fbpx

March 21, 2016

Trump says U.S. should spend less on NATO

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said the United States should decrease the amount it spends on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

“We are paying disproportionately. It's too much and frankly it's a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea,” Trump said in an interview on CNN.

“We have to reconsider. Keep NATO, but maybe we have to pay a lot less toward NATO itself,” he said.

Trump says U.S. should spend less on NATO Read More »

About

Zoe Hewitt is a working host who has interviewed celebrities including Harrison Ford, Diane Keaton, Kate Winslet and Sir Elton John for outlets such as “Good Morning America” and AMC.  Zoe's movie analysis show comes out everyMonday morning and looks at current films in terms of themes, symbolism and eagle-eye details to watch for: this isn't your typical review!  Join Zoe weekly as she discusses what's happening in the world of movies!

About Read More »

Trump to AIPAC: ‘I love the people in this room. I love Israel.’

Some people sat silently. A small group walked out silently. And most stood and applauded as Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump took the stage on the evening of March 21 at a packed Verizon Center in Washington, D.C., one of two venues for this year’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s Policy Conference.

Rare for Trump, he had prepared his speech in advance and even used teleprompters in an attempt to stay measured and allay some of Israel supporters’ biggest concerns — that he’s not knowledgeable about or interested in foreign policy and, most worrisome, that he will be “neutral” when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as he said in February at a town hall and repeated at a subsequent debate. Trump said before the speech that his Orthodox Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was one of the people who helped him write it.

“I didn’t come to you tonight to pander about Israel,” Trump said near the beginning of his address. “That’s what politicians do.” 

He went on to enumerate a list of concerns about the Barack Obama administration’s nuclear agreement with the Iranian government, explaining how the range of Iran’s ballistic missiles could eventually put the United States within striking distance.

And he reassured the crowd that he has “studied this issue in great detail.”

“I would say, actually, greater by far than everybody else,” Trump boasted, prompting many in the crowd to laugh. “Believe me!”

The conference, which AIPAC officials said drew a record 18,000 attendees, many of whom were from Los Angeles, including delegations of 250 from Sinai Temple, 150 from Valley Beth Shalom and 93 from Beth Jacob Congregation. It was AIPAC’s first policy conference since the landmark nuclear agreement with Iran was approved by the U.S. Senate in September, dealing a major blow to AIPAC, which had attempted unsuccessfully to derail the deal in the Senate. The annual conference began March 20 and ended March 22, and took place at the Verizon Center and the nearby Walter E. Washington Convention Center, a sign of the Policy Conference’s remarkable year-to-year growth.

Although AIPAC’s role as a presidential campaign stop overshadowed the rest of the conference, Iran and fear of Islamist terrorism certainly were not absent from its agenda.

The Iranian nuclear deal and ISIS’ global terror reach were topics of several breakout sessions. “Stop a Nuclear Capable Iran” was one of four items on AIPAC’s lobbying agenda when members went to Capitol Hill on March 22; and AIPAC CEO Howard Kohr said in his address on the evening of March 20 at the Verizon Center, “We have every reason to be proud of our work, to have fought the right fight, and to raise the concerns that continue to this day.”

On the morning of March 21, Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton was the first of the presidential candidates to address the conference. She was received very well, particularly considering she had supported the Iran deal and, in 2012, arranged secret meetings with Iranian diplomats. She hammered Trump without explicitly naming him, saying, “We need steady hands, not a president who says he’s neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday and who knows what on Wednesday, because everything’s negotiable.” Clinton used the word “neutral” or “neutrality” six times during her address, and exclaimed, to loud applause, and in clear reference to Trump: “If you see bigotry, oppose it. If you see violence, condemn it. If you see a bully, stand up to him.”

One of Clinton’s biggest applause lines came when she called out Palestinian leadership, not just Hamas but also Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, for inciting violence — something that supporters of Israel want Obama and the State Department to do more forcefully. “Palestinian leaders need to stop inciting violence, stop celebrating terrorists as martyrs and stop paying rewards to their families!” she said to a cheering crowd.

