fbpx

December 26, 2016

LIVE BY NIGHT *Movie Review*

LIVE BY NIGHT is Ben Affleck’s latest “all in” as writer, director, producer and star.  It’s the story of Ben Affleck’s Joe, a war veteran, who returns home to Boston where he then switches sides of the law and becomes a criminal.  A series of events lead him to Ybor city in Florida where a partnership with Cuban rum runners help cement his presence as the unofficial mayor of the area until things take a turn for the worse.  The movie also stars Zoe Saldana, Sienna Miller, Elle Fanning, Chris Messina, Chris Sullivan, Chris Cooper, Brenden Gleeson and Anthony Michael Hall.

While this is a little bit GODFATHER and mafia, it’s actually more current political commentary than expected, an unintentional dimension since it was written and shot a year ago.  Racism, interracial romance, the KKK all feature prominently.

One of the big themes in LIVE BY NIGHT is parent/child relationships.  Joe’s relationship with his dad, played by Brendan Gleeson, as well as the father/daughter relationship between Chris Cooper’s Chief and his daughter Loretta, played by Elle Fanning who, for the record, delivered the most stand-out performance of the movie.  She was absolutely fantastic.  These familial relationships are important because they address the question of unconditional love, how you show love, tough love and who deserves love.  I don’t think the parallels between these two relationships are unintentional as evidenced by the fact that it’s Loretta’s words that close the movie.

I saw this at a special screening that included Ben Affleck and key department heads including the production designer, editor and cinematographer.  So, I have some special insight into the movie straight from the people who made it.  For more about what Ben Affleck and his Oscar-winning crew had to say, take a look below:

—>Keep in touch with Zoe Hewitt on social media @RealZoeHewitt on Twitter and Instagram.  Looking for the direct link to the video?  Click here.

LIVE BY NIGHT *Movie Review* Read More »

No-drama Obama? You gotta be kidding

1.

There is no serious policy-based argument in favor of the Obama administration's decision to support – in fact, initiate – an anti-Israel resolution at the UN Security Council. This was, pure and simple, an ego-driven maneuver. It was a move stemmed from frustration, not a thought-through plan that will lead the Middle East in a positive direction. Obama did not start anything. He cannot start anything. So everything he does now is a shot in the dark. For eight years he did not succeed in advancing Middle East peace (not entirely his fault, it is a tough nut to crack), and a reasonable conclusion would be: this is something that I leave to my successor to deal with. Alas, Obama – the man of a no-drama image – proved less immune to personal grudges and considerations than his admirers believed. Last weekend was no substance – it was all drama.

2.

In fact, that is the more generous explanation of the US Security Council vote. It is an explanation that makes Obama seem more human, a little petty, somewhat pathetic, but not sinister. If you want to be less forgiving with the president, you could say that Obama soberly decided to join the forces of de-legitimization of Israel. A number of comments that the president made in the last two years 3.

That Obama's actions were ego-driven does not justify an Israeli ego-driven response. The US president does not work for Israel. So for Israelis to be angry with him is somewhat childish.

The Ego-driven response wil also remain unrecompensed because of what the UN vote proved once again: Israel has no reliable ally other than the US. And that the US is also not completely reliable should have been clear to all those who have eyes to see. The lessons for Israel: be strong, be tough, keep the US as close as possible, but don’t bet your security and well-being on US guarantees.

4.

The debate about settlements is important. But the resolution is not about the settlements. When one lumps together Gush Etzion (which was in Israel’s hands before 1948), Itamar (a distant settlement), Maale Edumim (a settlement bloc), and Jerusalem – all neighborhoods in Jerusalem beyond the Green Line – one does not start a true debate. Israelis are not about to start debating whether neighborhoods in east Jerusalem are legal.

5.

Obama probably still believes that he is Israel’s friend. I’d give him that. He probably thinks – as some of his supporters still do – that Israel needs saving. Does he think it likely that an institution such as the UN has the ability or the intention to save Israel from itself? I doubt that. So there is a contradiction between the way the President sees himself and the way he acted last week.

6.

In one respect the UN vote was a continuation of the last eight years of Obama policies. Obama pretends to be a bold leader when in fact what he does is to “lead from behind” – namely, to refrain from leading. In the Israeli-Palestinian arena, for many years, the US insisted on being the leader, and resisted intervention by other forces, specifically UN intervention.

Obama's last (or almost last) act is to weaken the US’ ability to be a leader in the Israeli-Palestinian arena. Possibly because he does not trust Donald Trump to lead in this arena in the direction Obama would prefer. Or maybe because eight years of frustrating attempts have made him believe that a cop tougher than the US is needed in the case of Israel. Or maybe because of his instinctive tendency to believe that international institutions are intrinsically good and constructive (in too many cases they aren’t).

7.

Forget Israel: what was America’s interest in casting this vote?

There is no such interest.

It is bizarre to argue that ending Israel’s settlement activity will contribute much to America’s security, power, commercial success, relations with anyone. Note that the So we are left with two types of arguments for ending settlement activity.

