A founder of the French Liberal Jewish movement was questioned on suspicion that he raped several female minors.
French media reported Tuesday that Rabbi Daniel Farhi, 70, was questioned the same day at a police station in Paris. He has denied the accusations.
The Liberal movement is associated with Reform Judaism.
Farhi is known for his outreach to the French Muslim community.
French rabbi questioned in rape of minor females Read More »
The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office denied that Benjamin Netanyahu told the editor of The Jerusalem Post that Israel’s two greatest enemies are The New York Times and Haaretz.
On Wednesday, the editor, Steve Linde, addressing a conference in Tel Aviv of the Women’s International Zionist Organization, said that Netanyahu made the remark to him about the newspapers at a private meeting “a couple of weeks ago” at the prime minister’s office in Tel Aviv.
But on Thursday, the Prime Minister’s Office told JTA that Netanyahu “did not make the remarks attributed to him,” and Linde backtracked, saying the remarks he had attributed to the prime minister had been Linde’s own interpretation.
“He said, ‘You know, Steve, we have two main enemies,’ ” Linde had said on Wednesday of Netanyahu, according to a recording of the WIZO speech provided to JTA. “And I thought he was going to talk about, you know, Iran, maybe Hamas. He said, ‘It’s The New York Times and Haaretz.’ He said, ‘They set the agenda for an anti-Israel campaign all over the world. Journalists read them every morning and base their news stories … on what they read in The New York Times and Haaretz.’ ”
Linde said he and other participants at the meeting asked Netanyahu whether he really thought that the media had that strong a role in shaping world opinion on Israel, and the prime minister replied, “Absolutely.”
On Thursday, Linde was quoted in Haaretz as saying, “That was my interpretation; the prime minister never used that language.”
Netanyahu denies saying Israel’s biggest enemies are N.Y. Times, Haaretz Read More »
An Israeli school bus driver was suspended for making racist statements to Ethiopian children.
The driver’s comments were recorded during a bus ride and played for a school principal and the absorption center manager, Haaretz reported Wednesday. The route includes taking students from the immigrant absorption center in Mevaseret Zion to schools in the Jerusalem area.
Reportedly the driver called the children “smelly” and said that “You will never change, you stay the same s—- all the time.”
At a hearing within the bus company, the driver reportedly apologized and said that he acted the way he did because the Ethiopian children frequently vandalize his bus.
The incident comes on the heels of a demonstration by thousands of protesters Wednesday night in Jerusalem against racism and discrimination against Ethiopians.
Israeli school bus driver suspended for slurring Ethiopian children Read More »
A roundup of the most talked about political and global stories in the Jewish world this week:
Iran flares up
A joint anti-missile exercise has been ” title=”http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-analysts-iran-still-mulling-whether-to-build-bomb-1.407866″ target=”_blank”>front and center. “If you’re an optimist you may decide to interpret the comings and goings of the US and Israeli generals as yet another way to intimidate Iran and prevent it from manufacturing nuclear arms,” ” title=”http://forusa.org/blogs/leila-zand/if-we-bomb-iran-what-will-happen-iranian-jews/10114″ target=”_blank”>warned that “outside military intervention will only make matters worse for everyone.” What would an Israeli attack provoke, exactly? ” title=”http://www.jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain/item/the_israel_factor_panel_predicts_34_of_the_jewish_vote_for_romney_20120116/” target=”_blank”>according to the Jewish Journal, “a sign that A. Jewish Americans are really becoming more conservative (as some have argued), or B. That Obama’s policies (on Israel and other matters) were truly hurting the Democratic ticket with one of the most staunchly Democratic groups in America.” At a recent event, it was ” title=”http://cnsnews.com/news/article/850-orthodox-jewish-clergymen-call-romney-dangerous-homosexualist” target=”_blank”>opposition. Stay tuned.