Despite a blockbuster lineup of speeches by Clinton and Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich, seemingly nothing at this year’s conference could have overshadowed Trump’s appearance, which came amid an improbably successful campaign that has seen him denigrate and insult Mexican immigrants, Muslims, Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and nearly every one of his opponents in the Republican primary. He has called for violence against people who disrupt his rallies and offered up grandiose, often-changing policy positions, including plans to deport all of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, levy a 45 percent tariff on imported Chinese goods, temporarily bar all Muslims from entering the U.S. and make the Mexican government pay the U.S. government to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to keep out illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.

Trump’s position on Israel has been nearly as big an open question as his other core positions. He often cites his role, to the dismay and amusement of some Israel supporters, as the grand marshal in the 2004 Salute to Israel Parade in New York City as proof that he loves Israel. During his speech March 21, he added to that talking point when he said assuming that role in 2004 was dangerous.

“It was a very dangerous time for Israel and frankly for anyone supporting Israel,” Trump said. “Many people turned down this honor. I did not. I took the risk, and I’m glad I did.” 

But his comments in a February town hall that he would be a “neutral guy” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have raised questions as to how much a friend of Israel he would be if elected.

He has made attempts to ease those concerns, with little success, such as by saying at a recent Republican debate that the only way to get a good peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians is by making the Palestinians think he’s neutral. “I think making a deal would be in Israel’s interests,” Trump told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview on March 20. “I’ll tell you what, I don’t know one Jewish person that doesn’t want to have a deal, a good deal, a proper deal, but a really good deal.”

And just a few hours before his speech at AIPAC, Trump told reporters Israel should pay back the U.S. government for its defense aid, which amounts to billions of dollars a year. His answer came in response to a question about whether his stated policy to make U.S. allies pay back military aid would include Israel — as he has called for South Korea, Japan and Saudi Arabia to do.

“I think Israel will do that also, yeah, I think Israel do — there are many countries that can pay, and they can pay big league,” Trump said.

At AIPAC, Trump ended his speech by indirectly addressing concerns about his previous “neutral” comment, saying the Palestinians “must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States [and Israel] is unbreakable.”

He also said he wants to see a peace deal, but only one Israel wants, and not one imposed upon the Jewish state by foreign powers — a position he surely knew is popular among AIPAC attendees.

“It’s really the parties that must negotiate a resolution themselves,” Trump said, to cheers. “The United States can be useful as a facilitator at negotiations, but no one should be telling Israel that it must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away.”

Trump, like Kasich and Cruz, also said that as president he would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel’s capital. And one of Trump’s bigger applause lines came when he exclaimed, “Yay!” and smiled, after saying, “With President Obama in his final year … ” 

On March 22, AIPAC condemned that line and also Trump’s comment that Obama “may be the worst thing to ever happen to Israel, believe me, believe me.” AIPAC President Lillian Pinkus took the stage at the conference’s final general session to say, “We do not countenance ad hominem attacks, and we take great offense to those that are levied at the president of the United States of America from our stage.”

Flanked by CEO Howard Kohr and two other AIPAC leaders, she even criticized those in the crowd who applauded Trump’s criticism of Obama, which certainly sounded like a majority. “There are people in our AIPAC family who were deeply hurt last night, and for that, we are deeply sorry,” Pinkus said. “We are disappointed that so many people applauded a sentiment that we neither agree with or condone.”

Cruz, the day’s final speaker, directly followed Trump, and opened his speech with an emotional, “God bless AIPAC!” then immediately proceeded to attack the Republican front-runner. “Let me say at the outset, perhaps to the surprise of the previous speaker, Palestine has not existed since 1948,” Cruz said, referring to the two times Trump referred to “Israel and Palestine,” instead of “Israel and the Palestinians.”

The Texas senator, who is Trump’s main competitor, covered some of the leading issues on AIPAC members’ minds, including the Iran deal (which he said, as he has before, he will “rip to shreds” on his first day in office), the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (university administrations who endorse it should lose federal funding, Cruz said) and the U.S. embassy. He ended his speech by saying “Am Israel Chai!” to a standing ovation.

The prior evening, Vice President Joe Biden addressed a crowd largely dubious of the White House’s commitment to Israel’s security and Obama’s commitment to good relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Biden drew mostly applause from the crowd, particularly for his strong condemnation of Palestinian Authority leader Abbas for failing to condemn the recent wave of Palestinian terror attacks against Israelis. Biden also said “there is no political will” among Israelis or Palestinians to pursue any sort of peace deal at the moment.

