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 ‘shmuel-rosner’

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.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

State Department on Rosenthal: Stand by Your Woman

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Rosenthal: State stands by their woman

Despite the controversy stirred by the right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere and Israel lobby usual suspects against Hannah Rosenthal for her remark in a Haaretz interview that Michael’s Oren’s dissing of the J Street conference was “unfortunate,” the State Department has issued a statement of full support for her:

“Special Envoy Rosenthal has the complete support [ed. italics added] of the department. As a matter of longstanding policy the United States has supported a peaceful solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To that end the U.S. government encourages broad dialogue among responsible partners for peace.”

Many of us were worried after State slapped her on the wrist and said that she had spoken out of turn, that this might signal a capitulation to the forces of pro-Israel darkness who were itching for her scalp.  In particular, Jeffrey Goldberg, who called Rosenthal “dopey” and Shmu Rosner, who called her “not smart” were leading the Jewish male sexist charge against Rosenthal.  They’re bound to be disappointed that they didn’t have enough juice to get her fired.

Rosner in particular wrote breathlessly every time he picked up a crumb that could be used to besmirch Rosenthal, even writing in the Jerusalem Post that she had “new problems” because Phil Weiss, Steve Walt and Andrew Sullivan were supporting her.  Phew!  I was offended that he didn’t even bother to include me in the supposedly anti-Israel Murderer’s Row.  But he assured me he wouldn’t omit me next time.

Also, a few comments on the deliberate or unintentional inaccuracy of some blog and media reports about Rosenthal’s background.  One of the main reasons she was targeted was that she was affiliated with J Street, the target du jour of the Israel lobby these days.  Contrary to Ron Kampeas’ coverage, for example, she was never an “officer” of J Street and had nothing to do with running the group or dictating policy.  She was one of 200 honorary members of its advisory council.  Every Jewish organization has one of these and they are there to showcase VIPs who endorse the group but have nothing whatever to do with its day to day operations.  So much for yoking Rosenthal to J Street.

Now, maybe Shmu & Goldberg can go back to finding some other perfectly innocuous Jewish progressive to tar and feather for holding less than sufficiently pro-Israel views about something or other?  And mazel tov to Secretary Clinton and the Obama folks for standing by their woman.

Look Who’s Calling Hannah Rosenthal ‘Dopey?’

Saturday, January 2nd, 2010

Yup, you guessed it, Jeffrey “The Brain” Goldberg.  You see, Jeffrey’s on the journalistic gravy train over the Hannah Rosenthal story accusing her of being “dopey” for attacking Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren for his refusal to participate in J Street’s first conference and his subsequent lies about J Street being against “every policy of every Israeli government.”  Rosenthal had the temerity to call Oren’s refusal “unfortunate.”  Apparently, that’s a hangin’ offense as far as the Israel lobby is concerned.

And yes, Jeffrey, you’re carrying water for Mort Klein, Malcolm Hoenlein and the Aipac boys on this one.  They all want her scalp.  And you do too because you smell blood in the pro-Israel water.

One of Goldberg’s arguments claiming that opposition to the nominated anti-Semitism czar is bi-partisan is Alan Solow’s blast against her.  Solow claims to be a liberal Dem and supported Obama’s presidential campaign.  But The Atlantic’s Jewish politics maven neglected one small fact about Solow’s statement.  It probably wasn’t written by Solow at all.  Much more likely it was written for him by that doyenne of the Jewish neocon movement, Malcolm Hoenlein, who is the power behind the Conference of Presidents (which Solow chairs).  So much for the “Get Hannah” movement being an equal opportunity bi-partisan cabal.

You’re dead-wrong, Jeffrey, about both Rosenthal’s brain power and the appropriateness of her comments.  Michael Oren is a liar.  As such, he had Rosenthal’s comments coming to him.  He lied about J Street and he lied in his comments about Nofrat Frenkel’s arrest at the Kotel (why no word from you about Oren’s “misspeaking” on that incident, Jeffrey?).  Or is protecting the ass of your personal pal, Michael Oren one of your job descriptions over there at The Atlantic?

You know who else called Rosenthal stupid?  That other Israeli neocon “brain” Shmu Rosner:

(It) seems quite obvious that Rosenthal isn’t smart…

Not only that, Shmu’s just written a new smear of Rosenthal for JPost which breathlessly exposes a “new problem” she has.  What’s the problem?  No, there are no revelations about all expense paid trips to Iran or weekends at Osama’s Afghan ranch.  Rosenthal’s new problem is that she actually has supporters in the blog world.  Supporters who are…[drumroll please] ANTI-ISRAEL!  Whoo.  Who are these Israel haters?  Andrew Sullivan for one.  And Phil Weiss and Steve Walt.  Anti-Semitn’ every one!

