JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

NJDC:GOP must condemn “Tea Party” signs

By Eric Fingerhut · November 6, 2009

The National Jewish Democratic Council is calling on top Republicans to condemn the Holocaust imagery and anti-Semitism on signs seen at Thursday's "Tea Party" protest in Washington.

House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) were among the GOP leaders who spoke in front of the more than 5,000 activists protesting Democratic-sponsored health-care reform legislation. The crowd, according to media reports, included attendess holding a pair of banners picturing Holocaust victims with the words "National Socialist Healthcare, Dachau, Germany, 1945" and a smaller sign stating that "Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds."

NJDC president David Harris said the signs were "vile and disgusting" and it was "morally incumbent" for any speaker at the rally to condemn them.

Asked how a speaker at a rally could be expected to know the content of all signs in the crowd, Harris said that, according to media reports, the Dachau sign -- with its familiar image of stacked bodies -- was front and center and very visible to anyone at the podium.

"It might be uncomfortable and awkward" for a speaker to interrupt their speech to talk about signs in the crowd, but they should have done it, Harris said. "It's inconceivable that they were unaware" of the signs, he added.

A spokesman for Boehner told Politico: "Leader Boehner did not see any such sign. Obviously, it would be grossly inappropriate."

Meanwhile, Elie Wiesel has spoken out on his Twitter feed. He posted Friday afternoon: "This kind of political hatred is indecent and disgusting."

After the jump, statements fromm the NJDC and the Simon Wiesenthal Center decrying the signs at yesterday's rallyRead More >>>

1 Comment | Share This |

Tidbits: AJC, J Street on Iranian ship, Hebron and the Mets

By Eric Fingerhut · November 5, 2009

• American Jewish Committee on Israel's seizure of an Iranian ship allegedly carrying arms to Hezbollah: "An unmistakable sign that the Tehran regime is fanning the flames of war and conflict in the Middle East."
• J Street, also on seizure: It "underscores the very real security threats Israel faces on a daily basis" and "highlights, as well, the need for vigorous efforts by Israel, the United States, and the international community to combat weapons smuggling in the region."
• Adalah-NY wants the New York Mets to cancel a Hebron Fund dinner at its stadium, CitiField, because the fund aids Hebron's settlers.
• Simon Wiesenthal Center wants the U.S. to announce it will veto any UN Security Council report on the Goldstone Report.

3 Comments | Share This |

Agudath heartened by Maine same-sex marriage repeal (UPDATED with OU reaction)

By Eric Fingerhut · November 5, 2009

Agudath Israel of America says Maine's repeal Tuesday of a state law allowing same-sex marriage is "heartening."

"What this shows is that the concept of marriage is indeed well understood by the public," said Agudath executive vice president Rabbi David Zweibel. "It means what it has always meant: the consecrated union of man and woman. Legislatures that try to change this classical definition are not only out of line but out of touch."

The Orthodox Union also put out a statement approving of the vote.

"In addition to our religious values, we fear that same-sex marriage poses a grave threat to the fundamental civil right of religious freedom," the organization said in a statement. "Scholars and advocates on both sides of this emotionally charged debate agree that codifying same-sex marriage without providing robust religious accommodations and exemptions will create widespread and unnecessary legal conflict that will 'reverberate across the legal and religious landscape.' Already, in states with same-sex civil unions and similar laws, religious institutions, including churches, social service providers and youth groups have been penalized by authorities for their beliefs. Forcing a choice between faith and the law benefits no one.

Agudath's full statement is after the jumpRead More >>>

0 Comments | Share This |

Carter, facts and Jews

By Ron Kampeas · November 5, 2009

Jimmy Carter getting the facts wrong is nothing new, but you'd think the vaunted New York Times Op-Ed page would know better.

He writes today about the Goldstone report into last year's Gaza war, which recommends war crimes investigations for Israel and Hamas.

First off, he gets the "out" Goldstone has suggested to Israel and Hamas -- investigate yourself -- half backwards:

He has called on the United States, Israel and others who dispute the accuracy of the report to conduct an independent investigation of their own. Hamas leaders have announced that their investigation is under way, but Israel has rejected Judge Goldstone’s request.

Israel has yet to decide what to do -- which isn't wonderful, but still. Hamas, on the other hand, has straightforwardly said "go jump." Today, from Xinhua: Hamas wants the Palestinian Authority to prosecute its U.N. envoy for even hinting Hamas has done anything wrong:

"This is the first time that a representative of a people under occupation agreed that his people had committed the so-called violations against the occupying power," Taher al-Nounou, spokesman for the Hamas administration, said in a statement.

Al-Nounou called on the PNA, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, to prosecute (Riyad) Mansour for his comments.

More aggravating, though, is how Carter, apparently, has conferred upon himself rabbinic authority: Judge Richard Goldstone is a "devout" Jew:

He is a devout Jew and has long been known as a fervent defender of Israel’s right to peace and security.

