Archive for May, 2011

The URJ’s sharp left turn onto J Street

Monday, May 9th, 2011

JTA has published yet another list of eminent Reform personalities who support the selection of Rabbi Richard Jacobs as President of the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ).

Like all the other responses to the objection raised by some Reform Jews that an activist member of J Street and the New Israel Fund (NIF) is not an appropriate choice to lead the largest Jewish denomination in America, it offers no arguments, just character witness:

Rabbi Jacobs has made the welfare, security and democratic character of Israel a prime focus of his rabbinate. He is an ohev Yisrael, a lover of Israel, of the first order.

What we need today are Jewish leaders in Israel and North America who will not hesitate to struggle with the difficult questions of peacemaking and human rights while being firmly committed to the security of Israel. Rick Jacobs is such a leader. Rabbi Jacobs speaks his mind independently and with unswerving integrity.

In other words, “He’s cool. Trust us.” It isn’t enough.

It does not respond to the point of our criticism, which was that one cannot be a member of J Street’s Rabbinic Cabinet and a board member of the NIF and still be a Zionist in any meaningful sense.

There have always been Jewish anti-Zionists, those who oppose a sovereign state for the Jewish people for various reasons. Some think that only God can create such a state; others, that it will cause conflict or increase antisemitism in the Diaspora, etc. Even the Reform movement was quite anti-Zionist in the beginning, and only slowly moved toward Zionism over the years.

But there is a new twist to the anti-Zionism of J Street and the NIF: they act against the Jewish state while insisting that they are acting out of love for it. They attack and weaken the state while claiming that they are only trying to make it better, more democratic, more peaceful, more tolerant. They are remarkably arrogant, because they believe that they know better than the great majority of Israeli Jews who more or less approve of the policies of their elected government (and who are directly, physically, impacted by them).

In addition, they damage the image of Israel in the US — which is absolutely critical to Israel’s survival — by arguing that Israel is becoming undemocratic, theocratic and intolerant, and imply that it is not worthy of support by enlightened liberals.

The supporters of Rabbi Jacobs suggest that they are only trying to change the location of the center, to move it leftward to meet what they perceive as the new consensus among young Jews. As Rabbis Ellenson, Kelman and Marmur wrote in response to the original criticism:

A significant number of North American Jews of a liberal disposition under the age of 40 are less and less likely to make Israel a central part of their lives. Yet, a small and highly influential committed core is swimming against the tide, and developing meaningful models for engagement for this cohort with Israel at this dramatic and uncertain time is a necessity for all of us who love and support the Jewish State. In Rabbi Jacobs’ example of encounter with Israel, in his willingness to confront complexity and face up to unpalatable realities, in his infectious enthusiasm and immense charm, he is a model for such younger Jews. To vilify him is to alienate them still further.

J Street and the NIF do not represent a new, slightly more ‘liberal’ approach to Zionism. J Street espouses and the NIF funds anti-Zionist causes. In the case of J Street, there’s good reason to believe that it’s fundamentally fraudulent, financially supported by people and institutions that are aligned with Israel’s enemies.

The URJ’s move is a major realignment, not a minor ideological shift. We probably owe it to the way anti-Zionism has become fashionable in US colleges and universities, part of the conventional wisdom for progressives.

But fashionable or not, we don’t have to accept it.  There are a great many Reform Jews — we think they are a majority — that believe that the Jewish people has a right to self-determination in its own land and that without a state the Jewish people will return to the unstable existence as luftmenschen that characterized Jewish life for centuries.

Such Zionists understand that it is antithetical to their beliefs to apply the same double standards, to join in the delegitimizing and even demonizing tactics that are employed by Israel’s — and Jewry’s — most vicious enemies.

I am not exaggerating when I say that the most dangerous foe that Israel faces in this dangerous time consists of Jews — Jews who are obsessively self-critical, delusively optimistic about the intentions of their enemies, and convinced that the only moral path is that of appeasement. Nothing validates the anti-Israel forces more than to be able to point to a Jew that agrees with them. Imagine if that Jew happens to be the President of the URJ!

Am I being fair to Rabbi Jacobs? Perhaps not — but as long as he continues to support and take an active role in J Street and the NIF, which do their best to promote the principles of Jewish anti-Zionism, then one can only assume that they are his principles too.

I know that the URJ leadership feels that the movement is facing many serious problems, and they wish this one would go away (one rabbi wrote that the issue was ‘irrelevant’). But I hope they realize that we are not going away. There will be more advertisements and we will continue talking about this issue.

And I hope that they understand that it is not we who are the divisive force. They are the ones that decided to take a sharp left turn away from Israel and onto J Street.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Quotes of the week: Barry Rubin and Emet m’Tsiyon on Syria

Sunday, May 8th, 2011

Barry Rubin:

There is no excuse for President Obama not to utter six simple words: The Assad dictatorship must go now.

Perhaps a thousand Syrians have been killed so far in the ruthless suppression of dissent orchestrated by Bashar al-Assad. I suppose the administration plans to wait until Bashar surpasses the record set by his father Hafez, who put down the 1982 revolt in Hama at a cost estimated between 17,000 and 40,000 dead.

But it’s not like the Syrian regime is such a bargain for the rest of the world, either. Recently, Hillary Clinton reiterated her remarkable judgment that Assad could be a reformer. Here’s how one Israeli blogger responds:

This would pathetic and laughable if were not so sad and dangerous. The sanctions that [Clinton] mentioned were mild and toothless. She says all this after a host of Syrian/Assadian deeds demonstrating the bloodthirsty, tyrannical nature of the Syrian/Assadian regime. Has she forgotten the murder of Rafiq Hariri in Beirut, only six years ago, together with two dozen other people?? How about all the murders of the anti-Syrian leaders in Lebanon, members of parliament and journalists, etc? What about the short-lived Lebanese president, Rene Mu`awad, 20 years ago, after the Taif Accord? What about Kamal Jumblatt and Bashir Jemayel? What about the 20,000 to 30,000 Syrians slaughtered by Junior Assad’s father, Hafiz, in Hama in 1982? And Bashar who shows no mercy to his own people eagerly helps the Hizbullah in Lebanon to kill as many Jews in Israel as possible. Does any of that make an impression in Washington?

Apparently not. Nor, says Barry Rubin, does this:

Syria’s government has allied itself and helps in every way the terrorists who have killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq. And those terrorists belong to al-Qaida. Remember them? The group until recently headed by Usama bin Laden that carried out the September 11 attacks. This is also the strongest and most significant remaining al-Qaida member group.

What is there about the Assad regime that the US doesn’t get? Why did we return our ambassador (who was withdrawn as a result of the Hariri murder) while Assad was helping insurgents enter Iraq and supplying Hizballah?

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am not too paranoid. But if you wanted to react to the upheavals in the Middle East in the absolutely worst possible way for Israel, you might do this:

  1. Fail to support Iranian dissidents or take effective action against the Iranian nuclear program.
  2. Fail to take action against the Hizballah takeover in Lebanon.
  3. But do encourage the overthrow of the Mubarak regime, so that it can be replaced by one which will be friendlier to Iran and Hamas and which is likely to throw away the peace treaty.
  4. And do allow your enemy and Israel’s, Bashar Assad, to put down the challenge to his dictatorship.

And do these other things:

  1. Prevent Israel from a) overthrowing Hamas in Operation Cast Lead and b) defeating it by economic warfare.
  2. Help the PLO build an army to fight Israel with.
  3. Support the Palestinian position that the lack of negotiations is Israel’s fault.

Is that how you support an ally that is more reliable, militarily stronger, and closer to your democratic values than any Arab nation? And is that the way to look after American interests?

Technorati Tags: , ,

Moty & Udi: Gaza marathon, more surrealism

Saturday, May 7th, 2011

Surrealism in the news today.

Yes, there really was a Gaza Marathon this past week. Although video of the event appears to show a female runner starting along with the men, the reporter notes that “organisers had to consider the sensitivities of male and female athletes running side-by-side.”

In other news, after the Fatah/Hamas agreement, the frank admission by Hamas political leader Khaled Meshal that ‘two state solution’ means ‘no more Israel’, and the continued refusal of any of the parties on the Arab side to agree that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, the UN’s Ban Ki-Moon took the courageous step of asking Israel to make “decisive moves toward a historic agreement.”

And after the Israelis decided that they really didn’t intend to pay the Palestinians to kill them, the Europeans (who know a thing or two about killing Jews) stepped right in to make sure that every Palestinian Arab can afford the explosives he needs.

Some surreal bits from today’s WSJ article/interview with Meshal (who has moved to newly-comfortable Cairo from newly-dangerous Syria):

Hamas has scaled back its use of violence in recent years, halting suicide bombings and reining in the firing of rockets at Israel. Still, Hamas militants in the West Bank were responsible for a number of shootings of Israeli settlers in the West Bank last year. Last month, Hamas militants in Gaza fired an antitank missile at an Israeli school bus, killing one child.

  1. Only settlers.
  2. Just one child.
  3. The bus had been full a few moments before.
  4. It was a highly accurate laser-guided weapon.

Diana Buttu, a former aide to Mr. Abbas, said she expects a joint Fatah-Hamas strategy on Israel would mean Hamas gives up violence, while Fatah abandons its strategy of negotiation. That could lead to the pursuit of legal action against Israel, civil disobedience and popular protest campaigns.

Maybe they’ll fire rockets containing subpoenas or respectfully refuse to obey the law against murder.

The surrealist opposition:

“In order to stop the unilateral process of recognizing a Palestinian state and get us off a track that is bad for Israel, Netanyahu must negotiate,” [Kadima leader Tzipi] Livni said. “For him to be believed, he must pay prices.

“He needed to pay with a freeze but he stammered.” …

She said that elections in Israel would “stop the world in its tracks” if they realized that a new government willing to negotiate with the Palestinians was going to be chosen. She accused Netanyahu of only caring about his political survival. — JPost

In other words:

  1. Israel hasn’t paid enough ‘prices’. The Oslo concessions and Gaza withdrawal don’t count?
  2. A ten-month freeze didn’t work, but a 3-month extension would have.
  3. The ‘world’ would stop pushing a Palestinian Arab state if only Israel had a left-wing government.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Hamas tells the truth, but the Times misleads

Friday, May 6th, 2011
Khaled Meshal (left), Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh pray in Saudi Arabia after agreeing to a cease-fire following the Gaza coup of 2007

Khaled Meshal (left), Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh pray in Saudi Arabia after agreeing to a cease-fire following the Gaza coup of 2007

Ethan Bronner of the NY Times created a sensation yesterday (or  the Times’ headline writer did) when his piece titled “Hamas Leader Calls for Two-State Solution, but Refuses to Renounce Violence” appeared.

Hamas calls for a two-state solution? Do you mean that Hamas has recanted its charter and now believes that Jews can be allowed a sovereign state of any size somewhere between the Jordan and the Mediterranean?

Hardly.

Bronner writes,

“The whole world knows what Hamas thinks and what our principles are,” [Hamas political leader Khaled] Meshal said in an interview in his Cairo hotel suite. “But we are talking now about a common national agenda. The world should deal with what we are working toward now, the national political program.”

He defined that as “a Palestinian state in the 1967 lines with Jerusalem as its capital, without any settlements or settlers, not an inch of land swaps and respecting the right of return” of Palestinian refugees to Israel itself.

In other words, today we want a Judenrein Palestinian state in the territories, plus an Arab majority in Israel. Tomorrow?

Asked if a deal honoring those principles would produce an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Meshal said, “I don’t want to talk about that.”

In other words, no.

He added: “When Israel made agreements with Egypt and Jordan, no one conditioned it on how Israel should think. The Arabs and the West didn’t ask Israel what it was thinking deep inside. All Palestinians know that 60 years ago they were living on historic Palestine from the river to the sea. It is no secret.”

Asked whether in his pact with Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, he agreed to end violent resistance, he replied: “Where there is occupation and settlement, there is a right to resistance. Israel is the aggressor. But resistance is a means, not an end.”

In other words, all of the land belongs to them, and if it is ‘occupied’, they have the right to make war — even if we concede all of their demands!

