fbpx

October 1, 2012

Cuban Jewish leaders visit Alan Gross

Two Cuban Jewish leaders visited jailed American contractor Alan Gross and said they found him in “good spirits.”

Adela Dworin, head of Cuba’s Jewish community, and David Prinstein, president of the Patronato Synagogue and Jewish community vice president, spent two hours with Gross on Sept. 27 in the military hospital where he is imprisoned, according to reports.

The visit was to mark the High Holy Days. Gross reportedly told his visitors that he fasted on Yom Kippur, and that he lifts weights and walks daily on the hospital grounds.

Dworin told Reuters that while Gross had been very depressed when she met with him four months ago, he seemed to have a more positive outlook about his future. Dworin and Prinstein have had regular meetings with Gross in advance of Jewish holidays.

During the meeting, the Jewish leaders reportedly spoke about topics ranging from Gross’ health to the U.S. elections, and of his love for Cuba, Dworin told Reuters.

Gross, 63, of Potomac, Md., was sentenced last year to 15 years in prison for “crimes against the state.” He was arrested in 2009 for allegedly bringing satellite phones and computer equipment to members of Cuba’s Jewish community while working as a contractor for the U.S. Agency on International Development. 

Earlier this month, a Cuban Foreign Ministry official rejected claims by Gross’ wife, Judy, that Gross was in ill health and said Cuba was willing to negotiate his release with U.S. officials, reportedly in exchange for five Cuban spies, four of whom remain in jail in the U.S.

Gross reportedly has lost more than 100 pounds since his arrest, and his family says he is suffering from degenerative arthritis. His mother is dying and one of his daughters has cancer. 

Cuban Jewish leaders visit Alan Gross Read More »

Israeli Opinion on Obama

Updated: June 2015

 

 

Question Poll Date Pro-Israel Pro-Palestinian Neutral
“How would you define Barack Obama?” Panels Jun-15 9 60 25
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” Smith Nov-14 16 53 20
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” Truman Dec-13 23 28 40
“How would you define Barack Obama?” Panels Apr-13 21 24 41
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” Smith Mar-13 27 16 39
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” Smith Mar-13 26 36 26
How would you characterize the position of U.S. President Barack Obama toward Israel and the Palestinians? The Israel Democracy Institute Mar-13 18 23 54
“How would you define Barack Obama?” Panels Mar-13 12 35 40
“How would you define Barack Obama?” Panels Feb-13 14 29 44
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” Smith Oct-12 18 28 40
“How would you define Barack Obama?” Panels Sep-12 21 47 24
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” Smith May-12 24 24 36
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” The Israel Democracy Institute Sep-11 46 12 34
Do you think that the policies of the administration of Barak Obama are? Keevoon Sep-11 54 19 27
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” Smith May-11 12 40 34
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” The Israel Democracy Institute May-11 14 31 45
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” Smith Jul-10 10 46 34
“How would you define Barack Obama?” Panels Jul-10 24 61 14
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” Truman Dec-09 13 37 36
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” Smith Aug-09 4 51 35
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” Truman Aug-09 12 40 38
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” Smith Jun-09 6 50 36
“How would you define Barack Obama?” Panels Jun-09 14 59 21
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” Smith May-09 31 14 40
“Do you think Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral?” Smith Mar-09 9 48 30

Israeli Opinion on Obama Read More »

Interfaith marriage, Rabbi Rosove, and Mormonism

While I was single, I often found myself wondering whether it would be better to remain a faithful Mormon bachelor all of my life or to marry a wonderful non-Mormon girl. I had a few opportunities to do so, and in moments of frustration I almost regretted not having pursued them instead of holding out for a temple marriage, the goal of every Latter-day Saint. By the grace of God, I was able to marry an angel in the Los Angeles Temple earlier this year, but I have never forgotten what it was like to be a single Latter-day Saint who prayed for years to find a spouse.

It was therefore with particular interest that I read Interfaith marriage, Rabbi Rosove, and Mormonism Read More »

Berman blasts Sherman for taking over $425,000 in interest on loans to campaigns

The reelection campaign for Rep. Howard Berman (D) is launching a multi-media attack on Rep. Brad Sherman (D) highlighting Sherman’s having collected at least $425,000 in interest – and perhaps as much as $461,000 – on personal loans made to his various campaign committees over the course of his decades-long career.

Sherman, who is running against Berman for reelection in the 30th district in the West San Fernando Valley, first charged interest on loans to his campaign committees in 1989. The practice is legal but not widely used; some election law observers decry it as unethical.

