stop screaming long enough about this proposal sounding the death knell for the State of Israel as we know it–they’d see that it is a workable compromise which will allow Palestinians to achieve a cherished dream (returning to the land they lost–even in modified form–in 1948), while it would in no way endanger Israel which would be accepting a five to six-figure influx of Palestinian former refugees.

A completely rhetorical question: why is it that State Department officials can only make such public pronouncements after they retire from diplomatic service? If a few of our currently serving diplomats could muster up the same forthrightness we might see some real progress in solving the conflict (not to mention giving Israeli leaders a heart attack due to our unexpected candor).

tags 1967-borders, daily-star, israel, Mideast Peace, palestinian-right-of-return, rami-khouri, state-department, thomas-pickering

Haaretz reports today that Bill Clinton was interviewed on BBC TV this weekend (why no link at the BBC site??) speaking of U.S. Mideast policy and specifically about our approach to the new Hamas government. He brought a breath of fresh air to the table compared to the stale stuff the Bush Administration and Olmert government have been expelling on this subject (quoting from the Pakistan Daily Times:

Asked if he would shake hands with Hamas in the name of negotiation as he did with Arafat in 1993, Clinton said: “If they made the same assurances that Arafat did.

“He had made private assurances, and he made public assurances, that he did not support terror any more and would try to restrain it.

“So if Hamas would say, suppose they say, OK, look, we can’t change our theory, we can’t change our document, we can’t change our history, but we’re in government now and the policy of the Palestinian government is no to terror and yes to negotiations. As long as we’re in government, we’ll honour that policy.”

There is one problematic aspect of Clinton’s quote. Arafat DID assure Clinton he would renounce terror. And perhaps he did for a time. But it is clear that sometime after that 1995 handshake Arafat renounced his commitment and pursued terror and other forms of violent resistance through the first and second intifadas. Israelis have every reason to doubt whether Hamas, making such a similar commitment, should be believed considering its history of terror attacks against Israel.

All that being said, I commend Clinton for having the most realistic appraisal of Hamas I’ve read from just about any international leader since Hamas won the election. We should test Hamas’ resolve on issues like this (renunciation of violence, recognition of 2-state solution, etc.). Why can’t Olmert, Bush and Rice see the merits of this approach as well?

Fayyad at Kabobfest has his own view on Clinton’s sentiments that diverges from my own:

If they did that? I guess the president with the newly-found intelligence still does not read the news. Did he hear about Hamas’ offer for a 10-year extended truce Hamas made as part of becoming the ruling party? Or even better, the 30-year truce offer of 1997?

Demands of more than a halt to military action by all parties must not be preconditions for negotiations. One need not make peace with friends, peace is always sought after with enemies. It would be rather foolish to expect both Hamas and Israel to agree to a series of condition that in effect would, if applied, solve the conflict. Now let’s hope the new Israeli government agrees to respect and acknowledge the treaties previous governments reached with the Palestinians.

To which I’d point out that Clinton’s conditions demand that Hamas say “no to terror and yes to negotiations.” So I must be missing something, because Fayyad seems to be agreeing with Clinton when he (Fayyad) accepts (if I read him correctly) the need for negotiations and a halt to military action “by both sides.”

But I might add that Hamas attached its own conditions to such a “10 year extended truce” which included a return to 1967 borders (a policy I approve of by the way). Israel certainly is nowhere yet near supporting ‘67 borders as a consensus position. So that means Hamas has essentially put forward a non-starter condition. If Hamas can put an end to terror then I have no doubt that Israelis will come around to accepting ‘67 borders. But they will not do so as long as terror continues unabated.

tags bbc, Bill-Clinton, haaretz, hamas, israel, kabobfest, Mideast Peace, pakistan-daily-times, palestine, two-state-solution

Haaretz features a terrific editorial and Ynetnews features a penetrating column by Sever Plocker on very similar topics. Each begins with Ehud Olmert's recent fulminations about unilaterally marking Israel's final borders along the route of the Separation Wall without consulting the Palestinians. Both say this concept is dead as a doornail. Plocker writes in There is no chance Israel can set unilateral borders: There is an absurd, completely unfounded idea making the rounds in Israel's political establishment, one that has even made its way to Washington: The notion that the Israel government can avoid the Palestinian Authority and unilaterally set its borders. Recently the Kadima Party has adopted this idea, and acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has ...

I was always under the impression that theater at its best was meant to provoke, challenge and even shock its viewers. In some of the greatest plays to grace the stage, we are presented with controversial, even outrageous ideas. That is what we expect. But apparently, the New York Theatre Workshop got more than it bargained for when it agreed to mount the Royal Court's smash play, My Name Is Rachel Corrie for its New York debut this month. Rachel Corrie just before, and after being run down by IDF bulldozer (photo: ISM/AP) Given, International Solidarity Moviement activisit Rachel Corrie, despite her tragic ...

Israel, with the tacit backing of the U.S. has been tightening the noose around the Palestinian economy using the pretext of Hamas' upcoming assumption of control of the Palestinian Authority. All I can say is thank God there are alternative international forces which aren't bound by Israel and the U.S.' draconian notions. The NY Times notes that the EU has responded positively to James Wolfensohn's urgent request (on behalf of the Quartet) for emergency funding to prevent the PA from imminent collapse: After receiving a dire warning that the Palestinian Authority was so short of money that it might collapse in two weeks, the European Union on Monday offered $144 million in aid to the Palestinians before a Hamas government ...

Hey, it's Tom Friedman's red letter day. This may be the second time in this blog's four-year existence that I've featured one of his columns. That's because I normally find him a pontificator full of self-regard and lacking in new ideas. His opinions always seem to go right down the middle rarely swaying right or left. As a result, I find much of what he writes full of stasis with little to surprise or offend. But today's column (TimesSelect sub required) about the approach Israel and the U.S. should take toward Hamas was right on the money: This moment has the potential to open some new, intriguing possibilities for a long-term settlement, or truce, in ...

Israel holds a deep place in the Jewish psyche. But few non-Israeli songwriters seem to write about Israel (gospel and spirituals are a different story of course). But here are two profound songs written within the last decade by two of the great American songwriters: Jerusalem by Steve Earle and The Western Wall by Rosanne Cash. Jerusalem takes on the current stalemate in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (That I believe that one fine day all the children of Abraham/ Will lay down their swords forever in Jerusalem) while Western Wall focuses on the spiritual symbolism of Jerusalem's Kotel Ha-Maaravi ("western wall"): It's a crumblin' pile of broken stones/ It ain't much but it might be home/ If ...