fbpx

March 28, 2016

Jewish PAC endorses Hillary Clinton for president

A Jewish political action committee endorsed Hillary Clinton for president and pledged to help get out the vote for her.

JACPAC cited Clinton’s work as secretary of state in trying to bring about Israeli-Arab peace and her embrace of pro-Israel positions, as well as her commitment to maintaining abortion rights.

“A Hillary Clinton presidency will be an important step to safeguarding JAC’s issues; the women’s vote will be critical to Hillary’s success and JAC will be working hard to get the vote out,” the group said in a statement.

JACPAC focuses on Israel, abortion rights, gun control and church-state separation. It has endorsed Democrats and moderate Republicans in congressional races.

Polling has suggested that Clinton does not engender the same enthusiasm among the Democratic base as does her rival for the party’s nod, Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont.

JACPAC’s endorsement at this stage also reflects the Clinton campaign’s bid to garner Jewish institutional support for the candidate in the face of a stronger than expected challenge by Sanders, the first Jewish presidential candidate to win major party nominating contests. Clinton leads Sanders in the delegate count.

Ben Chouake, the president of NORPAC, a major pro-Israel political action committee, has endorsed Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and NORPAC has fundraised for Cruz.

Jewish PAC endorses Hillary Clinton for president Read More »

Shots fired in Capitol complex, gunman caught

A police officer may have been injured by shrapnel on Monday in the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center when a man fired a gun, media reports and congressional sources said.

There was confusion in early accounts about what occurred but police said a suspect was taken into custody with wounds after shots were fired.

MSNBC-TV reported that an officer who fired at an armed suspect may have been injured by shrapnel. Police said the suspect was taken to hospital. The officer did not identify or describe the suspect and he added that there were no additional suspects.

A U.S. government official told Reuters that initial reports were that a suspect walked into the Visitors Center, pointed a gun at one of the police officers on duty and a shootout erupted.

The official said no evidence had materialized of a connection to terrorism.

Separately, CNN reported that a person tried to gain entry into the White House but was caught.

Congress is in recess, with few lawmakers in Washington but the shooting happened just a few hours after a drill for an active shooter took place at the Capitol, creating further confusion.

The Secret Service temporarily cleared tourists from an area surrounding the White House after the incident, but activities quickly went back to normal. Capitol Hill was placed in lockdown immediately after the shooting but was later lifted.

Cathryn Leff, a licensed therapist, tweeted that she was at the visitor's center when she heard gunshots while going through a security check point.

“That moment when it goes down . Everyone is screaming & running and you can't see where the #ShotsFired are from,” tweeted Leff(@Cathrynlefflmft).

Shots fired in Capitol complex, gunman caught Read More »

Shooting in Hebron: Parsing an incident and its aftermath

For a number of days now, Israel has been abuzz over an incident in Hebron in which an IDF soldier shot a Palestinian in the head. Some facts concerning this incident are undisputed: The Palestinian was an attacker, who stabbed other soldiers before he was shot and killed. The Palestinian was lying on the ground, wounded (if not already dead) when he was shot in the head. The soldier was not under threat.

The story became a firestorm because of one reason: it was filmed by a volunteer of the NGO BTselem. The IDF was embarrassed and arrested the soldier for investigation. The political and military leaderships of Israel were quick to condemn the shooting – but soon a backlash from other leaders and from the public arrived. Two thirds of the Jewish public believe that no matter what the investigation reveals, the soldier should not be prosecuted. Many Israelis also don’t understand why killing a terrorist is something that should be condemned.

As usual, the debate fast became a shouting match. It fast became a blend of many things, some of which are irrelevant, some not much more than political propaganda. Here is an attempt to put it in some order.

The incident

That is the key — and the problem for us is that the door is still locked. We have footage, we have leaks from the investigation, but we do not yet have the full picture and an answer to the crucial question: Why did the soldier decide to kill a man who posed no threat to him or his friends?

The possibilities are as follows:

1. He perceived him to be a threat even though he was not.

In such case, there are two possibilities:

A. His judgment was wrong, and hence he is guilty of unprofessional behavior that does not befit a soldier (but certainly not of murder).

B. In these tense circumstances, he made what seemed a reasonable judgment, and hence the soldier is guilty of nothing. In such a tense situation, some mistakes can be expected.

2. He decided to kill him even though he knew there was no threat.

In such case, there are two possibilities:

A. He believed an attacker should be killed, IDF instructions notwithstanding, and should be prosecuted for disobedience and possibly murder.

