fbpx

April 3, 2016

Sunday Reads: One year to the Iran Agreement, On Zionism and liberalism

US

Elisa Catalano Ewers and Ilan Goldenberg take a look at America's reaction to the Iran deal one year after its signing:

Although Iran’s actions may not have warranted an extreme U.S. response, the narrative of U.S. concession toward Iran is difficult to combat. It complements the oft-repeated refrain that the United States is withdrawing from the region. The perception among partners as well as other observers is that America is less willing to address Iranian aggression for fear it might derail the nuclear deal. One can argue the merits of this perception, but from a policy perspective, it is almost beside the point. Perception creates its own reality, and in the case of the Middle East, perception is fueling tense dynamics. Iranian willingness to test U.S. commitment to respond to Iran’s behaviors during JCPOA implementation will aggravate these tensions.

James Jeffrey and Michael Eisenstadt just released a detailed report examining past US operations in the Middle East:

Even if the United States succeeds in this regard, the baseline conclusion will remain that, in the Middle East, U.S. engagement, sadly oriented first on military force, can only limit the impact of the region’s underlying violence and instability. In contrast to other regions, the relative calm and opportunities for global integration that a U.S. security umbrella provides have not significantly furthered Middle East integration into the global community or helped calm the region’s demons.  Thus, even at its most successful, U.S. security avoids the worst and buys time.

Israel

Shlomi Eldar writes about Netanyahu’s decision to stop returning the bodies of Palestinians, against the position of Israel’s security establishment and his Defense Minister:

This is typical behavior for Netanyahu. He refuses to be caught losing to Bennett in their fight over the hearts and minds of HaBayit HaYehudi voters or the right in general. It sometimes seems as if he is willing to pay almost any political or security price as long as he can prevent Bennett or any other right-wing figure, in or out of government, from outflanking him on the right and presenting him as failing to fulfill the interests of the settlers. There is no shortage of examples of such behavior.

Ben Dror Yemini discusses US Senator Patrick Leahey’s demand to investigate Israel for serious violations of human rights:

The entire judicial, military, and political leadership have come out and said that IDF soldiers must maintain their human decency, even in the face of this barbarous, murderous terrorism. Yet somehow, Leahey is requesting an investigation against Israel. Specifically, he accuses Netanyahu, Ya'alon, and Eisenkot. In Israel, these men are attacked from the right, while Leahey is attacking them from the left.

Middle East

Joseph Braude and Aron Lobel examine jihadist media outlets that have been forming new realities throughout the Middle East:

Channels like Al-‘Ahd drive the sectarian polarization that is tearing the Middle East apart and spreading chaos throughout the world. If the United States and its allies do not recognize the danger these channels pose and take proactive steps to address it, the situation is certain to deteriorate further.

Lee Smith wonders at the new respect Bashar Assad has been enjoying in the West:

Johnson's second reason for praising Assad—as the champion of archaeology—is evidence that the West has become undone. The mayor of one of the world's greatest cities—next in line to lead Britain's Tories—praises Vladimir Putin for his “ruthless clarity” in helping Assad's troops rescue antiquities. London, which has given birth to some of the great glories of the English language, now publishes encomia to an Oriental despot who saves stones as he tears men's flesh.

Jewish World

Peter Berkowitz writes an interesting critique of Chaim Gans’ call for a new, more liberal brand of Zionism in a thought provoking piece for Mosaic:

In a state that is both liberal and democratic, it is neither historically anomalous nor theoretically deviant for the majority to imbue political institutions and popular culture with its national spirit. To be sure, the obligation in liberal democracies to protect individual rights sets limits on what majorities may legislate. Authorizing language, calendars, and anthems that reflect a majority’s culture and traditions is compatible with the equal protection of all citizens’ basic individual rights. Infringing the freedom to worship, to speak, to assemble, and to buy and sell property and earn a living is not. Israel, like every other liberal democracy, faces a perennial challenge in striking the proper balance between majority preferences and the rights shared equally by all; its record in this regard, however imperfect, stacks up with the best of them.