However, he also drew some boos and jeers along with the cheers, despite AIPAC’s annual plea for respect toward all speakers, when he praised the Iran deal and criticized Netanyahu’s settlement policy.

“Israel’s government’s steady and systematic process of expanding settlements, legalizing outposts, seizing land, is eroding, in my view, the prospect of a two-state solution,” Biden told the crowd, which included Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer. “Bibi thinks it can be accommodated, and I believe he believes it. I don’t.”

On March 21, at the day’s final session, Netanyahu gave a live video address to AIPAC from Israel, in which he responded to Biden’s charge that Israel doesn’t have the political will for a peace deal. Netanyahu told the crowd he will negotiate with Abbas without preconditions. “There is political will here in Jerusalem,” the prime minister said. “There’s no political will there in Ramallah.” 

Since March 11, when AIPAC confirmed Trump as a speaker, the Republican front-runner’s appearance had been not only highly anticipated, but also condemned, in particular by a group that called itself “Come Together Against Hate” (a play off “Come Together,” AIPAC’s theme for this year’s conference). The group organized a silent walkout during Trump’s appearance, as well as a protest outside the Verizon Center. The Union for Reform Judaism (URJ), the Reform movement’s umbrella organization, also announced soon after AIPAC confirmed Trump that it would stage a silent walkout before he took the stage, and would study Torah in the lobby and watch Trump’s speech on television screens in the arena’s corridor.

“I am very curious to know what he will say about Israel,” URJ President Rabbi Rick Jacobs said in an interview the day before Trump’s appearance. “But before he starts talking about Israel, we have months and months of his hateful speech about Muslims, about immigrants, about women and people with disabilities, and, frankly, he’s accountable for all of that.”

AIPAC, though, made media coverage of any walkouts during Trump’s appearance difficult.Reporters inside the Verizon Center were forbidden from interviewing attendees, and reporters could leave the media area only if accompanied by a conference staffer. As of the Journal’s press time, AIPAC’s media team did not respond to a question from the Journal about the severity of the restrictions placed on the media at this year’s conference, which were stricter than at past policy conferences, which have always included barring media from most breakout sessions.

By all available accounts, though, it seems the anticipation in advance of the walkouts was far greater than their actual impact. Only a small handful of audience members could be seen walking out as Trump approached the stage, although Jacobs, Rabbi Jonah Pesner of the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center, and some other people tweeted photos of themselves learning Torah and watching Trump’s speech from the corridor, as promised. Just after Trump’s address, Jacobs released a short statement that said Trump addressing the U.S.-Israel relationship was “important,” but that it “seems that he does not share our values of equality, pluralism, and humility.”

“We were disappointed but not surprised that Mr. Trump did nothing tonight to allay our deep concerns about his campaign,” Jacobs said.

As happens every year at AIPAC, journalists and observers tried to draw conclusions from the level of audience applause for each speaker and each major point in every speech. This year, that endeavor seemed particularly difficult. There were few boos for any of the four presidential candidates, and each received raucous applause at various points — some during the introduction, some at the end, and all during portions of their speeches designed to address key sticking points for many AIPAC members, such as when Clinton said, “One of the first things I’ll do in office is invite the Israeli prime minister to visit the White House” — an implicit but clear acknowledgement of the cool relationship between Obama and Netanyahu. 

Perhaps telling, or maybe not, the audience’s applause for Trump’s “Yay!” comment about Obama’s term expiring sounded louder than the loudest applauses for Clinton, maybe indicating how ready the conference’s attendees — who are divided between Democrats and Republicans — are for a new president who might have warmer relations with Israel’s current government.

AIPAC’s conference has taken on a larger-than-life feel in recent years, particularly since 2009, when Netanyahu began appearing in person. The combination of the prime minister’s uneasy relationship with Obama, the crumbling of peace negotiations with Abbas, the spread of Islamist terrorism, the threat of an Iranian nuclear program, the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections, and the conference’s location near Capitol Hill has made the annual event a spectacle in both the Jewish and mainstream media, as evidenced by the fact that the major cable news networks televised the speeches of all four presidential candidates.