B. He did not understand the IDF instructions and did not realize that shooting a person who poses no threat is forbidden. If that is the case, it is a failure of the IDF.

The response

Many Israelis were unhappy with the rapid response by the political echelon to the incident. They felt Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, in condemning the shooting in strong terms, were essentially throwing a soldier under the bus to appease international public opinion. Here, again, we have to parse the main claims that were made against them:

1. They should have waited for the investigation to be completed before issuing a condemnation.

2. By condemning the soldier early, the leaders made it much more difficult for the soldier to be treated fairly and investigated impartially.

3. Israel should not publically condemn its own soldiers, even when they make a mistake.

The first of these claims makes some sense. But the prime minister and defense minister would counter that in today’s world of instant communication and aggressive media, waiting to condemn would have greatly damaged Israel’s image. No media outlet will hold off its report until the investigation is over, therefore it was essential for Israeli leaders to issue a strong response immediately.

The second claim also makes sense. It is important for the investigators and (if it comes to that) judicial system to try not to be influenced by the political brouhaha surrounding the case.

The third claim merits discussion. If a soldier makes a mistake on a battlefield, he should still feel backed by the IDF and the state. If a soldier acts criminally, disobeying orders and damaging Israel — both morally and in the court of public opinion — no such shield should be extended to him.

The attacker

The mother of the soldier cried that her son is seen as a criminal while the Palestinian attacker is portrayed as a saint.

The attacker was not a saint. The debate is not about him — whether he deserved to die or not. Had he died during the attack, there would be no issue. The debate is about us — whether we kill attackers who are no longer a threat.

The politicians

Politicians do what their job requires, and they do what the public wants them to do. The prime minister and defense minister condemned the shooting. The public seems to feel their condemnation was somewhat premature. Their colleague and rival — the education minister — took advantage of this sentiment, and put himself at the head of the camp demanding backing for the soldier and patience with the investigation.

Is the prime minister justified in being upset with Education Minister Naftali Bennett’s political ploy? Of course he is.

Is it legitimate for Bennett to capitalize on this incident and make it a political tool? That’s politics in Israel.

The public

Four worrisome signs concerning the (Jewish) Israeli public:

1. The public seems to be too ready to cast aside established moral and legal rules in the wake of recent Palestinian attacks. This is not surprising; when people feel threatened, they have less patience with requirements such as to not shoot an attacker who is already subdued.

2. The public seems to have lost patience with the government’s inability to put an end to Palestinian attacks and is looking for quick fixes for a situation with no quick fixes.

3. The public seems to confuse its love for IDF soldiers with the need to maintain law, order and morality in Israel. Soldiers are not above the law. The IDF is not above criticism.

4. The public seems incapable of an unbiased, apolitical, detached discussion. Loving the IDF is not right wing. Expecting morality is not left wing. Fighting terrorism is not right wing. Opposing murder is not left wing.

Shooting in Hebron: Parsing an incident and its aftermath Read More »

Fired Trump aide endorses Cruz

Sam Nunberg, a former political adviser for Donald Trump, has decided to support Ted Cruz for president, Politico reported.

“Cruz is a Reagan Conservative. Donald Trump does not have a coherent political ideology — if anything, I would describe him as a Chris Christie Republican,” Nunberg said in a statement first published by ” target=”_blank”>Business Insider revealed past racially-charged Facebook posts. Nunberg allegedly wrote racially-charged and disparaging political posts dating back to 2007, including one calling Rev. Al Sharpton’s daughter a “N—!” and President Barack Obama a “Socialist Marxist Islamo Fascist Nazi Appeaser.”

Nunberg denied he wrote the posts. “Anything that was posted under my name does not mean I posted it,” he told CNN at the time. “I would also point out that all of these things were done before Mr. Trump’s campaign, if I even did them — which I deny.”

Nunberg said on Monday that Trump’s failure to immediately disavow David Duke’s endorsement and lack of understanding on foreign policy issues were the “last straws” that convinced him not to support his former boss for president.
 
According to a report by The  Fired Trump aide endorses Cruz Read More »

Hillary Clinton in 2000: Move embassy to Jerusalem

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump made headlines last week when he announced his plan to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem if elected as president. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made this a centerpiece of his presidential campaign.