I couldn’t help expressing my chagrin at being excluded from the club as I’ve defended Rosenthal as well.  What, I wondered, had I done wrong to be left off Shmu Rosner’s enemies list?  Insufficiently critical of Israel, perhaps?  Or maybe I’m not a big enough target, in which case I beg you dear Reader to drum up more readership for this blog so we can make it on Shmu’s anti-Israel blog list.

There’s one other unfortunate fact I’ve noticed about the campaign to Get Hannah: have you noticed anything about the gender of her major detractors?  Yup, all old Jewish guys: Hoenlein, Klein, Goldberg, Rosner, Solow.  The cracks about her being “dopey,” “not smart,” etc. begin to reek of women-baiting.

Not a single female Jewish leader criticized her.  Or perhaps its a man’s man’s man’s man’s Jewish world out there and there are no female Jewish leaders left since Golda and Shoshana Cardin left the stage.  At any rate, this bit of unseemly piling on against Rosenthal bespeaks too much pro-Israel testosterone.  You know what it is that the Jewish boys don’t like about Hannah?  She speaks her mind.  And what can be worse for a nice Jewish girl than speaking her mind in a boychik’s world.  A shande!  Get that girl and put her in her place, back knitting yarmulkes and baking babke where she belongs.

Someone ought to tell the boys to cut out the bullying.  It’s unseemly.  Didn’t your Jewish mothers ever teach you any manners?

Natasha Mozgovaya New Haaretz U.S. Correspondent

Monday, July 21st, 2008

UPDATE: An earlier version of this story was in error. After congratulating him on his new appointment, Ori Nir informed me that he is not the new Haaretz correspondent in Washington. That honor goes to Natasha Mozgovaya, a “talented young reporter,” according to Nir. I apologize for my part in spreading this inaccurate report into the English-language blog world.

Two months ago, Dov Alfon did approach Nir about taking the job since they’d both worked earlier at Haaretz. But Nir was quite happy at Americans for Peace Now and did not want to leave.

Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz's new Washington correspondent

Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz's new Washington correspondent

Big news out of Israel. I recently reported that Shmuel Rosner will be leaving Haaretz soon as its Washington correspondent. Shraga Elam has just provided me a link to this Hebrew language story at Ice News confirming that Rosner is leaving. Rosner’s replacement is Natasha Mozgovaya, which is not noted in the ICE report.

Ori pointed me to a fascinating profile in the Hebrew edition of Haaretz detailing Mozgovaya’s problems in gaining acceptance as a Russian-Israeli television news anchor. Apparently, she faced tremendous resistance from listeners who found her Russian-inflected Hebrew accent distressing. All this went to the even broader issue of Israeli prejudice toward Russian immigrants. She maintains a Russian and Hebrew language Livejournal site.

The transition from Rosner to Mozgovaya is a major shift for Haaretz and welcome news for the Jewish peace community.

This shift will also match the political times with Democrats ascendant in Congress and possibly the White House. One can assume that Haaretz’s U.S. coverage will become more diverse and balanced as the U.S. and Israel face difficult policy decisions in the coming years. If Obama wins the White House then we can expect vigorous efforts to advance Israel-Arab peace and an energetic Haaretz correspondent would be a boon.

Haaretz’s new editor, Dov Alfon, has made an auspicious editorial choice and I applaud him for it.

One anonymous correspondent of mine says Rosner was fired. Though the ICE report indicates that the costs of schooling his children in Washington on a Haaretz salary was no longer feasible. Sounds like he’s likely sending them to a very expensive Jewish day school or private college.

Bush Should Become President…of Israel

Wednesday, May 14th, 2008

Shmuel Rosner is always good for some amusement (unintended of course). And reader Eran points to today’s column as a special laugher about George Bush’s Half Done (more accurately “half-baked”) presidency. The worshipful prose is unbelievable considering how universally condemned the Bush presidency has become (most polls show him at or near his lowest popularity ratings ever)–at least in this country. There is one country, Rosner notes, where Bush’s popularity remains high…You guessed it:

If he thinks that a majority of Israelis appreciate…Bush himself – he apparently is correct. According to a Gallup poll conducted last summer, 66 percent of Israelis are satisfied with the U.S. leadership – higher than any Western state and most non-Western states.

I know most ex-presidents are consumed with their presidential libraries, securing endorsement deals, making high-paid speeches, creating a legacy. But Bush shouldn’t give up on being president merely because his eight years are over. There’s a place for him in Israel’s heart–and perhaps in its presidency. One of its more recent presidents was caught with his pants down and unceremoniously sacked. Its current president, Shimon Peres, is an old geezer whose time has long past. Bush could hardly be less relevant than Peres as president–or could he?

Yes, he might have to take Israeli citizenship. But given the support he receives from Christian Zionists and his love for Jesus who walked this land, that might not be a stretch.