Except, here's Goldstone in his recent call (PDF) with rabbis associated with Ta'anit Tzedek, the Fast for Gaza:

Well, absolutely. And this is why I admire what you're doing, because I think as rabbis it's very important to have that commitment to morality and to the norms – certainly I'm not an expert on Judaism or Judaic philosophy, but certainly I've grown up to believe that the Jewish tradition is a highly moral system and certainly one that recognizes the humanity of all people.

Neither am I "devout" nor an "expert on Judaism," so it's not a big deal -- and Goldstone is, provably, a committed Jew and a Zionist (before you write, yes, I believe folks who raise stacks of cash for Israeli educational institutions, as Goldstone has done, have the right to call themselves "Zionists.")

So what G-ddamn train did Jimmy Carter get off of that he thinks he can dictate to Jews who is and who is not "devout?" "Devout" describes belief; what Carter admires about Goldstone -- his commitment to human rights -- has, as Goldstone himself has repeatedly said, little to do with his Jewish upbringing:

I don’t believe that being Jewish has shaped my views particularly towards racism and racial oppression.

Carter wants to speak to Israelis and Jews but it never seems to have settled into his hard-as-a-peanut kopf that as soon as you define for other groups of people what they ought to be -- they stop listening. It doesn't work for Arabs (see under Orientalism) and it sure as sugar don't work for Jews.

Carter's been doing this for years -- Jeffrey Goldberg honed in on why it is so offensive in his brilliant opening to his Washington Post review of Carter's ugly little exercise in self-love, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid:

Jimmy Carter tells a strange and revealing story near the beginning of his latest book, the sensationally titled Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. It is a story that suggests that the former president's hostility to Israel is, to borrow a term, faith-based.

On his first visit to the Jewish state in the early 1970s, Carter, who was then still the governor of Georgia, met with Prime Minister Golda Meir, who asked Carter to share his observations about his visit. Such a mistake she never made.

"With some hesitation," Carter writes, "I said that I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures and that a common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of her Labor government."

Jews, in my experience, tend to become peevish when Christians, their traditional persecutors, lecture them on morality, and Carter reports that Meir was taken aback by his "temerity." He is, of course, paying himself a compliment. Temerity is mandatory when you are doing God's work, and Carter makes it clear in this polemical book that, in excoriating Israel for its sins -- and he blames Israel almost entirely for perpetuating the hundred-year war between Arab and Jew -- he is on a mission from God.

The pity of it is that, in his op-ed today, Carter has an important case to make for a formula to end Gaza's siege. But, Carter being Carter he just has to slide into it with his assessment of Goldstone's divine devotion.

Yo, Jimmy: No one will listen.

Patronize folks and the inner ear switches to "la lala la la." You'd think Carter would have had that one figured out after he was drummed out of office in 1980.

2 Comments | Share This |

Governors to Senate: Pass Iran divestment bill

By Eric Fingerhut · November 5, 2009

Seven prominent governors, both Republican and Democrat, have written Senate leaders urging them to pass an Iran sanctions bill that has already been approved by the House.

The group is calling for the approval of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which authorizes state and local governments to divest from companies that invest in Iran's petroleum and natural gas industries or do business with Iran's nuclear industry, and protects fund managers who divest from such companies from possible lawsuits.

The governors write that while each of them has already individually taken steps to address the "growing threat" of Iran by going ahead with such divestment, with passage of the legislation "we expect more of our fellow governors may engage in similar efforts, thus dramatically increasing leverage to influence this urgent matter."

Signatories, include Govs. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.), Jennifer Granholm (D-Mich.), David Paterson (D-N.Y.), Martin O'Malley (D-Md.), Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.), Bill Ritter Jr. (D-Colo.) and Bobby Jindal (R-La.).

The full letter can be read here.

0 Comments | Share This |

Did Obama misplay settlements issue?

By Ami Eden · November 5, 2009

A variety of voices suggest that the Obama administration botched the Israeli-Palestinian issue by publicly insisting on a full settlement freeze.