Israel’s “False flag” allegation
The Israeli government ” title=”http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/17/while_i_was_gone” target=”_blank”>said Stephen M. Walt at Foreign Policy. “But this sort of behavior helps you understand why more and more U.S. officials are questioning the ‘special relationship,’ no matter what they have to say in public to keep the lobby quiet.” David Dayen at Firedoglake ” title=”http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/01/17/3091231/after-attacks-on-jews-in-new-jersey-hightened-security-and-anxiety” target=”_blank”>vandalizing synagogues in New Jersey and parts of New York by spray-painting swastikas and other hateful messages. In other cases, Molotov cocktails were thrown. It has local Jews ” title=”http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/rash_swastikas_question_marks” target=”_blank”>tormenting his mother. “If we act as if the vandals represent the tip of an anti-Semitic iceberg, Jews are going to have to accept the kind of security seen in many European synagogues and Jewish centers: armed guards, 24-hour surveillance, garrison architecture. The costs — literal and in a lost sense of well-being — will be enormous,” ” title=”http://www.care2.com/causes/is-anti-semitism-on-the-rise.html” target=”_blank”>wonder if anti-Semitism is on the rise.
Haagen-Dazs under fire
Kosher-keeping Ice cream lovers may lose one of their favorite snacks if the Chief Rabbinate in Israel ” title=”http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/9016312/Israels-Chief-Rabbinate-calls-for-ban-of-non-kosher-Haagen-Dazs.html” target=”_blank”>according to The Telegraph. Some consumers are worried: “Still, I shudder to think what’s next. No more Toyota cars and trucks in Israel because their carburetors aren’t sufficiently supervised? A blockade on iPhones because the workers in the assembly plants might be eating ham and cheese sandwiches while checking the screens for glitches? A ban on seaweed for sushi because it might contain traces of shellfish (oh, wait, that already happened,” s This week in power: The Iran question, Romney, “False flag,” Haagen-Dazs Read More »
A British nun who saved dozens of Jews in Rome during the Holocaust has been advanced on the road to sainthood.
Britain’s Catholic Herald newspaper said the file on Mother Riccarda Beauchamp Hamrough, who died in 1966, was sent recently to the Vatican for investigation by the Congregation for Saints’ Causes.
Mother Riccarda was the director of the Bridgettine Sisters order and spent most of her life as a nun in Rome at the order’s mother house. In 1943, after the Nazi occupation of Rome, she saved about 60 Roman Jews by hiding them in the convent.
The cause for her sainthood was opened in July 2010, along with that of another British Bridgettine nun. The Catholic Herald said that the rapid completion of the first stage in the investigation of their causes represented a “quick and early step forward in the long road to becoming saints.” According to the report, several Jews gave evidence on behalf of Mother Riccarda, saying that while hiding in the convent they had nicknamed her “mama.”
British nun who saved Jews from Shoah on way to sainthood Read More »
The Obama administration said an Iranian lawmaker had mischaracterized its message warning against blocking the Strait of Hormuz and reiterating its commitment to dialogue.
Ali Mothari was quoted Wednesday by The Associated Press as saying that “In the letter, Obama called for direct talks with Iran.”
The AP said Motahari described the first part of the letter as warning of retaliation if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world’s oil supply passes, and that the second part proposes dialogue.
There already have been reports that the United States has warned Iran against shutting down the strait.
Yahoo News on Wednesday quoted White House officials as saying that what had been conveyed was a “standard diplomatic message,” which included routine language seeking a diplomatic resolution of tensions with Iran.
Separately on the same day, a senior administration official told Israeli and Jewish media that the Obama administration routinely communicates with Iran, through third parties, its willingness to resume talks on making more transparent Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program.
Iran’s agreement to such an offer was not forthcoming, the official said, adding that even if Iran were to join talks, it would not mitigate the intensified sanctions initiated by the Obama administration in recent weeks.
Obama administration: No ‘direct talks’ letter to Iran Read More »
A correction to our coverage of the debate between Brad Sherman and Howard Berman (Sherman Lays Into Berman in Four-way Congressional Debate, Jan. 13) appears in the print edition of the Jewish Journal that hits newsstands today.