This year, the candidates’ addresses came just before another set of primaries, in which voters from both parties in Arizona and Utah — and Democrats in the Idaho caucus — were preparing to either push Trump and Clinton closer to their nomination or give hope to their challengers, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who declined AIPAC’s invitation to speak, and then was turned down by the group when he offered to speak remotely from the campaign trail. 

The absence of Sanders, too, put AIPAC at the center of an increasingly obvious split within the Democratic Party between younger, more liberal voters who overwhelmingly support Sanders and tend to sympathize with the Palestinians, and older, more traditional pro-Israel Democrats who support Clinton. And in what could have been a shot at Sanders, Obama, Trump or all three, Clinton said in her speech, “Candidates for president who think the United States can outsource Middle East security to dictators, or that America no longer has vital national interests at stake in this region are dangerously wrong” — a possible critique of Sanders’ statement in January that Iranian troops could help defeat ISIS and that America should try to normalize diplomatic relations with the Iranian government.

The most obvious point to come out of the conference is this: The strength of America’s pro-Israel voice is undiminished. The AIPAC 2017 Policy Conference is already scheduled for March 26-28, and anyone who thought the group’s loss on the Iran nuclear deal might stem the Jewish and pro-Israel community’s excitement for this year’s conference, just had to witness the 18,000 people in a packed convention center and sports arena put that idea to rest.

Trump to AIPAC: ‘I love the people in this room. I love Israel.’ Read More »

AIPAC turns Trump into politician

How powerful is AIPAC? It did what no one else in America has come close to doing: It tamed the wild verbal beast of Trump. For nearly thirty minutes Monday night in front of close to 18,000 raving Israel fans at the Verizon Center in Washington, D.C., the Donald showed that he, too, can play politician – he read from a prepared speech. Sure, there was the odd ad lib, but compared to his usual rambunctious rambling, his performance Monday night was worthy of a High Holiday sermon delivered by a meticulous rabbi.

It was a speech perfectly crafted for the audience. A speech, in other words, full of red meat for Israel lovers deeply worried about the security of the Jewish state. He threw it all in – crushing Iran, pressuring the Palestinians, moving the embassy, taking on the UN, if it was good for Israel, he said it. There was a rumor in the press gallery that the Trumpster got smart and hired a decent speechwriter. Well, maybe the next Trump-related media obsession will be: Who was the mystery speechwriter?

After hearing for days that people were planning to protest his speech by booing or walking out, unless I missed something from the press row, I saw none of that. Of course, when you have thousands of people listening to what they want to hear, and cheering accordingly, good luck trying to get your high-minded boos in. It reminds me of when rabid Lakers fans were cheering wildly for Kobe Bryant while he was on trial for attempted rape. Being accused of a sexual crime is as bad as it gets, but hey, business is business: Lakers fans want their team to win!

Israel fans want Israel to win, too. I'm sure the great majority of people at the Verizon Center are repulsed by Trump's deeply offensive and unacceptable comments regarding Muslims, women, Mexicans and all the others he has offended during his wild ride to the top of the Republican nomination. I'm sure they realize that this behavior violates the profound Jewish values they cherish.

But at an AIPAC event, you see first hand that Israel trumps everything – even Trump, even Jewish values, even people planning to boo.

Clearly, Trump's speechwriter figured that out.

When the Donald said at the beginning of his speech, “I'm not going to pander because that's what politicians do,” he was the consummate politician. 

He lied, or he exaggerated. You never know with politicians.


David Suissa is president of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal and can be reached at davids@jewishjournal.com

AIPAC turns Trump into politician Read More »

U.S. asks to cancel Apple encryption hearing, may be able to access device

Prosecutors on Monday asked a federal judge to cancel a Tuesday hearing in their legal battle to force Apple Inc to break into an encrypted iPhone, stating that they may have found another way to access the device, according to a court filing.

The judge in the case, being handled in federal court in Riverside, California, scheduled a hearing for late afternoon on Monday to consider the request.

The unexpected development in the high-profile case raised questions as to whether the Justice Department might be backing off from its confrontation with Apple. 

In a court filing, the Justice Department said the new technique came to light on Sunday, but it provided no further details. 

The government has obtained a court order requiring Apple to write new software to disable passcode protections on a phone used by one of the shooters in the December attack in San Bernardino, California. 

Apple, with the backing of much of the tech industry, is fighting the order, contending that it will undermine computer security and privacy for all consumers.

