fbpx

June 2, 2008

Obama’s Jewish problem? Separating fact from fiction

Photo
Obama in high school

No shock here:

According to exit polls conducted in 30 primary states, Jewish Democratic primary voters overall supported Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama – 53 percent chose Clinton compared to 45% who chose Obama.

Yes, CBS tells us what we already know—that Jews prefer Clinton to Obama. But, then again, look at her margin of victory: 7 percentage points, plus or minus the margin of error. And this is in a heads-up competition. Considering the close intra-party race for Jews, which seem to be the Democrat’s evangelicals, it’s difficult to imagine Obama really having a “Jewish problem” if he is the nominee and running against John McCain.

And yet the question of whether Jews will vote for Obama has commanded an ungodly amount of news ink and general bloviation.

Obama will speak at AIPAC Wednesday morning, and in advance, The Forward suggested his Jewish problem has more to do with media perception than reality:

Obama’s Jewish problem? Separating fact from fiction Read More »

‘What We Call The News’

An occasional topic on this blog is the slow death of print journalism. It has little to do with religion but …

I actually started as a print journalist, joining my college paper, The Daily Bruin, because I wanted to be a TV man. And all good TV journalists, I assumed, were good writers. You’re laughing, right? I wasn’t, and I got an internship at KNBC in Los Angeles, which scared me straight, and I haven’t watch the local news since. (I actually hadn’t really watched it before either.)

Above is a righteous parody of “What We Call The News.” It sticks to national and cable news. Just imagine how inane the topics would be if this went local.

You stay classy, Planet Earth

‘What We Call The News’ Read More »

McCain tells AIPAC that Obama would endanger Israel

The AIPAC policy conference began today, and John McCain planned to waste little time sowing fear about his presumptive Democratic opponent for the presidency, Barack Obama. From NYT’s The Caucus:

he charged that Mr. Obama’s calls for diplomacy with Iran were misguided and insufficient, and that his proposal to begin withdrawing United States troops from Iraq would lead to chaos in the region and endanger Israel.

In remarks that Senator McCain planned to deliver in a cavernous room here at the Washington convention center, he dwelled on the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose – and criticized the positions of Mr. Obama, his likely Democratic rival.

“The Iranians have spent years working toward a nuclear program,’’ Mr. McCain was to say, according to excerpts from the speech provided by his campaign. “And the idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refuse to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history,’’ he added, noting that previous overtures by the Clinton administration had failed.

“Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before,’’ he said in the advance text of his speech, which was provided by his campaign.

“Yet it’s hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another. Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.”

Updated: Footage above of McCain’s speech via Jerusalem Online

McCain tells AIPAC that Obama would endanger Israel Read More »

Iran sanctions figure large in AIPAC lobbying

As 5,000 AIPAC activists ascend Capitol Hill this week, they will be pushing a multifaceted agenda with a clear bottom line: It’s the sanctions, stupid.

Some new wrinkles in the lobbying blitz that traditionally follows the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy forum deal with the role of Arab nations in advancing Israel-Arab peace and with securing a pledged increase in U.S. assistance to Israel.

But the most dramatic advance is in a proposal to cut off refined petroleum exports to Iran, hitting 40 percent of that country’s gas market.

AIPAC has led the way since the mid-1990s in advocating for sanctions aimed at crippling the Iranian economy until the Islamic Republic ends its suspected nuclear weapons program. In recent years, the notion of sanctioning Iran has gained traction, with the U.N. Security Council imposing three sets of sanctions in the past 18 months.

Still, the sanctions regime has apparently had little effect: U.N. nuclear weapons inspectors last month delivered a blistering report saying that Iran was taking steps to hide its weapons program. In addition, inspectors say they have evidence suggesting that some elements of the Iranian program were military and not peaceful—in sharp contrast to Tehran’s claims.

After two days of sessions heavily weighted toward considering the possibility of a nuclear threat, 5,000 of the 7,000 activists will head to 500 meetings on the Hill armed with talking points for a bill that has languished in the U.S. Senate since it passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives last year.

The Iran Counter Proliferation Act would expand existing sanctions by hitting companies and nations that deal with Iran’s energy sector. It also would cut off Iran entirely from the U.S. finance system.

Bolstering that bill is a nonbinding resolution put forward last week by U.S. Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.). The resolution urges President Bush to immediately impose some of the sanctions in the Counter Proliferation Act and adds the new proposal: cut off the export of refined petroleum to Iran.

“Despite sitting on some of the largest oil reserves in the world, Iran has been forced to import 40 percent of its refined petroleum—gasoline and diesel—because of a lack of investment in its oil refining infrastructure,” states the memo prepared for AIPAC activists. “Limiting Iran¹s ability to import gasoline will severely impact Iran¹s economy and could lead to dramatically greater domestic pressure on the regime to change course.”

The language of the congressional resolution is sensitive to the political realities of a presidential campaign that has made the possibility of war against Iran a partisan issue: It explicitly counts out military action—a point hammered home in the AIPAC talking points.

“The resolution specifically states that nothing in the resolution shall be construed to be an authorization for military action,” the sheet says. “In fact, the sanctions called for in H. Con. Res. 362 are the best way to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability by avoiding military action.”

Additionally, the action part of the resolution opens by declaring “that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently.”

Notably absent from AIPAC’s talking points is any mention of military force—a prospect that spooks Democrats and would discomfit an organization that prides itself on its bipartisanship.

The proposal falls just shy of reported suggestions from Israel’s government that the United States and Britain blockade Iran’s ports to keep out refined petroleum. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly brought up the proposal in conversations last month with U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House speaker. Olmert and Pelosi are addressing the AIPAC conference.

AIPAC in its talking points is generally careful to hew to areas where Democrats and Republicans agree when it comes to Iran. However, some of the language would appear to clash with specific policies associated with U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the likely Democratic presidential nominee who also is addressing the conference.

“Entering into a dialogue before Iran has complied with U.N. resolutions and suspended its uranium enrichment could undermine Security Council decisions and allow Tehran to use the dialogue as a way to continue advancing its nuclear program,” the AIPAC memo states. “Iran used previous talks with the European Union to make significant advances in its nuclear program while staving off international sanctions.”

That hardly jibes with Obama’s support for dialogue backed up by what he calls tough diplomacy; it sounds of a piece with the rhetoric of U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama’s Republican rival.

Furthermore, in conference literature AIPAC proudly touts support in both the House and Senate for language declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist group.

Obama was not present for that vote, but said he would would have opposed the measure, a position favored by many liberal Democratic activists. Obama’s main Democratic rival in the primaries, U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), backed the language.

Also on the lobbying agenda is Bush’s proposal to increase U.S. assistance to Israel from an average of $2.4 billion to $3 billion annually. Letters circulating in both chambers of Congress urge the president to continue his efforts to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

The letters, initiated in the House by its leaders, and in the Senate by Mary Landrieu (R-La.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), do not mention recent backing by Bush and Congress for increased U.S. financial and political support for Palestinian moderates. Instead they decry the alleged lack of such support from Arab nations.

“We anticipated more from nations that have claimed reaching such an agreement is one of their top priorities,” the letters say. “We struggle to understand why those Arab states that are flush with oil revenues cannot provide meaningful financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority.”

The emphasis underscores a tone throughout AIPAC’s materials that suggests a skepticism about the peace process. The talking points pose a question: “Can a peace agreement still be reached this year?”

Its answer is hardly committal: “Israel and the Palestinians have both made clear that any agreement reached will be subject to the implementation of the first phase of the ‘road map.’ In Israeli eyes, this must include an end to violence and the dismantling of the terrorist infrastructure.”