Matthias Kuntzel takes a look at how Nazi propoganda effected Israel’s 1948 independence war:

Even though the Arab world rejected the Partition Plan, there was at the same time a general reluctance to go to war, not only among the Arabs in Palestine but also among the governments of major Arab League states such as Egypt. It was the mobilization of the Muslim Brotherhood that caused the Arab League to embrace the Mufti, a Nazi-collaborator and war criminal, as leader of the Palestinian Arabs. By staging destabilizing mass demonstrations and a murderous campaign of intimidation, Hajj Amin el-Husseini and the Muslim Brotherhood dragged Egypt and other Arab states into a full-scale war against the Jews of Mandatory Palestine.

Sunday Reads: One year to the Iran Agreement, On Zionism and liberalism Read More »

Articles I recommend that you read right now

Dear Readers:

Every so often I recommend articles written by others that, in my opinion, offer thinking and perspective that help clarify some of the difficult events that have occurred in recent weeks. Here are three such articles:

[1] Former Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts is keenly intelligent, clear thinking, honest, and decent. His many years of experience in Washington, D.C make for both refreshing and clarifying reads, even if you don't agree with him, which may be the case here. Frank was interviewed by Slate below.

[2] Prime Minister Netanyahu recently appointed former Yesha leader (the settlement movement) Dani Dayan as the new Consul General in New York after Brazil rejected Dayan’s appointment as Ambassador from Israel because of his position against a two-state solution and his role in advocating for the building of settlements in the contested West Bank. Michael Koplow writes in the Israel Policy Forum what are the lessons in Dayan’s appointment as he seeks to represent the government of the State of Israel in New York, the largest Jewish community in the world outside of Israel

[3] Peter Beinart’s article about Trump’s appearance at the AIPAC conference and the reactions of many of those present – Though I believe that AIPAC’s invitation of Trump as a leading presidential candidate is justifiable, I also believe that AIPAC failed in its duty as a Jewish organization to officially distance itself specifically from Trump’s populist demagoguery, racism, misogyny, anti-immigrant, anti-disabled, anti-Latino and anti-Muslim rhetoric, and his constant incitement to violence. It was my hope that AIPAC members would have greeted Trump with silence when he entered the hall, silence when he spoke, and silence when he left the hall. Many AIPAC members did precisely this, and to them I say “Kol hakavod” (all respect). I have written a blog explaining why I, as a congregational rabbi, have spoken out against Trump, the first time I have ever done so against or for a political candidate – see https://rabbijohnrosove.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/condemning-donald-trump-one-rabbis-protest/).

Here are the three articles that I urge you to read:

 

[1] Barney Frank Is Not Impressed by Bernie Sanders – By Isaac Chotiner – Slate – March 30, 2016

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/03/barney_frank_is_not_impressed_by_bernie_sanders.html

“Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years with little to show for it in terms of his accomplishments and that’s because of the role he stakes out. It is harder to get things done in the American political system than a lot of people realize, and what happens is they blame the people in office for the system. And that’s the same with the Tea Party.” [Slate]

Isaac Chotiner serves as Executive Editor of The New Republic, LLC.

 

[2] Dithering Over Dani Dayan's Diplomacy – By Michael J. Koplow – Israel Policy Forum – March 31, 2016

http://ottomansandzionists.com/2016/03/31/dithering-over-dani-dayans-diplomacy/

“…the real lesson of Dayan’s appointment is a deeper one. His appointment is the clearest message that the Israeli government has sent yet that it does not view its policies as a problem, but rather the way in which they are presented. Dayan will not pretend to be anything but a rightwing one-stater who views the two-state solution as naïve and unrealistic. He will perfectly represent the current Israeli government as an unapologetic realist who views the bulk of American Jews as out of touch with the reality of Israel’s situation and neighborhood. Yet, the Israeli government sincerely seems to believe that forcefully and consistently presenting this message will change minds here, and that American Jews will eventually come around. Dayan as consul general lets us know that the Israeli government is blind as a bat to the damage caused by its policies, and that it is the naïve party here by assuming that it has a messaging problem rather than a policy problem. Israeli diplomats don’t need to be more forceful in pushing their message; they need a different message to push.”