Sherman has not collected interest on loans made to his campaign committees since 2005, but over the 17 preceding years, he made loans to three different campaign committees and collected interest on those loans. Sherman regularly left those loans on the books for long stretches of time, even when his comittee had sufficient funds to pay them back. He also collected interest on interest that had accrued even after the principal amount of the loan had been repaid.

The Berman campaign has acknowledged that Sherman did not charge exorbitant rates of interest on the loans; the Sherman campaign said that interest was paid at a rate two percent less than the returns being offered at an ordinary bank.

But the Berman campaign said that the practice amounted to Sherman “intertwining” his campaign and personal accounts, and could not find another member of Congress who had collected as much interest as Sherman had.

“Is it appropriate for a member of Congress to use their campaign accounts – which is there for the purposes of getting elected and reelected – is it appropriate to also use that campaign account as an investment vehicle?” Brandon Hall, Berman’s campaign manager, said in a conference call with reporters on Monday.

With just over five weeks until Election Day, the Berman campaign, which has acknowledged Sherman is leading in this closely watched race, is upping its negative messaging, putting the charges at the center of a new media push with ads on TV, the Internet and direct-mail solicitations.

Though they stop short of calling Sherman’s actions unethical, Hall said that the message is designed to raise questions about Sherman in the minds of voters.

The Sherman campaign dismissed the Berman campaign’s accusations in a statement, calling them “false at worst and highly misleading at best.”

“He loans it to his campaign because he’s committed to being a public servant,” said John Schwada, the Sherman campaign’s press secretary.

In defending Sherman’s actions, his campaign released a statement on Monday saying the practice of collecting interest on personal loans to campaigns is “completely legal and has never been criticized by an independent group.”

Furthermore, the statement said Sherman made the loans early in his career, when he was facing “self-funded multi-millionaire Republican candidates while running in a highly competitive seat,” at a rate of interest “that was at least 2% less than the rate he would have received had he simply left the money in the bank.”

This is hardly the first time that campaign finance has been the subject of attacks and counterattacks in this big-budget battle between incumbents.

Early on, Sherman focused on the existence of a number of pro-Berman Super PACs, groups that can accept unlimited donations to make independent expenditures on behalf of a particular candidate.

In August, the Berman campaign, on an anti-Sherman Web site, called Sherman “The Payday Lenders’ Man in Washington,” in part for his having benefitted from a 2009 fundraiser at the home of a lobbyist representing payday lenders.

And on Monday, the Sherman campaign’s statement reiterated a number of attacks on Berman, including the accusation that Berman paid his brother, political consultant Michael Berman, $741,500 to run campaigns between 1992 to 2010, years when Berman did not face a serious election challenge.

That accusation stemmed from a report issued by the independent watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

In the same report, however, CREW called for increased scrutiny of the practice of collecting interest on loans to campaign committees. “High interest payments suggest candidates may be using loans as vehicles for self-enrichment,” the report stated.

According to the Berman campaign, CREW began reporting interest payments made to members of Congress in 2005, the same year that Sherman last collected interest from loans made to his campaign committees.

Having abandoned the practice of collecting interest on the money he loaned his campaign committee, Sherman was not among the 14 sitting house members mentioned in CREW’s 2012 report. CREW declined to comment for this story.

Even as the Berman campaign unveiled its latest attack, one plank was being challenged. When it was launched, the new Web site publicizing what the Berman campaign calls “The Brad Sherman Scam” prominently featured a quote from Craig Holman, a lobbyist at Public Citizen, a Washington advocacy group.

“I find this practice quite reprehensible,” the quote from Holman read.

That remark, from 2009, came from a Bloomberg story about Rep. Grace Napolitano’s collecting more than $200,000 in interest on loans she made to her campaign committes. Though Napolitano collected less than half of what Sherman did in interest, the loans she made were reportedly made at very high rates of interest, up to 18 percent in some cases. 

Public Citizen asked the Berman campaign to remove the Holman quote from the Web site.

“We don’t know the facts,” Lisa Gilbert, acting director of Public Citizen’s CongressWatch, said. “This question is taken from a different situation with a different member of Congress.”

By the end of the day on Monday, the Holman quote appeared to have been removed. Still, the Berman campaign's Hall stood by its initial use.

“Craig Holman and Public Citizen are commenting on the exact practice that Brad Sherman engaged in to profit $460,000 by using his campaign as a personal investment vehicle,” Hall said in a statement emailed to the Journal.