 

Iran sanctions figure large in AIPAC lobbying Read More »

With business booming in India, young Jews are staying put

MUMBAI, India (JTA)—About 500 well-wishers gathered recently around Isaac Divekar and Siyona Garsulkar at their outdoor catered wedding reception at the Elie Kadoorie School here.

Divekar, an accountant for a large investment firm, and Garsulkar, a human resources professional, had just married at one of this city’s noted synagogues, Magen Hassidim, built in 1931.

Unlike many young Indian Jewish couples who, in previous years, often left the country in search of greater opportunity and Jewish life elsewhere, this young couple will be staying put in Mumbai.

³There are more job opportunities in India now,² said Divekar, citing call centers and outsourcing from the United States. Young Jews ³are staying in India and not emigrating.²

Divekar and his wife epitomize the new India and its revived Jewish community of nearly 5,000, most of which lives in this metropolis of 19 million formerly known as Bombay.

Seeing a bright future in their native land, young Indian Jews increasingly are remaining in India, which has the world’s fastest growing major economy after China. India’s 9 percent growth rate in 2007 was four times that of the United States and nearly twice that of Israel.

Last year, only 49 Jews left the community for Israel, down from 291 in 2006—though the latter figure included the 229 Bnei Menashe from northeast India, according to Ze’ev Schwartzberg, head of the Ethiopia and India desk of the Jewish Agency for Israel’s aliyah department.

Schwartzberg said 90 Indian Jews left for Israel in 2004 and 143 the previous year. India’s booming economy and the Arab-Israeli conflict are keeping aliyah down, he said.

The Jewish population in India “has remained stable,” said Elijah Jacob, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee country manager in India, citing a total of 4,480 Jews in India. Approximately 3,700 reside in Mumbai and nearby Thane. The balance live in the Konkan villages, Pune, Ahmedabad, Kochi (Cochin), Delhi and Calcutta.

Young Indian Jews like Divekar and Siyona have witnessed the economic boom overtaking the subcontinent.

“Never has there been a better time to have been born in India,” seems to be the country’s motto, uttered on Indian television almost every day.

With a population of about 1.15 billion, India, like China, has capitalized on its educated workforce to become a major exporter of high-tech, financial and other services.

Most young Jews are educated in Indian schools where English is the language of instruction and are highly proficient in English and technology. They see their country as a place of opportunity, especially in high-tech jobs and “call centers which pay extremely well,” according to Antony Korenstein, country director of the JDC in India.

“Jews are sharing in and riding the economic wave,” Korenstein said.

Many young Indian Jews work in high-tech industries and financial services, whereas their parents tended to work as family business owners, company directors, lawyers and bank clerks.

The parents “certainly are not poor, though very few are truly wealthy,” Korenstein said.

With business booming in India, young Jews are staying put Read More »

Olmert’s American visit: Parading an embarassment

First, let’s discuss junkets. All politicians take them, and no doubt some are valuable. Others are quite troubling. Journalists being journalists condemn politicians who accept travel from vested interests and criticize those who finance foreign visits using public funds. Last week, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who on June 11 will begin a seven-day tour of Israel’s green technology and security advancements, caught the brunt of the LA Daily News’ editorial blunt:

In the best of financial times, taxpayers are justified in their suspicions of political junkets. Too often, these publicly funded trips are barely disguised vacations for government officials, payoffs to political cronies and private power brokers, or a way to cement a politician’s public profile among various key constituencies.

But in tough financial times like these – with local governments planning massive service cuts and fee hikes – junketeers are all the more obligated to prove that their field trips are truly worth the public’s money.

That is especially true of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s weeklong trip to Israel in June, which will be paid for by the city’s airports, port, and water and power departments.

To be sure, there are conceivable, legitimate travel expenses for government officials, especially in such a massive and complex city as Los Angeles. The Mayor’s Office cites the trip to Israel as a chance to bring city leaders up to speed on developments in aviation, security and environmental sustainability – all valid city concerns.