U.S. asks to cancel Apple encryption hearing, may be able to access device Read More »

Trump wows AIPAC, pledges to move U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump promised to strengthen the U.S.-Israel alliance with a pro-Israel foreign policy as he addressed AIPAC’s annual policy conference at the Verizon Center in Washington, D.C., on Monday.

“I speak to you today as a lifelong supporter and true friend of Israel. I am a newcomer to politics but not to backing the Jewish state,” Trump presented himself to the pro-Israel crowd. “I didn’t come here tonight to pander to you about Israel. That’s what politicians do: all talk, no action. I came here to speak to you about where I stand on the future of American relations with our strategic ally, our unbreakable friendship, and our cultural brother, the only democracy in the Middle East, the State of Israel.”

“When I become President, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on Day One,” Trump said to loud applause. “We will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel.” 

Trump, reading off a teleprompter for the first time in his political career, promised to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “immediately,” and “move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.” 

The Republican presidential front-runner received thunderous applause and a standing ovation as he expressed his joy (“yay!”) that this is President Barack Obama’s last year in office.

Criticizing the president for attempting to pass a UN security council resolution on the terms of an eventual agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, Trump pledged to veto any attempt by the UN “to impose its will on the Jewish state.” 

“It’s not up the United Nations to impose a solution,” he said. “The parties must negotiate a resolution themselves. The United States can be useful as a facilitator of negotiations, but no one should be telling Israel it must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away that don’t even really know what’s happening.”

According to Trump, there’s only one side willing to negotiate a peace settlement with the Palestinians and that’s Israel. “We know Israel is willing to deal. Israel has been trying to sit down at the negotiating table, without preconditions, for years,” he asserted. “The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable. They must come to the table willing and able to stop the terror being committed on a daily basis against Israel and they must come to the table willing to accept that Israel is a Jewish State and it will forever exist as a Jewish State.” 

Trump started off his speech by criticizing the Iran nuclear deal, a deal he called “disastrous” and “catastrophic – for America, for Israel, and for the whole Middle East.” 

“My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran,” he assured AIPAC. Echoing Prime Minister Netanyahu, Trump said, “The biggest concern with the deal is not necessarily that Iran is going to violate it, although it already has, the bigger problem is that they can keep the terms and still get to the bomb by simply running out the clock, and, of course, they keep the billions.”

Trump wows AIPAC, pledges to move U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem Read More »

Bernie Sanders trounces Hillary Clinton in overseas primary

American Democrats living abroad — including in Israel — overwhelmingly preferred Sen. Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in a primary for expatriates.

Democrats Abroad, the official Democratic Party arm for American expats, announced Monday that Sanders, I-Vt., received 69 percent of the vote in its primary to 31 percent for Clinton, the former secretary of state and U.S. senator. As a result, Sanders picked up nine pledged delegates, while Clinton earned four delegates.

The 34,570 voters participating in the primary — conducted by fax, email and postal mail — live in more than 170 countries around the world.

Among the 412 voters from Israel, Sanders, who is Jewish, received 249 votes and Clinton 160.

The only expats who favored Clinton over Sanders were those living in the Dominican Republic (350 votes to 53), Nigeria (4-1) and Singapore (149-107). Sanders enjoyed huge margins among the expats in Japan, winning 87 percent of the vote (1,178-176), and Egypt, with 89 percent (41-5).

Despite Sanders’ popularity among expats, Clinton is widely expected to win the nomination. She currently has 1,163 pledged delegates and 467 superdelegates, whereas Sanders has 844 pledged delegates and 26 superdelegates.

Bernie Sanders trounces Hillary Clinton in overseas primary Read More »

A year after Nisman’s death, signs of progress in Argentina probe

An extraordinary series of developments are bringing new hope — and new heartbreak — to the family and colleagues of Alberto Nisman, the Argentine federal prosecutor who was found dead last year just days after accusing then-President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner of covering up Iran’s role in the 1994 bombing of this city’s AMIA Jewish center.

Fourteen months after Nisman was found dead in his apartment with a single bullet in the head, no autopsy results have been released and no official cause of death has been determined.