The problematic sentence in the original article read as follows:
“On more than one occasion, Sherman attacked Berman for supporting a bill that he himself had also voted for.”
So let’s clear this up. At the debate, Sherman assailed Berman on a number of topics, including his support of the $700 billion bailout of the banks passed by Congress in 2008. Sherman led a rebellion against the bailout, known as TARP, and voted against the bailout. Berman voted for it. No flip-flop there.
More complicated—and perhaps more significant—were Sherman’s jabs at Berman for his support of the Iraq War. Sherman did vote for the resolution authorizing the war in 2002—that’s part of why we thought it unusual that he attacked Berman, an early supporter of the war effort, so fiercely.
But as Sherman pointed out at the debate (and as his campaign manager, Parke Skelton clarified in a subsequent email), Sherman supported the war resolution only grudgingly, and only after attempting to limit the mandate for war given to President George W. Bush. He introduced one amendment and supported another that would have had that effect. It appears that neither the Davis amendment nor the Sherman amendment made it out of committee—Berman voted against both of them. Ultimately, Sherman voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the Iraq war, a move he characterized at the debate as a mistake.
The last Americans troops left Iraq at the end of last year. Could their past stances on this unpopular war help voters distinguish between Berman and Sherman, two Democrats with very similar voting records? That’s a question we’ll take a look at in a future post.
For the record: Sherman didn’t flip-flop to attack Berman Read More »
We should start with the facts, as they were first reported by the JTA:
The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office denied that Benjamin Netanyahu told the editor of The Jerusalem Post that Israel’s two greatest enemies are The New York Times and Haaretz. On Wednesday, the editor, Steve Linde, addressing a conference in Tel Aviv of the Women’s International Zionist Organization, said that Netanyahu had made the remark about the newspapers to him at a private meeting “a couple of weeks ago” at the prime minister’s office in Tel Aviv.
Now the consequent denials:
Netanyahu denies: “The prime minister did not make the remarks attributed to him,” his office said. “The prime minister today met with the Dutch Parliament’s foreign affairs committee, and said at the start of the meeting, ‘I heard a claim that I said that “Haaretz” and “The New York Times” are Israel’s biggest enemies. That’s not true. Iran and its emissaries are the enemies of Israel’.”
But JPost editor Steve Linde doesn’t quite deny: “The PMO asked Linde to publish a clarification, which he did, stating that his remarks at the Tel Aviv conference were his own analysis of the conversation with the prime minister”.
I’m going to comment about this affair with some sense of unease: I worked for Haaretz for more than 13 years, and wrote for the JPost for about 3 years. But I think this is important so I’m going to write about it anyways.
So what do we have here?
1. An editor chatting his way through a conference by way of revealing the details of an off the record conversation he had with the Prime Minister. Not his finest hour, even though, as one can learn from his clarification, the words might not have been exact, but the meaning is still the same. Netanyahu did let Linde believe that he considers the NYT and Haaretz to be Israel’s enemies. I’m speculating here, but am doing it based on more than just a wild guess: Linde might be in real trouble.
2. We have a Prime Minister who doesn’t like the NYT and Haaretz. But he doesn’t think these newspapers are Israel’s greatest enemies, even if, by way of speaking in his own way during a conversation, he did make such an overstatement. That the two papers are very critical of Israel is no secret, and Netanyahu has the right to think that they treat Israel unfairly and damage its reputation. A Prime Minister should not be fighting newspapers, but is entitled to think that they pose a risk (as long as he doesn’t try to interfere with their right to report and comment).
3. Why Linde made this comment is beyond me: Does he thinks such comment serves the Jerusalem Post – that it would make people abandon Haaretz to read his paper? If that’s the idea, it was not very smart. Haaretz can only benefit from a brouhaha of this kind. The Jerusalem Post has lost credibility and also doesn’t look very good.