That said, the details available so far don’t go far enough to justify the untold thousands in taxpayer funds this trip will cost. …

There are legitimate reasons for city officials to travel on the public’s dime – but politics and R&R aren’t among them.

Photo

Today’s dignitary, or maybe in this case indignitary, to be called out was Ehud Olmert, who tomorrow begins what will likely be his final American trip as Israel’s prime minister. From Haaretz:

Olmert’s American visit: Parading an embarassment Read More »

Once wealthy and numerous, Baghdad’s Jews at the edge

The nearly extinct Jewish tribe in Baghdad has become an evergreen religious story. Strange.

Time magazine reported last summer that one of the most significant Jewish communities in history had dwindled to eight. As in barely more than in Kabul. The New York Times followed up this weekend with a much more colorful story that begins:

Once wealthy and numerous, Baghdad’s Jews at the edge Read More »

Christians protest provocative Starbucks image

Photo

This is really ridiculous. I know some people aren’t happy with Starbucks’ new Pike Place roast, but the logo is too … slutty? That’s what a Christian organization in England claims:

the coffee chains’ recent revival of their original 35-year-old logo which depicts the legendary siren as a bare-breasted beauty has proved a little too racy for some.

A Christian group has called for a boycott of the global coffee chain because the new logo now shows the mermaid naked from the waist up, with only two thin locks of hair preserving her dignity.

‘The Starbucks logo has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute,” complained Mark Dice, founder of the group Resistance.

“Need I say more? It’s extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks.”

This is what happens when there are no more “Harry Potter” books to protest. I didn’t even realize mermaids had legs.

(Hat tip: Faith Central)

Christians protest provocative Starbucks image Read More »

Hagee: anti-Christ will be gay and Jewish

Another week, another stomach-turning sermon goes viral on YouTube. This one is again courtesy of the Rev. John Hagee, who says the anti-Christ will be “a blasphemer and a homosexual,” probably from Germany and “at least partly Jewish, as was Adolf Hitler, as was Karl Marx.” (Minor fact-checking: Marx was all Jewish, but an apostate, and Hitler wasn’t even a bit.)

Hagee: anti-Christ will be gay and Jewish Read More »

All signs point to Olmert’s ouster

JERUSALEM (JTA)—The media and the political establishment in Israel already have decided: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is through.

The cover on Ma’ariv’s weekend political magazine shows a framed portrait of a sad-looking Olmert on the wall of a government office with the caption “Ehud Olmert—Prime Minister 2006-2008.”

Now his Kadima Party is preparing for a new leadership contest and the country could be heading toward new elections.

The political fallout comes in the wake of the latest corruption scandal involving the prime minister, this one alleging that Olmert took improper funds from an American fund-raiser.

There is wide consensus that Olmert’s legal team made a major strategic blunder in not cross- examining the American fund-raiser, Morris Talansky, immediately after his damning pre-trial testimony May 27 against the prime minister.

Talansky painted a picture of envelopes stuffed with dollars for Olmert’s personal use. The prime minister’s lawyers claim they can explain or disprove each and every item, that Olmert did not commit any crime and that he only did what all Israeli politicians legitimately do to finance election campaigns or speaking engagements abroad.

But the fact that the lawyers decided to defer their cross-examination of Talansky until July 17 left a pall of unchallenged allegations in the air. This led to scathing press against Olmert and demands in the political echelon for his resignation or, at least, temporary leave of absence.

Tainted by unrefuted allegations of corruption, Olmert no longer has the moral authority to make major decisions on peace or war, the critics charged.

Labor leader Ehud Barak fired the first shot in the political arena. The day after Talansky’s testimony, the defense minister issued an ultimatum: Kadima must change its leader if the party wanted to continue its coalition partnership with Labor.

“I don’t believe the prime minister can simultaneously run the government and deal with his personal issues,” Barak said.