Berman blasts Sherman for taking over $425,000 in interest on loans to campaigns Read More »

U.S. Supreme Court rejects kosher meat plant manager’s appeal

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by the former chief executive of a kosher meat packing plant in Iowa who was sentenced to 27 years in prison on charges of financial fraud.

Without comment, the high court refused to consider whether Sholom Rubashkin's sentence was excessive for a first-time, nonviolent offender and whether he was entitled to a new trial based on evidence of alleged judicial misconduct in the case.

The case had sparked an outcry from members of the legal and Orthodox Jewish communities who supported Rubashkin's quest for a new trial.

Rubashkin was convicted in 2009 of 86 counts of financial fraud that came to light after a government raid on the former Agriprocessors Inc plant in Postville, Iowa, in which hundreds of immigrant workers were arrested.

On appeal, Rubashkin argued that he was entitled to a new trial after documents obtained through a freedom of information request allegedly revealed that the trial judge had been involved in planning the government raid.

The 8th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in St. Louis had rejected Rubashkin's request in 2011.

Rubashkin's lawyer, Paul Clement, was not immediately available for comment.

Numerous groups submitted amicus briefs in support of Rubashkin, including 86 former attorneys general, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a group of 40 legal ethics professors.

The case is Rubashkin v. USA, No. 11-1203.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects kosher meat plant manager’s appeal Read More »

The 10 best political movies of all time

With the U.S. presidential election looming large, we thought we'd look at the best 10 movies focusing on politics. Many of these films are quite old, but that's not a huge detriment. Writing and acting play huge roles in politics, and political films rely on the same fundamentals. The stories all involve the basic elements of human character, integrity, morality, honesty–and the complete lack of any of those traits.

Politics is an awfully touchy subject, because it involves people's core concepts and beliefs on how a nation should be run, how its citizens should be treated, and who's fit to control all that. These films remind us of the incredible power of political offices, and that people who acquire those offices aren't always the best-qualified, most moral, or even law-abiding candidates. Vote, people. Seriously. (Was that preachy enough?)

10. Bulworth (1998)

Warren Beatty, who also wrote and directed, plays Sen. Jay Billington Bulworth: a typical white, 60-year-old politician. He realizes his political ambitions are basically dead, so he takes out an insurance policy and contract on his life. He then behaves so crazily that he makes his own campaign team insane but garners adoration from the nation. He raps his speeches on national television, brazenly addresses race and socioeconomic issues, hooks up with a beautiful young African-American woman (Halle Berry), smokes weed, et al. But he doesn't lie. And even though his messages are wrapped in cartoonish mannerisms, the truth behind the statements still resonates.

9. The Candidate (1972)

Robert Redford plays a lawyer from California, Bill McKay, who's recruited to run for Senate. But he doesn't actually believe he'll win (and he doesn't really care). Although McKay is inexperienced, he learns to garner goodwill–and votes–by using charismatic honesty. But eventually, the prospect of winning is too appealing, and he begins playing traditional political games. The Academy-Award-winning script was written by Jeremy Larner, who wrote speeches for Eugene McCarthy, so its political veracity is quite high.

8. Wag the Dog (1998)

Shortly before the election, the president gets caught up in a sex scandal involving an underage girl. The president's team foresees the election going seriously south, so they hire a spin doctor (Robert De Niro), who hires a Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman) to create an imaginary war overseas, thereby distracting the public. Because the film's release date was so close to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, the film's story seemed almost prescient and became quite controversial (Clinton ordered strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan shortly after admitting to inappropriate relations with Lewinsky).

7. Nixon (1995)

This dark and disturbing film explores the strict and impoverished childhood of Richard Nixon (Anthony Hopkins), his budding political career, strange interactions with his wife, presidency and severe paranoia that eventually caused his disastrous downfall. The runtime on director Oliver Stone's cut is 212 minutes, and because it's packed with details, it forces you to stay mentally alert. By the end, it almost seems longer than Nixon's time in office–and just as darkly compelling.

6. The Best Man (1964)

Set in a political convention, this film explores the two extremes of stereotypical politicians–the dirty one who does whatever it takes to win (Cliff Robertson), and the one who relies on integrity and respectful tactics (Henry Fonda). Gore Vidal wrote this film that contains deplorable political maneuvers, infidelity and attacks on personal lives. It shows that even 50 years ago, politics were just as nasty as they are now (although people smoked a lot more).