According to this version of the ‘two-state solution’, Israel agrees to the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the territories and promises to take no action against Hamas. Hamas explicitly does not agree that a sovereign Jewish entity has a right to exist, but will stop active aggression until it feels strong enough to defeat Israel. Meanwhile, Israel agrees to allow millions of hostile Arabs to enter its country, end the Jewish majority and — undoubtedly — precipitate a civil war. What a deal!

Bronner continues,

He noted that Hamas had entered into cease-fires with Israel in the past and that it was ready to do so in the future. There is one in effect right now. But his broad principle, he said, was this: “If occupation [from the river to the sea — ed.] ends, resistance ends. If Israel stops firing, we stop firing.”

Hamas has offered cease-fires before, on the model of Mohammad’s famous hudna with the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. The treaty called for a period of ten years of peace, like the cease-fire proposal made by Hamas official Ahmed Youssef in 2006. In the case of Hudaybiyyah, Mohammad found a pretext a year later, conquered Mecca and slaughtered the Qurayash.

I should add that previous short-term hudnas have foundered when Hamas, exercising its peaceful rights to dig tunnels under the border or plant explosives near the fence in order to execute operations to kidnap Israelis, has run into IDF opposition.

The concept of a ‘two-state solution’ has always been ambiguous. Even the supposedly ‘moderate’ Mahmoud Abbas has never agreed to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, nor give up the claim to ‘right of return’. For the Arabs, the ‘two states’ have always been ‘Palestine’, where Jews can’t live, and a new Arab majority state where some Jews may live — for a while. This is quite different from the idea of ‘two states for two peoples, living side by side in peace’. The addition of Hamas to the Palestinian Authority makes the contrast even more stark.

Regarding Bronner and the Times: it’s hard to think of a more misleading title for this article.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Beinartism strikes students, rabbis

Thursday, May 5th, 2011

The NY Jewish Week’s Gary Rosenblatt discusses the plague of Beinartism among liberal rabbinical students:

Stepping back, it seems that the Peter Beinart Syndrome — the concern, expressed a year ago in The New York Review of Books that young American Jews are choosing liberal values over Zionist ones — has reached our liberal rabbinic seminaries.

That shouldn’t be surprising. Our future liberal denomination rabbis are prime examples of the current generational clash over values, history and emotional attachment to Israel. On the one side are young people, raised as liberals and humanitarians, who have grown up seeing Israel through the prism of intifadas, harsh and inconclusive wars in Lebanon and Gaza, and increasing international isolation. On the other side are their elders who recall the courageous, even miraculous, early successes of the Jewish State and who are not afraid to call themselves nationalists when it comes to Israel.

First noted by Danny Gordis (and by our friends Moty and Udi here), it’s surprising that this issue waited so long for its 15 minutes of fame. As the controversy about the selection of Rabbi Richard Jacobs as URJ head shows, it’s not only the students and rabbis fresh out of school who are affected.

What did you expect? These students didn’t spring fully formed from the head of Zeus into the seminary. They went to American colleges and universities first, where they drank from the firehose of anti-Zionism that exists there.

And that’s not all they drank:

  • They learned that the only legitimate ethical position is a universalist one (although strangely enough, ‘third-world’ nationalism and tribalism escape criticism).
  • They learned that the US is one of the primary forces for evil in the world, and is irredeemably racist and corrupt (although such characteristics in its enemies get a pass).
  • They learned that truth is relative to politics, so if, for example it serves the political ends of a Nadia Abu El-Haj to deny Jewish provenance in the Land of Israel, then she can receive academic tenure for saying that, despite its objective falsehood.
  • And they learned that Humpty Dumpty was correct, words can mean whatever you want them to mean, so J Street can be pro-Israel and Rabbi Jacobs a Zionist.

They also seem to have learned that it’s OK to apply the double standard to Israel: you can call Israel a racist apartheid state because of its actions to keep terrorists from killing its population, but they rarely mention the racist propaganda and incitement to murder flowing from all the Arab (Palestinian and other) media, schools, etc. You can criticize Israel for not realizing full civil rights for Arab citizens — although it tries, in very difficult circumstances — while ignoring the fact that Jews aren’t even allowed to live in some Arab countries, even as second-class citizens.

So I’m not surprised that these young people who go to good universities grow up to be anti-Zionist and even antisemitic. What else would you expect?

Technorati Tags: , , ,