Clearly, Bush isn’t going to get that Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement he predicted by year’s end. What better way to keep the peace fires burning than by taking a shot at being Israel’s president? He shouldn’t have any problem getting elected. Israelis know he was the most obsequious U.S. president on record to Israel’s interests. He’d be a shoe-in if he wanted to work the same magic he’s done here on Israel.

Luckily for Israel, its presidency is largely ceremonial. If Bush had any real power as Israel’s president think of the disasters he could wreak.

Among the truly memorable puffery in Rosner’s piece is a favorable comparison of Bush to Lincoln, Truman and Washington:

Over the past year, Bush read a few books about the first president of the United States, George Washington. If he is still being written about today – over 200 years later – then perhaps Bush will also be written about, even argued over, hundreds of years down the road.

Yeah, they’ll argue whether he was the worst president on record or the second worst. Dream on, Shmulik–and he does:

Bush certainly merits criticism in a number of areas, but there’s one thing nobody can take away from him: He comes to work every morning to work, to try to change the world, for the good.

There are probably fourteen people left in the world who believe, along with Rosner here, that George Bush has changed the world for the good. The former isn’t merely a voice in the wilderness. I’d say he’s practically a lone voice in the cosmos. But it’s good that George will have someone with whom he can commune once he retires to the ranch, where he’ll break out the ol’ electric saw to trim brush on the back 40. In fact, George may be looking for a personal assistant or PR flack for his post-presidency gig. Rosner should apply.

Rosner isn’t quite done with his hagiography:

At the end of his term he will leave behind a job left uncompleted. The observer scrutinizing his actions will have to choose between two reasons: Either the policy was wrongheaded to begin with, or Bush’s diagnosis was correct but eight years was simply not enough time to prove it.

How could any reasonable person not see that the main problem with the Bush presidency was that he wasn’t given enough time to prove himself and his policies? Just think how much better off we Americans would be if we could give him another four years!

Rosner closes his elegy with this lofty thought:

And so it is that Bush comes to his second and final visit to Israel as president with a sense of serenity about what he has done and about what he will not manage to do…

If George Bush is serene it is the serenity of the obtuse. I’m reminded of the title of that classic American novel, A Confederacy of Dunces. Between Rosner and Bush there appears to be a confederacy of serene dunces.

Reform’s Yoffie Says Hagee is Treif

Thursday, April 3rd, 2008

Wise words always seem to come from Rabbi Eric Yoffie when he speaks. Recently he addressed an international Islamic conference and denounced Jewish and Muslim extremism. Now, he has given all Reform congregations explicit instructions that John Hagee, Christian evangelical zealot and founder of Christians United for Israel should not be welcome by anyone in the movement. Thank God and higiah z’man:

“No, we cannot.” We cannot cooperate with the Christian Zionists, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism, told the annual conference of the movement’s rabbis…

“What they mean by support of Israel and what we mean by support of Israel are two very different things.”

…In his speech Wednesday night…Yoffie declared that an alliance with Christian Zionists must be rejected for the sake of Israel. Christian Zionist support for Israel is harmful, he said. It’s not “unconditional support for the Jewish state,” but rather support for certain leaders, certain parties, for a political agenda that is unacceptable to Yoffie and, he believes, to a majority of Israelis. The Evangelicals reject a two-state solution and oppose Israeli territorial concessions, and for that reason the Reform Movement cannot cooperate with them.

Yoffie’s speech focused on one man: John Hagee, founder of the Christians United for Israel lobby group. That in itself is notable, since Hagee ostensible received the stamp of approval when he was invited to speak to an AIPAC policy conference last year.

…”By what right do we expect others to walk away from those who make anti-Jewish or anti-Israel statements when we will not walk away from those [like Hagee] who make anti-Islam or anti-Catholic statements?”

The Reform leader stresses he isn’t rejecting support from the Evangelicals per se, but rather only those whose political goals he sees as unacceptable…

The AP story on the speech also quotes this important passage:

“On Israeli-Palestinian politics, John Hagee and the CUFI are extremists. In expressing contempt for other religions and rejecting territorial compromise under any and all circumstances, their views run against the American grain.”

The speech ended on this important note:

“And it is important to remember that Israel’s greatest friends and most important defenders are not the fundamentalists and extremists and those who take their orders directly from God, but those who work for an end to this terrible conflict, and who pray for peace for all who live in the land that we all call holy,”

As a great gospel singer used to say: “Say amen somebody.” For the full speech visit this page.

Aside from the importance of the Reform movement’s top leader denouncing evangelical extremism on behalf of Israel, the speech is important because several federations around the country have hosted “evenings for Israel” organized by CUFI. While some community leaders have criticized these events, no one on the national scene has done so and they have sprung up like mushrooms after a spring rain (well, perhaps not so fertile as that). Yoffie’s remarks should make any Jewish congregation, even non-Reform, think twice before allying itself with the good and radical reverend.