One – that it is better for Israel. The administration was doing Israel a favor because “the absence of progress toward peace and continued settlement expansion was going to put the two-state solution at risk, and threaten Israel’s stated objective to remain both a Jewish State and a democracy,” as Power said. Does she truly believe that she is acting in Israel’s best interest? I have no reason not to believe ambassador Power. And yet, I believe that Israelis are the better judges of what’s good for Israel’s future. If the US, for its own reasons, decides that it’s time for it to oppose Israeli policies – that I understand. But for the US to pretend to represent Israel’s best interests better than Israel does smells of either hypocrisy or hubris.

Two – that the US cannot morally remain silent when a travesty such as Israeli settlement construction continues. What about this argument? On the one hand, settlement activity could be seen as morally problematic. Israel is letting its citizens have full rights while living in an area in which other people live without having full political rights. On the other hand, is settlement activity the most significant moral travesty with which the US and the world need to deal at the moment? Clearly it is not. And while there is an argument to be made for objecting to the settlements even when more urgent problems linger (the fact that we can’t solve a huge problem doesn’t absolve us from our obligation to solve small problems) – there is also an argument to be made against the morality of singling out Israel’s actions while other countries get a pass. Singling out Israel is not bold action. Voting against Israel at the UN is nowhere near bold – it is easy, it is cowardly.

 

 

No-drama Obama? You gotta be kidding Read More »

ARZA’s Response to UN Security Council Resolution 2334

Note: I serve as the National Chair of the Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA), representing 1.5 million American Reform Jews.

To AZRA’s friends and supporters:

Many organizations have expressed their feelings and thoughts since the UN Security Council resolution 2334 was passed last Friday, with the extension of the United States.

Many – most especially Prime Minister Netanyahu – are furious with the US for not vetoing the resolution and thus enabling it to pass. On the other hand, numerous friends of Israel support of the resolution’s rejection of settlements and identified with its message.

We are emphatic that the UN, with its well-established anti-Israel bias, should not be the venue for negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, and that gives the resolution of veneer of hollowness and hypocrisy. It is a grave concern that the resolution will become means for unjustly prosecuting Israel in the international arena.

ARZA is issuing this statement to clarify some of the issues, express our opinion and concern, and provide helpful language to use in ensuing discussions. As Rabbi Eric Yoffie has written, there is a general agreement that the US was an error, yet there is little consensus about the broader meaning of these events and what to expect in the weeks ahead. Our statement’s purpose is to provide clarity as to how we want to proceed.

Jews in Israel and around the world are justified in questioning the motives of the United Nations due to its historic antipathy to the State of Israel. To date, 223 UN resolutions have been submitted against Israel, far more than against any other nation in the world including those with abysmal human rights records. Only six resolutions have been passed against the murderous Assad regime in Syria that is responsible for the death of 500,000 men, women, and children. On the same morning that UNSC Resolution 2334 came to a vote, the UNSC could not agree to stem the flow of arms to the murderous South Sudanese regime. And UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has acknowledged that the UN has passed a disproportionately high number of resolutions against Israel.

UN Security Council Resolution 2334 has released a firestorm of criticism by the Israeli government and leaders in the American Jewish community against the United Nations and the Obama Administration for its abstention in the vote. This is the first time in recent years that the United States has not vetoed a UNSC resolution against Israeli policies, primarily because nothing in the resolution conflicts with long-standing American policy held by successive administrations.

The resolution condemns Jewish settlements in the West Bank as illegal as defined by UN Resolution 242. Following the vote, American UN Ambassador Samantha Powers noted that part of the rationale for the US abstention was Israel’s continuing commitment to what the international community regards as illegal settlement expansion:

“Israel has advanced plans for more than 2,600 new settlement units. Yet rather than dismantling these and other settler outposts, which are illegal even under Israeli law, now there is new legislation advancing in the Israeli Knesset that would legalize most of the outposts – a factor that propelled the decision by this resolution’s sponsors to bring it before the Council.” 

However, the resolution does not distinguish between settlements inside the West Bank, in the large settlement blocks, in the Jerusalem neighborhoods, and in the Old City, all of which were taken in Israel’s war of self-defense in 1967.

A distinction in these different areas must be the subject for negotiation between the parties and not in the context of UN and other international resolutions.

As time has passed without a resolution of the conflict, ARZA has become increasingly concerned that the two sides’ polarization, hostility and lack of trust will diminish the possibility of a two-state solution.

Whereas Palestinians charge that the settlement enterprise is the principal obstacle in the way of establishing a Palestinian State alongside Israel in the West Bank, Israelis suspect that the Palestinians will never be willing to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state nor live peacefully alongside Israel.

Palestinian suspicions and lack of trust towards Israel are buttressed by statements made by a number of Ministers in the Netanyahu government who have called for continual settlement expansion, annexation of the West Bank, legalization of heretofore illegal settlement outposts, and opposition to a two-state solution.

Israelis suspect Palestinian intentions because the Palestinians have refused all past efforts to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel and now refuse to sit down without conditions with Israel to negotiate an end-of-conflict agreement.