Although Barak did not place a deadline on his ultimatum, his move was enough to trigger a process that almost certainly will lead to Olmert’s ouster. With the defection of Labor or some other disaffected coalition partner a distinct possibility, Kadima has been left with no alternative but to gear up for a new leadership primary.

Given the huge wave of public sentiment against him, it is obvious that Olmert cannot run. That has cleared the way for a four-way race with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter and Housing Minister Meir Shetreet.

Kadima’s 65,000-plus members will choose a new leader probably some time in September. Olmert has asked only that the moves be delayed sufficiently to give him a chance to clear his name, enabling him to leave office and a political career spanning more than 40 years with some dignity.

Two possibilities emerge for a government without Olmert: The new leader of Kadima could form a coalition based on the parties in the current Knesset, or there could be new elections.

The Likud Party, which is leading in the polls, wants new elections immediately. Labor and Kadima prefer building a new coalition and putting off elections for as long as possible.

Shas is the problem for Labor and Kadima. The fervently Orthodox party has indicated it would not be happy to serve under Livni, the front-runner to take over for Olmert. Shas also is demanding increased child allowances as a condition for joining any new coalition, which without Shas is not possible.

So the smart money is on elections within the next six months. Former Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, among the Likud’s most astute politicians, already has put forth a bill for the dissolution of the Knesset, with Nov. 11 as the favored election day.

Although there are several candidates to succeed Olmert, the front-runners are Livni, Barak and the Likud’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

Livni, who would become Israel’s second female prime minister after Golda Meir, is perceived as squeaky clean and thus would have a head start at the polls after the public revulsion over the Olmert-Talansky scandal.

Although her opponents denigrate her experience, she has a long record of public service. Livni served in the Mossad intelligence agency in the early 1980s, and later as the director of the Government Companies Authority.

She entered politics in 1999 and has been the minister of immigrant absorption, of justice and of foreign affairs. Livni is committed to peace with the Palestinians and is conducting negotiations with the former Palestinian prime minister, Ahmad Qureia.

Livni comes from a revisionist background. Her father, Eitan, was an Irgun fighter and a Herut Knesset member from 1973 to 1984.

She is Olmert’s official deputy, but lost points with the prime minister when she said the prime minister should resign after the first interim Winograd report on the 2006 Lebanon War was published in April 2007. Olmert has never forgiven her; he and Mofaz have been coordinating a “stop Livni” campaign inside Kadima.

Mofaz is a former chief of staff and defense minister who led Operation Defensive Shield, which broke the brunt of the second Palestinian intifada in the West Bank in April 2002. He is one of the more hawkish members of Kadima, sees peacemaking as a process that will take generations and holds that for now, the conflict must simply be managed.

Dichter also has a security background, having served as the Shin Bet chief and now as minister of internal security. He is the new kid on the block, and pundits believe Dicher eventually will throw his weight behind Livni.

Shetreet, a whiz kid from a poor Sephardi family, served as the mayor of Yavne while still in his 20s and became a Knesset member at 33. He headed the Jewish Agency for Israel and served in various governments as minister of finance, of justice and of housing.

In 1999, Shetreet made an unsuccessful bid for the Likud leadership against Ariel Sharon and Olmert.

The latest published poll on the projected Kadima primary shows Livni well ahead of her rivals in all the key categories: integrity, foreign policy, security and the economy.

In polls for the national leadership, she finishes second to Netanyahu and ahead of Barak. A poll by the Dialog group published May 30 in Ha’aretz shows the Likud under Netanyahu winning 29 seats in the Knesset, Kadima under Livni 23 and Labor under Barak 15.

Significantly, the polls show Likud being able to assemble a coalition of right-wing and religious parties without Kadima or Labor. But the polls also show that Likud could build a powerful alternative coalition with Kadima and Labor without any of the other hawkish or religious parties.

It’s still early to know what will happen; between now and November in Israeli politics is a very long time.

But one factor seems certain—Ehud Olmert’s political career is over.

All signs point to Olmert’s ouster Read More »