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 ‘state-department’

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.

State Department ‘Investigates’ Israeli Use of Cluster Bombs in Lebanon

Thursday, August 24th, 2006
map of israeli cluster bomb attacks in lebanon(map credit: UNIFIL/NYT)

The State Department is putting on its own special performance of Kabuki theater in investigating whether Israel violated secret agreements governing the use of cluster munitions during the Lebanon invasion.

The State Department is investigating whether Israel’s use of American-made cluster bombs in southern Lebanon violated secret agreements with the United States that restrict when it can employ such weapons, two officials said.

The investigation by the department’s Office of Defense Trade Controls began this week, after reports that three types of American cluster munitions, anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area, have been found in many areas of southern Lebanon and were responsible for civilian casualties.

And what, pray, do you think they’ll find? Quel surprise! Israel will, of course, get a clean bill of health. After all, they’re such a good customer of ours. How could we bite the hand that feeds our weapons industry?

What are the terms of those secret agreements supposedly governing use of these heinous weapons?

The agreements…go back to the 1970’s, when the first sales of the weapons occurred, but the details of them have never been publicly confirmed. The first one was signed in 1976 and later reaffirmed in 1978 after an Israeli incursion into Lebanon. News accounts over the years have said that they require that the munitions be used only against organized Arab armies and clearly defined military targets under conditions similar to the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973.

Of course, Israel fails on all counts in its most recent usage of the munitions. It used them against a guerrilla insurgency and civilian targets. Even if one tries to argue that it aimed at military targets which just happened to be near civilian zones and that the resulting damage was unavoidable–this doesn’t wash. The bomblets are all over southern Lebanon (NPR audio stream) on the front porches of private homes, on the roofs of hospitals, in farm fields, in people’s bedrooms. A bomblet in a bedroom constitutes a civilian dwelling any way you look at it. The Israelis know how far the bomblets will fly. They can measure how close a civilian zone is to a military target. It did all those calculations and chose to bomb anyway.

One should also note that it is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention to use such munitions in civilian areas.

The NY Times article makes clear the real reasons for the “investigation:”

Several current and former officials said that they doubted the investigation would lead to sanctions against Israel but that the decision to proceed with it might be intended to help the Bush administration ease criticism from Arab governments and commentators over its support of Israel’s military operations. The investigation has not been publicly announced; the State Department confirmed it in response to questions.

So who are they fooling? Will any Arab government or commentator be taken in by such bulls(&t?

Armitage: Neocon Breaks With Bush on Lebanon

Saturday, July 29th, 2006

Richard Armitage, former number 2 at the State Department has profound doubts about Bush policy in Lebanon. You’ll recall he served at State during the first Bush presidency and presided over the 1983 Beirut bombing fiasco. So he knows whereof he speaks and he recently spoke to Renee Montaigne of NPR (audio).

He doesn’t believe a multinational peacekeeping force will work. First, the term of the mission would have to be “years, rather than months,” since he does not believe the Lebanese government would be able to do any of the “heavy lifting for a long time to come.” Second, he believes there are very few nations in the world with sufficient troops to take on such a mission. His final judgment on the matter is:

We’re an awfully long way it would seem to me from having any ability to have any forces interposed between the warring camps.

Armitage also believes the U.S. is making a serious mistake in refusing to engage Syria directly in resolving the conflict:

NPR: Are there parallels between that peacekeeping force and now?

ARMITAGE: Well, I remember with stunning clarity one of our Israeli interlocutors sitting in my office, telling me that, “Don’t worry about this peace in Galilee operation. We understand our neighbors very well. We understand them better than anyone. We know all the dynamics of the situation in Lebanon.” And that turned out not quite to be the case.

I suspect that people in government now are also hearing that from Israel. Don’t get me wrong — if I thought that this air campaign would work, and would eliminate Nasrullah and the leadership of Hezbollah, I think it would all be fine. But I fear that you can’t do this from the sky, and that you’re going to end up empowering Hezbollah, and perhaps introducing an element into the body politic in Lebanon that will take some great period of time to recover from.

NPR: An element into the body politic that as yet we do not know?

ARMITAGE: I think we do not know. And we’re not, as far as I’m concerned, using all the levers that we have, such as having the Secretary of State talk to the Syrians. I think they want to get involved. I think they want to become more central to a solution, and you might as well give them the opportunity. If they step up to it, fine. If they don’t, we’ll know them for what they are.

…We get a little lazy I think when we spend all our time as diplomats talking to our friends and not to our enemies.

Condi, the guy was your number 2. Are you listening???

Hat tips to Think Progress and TruthLaidBear.

Sarid on Gaza ‘War With No Clear Political Aim’

Saturday, July 8th, 2006

Yossi Sarid, despite his political longevity has lost none of his political acuity as demonstrated by this column in today’s Haaretz. He echoes a number of my own criticisms of the Gaza invasion in this caustic cry of outrage:

By the time operation Summer Rains ends, the reason for it will have been completely forgotten. The longer the operation goes on, the more removed it becomes from its original purpose – to rescue Corporal Gilad Shalit. Now they are already talking about “a new order” or about “changing the strategic situation” or about “rehabilitating our deterrent power,” and it is impossible not to recall with horror the “new order” in Lebanon 24 years ago: Ariel Sharon, may sleep be lifted from your eyelids – you have successors worthy of your name.

And as in the Lebanon War, so in the Gaza war, the aims change on a daily basis. That is what happens when the war has no clear political aim in the first place, and at the moment it is designed to save Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Chief of Staff Dan Halutz. The “new order” in the territories will look like the new order in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, and “rehabilitated deterrent power” will look like it does in North Korea and Iran.

Not only do the aims change constantly according to the mood at breakfast time, so do the “red lines”: another red line is erased and already the new line becomes apparent, and immediately the old one is replaced by the new. Perhaps the defense minister has not noticed that the line was recently crossed on the threshold of his home: Qassam rockets on Sderot and Ashkelon are terror; shells on Beit Hanun and Beit Lahiya are terror; leaflets from heaven, which are meant to scare entire families and make them flee, are also terror. The attack on an IDF outpost is not terror, it is war.

The U.S. government continues its powder-puff diplomacy regarding this crisis. Statements emanating from State Department spokespeople aren’t even full of sound and fury–they’re merely mealy-mouthed. But they do indeed signify almost nothing:

The State Department expressed concern Friday with the loss of life in the operation and urged the Israeli government to make sure innocent civilians were not hurt and the Palestinians’ day-to-day lives were not impaired.

At the same time, the department called for the immediate and unconditional release of Shalit, and said the hostage-taking by Hamas “continues to place innocent Palestinians in harm’s way.”

“There is no question that Israel has a right to defend itself and the lives of its citizens,” said spokeswoman Julie Reside. “But we also urge the Israeli government to ensure that innocent civilians are not harmed, to exercise restraint and to refrain from adversely affecting the Palestinian humanitarian situation.”

“We are concerned about the reports of violence and the loss of innocent life,” Reside said.

They’re asking Israel to “refrain from adversely affecting the Palestinian humanitarian situation???” Where have they been since the Hamas election victory last January, after which Israel initiated a full-on blockade of Gaza causing immense human suffering? And what do they think this invasion is doing to the “humanitarian situation” in Gaza? Does terrifying 20,000 northern Gazans into fleeing their homes through statements implying that their lives will be in danger if they remain constitute “refraining from adversely affecting the humanitarian situation?”

If this wasn’t so deadly serious our rhetoric would be comic. It’s just so vacuous, so banal, and so completely unconvincing. It’s like we’re just going through the paces. Compare this to Eisenhower’s ultimatum to Israel after the 1956 war; or Richard Nixon’s airlift to resupply Israel during the 1973 War; or Jimmy Carter’s efforts to negotiate peace between Egypt and Israel; or Clinton’s vigorous, but unsuccessful efforts to negotiate peace between Israel and the Palestinians. That was leadership. That was something to be proud of. What we are getting from this Administration is pathetic.

Former Senior State Department Official and Ambassador to Israel Calls for Return to ’67 Borders and ‘Modified’ Right of Return

Friday, April 28th, 2006

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:

thomas r. pickeringThomas R. Pickering (photo: Boeing)

[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).

Hamas: U.S.-Israel Tighten Noose

Saturday, February 18th, 2006

Don’t believe the phony denial issued by the White House and State Department a few days ago after the NY Times exposed a plan by State and Israel to bring Hamas and any Palestinian government it creates to its knees in order to prove to Palestinians that Hamas can never bring them anything other than economic ruin and chaos. Tonight’s news in Haaretz that the U.S. has demanded the return of $50-million in aid it provided last year is the real proof of where our policy lies regarding Hamas. That is, we’re right in line with those Israeli hardliners who delude themselves into thinking that even harsher policies toward the Palestinians are all it will take to finally “bring them around” to Israel’s way of thinking:

Israel decided on Friday to block Hamas members of the Palestinian parliament from traveling from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank city of Ramallah for Saturday’s swearing-in ceremony, Israel Radio reported.

…Olmert approved on Friday the defense establishment’s advice to begin taking punitive steps against the PA as of Sunday, the day after the Hamas-led Palestinian parliament takes office. The suggested measures include freezing further transfers of the tax revenues that Israel collects on behalf of the PA and banning the entry of workers from the Gaza Strip into Israel.

…Solana asked Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Thursday to continue transferring tax monies to the Palestinians and refrain from freezing the funds at least until the new Palestinian government is formed. However, Livni said that once the new Hamas-led parliament is sworn in, the PA will essentially have become “a terrorist entity” even if the new government has not yet been formed.

Other steps the defense establishment advocates include banning the movement of Palestinians between Gaza and the West Bank; preventing transfers of military equipment to the PA from foreign countries, such as donations of armored personnel carriers and communications gear; and freezing plans to upgrade the crossing points between the territories and Israel as well as plans to build a port and airport in Gaza.

…A team headed by the prime minister’s special adviser, Dov Weissglas, also presented its recommendations on how Israel should respond to Hamas’ electoral victory at Thursday’s meeting called by Mofaz. Weissglas proposed that Israel issue an ultimatum to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, demanding that he fulfill his promise to disarm the terrorist organizations and that the new PA government abjure violence, recognize Israel, and accept the road map peace plan and all signed Israeli-Palestinian agreements. The ultimatum would expire either after 60 days or upon occurrence of a “Hamas event,” such as the establishment of a Hamas-led government that did not accept the three conditions posed by Israel and the international community. Upon expiry of the ultimatum, Israel’s measures to cut ties with the PA would become more stringent.

Looks like after a promising few months in which Ehud Olmert seemed to be speaking words of hope and peace, he’s decided that the honeymoon is over and it’s back to the same old harsh rhetoric and drastic ultimatums. They never work but I guess they sound good to a security-starved electorate.

WeisglassWeisglass: Palestinians need to “go on diet,” but not “starve to death”

Dov Weisglass is also always good for an utterly cynical, atrociously candid comment regarding Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. He didn’t disappoint according to the NY Times:

Dov Weissglas, an adviser to the prime minister, was quoted by the Israeli news media as telling an official meeting: “It’s like a meeting with a dietitian. We need to make the Palestinians lose weight, but not to starve to death.”

When I read this sort of wit from this monster it makes my blood boil. Only a fat slob like Weisglass could talk about making people living on the edge of misery and starvation go on a diet. Palestinians are ALREADY living in a virtual prison with no living standards to speak of, no economy to speak of, no ability to move and almost no ability to breathe and this jackass says he wants to put them on a diet but not starve them to death?! All I can say is I wish a man like this very bad things in his future so he may know in the flesh what the power of his words could be. Perhaps the Lord can afflict him with a wasting disease so he will know what it is like to “go on a diet” but not “strave to death.” I’m sorry. I don’t remember ever wishing ill on anyone in this way. But reading this drove me to a place of great despair.

And after hearing this dreary nonsense from Israeli intelligence analysts we can safely say that the U.S. is not the only country with a national security apparatus that does little more than provoke fear in the populace:

The heads of the intelligence agencies warned at the meeting of a “honey trap” in which Hamas would present a moderate front to lull the international community, while building up its forces for a violent confrontation with Israel. The defense establishment also warned that the defeated Fatah party was liable to take out its anger in the form of terror attacks against Israelis.

This type of thinking allows Israelis to never have to take anything Hamas says seriously. If the latter says it will renounce terror–they’re lying. If they say they will wage implacable war against Israel forever–they’re telling the truth. How convenient. But does anyone ever stop and think that perhaps Israeli intelligence has a vested interest in making people believe that there is no hope Hamas will ever be anything but a terror organization? Just as the CIA and U.S. military had a vested interest during the Cold War in exaggerating the Soviet threat.

I found this statement by Shaul Mofaz also to be galling:

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the European Union on Friday that Hamas is making a serious effort to get funding from Iran and is asking Tehran for guidance on how to run the Palestinian Authority, Israel Radio reported.

In a meeting with EU foreign policy chief Solana in Jerusalem, Mofaz emphasized the importance of international support of Israel’s positions on Hamas and said there should be no negotiations with Hamas unless it recognizes Israel and puts a halt to terrorism.

Israel attempts to create an iron wall around Hamas by driving all international support away and he’s shocked, I say shocked that Hamas might turn to Iran for help. Of course it will turn to Iran. Where else can it turn? Do I like the fact that Hamas may resort to the most unsavory of allies in order to maintain its own survival? No. But what choice is Israel and the U.S. giving it?

Another danger that both Israel and the U.S. run is that by taking the most extreme positions they can against Hamas, they just may drive the Europeans, Russians, Chinese and Indians in the opposite direction. These days, it’s hard to find a country that wants to be seen as America’s lapdog. We’ve had too much of that during the Iraq war. So I would encourage these nations to strike out independently. Don’t let yourself be bullied and browbeaten by the U.S.-Israel war axis against the Palestinian people. Show them there is a third way. A way that insists that Hamas observes international norms in its relations with Israel; while supporting the Palestinian people’s valiant experiment with democracy.

Gary AckermanRep. Gary Ackerman (D, AIPAC), the man from AIPAC (photo: Fifer.net)

And as for the U.S. Congress, they should be ashamed of themselves. They’re falling all over themselves to curry favor with AIPAC and adopt ever more draconian anti-Hamas proposals. These politicians don’t understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They only understand what AIPAC tells them. That’s as far as their “thinking” goes on the subject. And I’m embarrassed to say that American Jewish congressmembers like Gary Ackerman are leading this charge for the pro-Israel lobby:

“When Hamas looks at America, at the [Bush] administration, at the [U.S.] Congress, they must see nothing but fierce, unrelenting, and implacable rejection,” said Congressman Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat. “There can be no political absolution for this pack of killers. And the very idea of giving our taxpayers money to these bloody-handed fanatics, people who have slaughtered our own citizens, is offensive.”

This is nothing different from those stupid Congressional votes to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. All show and no substance. Talk tough and carry a big stick. But where does it get you? And where is our embassy? It ain’t in Jerusalem I’ll tell ‘ya that. And shutting off the spigot for U.S. aid to the Palestinians is a meaningless gesture that puts us on the wrong side of this issue.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE