UJC, B’nai B’rith react to Obama speech
United Jewish Communities and B'nai B'rith International have already released reactions to Wednesday's night health care reform speech by President Obama.
William Daroff, vice president of public policy and director of UJC/The Jewish Federations of North America's Washington office, applauded the president for clarifying his "health care goals" with the speech and asked Congress "to engage in a full and fair debate on how to move forward."
He then outlined the goals of his organization: "UJC/The Jewish Federations of North America continues its call for any enacted proposal to include a needed long-term care option and protection of vital Medicaid and Medicare funds that help the most vulnerable among us. We are also diligently working to ensure the plan does not include a disincentive to charitable giving."
BBI had stronger praise for some of the specifics in the president's speech, especially his response to critics of reform.
"With this address, the president reclaimed the agenda from those who would rather do nothing," B'nai B'rith director of aging policy Rachel Goldberg said. "It's fine to have differences of opinion, but they cannot come at the expense of making real changes or be resolved by using half truths, fabrications, and scare tactics."
"The most effective anti-healthcare reform scare tactics have been directed at senior citizens, who would actually benefit from proposed improvements to Medicare," Mark Olshan, B'nai B'rith International associate executive vice president said. "The plans being discussed by the president and Congress would strengthen Medicare financially and eliminate notorious gaps like the 'donut hole.' "
BBI, though, said it had hoped the president would have addressed age discrimination in health insurance pricing.
The full statements from UJC and BBI are after the jumpRead More >>>
0 Comments |
Share This
|
More press for J Street (UPDATED WITH LINK)
J Street is the subject of a lengthy article that will appear this Sunday in the New York Times Magazine and has already been posted online. Entitled "The New Israel Lobby" and authored by James Traub, the largely positive article notes J Street's growth:
There appears to be an appetite for J Street’s approach. Over the last year, J Street’s budget has doubled, to $3 million; its lobbying staff is doubling as well, to six. That still makes it tiny compared with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, whose lobbying prowess is a matter of Washington legend. J Street is still as much an Internet presence, launching volleys of e-mail messages from the netroots, as it is a shoe-leather operation. But it has arrived at a propitious moment, for President Obama, unlike his predecessors, decided to push hard for a Mideast peace settlement from the very outset of his tenure. He appointed George Mitchell as his negotiator, and Mitchell has tried to wring painful concessions from Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab states. In the case of Israel, this means freezing settlements and accepting a two-state solution. Obama needs the political space at home to make that case; he needs Congress to resist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s appeals for it to blunt presidential demands. On these issues, which pose a difficult quandary for the mainstream groups, J Street knows exactly where it stands. “Our No. 1 agenda item,” Ben-Ami said to me, “is to do whatever we can in Congress to act as the president’s blocking back.”
The article also notes the appeal it has to many younger Jews:
Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, was born in Poland in 1940, and he often sounds as if only eternal vigilance will ward off the Holocaust in the offing. Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, was born in a camp for displaced persons, to parents who were Holocaust survivors. The prophetic voice comes naturally to such men. So does the sense of besetting peril. Important Jewish organizations are normally reached through a series of locked doors presided over by glassed-in functionaries. The peril may be real. But it can also feel like a marketing device. “You know what these guys are afraid of?” says M. J. Rosenberg, Washington director of the Israel Policy Forum. “Their generation is disappearing. All the old Jewish people in senior-citizen homes speaking Yiddish are dying — and they’re being replaced by 60-year-old Woodstock types.”
J Street, by contrast, is wide open to the public. Visitors must thread their way through a graphic-design studio with which the organization shares office space. There appears to be nothing worth guarding. The average age of the dozen or so staff members is about 30. Ben-Ami speaks for, and to, this post-Holocaust generation. “They’re all intermarried,” he says. “They’re all doing Buddhist seders.” They are, he adds, baffled by the notion of “Israel as the place you can always count on when they come to get you.” Living in a world of blogs, they’re similarly skeptical of the premise that “we’re still on too-shaky ground” to permit public disagreement. There’s a curious and striking analogy with the situation of Cuban-Americans, whose politics until quite recently were dominated by the generation that fled Castro’s revolution and were grimly determined to see his regime overthrown. Obama has not had to pay a price for moderating the American embargo, as his predecessors would have, because Cuban-American opinion is no longer in thrall to the older generation — precisely J Street’s goal in regard to the Middle East.
But the article also raises the question of whether J Street can sustain the interest of a constituency for whom, in many cases, Israel is not their top concern:
Ben-Ami ... acknowledges that moments of crisis for Israel tap into the ancestral impulses. “There’s a rational side that on policy grounds is with us and Obama,” he says, “and can understand that talking, peace, these are good things, and they’re better than pre-emptive military action. Then there’s their grandmother’s voice in their ear; it’s the emotional side and the communal history, and it’s the fear of not wanting in some way to be responsible for the next great tragedy that will befall the Jewish people.”
This in turn raises a question about J Street’s prospects. As a lobbying group, would you rather represent the passionate few or the dispassionate many? The National Rifle Association knows the answer to that question. One administration official involved with the Middle East points out that Aipac cultivates single-issue partisans. Wielding the other 92 percent into a potent political force, he notes, will be “a major, long-term and uphill task.” He adds, “I’m not sure it can be done.”
A couple stray observations on the article. First, it is interesting that the reporter quotes no one by name criticizing J Street -- although it's not clear if that's because critics didn't want to go on the record about the group or the reporter simply didn't call the right critics.
Second, Ben-Ami is quoted at one point in the piece as saying that "I’m very consciously not interested in portraying our organization as anti-Aipac." Aside from the fact that the organization has marketed itself as an alternative to traditional, and often more conservative, pro-Israel voices, Ben-Ami is quoted earlier in the piece saying, “We’re trying to redefine what it means to be pro-Israel. You don’t have to be noncritical. You don’t have to adopt the party line. It’s not, ‘Israel, right or wrong.’ ” Well, if there is a "party line" on Israel, it is set by AIPAC.
Even Traub doesn't seem to buy it, recounting how J Street offered an alternative letter last spring to AIPAC's letter on the peace process and writing that it "muddied" the waters on Ben-Ami's claim.
A J Street official argues that the organization and AIPAC don't work at cross-purposes because they do have some major areas of agreement, such as supporting robust foreign aid to Israel and a two-state solution.
3 Comments |
Share This
|
APN: Sanctions, deadlines wrong policy on Iran
As hundreds of Jewish leaders make their way to Washington for tomorrow's National Jewish Leadership Advocacy Dan on Iran -- where they will lobby for legislation that would sanction companies helping Iran import or produce refined petroleum -- Americans for Peace Now has released new policy language on Iran which opposes sanctions that "target the Iranian people, rather than their leaders" and backs "engagement" without "arbitrary deadlines."
Calling their policy "the only effective approach for dealing with Iran," APN president and CEO Debra DeLee says that "we urge rejecting deadlines imposed by outside parties, or deadlines that are the product of anything other than assessments by the Obama administration of the state-of-play of current diplomatic efforts.
"We also believe that additional sanctions aimed squarely at the ruling regime and its members may make sense, but that the US must not make the mistake of pursuing sanctions that target the Iranian people - like the 'crippling' sanctions currently under consideration," said DeLee. "Now is the time to look for ways to signal positive US support for the Iranian people, not to create suffering in order to use that suffering as a weapon against the Iranian leadership."
APN laid out a five-point policy, which can be read in full here, and its press release provides shorter summaries of the points. Here are points 4 and 5:
4. The proposed new "crippling" sanctions should be rejected: Sanctions can be a powerful tool for putting pressure on Iran, and we have thus supported, and continue to support, targeted sanctions against Iran's government and its leaders, an entire system of which are already in place. However, pursuing sanctions that target the Iranian people, rather than their leaders, is a morally and strategically perilous path that the Obama Administration must reject.
5. Now is the time to send positive signals to the Iranian people: The US should be looking for ways to demonstrate concrete support for and solidarity with the Iranian people. This could mean carefully calibrated public statements of support, including sustained focus on the human rights situation inside Iran. It could also mean clear articulation of a US strategy that does not view the deliberate infliction of suffering and poverty on the Iranian people as an acceptable political tool. In addition, it could involve tangible changes in US policy, like beginning the process of de-criminalizing charitable giving by US citizens to legitimate causes in Iran and establishing responsible legal mechanisms to permit and facilitate such funding.
APN's full press release is after the jumpRead More >>>
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Makovsky: Walt and Mearsheimer still wrong
It's been two years since the publication of John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt's book "The Israel Lobby," and David Makovsky writes in the The Jewish Week that they're still wrong:
While Mearsheimer and Walt concede that during the Cold War Israel may have been an asset to the United States, they suggest that in the post- Cold War period and certainly after 9/11, whatever value it had has long since been replaced by costs. Their argument is that securing oil and good relations with the Arab world should be the primary U.S. goal in the Middle East, and our association with and strong support for Israel impede this aim.
Specifically, they write that Arab and Muslim antipathy toward the United States results from their identifying the United States with Israel.
But the Mideast is far more complex than they appreciate. Not only has the U.S.- Israeli relationship not been a liability for either country, it has been, at least to some extent, an asset to the Arab regimes, as a strategic counterweight to radicalism.
For instance, Israel helps with containing the spread of Iran, writes Makovsky, currently the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy:
Radicals, led by Iran, are enemies not only of the United States and Israel but also of key Arab regimes. The Saudis and all six Gulf states believe that Iran has hegemonic designs on Arab oil. Senior officials in these states, as well as their counterparts in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, also fear Iran for security, territorial, and ideological reasons. They see Iran as hostile to the Arabs for reasons relating to a mix of historical incursions by Persia into the Arab world, aspirations for regional dominance, and sectarian differences. They fear that Iran will funnel money to militant organizations, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, so that these proxies will destabilize the Arab regimes and gain Iran a foothold in a Sunni Arab world. Iran could, in their eyes, also foment social unrest among Shiite communities who happen to live in the oil- sensitive areas of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. And the Arab regimes fear that Iranian support from abroad could fuel local extremism.