Michael J. Koplow is the program director of the Israel Institute and a Georgetown University Ph.D. candidate in Government specializing in the Middle Eastern politics and democratization.

[3] Trump at AIPAC: A Jewish Betrayal of the United States – By Peter Beinart – Haaretz – March 23, 2016

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.710489

Thank you, Donald Trump. Unwittingly, you’ve done something important. You’ve exposed AIPAC’s indifference to the well-being of the country in which it thrives. My country. The United States.

Once upon a time, the leaders of American Zionism divided their time. They struggled to establish, defend and improve the State of Israel because of their moral obligation to their fellow Jews. And they struggled to defend and improve the United States because of their moral obligation to their fellow Americans.

The foremost American Zionist of the 1910s and 1920s, Louis Brandeis, was also America’s foremost opponent of economic oligarchy. The foremost American Zionist of the 1930s and 1940s, Rabbi Steven Wise, was a lifelong activist for women’s rights, civil rights and the labor movement. In his book Jewish Power, J.J. Goldberg notes that in the 1920s, the presidents of both the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress served on the board of the NAACP. In the 1940s, the American Jewish Congress employed more attorneys working to end segregation than did the Justice Department. At the March on Washington, American Jewish Congress head Joachim Prinz, who had been a rabbi in Hitler’s Germany, said he had come to defend “the idea and the aspirations of America itself” against the sin of state-sanctioned bigotry.

That was then. Today, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups still do valuable work defending the rights of vulnerable Americans. But their influence is dwarfed by AIPAC, which enjoys more power in Washington than every other American Jewish organization combined. AIPAC is the only American Jewish organization that hosts virtually all the presidential candidates every four years. It’s the only one that boasts that its national conference is “attended by more members of Congress than almost any other event, except for a joint session of Congress or a State of the Union address.” It’s the only one that employed an official who boasted, “You see this napkin? In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”

Politically, AIPAC has become the dominant institution in American Jewish life. Yet it takes no moral responsibility for anything that happens in America. It has only one mission: to ensure that the United States government supports the Israeli government unconditionally. Nothing else matters. AIPAC has repeatedly hosted speeches by Pastor John Hagee, who called Hurricane Katrina “the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans” because “there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came.” To AIPAC, it doesn’t matter. Hagee leads Christians United for Israel, which lobbies the United States government to support anything Benjamin Netanyahu does. 

This is why AIPAC had no choice but to let Trump speak. And it’s why, although some attendees protested, thousands of others cheered as Trump cycled through a familiar set of talking points about how Palestinians deserve all the blame for the fact that in the West Bank, they live as non-citizens, without the right to vote, under military law. The AIPAC members cheered because they have been conditioned to cheer. They have been conditioned to view American politicians solely through the prism of their Israel views. So thousands of Jews cheered for the country’s foremost purveyor of bigotry against religious minorities. Some journalists were surprised. They should not have been. The crowd had been taught well. Moral indifference to what happens inside the United States is the AIPAC way.

After the speech, AIPAC’s president condemned Trump for his personal attacks on President Obama. AIPAC opposes excessive partisanship because it threatens the bipartisan basis of support for Israeli policy. Banning Muslims from entering the United States, or calling undocumented Mexican immigrants “rapists,” or encouraging violence at political rallies, does not threaten that bipartisan support. So AIPAC remains silent.

It would be fascinating to see how AIPAC would react if a major presidential candidate demonized not American Muslims, but American Jews. In theory, the organization would react exactly as it has reacted to Trump. In theory, AIPAC—despite being a mostly Jewish organization—has a mandate to protect only Jews in Israel, not Jews in the United States.