But on Feb. 29, Antonio “Jaime” Stiuso, Argentina’s former head of intelligence operations, who has been living in exile in the United States for the past year, delivered bombshell testimony here, accusing Kirchner of ordering a hit on Nisman and seeking to portray his death as a suicide.

“They killed Nisman because of the work he was doing,” Stiuso said in testimony lasting 17 uninterrupted hours, according to numerous media reports.

“The author of all this madness was that woman, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner,” he said. “When the madness of the former president became explicit, I had to take my family and move.”

Stiuso wasn’t done. Referring to Iran, he said, “When you have these people as your enemy, there’s no point in having bodyguards.”

At the time of his death, Nisman, 51, had been under guard by a contingent of officers from the Argentine Federal Police. Their absence from his residence on the night of Jan. 18, 2015 has yet to be explained.

Hours after Stiuso finished testifying, the presiding judge, Fabiana Palmaghini, who took charge of the probe in December, excused herself from further handling the case. In a document over 30 pages long that she managed to produce in a matter of hours, Palmaghini charged Viviana Fein, the investigator of Nisman’s death, with ignoring testimony Stiuso provided in 2015 in which he allegedly said Nisman was killed. Hours after Nisman’s death was discovered, and for no known reasons, Fein announced she was investigating it as a suicide.

The developments come exactly 100 days into Mauricio Macri’s term as president, and some see them as part of his campaign to convince world leaders he can restore Argentina’s global standing. Since he took office in December, he has been visited in Buenos Aires by the leaders of France and Italy. And on Wednesday President Obama will arrive, accompanied by 400 American business leaders, on the first state visit to Argentina by a U.S. president in 27 years.

On Monday, at a news conference held in anticipation of Obama’s visit, Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra described the government’s task as “inserting Argentina in the world” — as if the Kirchner years had caused it to fall off the planet.

Macri’s presidency began with a flourish, annulling what was left of Kirchner’s pact to jointly investigate the AMIA bombing with Iran. Nisman had accused Tehran of masterminding the attack and produced evidence that led Interpol to issue extradition requests against senior Iranian officials, including a former foreign minister.

Last week, appearing before the first meeting of the World Jewish Congress to be held in Latin America, Macri promised to advance the investigation and lamented the harm done to Argentina’s international reputation by the lack of progress in the AMIA probe and the scandal surrounding Nisman’s death.

“But now we are determined to bring what happened to light,” Macri told The Associated Press.

Nisman had devoted the last decade of his life to investigating the AMIA bombing, which left 85 dead and hundreds wounded. Four days before his death, he charged Kirchner with attempting to cover up Tehran’s role.

Last week, Daniel Berliner, the director of Argentina’s Jewish news service, Agencia Judía de Noticias, released what he claims is the last recording of Nisman’s voice. In a telephone call conducted two days before he was found dead, Nisman spoke with eerie clarity.

“I knew that no matter what, I had to do this,” Nisman said. “I couldn’t keep this evidence to myself either for me of or for the country. And well, I’ll end up as I end up. As long as the truth is known.”

Formally, Nisman’s death is still considered a “suspicious death” and is being handled by a lower court. On Friday, in small, stuffy chambers on the fifth floor of the Criminal Court building in downtown Buenos Aires, a panel of three judges heard arguments about the future handling of the case.

The state, which under Kirchner wanted the investigation kept in lower court, under Macri has joined Nisman’s family in requesting its reclassification as a possible homicide and federal crime.

“Federal Prosecutor Natalio Alberto Nisman was assassinated so as to impede the progress of his work on behalf of the state!” thundered Pablo Lanusse, a towering legal figure in Argentina who is representing Nisman’s mother, Sara Garfunkel.

The intense, soft-spoken attorney Manuel Romero Victorica, acting on behalf of Nisman’s former wife and his daughters, quietly read aloud one of the numerous threats emailed to Nisman in his last frenzied months of work: “We will make true our promise to kill you and your family, but before that, we will make you look like shit in public and in the media. We’ve already managed to separate you from the AMIA case and we’ve gotten Argentina a deal with Iran without you.”

Sandra Arroyo Salgado, Nisman’s former wife and herself a judge, broke down in tears as she described her “dual role” as the mother of her daughters and as a judicial figure in her own right.