The 10 best political movies of all time Read More »

Bibi’s popularity on upswing

As Israelis began the observance of Sukkot, a weeklong religious holiday celebrating the end of the harvest, talk on the streets was of travel plans and family visits. Many Israelis build a sukkah, an outdoor hut open to the stars, as commanded in the Bible, where they eat their meals — and where some even sleep — for the week. Hundreds of thousands use the off-time to visit national parks, with radio ads exhorting Israelis to clean up their garbage when they finish hiking and picnicking.

Just before the holiday, the Hadar mall in Jerusalem was jammed with last-minute shoppers. At the Aroma Café, an elderly couple took a coffee break and reflected on their prime minister, just back from New York, and his presentation to the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly.

“He’s a nice boy who knows how to give a speech,” Frieda Green said. “I only hope he will do what he says.”

Netanyahu seems to share Green’s assessment of his performance at Turtle Bay, saying that the trip’s “two objectives — driving home the message on Iran and strengthening coordination with the Obama administration — have been met.” He also said his speech, in which he drew a red line on a cartoonlike drawing of a bomb, “reached hundreds of millions of people.”

Green said she’s mildly concerned by Iran’s growing nuclear program, but more caught up in worrying about her children and grandchildren. “That’s why we have a government — let them worry about it,” she said.

Her husband, Ezra, 79, said he has faith in Netanyahu.

 

“He’s the one in Israel who is best to be prime minister,” he said. “His speech to the U.N. was very successful. He spoke like a teacher to his students so that everyone could understand.”

Like all Israelis, they also have some criticism of their prime minister. “I think he exaggerated a little in his demands of President Obama,” Frieda said. “It’s not appropriate, and he should tone it down.”

“Especially when it now looks like Obama will continue for another four years,” Ezra added.

At another table, a group of middle-aged men said they’re more concerned by economic issues than with Iran.

“Netanyahu is strangling us with his taxes and the price increases in gas,” Chaim Vaknin, a taxi driver said. “At the same time, there’s nobody to replace him. I’m really disappointed in all of the politicians — they don’t seem to be doing anything to help us.”

Vaknin’s friend Avi Biton disagreed, saying, “Netanyahu is doing a great job and should be prime minister for another term.

The way it looks now, that seems increasingly likely. Israelis are set to go to the polls about a year from now, but if the Knesset doesn’t manage to pass the budget by Dec. 31 as required by law, those elections could be moved much earlier. But polls published this week show the government would not change much if elections were held today.

According to a poll commissioned by the daily newspaper Haaretz and executed by the Dialog polling organization, Netanyahu’s Likud Party seems set to win 28 seats, one more than in the July 2009 election and three more than the last poll, taken in July, indicated. Israelis vote for parties, not people. The proportion of seats each party receives in the 120-seat parliament is determined by the percentage of votes it garners. According to the Haaretz/Dialog poll, the center-left Labor Party would improve its representation from the 13 seats it earned in the last election to 20 today. The big loser would be the Kadima Party, which won 28 seats in 2009 but is predicted to win no more than eight in the next election.

The new polling supports the common belief that the Likud-right-ultra-Orthodox bloc is most strongly positioned to piece together a majority coalition of 66 seats and retain control of the government while the center-left parties are seen as not being able to amass more than 54 seats.   

When it comes to Netanyahu personally, his approval rating has risen from 31 percent in the last poll, to 38 percent, with 53 percent saying they remain dissatisfied.

“If a U.S. president drops below 50 percent approval rating, he gets very concerned,” Yehuda Ben Meir, a public opinion expert at the INSS think tank, said. “Netanyahu’s rating has gone up, but he’s far from being popular.”

By comparison, current approval ratings for Barack Obama hover around 50 percent.

When asked in the Haaretz poll, “Who is more suited to be prime minister?” 35 percent said Netanyahu — more than Labor leader Shelly Yacimovich, Yisrael Beiteinu chairman and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Kadima Party head Shaul Mofaz and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who heads a breakaway party, combined.

“Public opinion in Israel is very static and conservative — you need an earthquake to change it,” Ben Meir said. “Netanyahu remains popular with the right-wing and the religious community, and unpopular with the left.”

It also depends on whether the primary issues in the election are Iran or the economy. Israelis tend to support Netanyahu’s hard line on Iran, and polls show that a majority of Israelis believe that a nuclear Iran could represent an existential danger to the country. 

At the same time, many middle-class Israelis resent the high tax rate, and prices continue to rise. In the summer of 2011, hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets demanding lower prices. If those demonstrations start up again, Netanyahu could be blamed for the higher prices and could suffer at the polls. 