But it appears that Hillary Clinton was the first 2016 presidential candidate to publicly support moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

In 1999, then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton said “she considers Jerusalem to be the ‘eternal and indivisible capital of Israel’ and will be an active advocate – if elected to New York’s Senate seat – to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem,” CNN “>wrote: “If I am chosen by New Yorkers to be their senator, or in whatever position I find myself in the years to come, you can be sure that I will be an active, committed advocate for a strong and secure Israel, able to live in peace with its neighbors, with the United States Embassy located in its capital, Jerusalem.”

Congress’s Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 said that the U.S. Embassy should be moved to Jerusalem by May 1999. But in June 1999, President Bill Clinton used his waiver authority to freeze building funds and delay the move of the embassy to Jerusalem for what he said were national security reasons. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have since issued waivers at six-month intervals.

In July 2000, President Clinton told Israeli television that he is “considering the embassy’s relocation by the end of the year,” in what was described by The Associated Press as a move to help Hillary in her Senate bid. Hillary “has seized on the issue, staking out a pro-Israeli stance that goes beyond her husband’s,” AP reported. “Hillary Clinton said Saturday that the embassy should be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem before year’s end.”

“>showed that 24 percent of Americans support moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, 20 percent disagree with this proposal, and 56 percent don’t know enough about it to have an opinion.

Mrs. Clinton hasn’t taken a position on the issue – or for that matter on Jerusalem as Israel’s capital – in 2016. In fact, on her 2008 campaign website – under the heading “Standing with Israel against terrorism” – her position paper “>page does not exist in the revamped 2016 campaign site.  Instead, a message pops up: “Oops, that link wasn’t what it was quacked up to be,” with a picture of Bill and Hillary posing with Donald Duck.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Hillary Clinton in 2000: Move embassy to Jerusalem Read More »

An Open Letter to a UCLA Alumna who confused anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism

This past week I heard a young UCLA alumna say on a radio talk-show (KPFK FM) that it is not anti-Semitism to say that the State of Israel has no right to exist.

The program was addressing the run-up to the upcoming decision of the UC Board of Regents related to the debate on campuses across the country concerning the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment movement (BDS) against Israel. Following the talk-show program, the Regents adopted a statement condemning anti-Semitism on UC campuses.

I am increasingly concerned about what I believe is a growing attitude by many young people, including Jews, that is similar to this misguided and ignorant UCLA alumna. To her and to others, I make the following points:

[1] For you to suggest a separation between Zionism, the state of Israel and Judaism is a misreading of contemporary Jewish identity.

[2] Judaism is far more than a religion and to presume that it is only a religion is reductionist and inaccurate. The Jewish people is part of the longest surviving civilization anywhere on the planet (3600 years since the time of Abraham and Sarah) and embraces all the elements necessary to characterize a people as a civilization: history, land, language, law, custom, ethics, faith, religion, literature, art, music, and folk ways.

[3] The modern state of Israel (per Israel's Declaration of Independence) was “based upon freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel” …[and] “…will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.”

[4] Though the principles of the Declaration of Independence are part of the fabric of the nation itself, the Jewish people today acknowledges that Israel is an imperfect democracy, just as the United States is imperfect. Tragically, Israel has ruled for almost 50 years over an unwilling Palestinian population in the West Bank on land that Israel conquered  in a war of self-defense in 1967.

[5] It remains the hope of the majority of Israelis and the American Jewish community that a two-states for two peoples end-of-conflict agreement will one day be reached and implemented by Israel and the Palestinians, and that this agreement will settle all claims and usher in an extended period of peace and security for both peoples. Tragically, this goal has been thwarted time and again by extremists of different kinds on both sides of this conflict, including proponents of BDS who are overwhelmingly anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and proclaim, like you, that Israel should not exist.

[6] This is not only an anti-Israel and anti-Zionist position, it is the newest brand of anti-Semitism because it denies the right of the Jewish people to define themselves. It is not your definition that counts. It is ours. Every people has the right of self-definition, and the Jewish people is no different. That is the fatal flaw in your proclamation and the very basis of your modern anti-Semitism.

It is one thing to protest policies of the Israeli government. It is quite another to demand of no other nation except Israel that it live according to democratic and prophetic standards, and then to de-legitimize the Jewish state when it inevitably fails. This isn’t just anti-Zionism. It is anti-Semitism.

I wonder about those who focus obsessively upon Israel’s behavior and no one else.

Where were they while 250,000 Syrians were butchered and 3 million became refugees?

Where have they been as equal numbers of Iraqis were slaughtered in America’s wrong-headed escapade?

Where were their indignant voices when Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood was destroying Egyptian Christian communities?

And where are they as Syria’s Kurdish community is threatened with slaughter by the Islamic State?

What about North Korea, Ukraine, the Congo, Darfur, Somalia, and Eritria?

Why is it that only Israel provokes their/your moral outrage and condemnation?

We haven’t heard a word from these people about any of these countries whose human rights violations are the most serious in the world, and a far cry from anything Israel has done – no protests in Paris and London, no BDS campaign against those countries, no calls for condemnation in the United Nations.

I am not one who equates every criticism of Israeli policy as anti-Semitism. Criticism from love represents the highest form of patriotism, and so it’s legitimate to criticize policies that are unjust. I do so as an American Jew that loves Israel. Israelis, however, are the ones who must decide how they are going to live because it is they who must live with the consequences of their decisions. Israel exists in a very bad and dangerous neighborhood that has little to do with what Israel says or does. So, those of us living here in comfort and security must necessarily defer to those living on the front lines. But we also have the duty to express our views because Israel's security affects us here. Our identity is affected by her destiny. In very important ways, Israel's and our destiny are linked.

Know this – We Jews are neither perfect nor guiltless when it comes to moral failure, cruelty and racism. But, we are self-critical, and that's the beginning of improving our moral character and behavior.

Israeli racism is, thankfully, being addressed seriously by Israel’s Ministry of Education in programs to educate children in elementary, junior high and high school about tolerance and human rights. There are many Israeli NGOs and programs supported by American Jews and others that emphasize Israel's “shared society.” Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin has condemned all expressions of intolerance and racism including that coming from extremist members of the sitting Israeli governing coalition.

The recent UC Regents statement condemning anti-Semitism on its campuses is a good statement, even though I believe it did not go nearly far enough. It should have included a clear condemnation of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.

To this young woman who denounced Israel and claimed not to be anti-Semitic, I suggest that your ignorance of Jewish history, modern Jewish identity and the nature of the state of Israel, along with your arrogance in denying the Jewish people the right of self-definition, are all quite remarkable for an American college graduate who chose to go on the record (on radio) to speak about something you obviously know so little about.

An Open Letter to a UCLA Alumna who confused anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism Read More »

Ecumenical rather than sectional

On the National Mall in Washington, D.C., the beautiful new memorial for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. displays a host of inspiring lessons that were taught by the great civil rights leader.  Among them are these words, spoken by Dr. King in Atlanta on his final Christmas in 1967:  “If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective.”

As a rabbi, I am proud to be the inheritor and guardian of a religious tradition that is founded upon the “ecumenical rather than sectional” loyalties that Dr. King modeled for us all.  Our Torah teaches no less than thirty-six times that we are commanded to love the stranger – the one who is not of our tribe.

Just a few miles from Dr. King’s memorial, the AIPAC Policy Conference convened this past week and was broadcast live by all of America’s major news networks and more expansively throughout the world.

I am deeply troubled by the multiple standing ovations that were afforded this past Monday evening to a man whose words, actions, and values are so regularly at odds with the peace-directed ideals of our Jewish tradition and our country – ideals elevated by Dr. King and so many of our nation’s greatest visionaries.

It’s one thing to be polite. Derekh eretz (the Jewish discipline of interpersonal decency) is an important value, and it is proper and fitting to greet a guest – even one with whom you might disagree – politely.  But politeness does not demand cheering from a Jewish audience for a person who eschews the very “world perspective” that Dr. King prayed might characterize our nation.

The celebration of a person who tramples so many of our Jewish values simply because he spoke in support of one of them caused a lie about Jews to be broadcast to the world.  This is an embarrassing failure on the part of the Jews in the convention hall on Monday night.

I am about to send my eldest child to college, where life is already hard enough for pro-Israel Jews.  We can be sure that it just got harder, with the world looking on as the worst anti-Semitic sentiments – that Jews have way more power than they deserve… that Jews trade away their other “purported” global ethical values in favor of whatever is good for themselves… that Jews are loyal only to Israel/themselves, not the countries in which they live – seemed to be playing out before their eyes.

Particularly in a presidential election year, the AIPAC Policy Conference is not just another platform for the internecine American Jewish debate about Israel.  The entire world watches this one Jewish event – and only this one Jewish event.  We can only assume that many millions of non-Jews were reaching their conclusions about who the Jews are and what they stand for on Monday night.

Lest anyone who tuned in to the convention come away with the false impression that Jewish self-concern can ever be embraced at the expense of our religious tradition’s other fundamental values, I wish to be perfectly clear.

The Jewish people’s loyalties “transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation.”

The Jewish people celebrates the Torah’s command to love more than just ourselves.

The Jewish people of America love our country and are determined to join with Americans of all faiths to uphold the soul of this nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

This is not a political matter.  It is blind to partisanship and party allegiances.  Whether Democrat, Republican or Independent, America’s Jews are devoted to our “ecumenical rather than sectional” loyalties, and we always will be.

Make no mistake – I love and support the land, people and state of Israel.  I believe in the legitimacy and importance of a safe and secure Israel, and I will never stop working for the day when Israel will live in peace with all of its neighbors.  But we, the Jewish people, do not need nor wish to check all of our other sacred religious values at the door in service of this one commitment, no matter how important it is to us.  To do so is to debase our own Jewish heritage.  To do so when the world is watching us so closely is to debase ourselves.

Ecumenical rather than sectional Read More »

Polling shows Sanders, Clinton tied in high favorability among Jewish voters

Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have virtually the same high approval ratings among American Jews.

Gallup said in a March 24 article on its website that an aggregation of Jewish respondents to its daily polling showed Jewish voters favor Sanders, an Independent Vermont senator, at 61 percent favorable, and Clinton, a former secretary of state, at 60 percent.

Sanders’ unfavorable ratings are 30 percent and Clinton’s are 35 percent.

Among Republican presidential candidates, only Ohio Gov. John Kasich has higher favorable than unfavorable ratings among Jewish voters, 45 percent to 28 percent. Kasich is last among candidates with delegates accumulated in the primaries.

The GOP front-runner, Donald Trump, a real estate magnate, scores 72 percent unfavorable to 24 percent favorable, and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, 72 percent unfavorable to 20 percent favorable.

Gallup did not publish a margin of error, but said it had aggregated “a large sample of interviews” with Jewish respondents since January.

In the same article, Gallup said that among the general population, 24 percent agreed that the United States should move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, 20 percent disagreed and 56 percent agreed that they “don’t know enough to have an opinion.”

That was based on polling from March 9 to 14. Gallup did not publish a margin of error, but generally its daily election polling has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

All three Republican presidential candidates have said they would recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Separately, a poll by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding found that Jews and Muslims are more likely to identify as Democrats rather than Republicans.

The January poll by the institute, which assesses issues of concern to American Muslims, found that Muslims are 44 percent likely to declare as Democrats, 41 percent as Independents and just 6 percent as Republicans. Jews, the poll found, are 50 percent likely to declare as Democrats, 29 percent as Independent and 16 percent as Republicans.

Catholics are equally split among the three categories — 34 percent Democrats, 34 percent Republicans and 31 percent Independents — and Protestants identified as Republican at 47 percent, Democrat at 25 percent and Independent at 24 percent.

The poll’s margin of error was 7 points for Muslims and Jews. Its data for Catholics and Protestants appeared to be culled from other polls.

Polling shows Sanders, Clinton tied in high favorability among Jewish voters Read More »

Israeli travel warning: Leave Turkey immediately

Israel warned its citizens living in or visiting Turkey to leave immediately.

The travel warning was issued Monday by the National Security Council Counter Terrorism Bureau, which is part of the Prime Minister’s Office.

The warning, which was upgraded from a basic concrete threat to a high concrete threat, comes a week after a suicide bombing at a main shopping center in Istanbul killed three Israelis and one Iranian national. Turkish media later reported that the bomber targeted an Israeli tour group.

According to the warning, the March 19 bombing “underscores the threat by Daesh against tourist targets throughout Turkey and proves high capabilities of carrying out further attacks.” Daesh is the Arabic acronym for Islamic State.

“Terrorist infrastructures in Turkey continue to advance additional attacks against tourist targets – including Israeli tourists – throughout the country,” the warning also said.

Turkish Police issued a nationwide alert on Sunday warning of possible Islamic State attacks over the weekend against churches and synagogues, and calling on consulates and embassies in the country to be on high alert.

The Islamic State has been blamed for four of six bombing attacks in Turkey in the past eight months, the English-language Turkish news service Hurriyet Daily News reported.

On March 22, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a telephone conversation with his Israeli counterpart that his country is “ready to cooperate with Israel against terrorism.”

Israeli travel warning: Leave Turkey immediately Read More »