In practice, AIPAC would never let such a candidate speak. The outcry from its members would be too great. So it’s not quite right to say that AIPAC accepts no moral responsibility for anything that happens in the United States. Rather, it accepts no moral responsibility for anything that happens to gentiles in the United States.

At the March on Washington, Rabbi Prinz said that, “When I was the rabbi of the Jewish community in Berlin under the Hitler regime, I learned many things. The most important thing that I learned under those tragic circumstances was that bigotry and hatred are not the most urgent problem. The most urgent, the most disgraceful, the most shameful and the most tragic problem is silence.” More than fifty years later, the most dangerous bigot and demagogue in modern American history is on the verge of claiming a major party’s presidential nomination. And America’s most powerful Jewish organization is silent because it was built to be silent. We American Jews owe our country better than that.

Peter Beinart is a contributing editor at The Atlantic and National Journal, an associate professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York, and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.

Articles I recommend that you read right now Read More »

Why Didn’t We Conquer Egypt?

In just a few weeks, we will sit down around a Seder table and celebrate Passover.  We will recount the central narrative of the Jewish People — our Exodus from Egypt.  In the story, we remember God parting the sea for us and allowing us to cross on dry land, while God drowned the entire Egyptian army. (Exodus 14:21-31)  Then the story naturally continues as we travel in the desert toward our ultimate goal of the Land of Israel.

After witnessing the entire Egyptian army drown, why is it that Moses and the Children of Israel did not demand that God reopen the sea so they could march back and conquer Egypt?  We knew that Egypt sat vulnerable, open to attack.  Why did we not take advantage?

Why don't we as Jews seek vengence?

After reestablishing the State of Israel and building one of the finest Air Forces in the world today, why don't we use the Israeli Air Force against Germany and Poland and so many nations that hosted Hitler's Nazi killing machine?  Why doesn't Israel bomb the camps and the train tracks we begged others to bomb for us roughly 75 years ago?

After waves and waves of rocket attacks from Hamas controlled Gaza, why doesn't Israel use its superior military might to level the Gaza Strip?  Why doesn't Israel destroy Arab villages in a similar fashion to the way its Egyptian and Syrian neighbors wipe out entire Arab towns? 

The answer is quite simple.  We, the Jewish People, seek to build our future — not destroy the futures of others.  We were builders thousands of years ago and we will be builders for thousands of years to come.  We do not seek vengeance.  We always seek peace.

The message of the Jewish People is positive.  We rise to the highest standards.  We seek to establish the most righteous ideal.  Do we fall short sometimes?  Of course.  But there can be no doubt that our little “start up nation” has achieved great measures in its mere 67 years.  The Jewish People has built a Jewish Homeland we can be proud of in every respect — socially, economically, culturally, etc…  Is it perfect?  No.  No democratic country can ever be perfect.  Is it great?  Yes.  Simply put, yes it is.

For the last several weeks, I have read self-critical article after article by Jewish authors and Jewish publications about the AIPAC Policy Conference, which I attended as a proud AIPAC supporter.  I have read hyper-critical articles about Israel's treatment of the Arab population — the same population that continues to carry out stabbing missions against civilians on a daily basis.

We take our self-criticism for granted as a people who once again owns our own sovereignty, living freely on our own land.  Critics are important.  However, the choir of critics should not and cannot drown out the important national and diplomatic interests and work that needs to be done for Israel's sake.  The Jewish People achieves far more when we work together to help build accomplishment rather than when we try to destroy others or even ourselves.  Destruction cannot and should not ever be the goal of any Jewish activist.

So this Passover Seder when you are reading the Haggadah, be proud of our collective reaction at every turn.  We yearned for freedom, we fought for our sovereignty.  May we continue to contribute to a more perfect Jewish society, which in turn helps build and improve the greater global community as well.

Chag Sameach — Happy Passover!

Why Didn’t We Conquer Egypt? Read More »