“We have been through a very complicated year of malevolence and fear,” she declared, describing how she and her daughters have been publicly smeared. “When they talk about ‘Nisman’s little ex-wifey,’ that’s me. How can I tell my daughter that when she hears threats she shouldn’t be afraid?”

The panel is scheduled to decide whether the Nisman case will be transferred to a federal court on Wednesday, the day of Obama’s arrival.

A year after Nisman’s death, signs of progress in Argentina probe Read More »

From left to right, Israelis sour on ‘opportunist’ Donald Trump

He’s crude. He’s blunt. He’s inauthentic. He is not a man of peace.

Left and right, religious and secular, Arab and Jew, Israelis don’t have many kind words for Donald Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner.

In interviews this week, several prominent Israelis described Trump as an opportunist and a demagogue whose political convictions are hard to make out.

“As Israelis, we look at him and laugh a little,” said Ronen Shoval, founder of the hard-line, right-wing Zionist organization Im Tirtzu. “He looks inauthentic. Men in Israel don’t color their hair like that. He looks like he’s had plastic surgery.”

Trump, who was due to speak Monday night at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, D.C., has upset many in the pro-Israel community with his promise to be “neutral” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his questioning of Israel’s commitment to peace.

In response, Trump has pointed to his role as grand marshal of New York’s 2004 Salute to Israel Parade and his Orthodox Jewish daughter and grandchildren as evidence of his pro-Israel bona fides.

According to a poll in February by the Israel Democracy Institute, three-fifths of Israeli Jews said a Trump administration would be friendly to Israel. A survey by the Israeli news website Walla found that Israelis preferred Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton to Trump by a margin of 38 to 23 percent. Clinton challenger Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish, received 7 percent support, while Republicans Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio received 5 and 4 percent, respectively. Twenty-three percent did not choose a candidate.

Like many Americans concerned by Trump’s apparent encouragement of violence at his rallies and his support among white supremacists, Israelis who spoke to JTA focused more on the candidate’s character than his specific policies.

Some Israelis praised Trump’s willingness to speak bluntly, no matter the consequences. Shoval said Trump reminds him of former Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, another plain-talking politician who has drawn accusations of racism for his call to have Israeli Arabs live in a Palestinian state under a future peace deal.

But others worried that Trump’s seemingly off-the-cuff convictions could change once he’s in office.

“There’s a feeling of finally, enough with political correctness, enough with the establishment,” prominent religious Zionist Rabbi Yuval Cherlow told JTA.

“The problem is that there isn’t a feeling you can trust him,” Cherlow said. “You can’t know if he’s going to do what he says. He’s not obligated to anything.”

On the left, Israelis are just as mistrustful — and less enamored by his frankness. Columnist Nahum Barnea has written that Trump is a threat to America’s democratic values and compared him to Oren Hazan, a scandal-plagued Likud lawmaker accused of bringing clients prostitutes and drugs when he managed a casino in Bulgaria.

Speaking to JTA, Barnea said Trump could be dangerous to the U.S.-Israel relationship because he’s less of a known quantity than Clinton and has weaker ties to America’s pro-Israel community.

“I think Trump is unpredictable and unobligated,” Barnea told JTA. “Hillary Clinton is predictable and obligated. The prime minister of Israel will feel comfortable with a president whose actions he can expect.”

According to Shoval, Israelis look for consistency in their ideologues and suggested that Likud voters would prefer Ted Cruz, the arch-conservative Texas senator and Trump’s closest competitor for the Republican nomination.

“Israeli society is very ideological, and Trump is viewed in Israel as an opportunist and not ideological,” Shoval said.

Israeli Arabs appear to be less engaged with the Trump phenomenon than their Jewish neighbors. Nearly half told the Israel Democracy Institute they “didn’t know” whether Trump would be friendly to Israel. Among the some 100 Israeli Arabs polled by Walla in March, a mere 7 percent supported Trump.

“From the perspective of Palestinian citizens who live in Israel, he’ll just make the situation more extreme,” said journalist Ghada Zoabi, who runs the Arab-Israeli news website Bokra. “He won’t take a positive role in leading to peace. He’s not a man of peace. He wants to celebrate the existing conflict.”

Yisrael Friedman, editor of Yated Neeman, a leading haredi Orthodox publication, said haredi Israelis have mostly been ignoring the Trump campaign out of a belief that God — not the president — controls matters of state.

“America seems to have gone crazy,” Friedman said, adding that Trump’s popularity deserves psychiatric examination. But he said only God knows which candidate would be best for the Jews.

“God will play with him like a marionette if he’s elected,” Friedman said. “At this point I’m praying for whatever’s best for the Jewish people. What’s right and good, I don’t know.”

From left to right, Israelis sour on ‘opportunist’ Donald Trump Read More »

Chilling debate or chilling hate on UC campuses?

The proposed UC Regents statement concerning anti-Zionism is a milestone in the struggle to protect Jewish students from harassment and intimidation on UC campuses. (The statement will be presented to the Regents for a vote on March 23.) While most commentaries focus on the implications of the statement:

“Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California,”

I would first like to applaud the decision to mention the word “anti-Zionism” in an official document of the University of California.

This may sound incredible to most readers, but, though everyone recognizes anti-Zionism as the main source of campus intolerance and hostility, the word “Zionism” has never been mentioned in any official communication of the university that I can remember (and I have been on the UCLA's faculty since 1969). The word “Zionism,” or even “Israel,” has been shunned by the UC administration like leprosy, possibly because it was considered “politically charged” or because it was judged  “controversial,” or because it could be interpreted as “taking sides.”

This is no longer the case.

The recent proposed report endows Zionism with a moral dimension and casts anti-Zionism as morally unacceptable. The statement recognizes “anti-Zionism” not merely as an arguable manifestation of anti-Semitism, but as an independent form of discrimination, carrying its own charge of bigotry and hate – at long last.

It reminds the university community, students and faculty, that all the ugly rhetoric of de-legitimization and de-humanization targets the fate of real people who seek life, security and dignity on this God-forsaken planet.

It is a paradigmatic shift of great symbolic value.

As is usual in paradigm-shifting situations, some people cannot stomach the shift. Israel eliminationists, taking cover in slogans of “human rights” and “social justice,” suddenly find themselves on the ugly side of the moral equation. The Regents report reminds them that conflicts have two sides, that there are human beings on both sides, and that morality and justice require more than just shouting: “Me, me, me.” In their bewilderment, these pseudo-guardians of morality now pull out two beaten-up mantras and chant: “anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism” and “this report might chill debate.”

Every child knows that “anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism”; the first targets Jews as individuals, while the second targets Jews as a people. The first targets all Jews, while the second targets only Jews who demand their right to self determination. Accordingly, the report explicitly distinguishes  “anti-Zionism” from “anti-Semitism” as two independent “forms of discrimination,” each laden with its own claim on racism.

Let us examine now the second mantra, concerning “chilling the debate” which some alarmists view as an attack on the First Amendment. Nothing of the kind. It might sound surreal, but all of our ongoing debates are already “chilled,” since we are all operating within norms of discourse that society has imposed on us. For example, in debating the notion of “gender Equality,” we are not advocating “women’s inferiority,” and in debating the nature of racism, we certainly do not preach “white supremacy.” Preaching white supremacy is not forbidden by the university, it is actually protected by the First Amendment, yet it is considered to “have no place at the university,” exactly the way the proposed Regents report labels anti-Zionism. I do not know many of my colleagues who are disturbed by the temperature of the debates that are currently being “chilled.”

Some of my colleagues say that speech norms cannot be imposed by decree, they must emerge organically to reflect universal societal values, and Zionism is not universal yet. This opinion is incompatible, however, with the dynamic of norms, as I recall it. I still remember the days when women’s inferiority was not seen as “socially unacceptable” as it is today, and Islamophobia was not as deadly a sin as it is today.

These norms have not emerged on their own. They were shaped and became universal over the years by hardworking, visionary leaders using statements of principles, guidelines and recommendations, just like the one issued last week for consideration by the Regents.

This report now adds anti-Zionism to the list of “chilled debates,” and rightly so. Through this report, the working group has reassumed the Regents’ responsibility to set norms of civil discourse without limiting free speech; Zionophobic and Islamophobic hate speeches would both remain protected, but, like all hate speeches, would be shunned by students and faculty, and equally “chilled” by the unwritten norms of good judgment.


Judea Pearl is Chancellor’s Professor of Computer Science and Statistics at UCLA and president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation.

Chilling debate or chilling hate on UC campuses? Read More »