4. Why Netanyahu made these – or similar – comments is also beyond me, and I believe he did say something from which Linde extracted his “interpretation”. Netanyahu’s decision not to write for the Times was enough for people to understand what he thinks about this paper. As Prime Minister, he has many ways to demonstrate his unease with any paper, to deny interviews, to leak to the competition, to instruct his advisors to do the same. But picking such a fight in public forums makes the newspaper bigger and the PM smaller.
5. On the other hand, Netanyahu probably didn’t realize that he was picking a public fight – he thought this was an off the record conversation.
6. Now the 64 million dollar question: Is Haaretz an enemy of Israel? On the one hand, Haaretz is very critical of Israel’s policies, and often spreads a one-sided version of certain events, and is definitely a propaganda tool at the hands of many of Israel’s enemies (something that it can’t control). It is no secret: While I like many people who write and edit for Haaretz, and while I respect many of its columnists, I don’t much like the way Haaretz covers Israel and would advise anyone to not to rely solely on this source as one wants to really understand Israel.
7. On the other hand: Haaretz is to me an ultimate proof that Israel was and still is a free country with a free press and almost unlimited right to free speech. That Israel has Haaretz is a constant nuisance, especially for the government, but one that we all should learn to live with whether we like the way it interprets current events or not.
The Prime Minister and the newspaper enemies of Israel Read More »
The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said it was his duty to warn the world about suspected Iranian activities that point to plans to develop atomic bombs, maintaining pressure on Tehran ahead of rare talks between Iran and his agency expected this month.
Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, made clear in an interview with Financial Times Deutschland that the U.N. body would press for full cooperation in meetings with Iranian officials in Tehran.
“What we know suggests the development of nuclear weapons,” he was quoted as saying in comments published in German on Thursday, adding Iran had so far failed to clarify allegations of possible military links to its nuclear program.
“We want to check over everything that could have a military dimension.”
An IAEA delegation, to be headed by Deputy Director General Herman Nackaerts, is expected to seek explanations for intelligence information that indicates Iran has engaged in research and development relevant for nuclear weapons.
Tension between Iran and the West over Iran’s nuclear program has increased since November, when the IAEA published a report that said Tehran appeared to have worked on designing a nuclear weapon. Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.
“I have absolutely no reason to soften my report. It is my responsibility to alert the world,” Amano said. “From the indicators I had, I draw the conclusion that it is time to call the world’s attention to this risk.”
Iran’s envoy to the IAEA, Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told Reuters Tuesday Iranian officials were open to discussing “any issues” in the talks in Tehran, which he said were set for Jan 29-31. The IAEA has not yet confirmed the dates of the visit. [ID:nL6E8CH459]
Western diplomats, who have often accused Iran of using stalling tactics as it presses ahead with its nuclear program, have expressed doubt that the planned IAEA trip will lead to any major progress in the long-running nuclear dispute.
While U.N. inspectors regularly monitor Iran’s declared nuclear facilities, their movements are otherwise restricted, and the IAEA has complained for years of a lack of access to sites, equipment, documents and people relevant to its probe.
Amano rejected Iranian media suggestions that his agency may have been partly responsible for the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist last week.
Iran has in the past accused the IAEA of leaking the names of nuclear scientists, making them potential targets for the security services of Iran’s foes in the West and Israel.
“That is wrong. We did not publish his name. I did not know him,” Amano said about the January 11 killing of Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan in a car bomb attack in Tehran. Iran has blamed Israel.
“I don’t believe in violence. I believe in dialogue and conversation. I only expect from Iran that it cooperates.”
Reporting by Dana Schaefer and Marc Jones in Frankfurt; Writing by Fredrik Dahl; Editing by Peter Graff
IAEA to press Iran over nuclear concerns Read More »
In November I was invited to become a member of the Host Committee for a Gala Fundraising event sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Los Angeles in February, 2012. I have declined the invitation, with a heavy heart, and when the Southern Pacific Synagogue Initiative Director of AIPAC invited me to speak with him about why, I wrote this letter and welcomed a follow-up conversation with him. I wanted you to see an edited version of that letter.
Dear Judah:
I welcome the opportunity to meet and begin a conversation with you. Thank you for the offer and outreach.
By way of introduction, my involvement with AIPAC goes back to the 1980s. I was very friendly with Tom Dine (one of the first Executive Directors of AIPAC) who was a congregant when I served at Washington Hebrew Congregation in D.C. in the mid-80s. I have always been respectful and appreciative of AIPAC and its multitude of contributions to the security of the State of Israel through its advocacy in Washington.
One issue for me which keeps me from signing on as a member of the host committee is that too many people involved with AIPAC have become intolerant of American Jewish diversity and uncritical of Israel’s government policies that are undemocratic and reflective of extremist nationalism. For AIPAC (and for that matter, for any pro-Israel Jewish organization) to say nothing is essentially to give tacit support to those undemocratic forces within the government and Israeli society that run counter to the principles articulated in Israel’s own Declaration of Independence calling for a just, democratic society that includes all citizens of the Jewish State.
That is not the only difficulty I have, however. The refusal of AIPAC leadership to meet with J Street leadership, to join together as two pro-Israel organizations when there is consensus on a particular issue, or even to enter into a public debate with J Street President Jeremy ben-Ami about the differences between AIPAC and J Street in their respective approaches to American Jewish politics in Washington, D.C. vis a vis Israel does not serve the cause of Israel as a vital democracy and adds fuel to the flames of many Republican leaders in Congress and their Jewish pro-Israel supporters who seek to make Israel a wedge issue in American politics for political gain. This has never before happened in the 63 year history of the State of Israel vis a vis the American Jewish community.
I believe AIPAC could do much to change this negative and divisive atmosphere by addressing these undemocratic and intolerant trends directly and publicly, but it declines to do so. Remaining quiet is not good for Israel or for the American Jewish community.
Having said this, please understand my own Zionist and pro-Israel background and thinking. I am a national Vice President of the Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA), supportive of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism (IMPJ), am a member of the Advisory Board of the Daniels Center of Tel Aviv, and have assisted as a congregational rabbi at my own synagogue in helping our Israeli Reform brothers and sisters build two Reform synagogue centers in Israel (Kehillat Mevasseret Zion and Congregation Darchei Noam in Ramat Hasharon). I take missions of my congregants to Israel every two or three years. My synagogue Day School has a 3 year exchange program with the Tzahalah Elementary School (in north Tel Aviv) as part of the LA-Tel Aviv partnership. I have raised millions of dollars for State of Israel Bonds. And I am an active member of the Rabbinic Cabinet of J Street, though I have not always agreed with every position that J Street has taken.
J Street, in my view, is essentially correct in its approach to Congress and Israel, that we American Jews have both a duty to support Israel as a pluralistic democracy that champions human rights and civil liberties, as well as supporting all efforts that will bring about an end-of-conflict solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two-states for two-peoples living side by side in peace and security. I agree with J Street’s position, as well, that pro-Israel American Jewish supporters must be free to criticize Israel’s government (arguably the most right-wing extremist government in the history of the Jewish State) without fear of being placed in cherem (excommunication and pariah status) when it acts in ways that we, as American Zionists and lovers of the Jewish State, believe do not support a peaceful and secure two-state resolution and compromise with the Palestinians.
If you are interested, please read my Rosh Hashanah morning sermon this past High Holiday season which is posted on my synagogue’s web-site to learn what is behind my thinking about Israel, her security and liberal Zionist values.
This is why I have declined to be an active supporter of AIPAC, though again, I am grateful and appreciative of AIPAC for its many years of past advocacy for Israel in our nation’s capital. If you feel comfortable I ask that you share this letter with AIPAC leadership in Washington, D.C.
L’shalom,
Rabbi John Rosove
Senior Rabbi – Temple Israel of Hollywood
[Note: It is now the end of January and I have not heard back from the local leadership of AIPAC.]
Why I Declined to be on the Host Committee for AIPAC Conference in Los Angeles Read More »