ARZA worries further that the Obama administration’s abstention in this vote will encourage intensified partisan posturing over American support for Israel, rather than the continued bipartisan support for Israel among Democrats and Republicans alike.

And ARZA is deeply concerned that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s and his allies’ negative and hostile reactions against the UN Resolution, the Obama Administration, and other countries that supported it is diverting attention from the root issue. In light of the incoming US Administration’s promise to initiate epic moves in the Middle East, ill-considered policies and actions can light the region on fire.

ARZA continues to insist that a negotiated two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians is the only option that can assure Israel’s democratic and Jewish nature, and the only way that Palestinians will achieve a state of their own.

ARZA’s Response to UN Security Council Resolution 2334 Read More »

Foxman ‘sad’ over Obama’s ‘vindictive payback’ at UN

This story originally appeared on “>expressed outrage at Obama’s move, asserting that his legacy will be forever tarnished by his action against Israel.

Foxman said that he feels ‘sad’ over the issue. “I think what’s so sad about it, is that this is a President’s empty, vindictive gesture, which undermines any hope for a legacy of a man that seriously tried to bring the parties together for peace,” Foxman said regarding Obama. “He knows the UN. He knows why for 50 years the U.S. stood to defend Israel against the bias and bigotry. He knows what (outgoing UN Secretary General) Ban Ki-moon said last week that it is a biased organization. He knows that there were no peace negotiations without settlements before 1967. He knows about Gaza. He knows all these things and still instructed, in such a callous manner, not even to inform the Israelis before the vote how he will vote.”

“It really is sad,” he continued. “At the end of the day, I don’t think it’s going to mean much, but it does take away this image that America is Israel’s best friend, best protector, and best shield. That’s what has been destroyed.”

Foxman expressed hope that the United States will regain Israel’s trust in brokering the peace process once Israel feels that it is being shielded and protected at the UN by the incoming Trump administration. “In order to have a role in the Arab-Israel peace, the U.S. needs to have a trusting relationship with Israel, and it’s only the trust that Israel and the U.S. have with each other that could make it happen,” he emphasized. “If there is no trust there, nobody else can be a good or serious mediator.” 

Foxman ‘sad’ over Obama’s ‘vindictive payback’ at UN Read More »

If Israel is a land thief, how can it negotiate?

It’s true that American presidents, to one degree or another, have always criticized Israeli settlements. But while they’ve called them “illegitimate,” they’ve generally resisted efforts to brand them as “illegal.” There’s a big difference between the two. Illegitimate implies controversy, dispute, debate. Illegal means the debate is over. You are living on stolen land. You are a thief. 

The UNSC resolution 2334, which president Obama allowed to pass last Friday, does precisely that. It labels Israel as a land thief.

“If there is one area in the resolution that may be potentially problematic for the future,” longtime peace negotiator Dennis Ross wrote, “it is the reference to the settlements being illegal.”

And for good reason: Once you stipulate that settlements are illegal, what is there for the Palestinians to negotiate? Nobody owes a criminal anything, least of which the indignity of having to sit down and talk. A thief is lucky to avoid jail time. He must return stolen property. End of story.

Have you ever wondered why Palestinian leaders always appear so reluctant to make any concessions? It’s because they really do believe Israel is a thief. Thanks to bodies hostile to Israel like the United Nations, and the empowering of a world that coddles them, this belief has only gotten stronger through the years. Now, with Resolution 2334, and with the endorsement of President Obama, the Israel-as-thief narrative has taken on the force of an international legal judgment.

It gets worse. The resolution makes no distinction whatsoever between settlement blocs next to Jerusalem, isolated outposts in the West Bank and Jewish neighborhoods in the Old City. As far as the resolution goes, it’s all “Occupied Palestinian Territory.” Never mind that there was no such thing as “Palestinian territory” prior to 1967. Never mind that past negotiations always endorsed the idea that the main settlement blocs would remain part of Israel. And never mind that there’s a compelling legal case to make that the land in question is “disputed” rather than belonging to any one party.

Never mind all that. With this new resolution, even Judaism’s holiest site, the Western Wall, is considered “Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

So, when Israel builds anything near the Wall, such as the plaza which Obama once used to pray at the Wall, it is in “flagrant violation of international law.” It is tampering with “Palestinian territory.”

The flagrant chutzpah behind such declarations is astounding. I think this is why many of my pro-Israel friends on the left are sickened by this resolution. They can see through it. They can see it’s not out to promote reasonable compromise. They can see it has nothing to do with bringing peace and everything to do with bringing Israel down.

President Obama’s complicity in turning Jewish construction in all post-1967 areas illegal may turn out to be the last nail in the peace coffin. He’s taken away all of Israel’s cards, because a thief has no cards to play. If by some miracle the parties ever return to the negotiating table, all the Palestinians have to do is bring a copy of Resolution 2334 and say, “Give it all back.”

They’ve been saying that all along, only now they have the back-up of an international legal document with the blessing of Israel’s best friend.

If Israel is a land thief, how can it negotiate? Read More »