Bibi’s popularity on upswing Read More »

Ahead of debate, Romney calls Obama weak on foreign policy

Republican challenger Mitt Romney launched a fresh attempt on Monday to paint President Barack Obama as weak on foreign policy, saying he has let U.S. leadership atrophy, while the two candidates prepared for Wednesday's critical first debate.

Romney's aides said the weak U.S. economy remains his chief priority heading into the Nov. 6 election, but the Democratic president's handling of national security is also fair game.

This line of attack could be tricky for Romney, who drew heavy criticism for a hasty initial reaction to upheaval in Egypt and Libya last month in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya was killed in an attack along with three other Americans.

Romney is under enormous pressure for a good performance at Wednesday night's debate in Denver. His campaign has looked shaky since a leaked video emerged two weeks ago in which Romney says 47 percent of Americans are “victims” who depend on government, do not pay federal income taxes and are unlikely to support him.

Seeking to take some of the shine off Obama's national security credentials, which include the 2011 killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the Romney team is aiming to portray Obama as overseeing a period of American decline in the world.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion article, Romney accused Obama of being too timid in responding to the Syrian civil war, the election of an Islamist president in Egypt, the attack on the U.S. mission in Libya, and the threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon it could use against U.S. ally Israel.

“These developments are not, as President Obama says, mere 'bumps in the road.' They are major issues that put our security at risk,” Romney wrote.

“Yet amid this upheaval, our country seems to be at the mercy of events rather than shaping them. … And that's dangerous. If the Middle East descends into chaos, if Iran moves toward nuclear breakout, or if Israel's security is compromised, America could be pulled into the maelstrom,” Romney wrote.

Taking aim at Obama on national security may be an uphill battle for Romney. Reuters/Ipsos poll findings show Americans believe Obama has a better plan to deal with the threat of terrorism by 43 percent to about 30 percent for Romney.

Romney continues to trail Obama in opinion polls five weeks before the election. Obama maintained a lead of 5 percentage points – 46 percent to 41 percent – in a Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll released on Monday. Last Thursday, the same poll showed Obama with an advantage of 7 points.

A CNN poll on Monday gave Obama a narrow lead of 50 percent to 47 percent, and the two men were essentially tied on the issue of who would handle the economy better.

“I think even our opponents will agree right now that this is a closing race,” Romney senior adviser Kevin Madden said.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll released on Monday showed Obama leading by 11 percentage points among likely voters in nine battleground states where the election likely will be decided, even as the race is essentially tied nationally.

'REGIONAL INSTABILITY'

In his Wall Street Journal piece, Romney told Obama to take a harder line with Iran and to back Israel.

“When we say an Iranian nuclear weapons capability – and the regional instability that comes with it – is unacceptable, the ayatollahs must be made to believe us,” Romney wrote.

The White House argues that Western sanctions are having a crippling effect on Iran's economy as reflected by its currency losing a quarter of its value against the dollar in only a week.

As part of the Republican attempt to chip away at Obama's foreign policy record, the pro-Romney group American Crossroads released a video that questioned his reaction to the attack last month on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, in which the U.S. ambassador was killed.

“What did President Obama do on the same day as a terrorist attack on American citizens? He campaigned in Las Vegas. … President Obama needs to learn: Being president isn't just about being on TV and protecting your job. It's about leadership. It's time for a president who gets it,” the video said.

Romney added that Obama “has allowed our leadership to atrophy,” has no strategy to encourage a positive outcome from the Arab Spring revolutions, and has alienated Israel.

“By failing to maintain the elements of our influence and by stepping away from our allies, President Obama has heightened the prospect of conflict and instability,” he wrote.

Aides said Romney plans to deliver a foreign policy address in the days following the first debate, probably next week.

Wednesday's debate marks the first time the two candidates will stand on the same stage together in the campaign. Both sides have been working to lower expectations, each calling the other a better debater.

Romney engaged in a session of debate preparation at a Burlington, Massachusetts hotel before flying to Denver for an evening rally. Obama was in the Las Vegas suburb of Henderson working on his own preparations for the debate.

“Governor Romney, he's a good debater,” Obama told a rally in Las Vegas on Sunday night. “I'm just okay.”

Given Obama's tendency to meander, aides said they have been trying to get the president to give snappier answers to questions and limit the professorial nature of his responses.

Romney's aides have been working to make sure he does not come off as scolding and to encourage him not to quibble about the rules as he did in some debates during the Republican presidential primary battle.

Ahead of debate, Romney calls Obama weak on foreign policy Read More »