It should also set up an interesting tension between Yoffie’s movement and AIPAC which feted Hagee like a lion with standing ovations and rousing huzzahs when he delivered a stem-winding sermon attacking Arabs and calling for a military attack against Iran at its last convention.

For any students of Shmuel Rosner’s right-wing journalism, take a look at the assumptions underlying his Haaretz story and study them to see what editorial partisanship passing for serious journalism looks like.

I take back my opening sentence as JTA points out that some very feeble thoughts did actually come from Yoffie during the same speech:

…From the Palestinians we see only relentless terror. Surely the Palestinian national movement, in its various manifestations, is one of the ugliest and stupidest national movements in modern history.”

Uglier and stupider than the terror employed by sectors of the Jewish national movement before 1948? The good rabbi seems to have a case of historical amnesia.

Olmert: We’ll Make Peace Some Day, Just Not Right Now

Friday, March 28th, 2008

Sorry for the black humor but this is the Middle East after all.

Dueling headlines:

Olmert upbeat on Mideast peace talks

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday said he was optimistic that current negotiations would produce a lasting peace with the Palestinians.

–Los Angeles Times

Olmert Pours Cold Water On Peace Process

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Wednesday that he expected that only a framework of a peace deal could be reached with Palestinians by the end of the year, not an actual agreement.

–Daily Star

Go figure. It’s the Middle East. Your guess is as good as mine which is right and what any of it means.

Here’s some more odd I-P humor:

President Bush has invited Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas to the White House in an effort to give a kick to Mideast peace talks, the White House said Thursday.

Associated Press

Just like Bush to kick a peace process when it’s down!

Shmuel Rosner is always good for a joke (unintentional that is) or an outrage and his current column is no exception. Get a load of the utter delusion both in Rosner’s judgments and in his informant’s:

U.S. President George Bush is finishing his tenure in office precisely as he began it: still determined not to repeat the mistakes of the previous administration, that of Bill Clinton…Bush saw his predecessor buried under the rubble of Camp David and found no reason to retrace that same path.

…The president is still determined not to repeat what the previous president did. Hopefully, he will be sufficiently determined. Well-positioned persons [like whom??] note that Clinton passed down to his successor a dysfunctional peace process. A violent intifada [Clinton's fault of course]. The size of the abyss into which the two sides slid was commensurate to Clinton’s ambition to bring an end to the conflict.

A senior official described it thus: “Clinton drove an expensive race car in order to reach the end of the race, but spun at the curve. What Bush got from him was not a car but a pile of rubble.” The outgoing president – in 10 months – intends to leave his successor the keys to a car in working order.

Let’s leave aside the inapt transformation of a car into a “pile of rubble” (wouldn’t “heap of junk” have sounded better?). All I can say is that’s rich. Bush will leave for the next president the keys to a car that is a rusted hulk and utterly undrivable. When President Obama (let’s hope) puts the keys in the ignition it’s liable to blow up in his face. The car called “Iraq” will, as well, be in about the same state of disrepair when he hands over those keys.

Headlines thanks to American Task Force for Palestine’s Editor’s Picks.

What’s Haaretz’s Rosner Have Against Obama?

Tuesday, February 5th, 2008

israel factor obama screenshot
At this point, no one is much surprised by the right-wing skew of Shmuel Rosner’s coverage of Israeli politics as Haaretz’s Washington correspondent. But his Israel Factor campaign coverage hit a new low with this headline for today’s column. If you look inside at the column you’ll only be partially relieved to note that the panel Rosner appointed to rate the presidential candidates pro-Israel bona fides mostly dismisses the claim that Obama is pro-Palestinian. I say “mostly” because the score was 2.5 out of 5 meaning someone on the panel attributed at least some credibility to the charge.

But other questions about Obama rate disturbing responses. The panel only rated this statement 3.5:

There is a ‘constant virulent campaign’ against Obama regarding his position on Israel.

Here is how Rosner characterized the panel’s vote:

Six of the panelists believe this statement to be true, but not all of them strongly. Of the two who gave this statement a score of 1 or 2 – meaning they do not at all believe it – one of them believes Obama is overstating the degree to which there is such campaign. The other one told me that he found many of the allegations against Obama to have a kernel of truth in them.

To a statement that is patently true to any reasonable Jewish observer (and a story reported as credible by all the major Jewish media including Haaretz), two panelists don’t believe it at all and one of those (no doubt Dore Gold) actually believes the smear campaign. Some of the other six don’t believe strongly in the proposition that Obama is being smeared.

I think you’ve just heard everything you needed to know about how useful the Israel Factor is as a yardstick of anything serious related to juding the Israel policy of the various presidential campaigns.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE