NOVANEWS
-
Michael Lerner says We need a Jewish state b/c Jews continue to face vulnerability, hatred
-
Israeli Foreign Ministry urges American rabbis to tell their high-holiday congregations to support AIPAC
-
Israeli PR firm scrubs Bronner from website as investigative report appears
-
Why Israelis are feeling isolated
-
Blumenthal: NYT’s Bronner is stabled at speakers bureau headed by settler dedicated ‘first and foremost’ to ‘Zionist mission’
-
US ambassador to Israel says ‘test of every US policy in Middle East’ is– does it secure Israel?
-
Saudis to US: You’re sleeping on the couch tonight
-
Pro-Israel lobbyists work to save Palestinian Authority funding (and why should this be a surprise?)
-
Rep. Rothman vows Congress will wreak ‘devastating impact’ on Palestinian economy if P.A. doesn’t drop statehood bid
-
On saying that Israel has a right to exist
Michael Lerner says We need a Jewish state b/c Jews continue to face vulnerability, hatred
Sep 14, 2011
Philip Weiss
Michael Lerner has called on Obama to recognize a Palestinian state and to affirm that Israel is a Jewish state. Here he explains why he’s a Zionist:
Israel was the first affirmative action state, recognized by the United Nations primarily out of a global recognition that the Jewish people had faced extraordinary persecution through much of the past two thousand years, culminating in the Holocaust. Its policy of giving a special right of return and special rights to immigrant housing is a legitimate response to the vulnerability the Jewish people continue to face in light of continuing hatred of Jews based on prejudicial views of who Jews are and what we stand for.
Thanks, rabbi, this is helpful. It is the reason many Jews support Israel as a Jewish state, they really think they’ll need it. Even liberal Jews. I don’t feel that way. Do you, young Jews?
Israeli Foreign Ministry urges American rabbis to tell their high-holiday congregations to support AIPAC
Sep 14, 2011
Philip Weiss
The Israeli Foreign Ministry has issued a booklet for American rabbis, guiding them on how to address their congregations during the High Holidays. One of the teachings calls on American rabbis to urge their congregations to support the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. Because AIPAC always supports the gov’t of Israel.
AIPAC is not a registered foreign agent, by the way. It dodged that bullet 50 years ago.
The booklet is called “Seeking Peace: A Resource Guide for Rabbis” and reflects real anxiety about Americans’ disaffection from Israel–“Israel needs us”; so much for the claim that the Israel lobby is bunk. Another theme is fear about the p.r. battering Israel is about to get for opposing Palestinian statehood. The writings in the 52-page pamphlet repeatedly state that Israel is all for a Palestinian state, but that state must be negotiated, not unilaterally declared. (i.e., on our terms; sort of like Mubarak demanding negotiations when the people in Tahrir were just sick of him.)
Some choice bits from the Foreign Ministry’s rabbis, including my headline and also the statement that Palestinians “occupy the land.” Be sure and read the last parable. Says it all. The Foreign Ministry is scared sick that young American Jews won’t drink the Koolaid.
Jack Moline, rabbi of an Alexandria, Va., congregation:
For all of the warnings by the Isaiah camp and all of the moaning by the Jeremiah camp, the goal of peace with the Palestinians who occupy the land has been pursued with diligence…
Whatever else you support politically, you should support the one organization dedicated to thepolicies that the government of Israel is itself committed to—the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC. All these other groups who claim to be David to the Goliath of AIPAC simply have it wrong. It is not that AIPAC is perfect, and it is not that AIPAC always gets things right. But there are two things that AIPAC indeed always gets right that are the essential things a lover of Israel who does not live in Israel needs to learn: first, the duly elected government of Israel gets to set its own policy without being dictated to by anyone else, including the United States and including the Jews of the United States. And the other thing for us to learn from AIPAC is that there are enemies in this world.
Harold Berman, Ohio rabbi:
I am very upset when I meet Jews who are clueless about Israel and the Middle East. And I am mostupset when I hear Jews, in some cases Jews who are reasonably well attuned to current events,mouthing platitudes that condemn Israel falsely and maliciously. Israel can defend itself well, and will, and Israel can even stand against a lot of horribly prejudiced world opinion. But Israel needs us. And for a lot of reasons, we need Israel.
Deborah Zecher, senior rabbi at a Great Barrington, MA., synagogue:
In February, I attended a forum on Israel at the Hebrew Union College where I heard a rabbinicstudent casually declare that Israel’s continued existence was not a compelling issue for him. When I heard these words, I felt as though someone had kicked the air out of my lungs. There are plenty of people in the world who question Israel’s survival. Some of them are Israel’s enemiesbut many are people who care deeply about Israel, not only her physical existence but also hermoral and religious survival. They work tirelessly to challenge her people and her leaders to embody the best of Jewish ethical and moral values. Their questions emerge from a profound concern about the future of Israel. What made this student’s statement so upsetting for me is that this student, this future leader of the Jewish people, uttered these words in the context of not being particularly upset whether or not Israel survives. Israel’s continued existence just didn’t matter that much.
Israeli PR firm scrubs Bronner from website as investigative report appears
Sep 14, 2011
Adam Horowitz
Max Blumenthal’s investigative report into Ethan Bronner’s relationship with the Israeli PR firm Lone Star Communications references a photo of Bronner “arm-in-arm” with Charley Levine, the West Bank settler who founded the firm. When I went to the Lone Star website I couldn’t find it. Blumenthal sent me the following screen shot and said this page appeared here as late as last week:
Lone Star Speaker’s Bureau featuring Photo of Ethan Bronner with Lone star founder Charley levine. There is a Google cache of the page from September 1, 2011 here.
The caption under the photo reads, “New York Times bureau chief Ethan Bronner was the first VIP speaker to join the new Lone Star Speakers Bureau.” Bronner is also listed first on the bureau. Here’s what the Lone Star Speakers Bureau webpage looks like today:
Bronner is not even listed, and the photo features Natan Sharansky:
I have an email into Lone Star asking if Bronner has been dropped from the Bureau, I’ll update when I get a response.
Update: The Electronic Intifada’s Benjamin Doherty has determined that the Speakers Bureau page on the Lone Star website was in fact edited today:
Credit: Benjamin Doherty
We still don’t know what was changed on the page, but given the minimal differences between the pages with and without Bronner (above), this would seem to indicate that he was edited out very recently.
Why Israelis are feeling isolated
Sep 14, 2011
Chris Keeler
This post originally appeared on Notes from a Medinah
According to Benny Morris, Israel is under internal and external existential threats. From the inside, Israel is facing the growth of religious and nationalist settlers and ultra orthodox conservatism combined with an ever-increasing polarization in wealth distribution and a troublesome Arab minority that wants silly things like minority rights. Externally, Morris sees a region that is collapsing in on Israel. Resurgent political Islam in Turkey and Egypt has resulted in clear anti-Zionist rhetoric and the continued occupation of Palestine is threatening Israel’s democratic character. Israel is clearly facing a troubling time, but are these really the reasons for the Israeli malaise?
Domestically, Morris is more or less on target. The disproportionate influence of the settler movement and the ultra conservatives in the Knesset has resulted in an unbalance flaw of funds to the occupied territories. (Although Morris claims that the uneven birth rates – 8-5 children per family for ultra conservatives and 3-2 for secular families – has created ‘disproportionate clout in Parliament.’ If the issue was demographic, it would not be disproportionate. The Israeli government supports the settlers and ultra conservatives thanks to effective lobbying efforts and a extremist-leaning government that ideologically supports the causes of these groups.) Consequently, the government has been able to provide fewer social goods for Israel proper while allowing for rapid inflation on basic products, encouraging the ‘brain drain’ that Morris speaks of.
Regarding the Arab population in Israel, however, Morris applies a terrible double standard. Most Palestinians living in Israel proper are content to stay a part of the Israeli state if a final two state solution is made, citing greater economic opportunities (itself a reflection of the depressed ability of the PA to develop throughout the West Bank.) Israeli Arabs, though, are unquestionably regarded as second-class citizens that do not receive the same rights as their Jewish compatriots. Lawsallowing communities to reject Arabs and preventing Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens from applying for citizenship are undeniably targeting the Arab minority. If this is what a “Jewish state” looks like, Palestinians would be crazy not to oppose the idea. The fact that Israeli Arabs are pushing for equal social, political and economic rights does not mean that the Arab population is contributing the Israel’s domestic issues, unless, of course, one feels as though Israel should not be granting Arabs equal rights.
Internationally, Morris desperately attempts to blame the increasing regional anti-Israeli sentiment on the rise of political Islam, which he (and others) believes is a negative consequence of the Arab Spring. Morris cites Turkey’s recent turn against Israel and the embassy attack in Cairo as evidence that political Islam has been let loose and is targeting the Israeli state, even though the embassy attack was not perpetrated by Islamists. Typically, Morris ignores the Israeli actions whichprompted such a response: namely, the Mavi Marmara attack and the subsequent diplomatic warwith Turkey and the murder of five Egyptian policemen by Israeli forces. Prior to the Israeli attack that killed nine Turkish citizens, Turkey was considered one of Israel’s most important and loyal allies – all under the same government – yet Morris explains the Turkish shift in foreign policy as a new twist is Islamism in Ankara. In Egypt, Morris is surprised that Egyptians resent Israel, even though Israel buys gas and oil at a reduced price from Egypt and Egyptians do not hold full sovereignty over the Sinai?
Morris also notes that the west supports the Arab Spring as “heralds of democratic transformation,” but notes that “Israelis are less optimistic.” Simply because forces such as the Muslim Brotherhood may gain political control in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere does not mean that the Arab Spring did not usher in democracy. Israelis are less optimistic because they correctly view the democratization of Egypt, Libya and potentially Syria as the process that will bring people and parties to power that will no longer accept Israeli unilateral breaches of international law and will stand more firmly next to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Democracy is the form of government that reflects the wishes of the people and this is precisely what Israel is scared of. Egyptians, Turks, and Palestinians are looking disapprovingly at Israel’s repeated violation of airspace in Lebanon and Egyptian territorial waters, the murder of foreign citizens with impunity, and the continued occupation of Palestine and the siege on Gaza. Consequently, these governments are moving away from Israel. This is not a failure in democracy, as Morris implies, but rather a confirmation of its efficacy. The evolving anti-Israeli notions in the region should not be seen as a failure of the democratic Arab Spring, but rather as proof that Israeli regional exceptionalism is withering.
There are many reasons why Israelis may be feeling increasingly isolated this fall. However, the evolution of Israel’s domestic and foreign challenges are not independent of Israeli policy. The break in ties is not, as Morris implies, a new inherent consequence of political Islam in Ankara, but rather a reflection of the management of the Turkish alliance by the Israeli government. Likewise, Egyptian criticism (even in the form of a highly illegal and regrettable embassy attack) can be traced to the humiliation of Egyptian people by Israel (SCAF’s mismanagement of the democratic transition certainly didn’t help either.)
If Israel is going to relieve itself of this impending sense of regional isolation, it must take a moment for self-reflection. For too long Israel has been blaming criticism on some unreasonable anti-Semitism or rejection of the Jewish presence in the Holy Land. Of course, there are some extremists that reject Israel as a state and base their proclamations and actions completely on anti-Semitic influences. This current state of Israeli unease, on the other hand, should not be seen or portrayed in that light. The troubles Israel is facing at home, and abroad with Turkey, Egypt and Palestine are all self-imposed and could easily have been managed or prevented.
Blumenthal: NYT’s Bronner is stabled at speakers bureau headed by settler dedicated ‘first and foremost’ to ‘Zionist mission’
Sep 14, 2011
Philip Weiss
At CJR, Max Blumenthal has published an incisive piece of reporting showing that Times Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner is represented by an Israeli speakers bureau called Lone Star Communications that has rightwing bonafides, and that Bronner has several times reported on Lone Star’s clients. The Times issued a pro forma defense of Bronner, that it respects his professionalism and impartiality. Say, remember when the Times publicly rebuked contributor Daniel Ming for going to pro-Palestinian rallies when he was writing about Jewish Voice for Peace for the newspaper? Bronner had a son in the Israeli army, too. Does his enmeshment in Israeli society ever cross a line for the Times?
In early 2009, [Charley]Levine supplemented Lone Star’s operation by establishing a speakers bureau designed to arrange paid lectures for major media figures in Israel. His first speaker was Bronner, who he described in an e-mail to CJR as “a nominal friend and a terrific journalist.” Levine rounded out his roster of speakers with eight well-known Israeli media figures, including Haim Yavin, “founding father of Israel television news”; David Baker, “senior foreign press coordinator of the Israeli prime minister’s office—under four prime ministers”; and Amiel Ungar, “well-known spokesman of the settler movement in Judea and Samaria.” The speakers bureau section of the Lone Star site is illustrated with a photo of Levine and Bronner arm-in-arm….
Bronner says he does not share what he described as “Charley Levine’s rightist politics.” According to Levine’s bio on Lone Star’s website, he lives in a “suburb of Jerusalem.” That “suburb” is, in fact, the Jewish mega-settlement of Ma’ale Adumim, which cuts deep into the West Bank. “I see myself as a mainstream Israeli who believes first and foremost in the Zionist mission of the state of Israel, in free enterprise, in the rule of law, and in the twin democratic and Jewish pillars of this nation,” Levine wrote in an e-mail.
Levine’s client roster includes people and organizations identified with the Israeli political center, like Kadima USA. But Levine has not shied away from promoting people like Dov Hikind, a New York State Assemblyman and acolyte of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose terrorism-linked Kach Party is banned inside Israel. Another Lone Star client, Danny Danon, a member of the Knesset, argued this May in The New York Times’s op-ed section that Israel should annex large sections of the West Bank in response to the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations. Lone Star handled publicity during a visit to Israel for longshot Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, who said at one point during his campaign that he supported loyalty oaths for Muslims seeking to serve in his administration. Lone Star coordinated the media for Glenn Beck’s recent “Restoring Courage” rally in Jerusalem. Beck is listed as a client. …
Among other Lone Star Communications clients that Bronner has covered or mentioned in the period since he joined Lone Star’s speaker’s bureau are The Israel Project, on September 4, 2009; NGO Monitor, on April 4, 2011; and Danny Danon, a conservative member of the Knesset, on May 20, 2011. He also did a piece on The Jewish National Fund—which Levine says is not on retainer, but which Lone Star has done occasional projects for—on March 12, 2009.
US ambassador to Israel says ‘test of every US policy in Middle East’ is– does it secure Israel?
Sep 14, 2011
Philip Weiss
I mentioned new US ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro’s speech to the Jewish People Policy Institute last week. But Alison Weir at CNI got the better headline:
In a recent speech before the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI), Ambassador Daniel Shapiro clarified what drives US policies:
“The test of every policy the Administration develops in the Middle East is whether it is consistent with the goal of ensuring Israel’s future as a secure, Jewish, democratic state. That is a commitment that runs as a common thread through our entire government.”
Shapiro went on to say: “This test explains our extraordinary security cooperation, our stand against the delegitimization of Israel, our efforts on Iran, our response to the Arab Spring, and our efforts on Israeli-Palestinian peace.”
It also explains a factor in the downward slide in American prosperity and standing in the world.
Saudis to US: You’re sleeping on the couch tonight
Sep 14, 2011
Paul Mutter
Prominent Saudi officials have been wagging their fingers at the U.S. since 9/11, trying to convince Washington that Riyadh is as indispensable to the U.S.’s Middle East status quo as Tel Aviv is. One such prominent Saudi official, Prince Bandar, has gone so far as to compare the arrangement between Saudi Arabia as a “Catholic marriage,” i.e., periods of separation are allowed but divorce is not. He is, by U.S. standards, an exasperating partner because of his proclivity to make statements along the lines of “the U.S. shouldn’t be counted on to restore stability across the Middle East” and to go around the U.S.’s back in conversations with Pakistani, Emirates and Malaysian officials.
Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi ambassador and intelligence chief (one of the main silent partners in the U.S.-led campaign to arm the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s) is suggesting the stubborn U.S. will soon be seeing some unwelcome papers from his lawyer. He warns the U.S. that it’s recalcitrance over the Palestinian Authority’s effort at the UN will force the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to reconsider its ties with Washington. From the New York Times:
“The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world. If it does not, American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region.”
“Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.”
“Saudi leaders would be forced by domestic and regional pressures to adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy. Like our recent military support for Bahrain’s monarchy, which America opposed, Saudi Arabia would pursue other policies at odds with those of the United States, including opposing the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Iraq and refusing to open an embassy there despite American pressure to do so. The Saudi government might part ways with Washington in Afghanistan and Yemen as well.”
Considering that the Saudis have long been our partners in making Afghanistan, Yemen andBahrain what they are today, their newfound “unhelpfulness” would certainly undermine U.S. interests in those countries – if it actually comes to pass.
Saudi statements about Israel today essentially amount to (hypocritical) bluster. Saudi Arabia is no sudden human rights champion, however much the royal family goes on about Palestinian refugees and self-determination. And in foreign policy, there is far too much at stake for both Riyadh and Washington to have a falling out.
Nor can the Saudis realistically expect to get a better deal in Iraq than the one they currently have in the form of the U.S.-backed al-Maliki, since a different government might be more willing to work with Iran, the Saudis’ archenemy and “populist” theocratic rival (though Tehran today is about as authentically populist as Rick Perry).
In Yemen and Bahrain, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia basically have the same interests: marginalize Iran and supress popular dissent under the banner of counterterrorism. The Saudis also cannot expect to easily switch out military suppliers and consultants when it comes to their armed forces, as U.S. intel and equipment dominates the Saudi defense apparatus.
Most likely, there will be a flurry of diplomatic snubs (“Emirates, please tell the U.S. to pass the salt.”), but little more than that – you cannot say the Saudis are going to undermine aspects of U.S. policy in retaliation because, well, Saudi officials have done that on a regular basis in both good times and bad, in sickness and in health, for rich or for . . . rich.
It’s a turbulent marriage, to be sure, but remember, divorce is not permitted! And while you can annul a Catholic marriage, neither the U.S. government nor the Saudi royal family will be annuling theirs, whatever happens in Israel and the Occupied Territories from here on out.
Pro-Israel lobbyists work to save Palestinian Authority funding (and why should this be a surprise?)
Sep 14, 2011
Alex Kane
Congressional threats to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) have grown in recent weeks as the PA leadership forges toward action at the United Nations.
But at least some Israel lobby groups are voicing opposition to any reduction in aid to the PA–not because they support the bid to attain UN recognition of Palestine but because they realize a US aid cut-off could lead to the PA collapsing, which would in turn harm Israel.
Reuters reports:
It is difficult for pro-Israel groups to publicly support maintaining aid to the Palestinians given the Palestinians’ stated determination to flout the wishes of the United States.
However, at least two groups have explicitly done so — The Israel Project, which says it has laid out an argument to members of Congress that US security aid should not be cut; and J Street, which has issued a statement defending the aid.
“We have made the case that the security cooperation, which is largely funded and supported by America, needs to continue if we want to see the progress … in reducing terrorism continue,” The Israel Project’s president, Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, told Reuters, stressing her group does not lobby.
J Street said last week: “We must make clear to American politicians, particularly in Congress, that being pro-Israel does not require cutting aid to the Palestinian Authority in retaliation for approaching the UN
“Such a move will hurt Israel’s interests by undermining moderate Palestinian leadership and defunding productive security cooperation.”
The right-leaning Israel Project and J Street have both come out against the Palestinian move to the UN. Their position on funding for the PA, though, is a reminder of what the PA’s actual role in the West Bank is and why US officials like Senators John McCain and John Kerry and Elliot Abrams (all quoted in the Reuters report) are becoming increasingly vocal about maintaining aid to the PA. It also may be a harbinger of the Obama administration’s line on PA funding if a vote takes place at the UN.
The PA’s most heralded accomplishment over their decade-plus tenure was the establishment of “law and order” in the West Bank, which in part meant cracking down on political dissidents through the creation of a repressive security force. The PA security forces, which have been accused of detention, arbitrary arrest and torture, have worked hand-in-hand with the Israeli military, the US and the EU to keep the West Bank void of resistance to the occupation.
State Department cables released by WikiLeaks clearly show this dynamic. One recently released cable shows the PA’s efforts at containing protest against Israel’s 2008-09 assault on Gaza:
Hamas leaders called for mass demonstrations in the West Bank and East Jerusalem starting January 2. PA security personnel are deployed to contain violence or clashes with Israeli forces after Friday prayers. PA security contacts told ConGenOffs that the PA will allow the demonstrations but will not permit demonstrators to approach IDF positions. These contacts say they anticipate Palestinian-Israeli clashes in areas without a PA security presence, including Qalandia, Hebron’s H2 zone, and villages west of Ramallah and Bethlehem. Palestinian press report that GOI DefMin Ehud Barak ordered a general closure of the West Bank on January 2-3, and raised the IDF’s alert status.
That cable and others show why the US and Israel–bluster from right-wing politicians aside–are keen on keeping the donor tap flowing to the PA. It wouldn’t be surprising if the Obama administration bucked Congressional calls to cut off the PA–after all, the aid benefits Israel in the end, and that consideration dictates US policy.
Alex Kane, a New York City-based freelance journalist, blogs on Israel/Palestine and Islamophobia at alexbkane.wordpress.com. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.
Rep. Rothman vows Congress will wreak ‘devastating impact’ on Palestinian economy if P.A. doesn’t drop statehood bid
Sep 14, 2011
Philip Weiss
Adam Kredo quotes Rep. Steve Rothman in the Washington Jewish Week:
“My certain belief is that,” if the Palestinians don’t abandon their U.N. bid, “Congress will react strongly and negatively…. The P.A. is acting irrationally and against its own interests,” he said. “These [congressional] resolutions are unambiguous, and when put into effect … will have a devastating impact on the Palestinian economy. Most of the Palestinian leadership has decided to turn a blind eye to the terrible consequences that will result upon their own people.”
And look who the Democratic lobby is in bed with. Here is Joe Walsh, Republican congressman from Illinois, talking to Kredo:
Walsh asserted that “there is no such thing as a two-state solution, and no such thing as land for peace. The ultimate peace is going to come through annexation, through Israel having sovereignity over the whole land, from the Mediterranean to Jordan.”