After all, if Iran can fund a Sunni Hamas, why could it not fund the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the Islamic Action Front in Jordan?
Yet it is the United States and Israel that are often the most likely to act — or at least serve as the strongest countervailing forces — against Hamas and Hezbollah and perhaps against Iran, leaving Arab regimes to benefit while still maintaining an arm’s distance. Few Arab governments actually believe that a weak Israel would serve their national interests.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
J Street, B’nai B’rith rip Toronto film festival protests
Both J Street and B'nai B'rith International are condemning those protesting the Toronto Film Festival for showcasing Tel Aviv at this year's event. The protestors called the featuring of Tel Aviv in the inaugural City to City series a "propaganda campaign" on behalf of an "apartheid regime," while the co-director of the festival, while defending the choice, referred to Tel Aviv as "constested ground." J Street put out a lengthy statement, calling the protesters -- who include Jane Fonda and Danny Glover -- "shameful and shortsighted" and ripping the co-director's statement as well:
The cause of peace will not be served by demonizing Israeli film and filmmakers as being part of the "Israeli propaganda campaign." In fact, anyone who actually watches popular Israeli films would know that the films are often vigorously critical of Israeli government policy.
Some critics say their objection is to the Israeli government's role in promoting the films and not the films themselves. Israel, like many other European governments, supports its film industry financially and does not employ any political litmus test to determine which films receive funding. It is almost as if critics would have us believe that Benjamin Netanyahu personally selected these films for maximum propaganda effect. That, of course, is false and absurd.
We were also dismayed by the Toronto International Film Festival's co-director's statement that Tel Aviv is "contested ground." Anyone that questions Tel Aviv's legitimacy as an Israeli city either needs a geography lesson or doesn't believe in the two-state solution, which is the only way to secure Israel as a Jewish democracy and provide the Palestinians with a state of their own.
B'nai B'rith also weighed in, saying it was angered by the protests. “This film festival is an opportunity for artists from around the world to share their perspectives,” said Moishe Smith, B’nai B’rith International president. “All filmmakers, regardless of religion or nationality, should have the opportunity to have their work screened at the festival.”
After the jump, the full statements from J Street and BBIRead More >>>
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Carter replies to Abram’s reply-UPDATES
Jimmy Carter "takes exception" with the "Take Exception" piece Elliott Abrams wrote about Carter's original Washington Post op-ed suggesting that if Israel does not move quickly in the West Bank, it will be facing the unpalatable prospect of a single state with the possibility of a Palestinian majority. (Eric noted the earlier argument here.)
Part of Carter's problem with Abrams' reply is of the "glass half empty/half full" variety: Abrams notes recent dramatic improvements in the lives of Palestinians, Carter does not deny it, but says conditions are nonetheless untenable:
Abrams's main point is about the Palestinians' halcyon life under occupation, with more than 40 percent of their West Bank now controlled by Israel and with only isolated pockets of land available for them. As I stated, there are more than 200 Israeli settlements, connected by a system of roadways on which Palestinians are often forbidden to drive or, in some cases, even to cross. The most recent count by the World Bank is that 605 "check points" on the remaining West Bank roads still obstruct movement among Palestinian communities. This infrastructure, like a spider web, connects the Jordan River valley in the East to Jerusalem and other Israeli cities in the West.
Carter also has a more salient problem of fact with Abrams, who rejected Carter's claim that Israel essentially has a stranglehold on the Gaza Strip by noting that a main entrypoint is controlled by the Egyptians. Carter counters:
Abrams is thoroughly familiar with the binding contract between Israel and Egypt, such that Israel has retained ultimate control over movement of people and goods from Gaza into Egypt.
Left unsaid by both men is that Egypt has its own interests -- having to do with Hamas interactions with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood -- in maintaining a tight control over the Rafah crossing.
UPDATE: Carter's reply appears, as far as I can make out, online only. He is correcting Abrams on a matter of fact. Abrams says:
Carter states that Gaza is a "walled-in ghetto" and that "Israel prevents any cement, lumber, seeds, fertilizer and hundreds of other needed materials from entering through Gaza's gates." But Gaza is not an enclave surrounded by Israel; it has a border with Egypt. Every commodity that Carter says is needed can be supplied by Egypt, a point he overlooks in his efforts to blame Palestinian problems exclusively on the Jewish state.
But, as Carter points out, Israel has a say in what crosses the border with Egypt. Surely the Washington Post's print edition readers deserve to understand this.
UPDATE II:
Elliott Abrams shoots back a reply to Carter, but once again addressing the standards of living for Palestinians in the West Bank. Nothing about Carter's pointing out that Abrams made an error of fact in implying that Israel had no say in running Gaza's crossing with Egypt.
11 Comments |
Share This
|
Not registered? Sign up now. It's fast and it's free.
Recent Comments
- Bill Pearlman on The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone
- david bedein on The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone
- david bedein on The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone
- Jeremiah Haber on The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone
- Jeremiah Haber on The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone
Blog Roll