• Marty Peretz: "Indeed, the Israeli political system watched in utter (but almost comic) disbelief as the president attempted to get fundamental concessions from Jerusalem while letting the Palestinians off the hook. Which is, as you know, just how they took it. They did nothing. And suddenly the president and secretary Clinton, who had been so frosty with the Israelis and Hillary really frosty, as only she can be, had to change not only their tune but their very line to find some stasis for themselves. You are back where you started. And, by the way, did the Saudis help any?"
• Joe Klein: "Suddenly the Obama Administration seemed wobbly on the Middle East; clearly, Clinton had been too bullish on Netanyahu's proposal (which had been negotiated over months with Middle East envoy George Mitchell and was seen, privately, by the Americans as real progress). But the Administration's mission was to get the parties into peace talks without preconditions. The Israelis were now in favor of talks. The Palestinians were setting preconditions. And Clinton had violated an essential rule of her job: boring is almost always better."
• Glenn Kessler: "The administration's key error, many analysts say, was to insist that Israel immediately freeze all settlement growth in Palestinian-occupied territories. The United States has never accepted the legitimacy of Israeli settlements, but the Obama administration took an unusually tough stance. It refused to acknowledge an unwritten agreement between Israel and Bush to limit growth in settlements, with Clinton leading the charge to demand a full settlement freeze."
• Washington Post: "The administration set the stage last spring for this diplomatic impasse by demanding 'a stop to settlement construction, additions, natural growth -- any kind of settlement activity,' as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton put it. No Israeli government has agreed to such terms, and the administration's public insistence on them only served to boost Mr. Netanyahu's approval rating with Israelis, while Mr. Obama's plummeted to the single digits. The administration now wants to set the issue aside and move on with the talks; officials say a settlement freeze was never a precondition. But Ms. Clinton is having trouble clambering out of the hole she helped to dig: Last weekend she praised as 'unprecedented' an Israeli proposal for limiting settlement growth; this week, after Arab protests, she backpedaled. Mr. Abbas has a similar predicament. Having adopted the original U.S. demand as his own, he cannot easily drop it. Arab leaders could provide Mr. Abbas political cover, but neither they nor he seems to share Mr. Obama's notion that the time is ripe for a deal."
   

2 Comments | Share This |

How did the administration falter in the Middle East?

By Eric Fingerhut · November 5, 2009

The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler examines why the Obama's administration's efforts to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have faltered:

"There was an excess of zeal at first," said Edward S. Walker Jr., who was assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs in the Clinton administration. "It is a noble endeavor to try to hammer out peace. But you have to look at the relationships. You have to read the players. They got out in front of studying the problem and were anxious to show progress."

Daniel Levy, a veteran Israeli peace negotiator now at the Century Foundation in Washington, summed up the administration's efforts in recent days as "amateur night at the Apollo Theater." He said the administration did not game out the consequences of its demands on the parties -- and then flinched. "They just dug deeper and deeper their own grave," he said. "All of this talk of negotiations doesn't cut the mustard in the region."

The main stumbling block? The call for a strict settlement freeze, Kessler writes:

 The administration's key error, many analysts say, was to insist that Israel immediately freeze all settlement growth in Palestinian-occupied territories. The United States has never accepted the legitimacy of Israeli settlements, but the Obama administration took an unusually tough stance. It refused to acknowledge an unwritten agreement between Israel and Bush to limit growth in settlements, with Clinton leading the charge to demand a full settlement freeze.

U.S. officials say that in the wake of the war in the Gaza Strip in the winter, they wanted to send a signal of toughness and push both sides to take positive steps to build an atmosphere for talks. By that measure, there has been some progress: Israelis and Palestinians have been deep in conversations trying to set the parameters for negotiations.

But Abbas, emboldened by the U.S. rhetoric, announced that he would not begin negotiations until settlements were frozen. Facing Israeli opposition, the administration appeared to back off the demand for a full settlement freeze, first exempting East Jerusalem and then signaling approval of an Israeli plan to exempt nearly 3,000 housing units on the West Bank.

Meanwhile, Abbas got into political trouble at home when he succumbed to U.S. pressure to delay U.N. consideration of a report accusing Israel of war crimes in Gaza; he later reversed himself. When Clinton met him Saturday and pressed him to accept the limited Israeli settlement plan as a basis for talks, he refused.

The Washington Post editorial page agrees that the administration's call for a settlement freeze was a big mistake:

Has Mr. Abbas suddenly realized that settlements are the key obstacle to a Palestinian state? Hardly: In private, senior Palestinian officials readily concede that the issue is secondary. Instead, the Palestinian pose is a product of the Obama administration's missteps -- and also of the fact that the opportunity Mr. Obama said he perceived to broker a two-state settlement is not so visible to leaders in the region.

The editorial suggests that the best idea right now might be to back a Palestinian initiative to build institutions for a future Palestinian state:

The Obama administration's working assumption has been that energetic diplomacy by the United States could induce both sides to move quickly toward peace. In fact, progress in the Middle East has always begun with initiatives by Israelis or Arabs themselves. At the moment, the most promising idea comes from Mr. Abbas's prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who has vowed to build the institutions of a Palestinian state within the next two years, with or without peace talks. Negotiations between the current Israeli and Palestinian leaders could provide indirect support for that initiative, even if there is little progress. But the administration would do well to refocus its efforts on supporting Mr. Fayyad.
 

 

1 Comment | Share This |

Reform movement backs House health reform bill

By Eric Fingerhut · November 5, 2009

The Union of Reform Judaism has endorsed the House of Representatives' health care bill. In a unanimous vote of the group's board of trustees at their biennial in Toronto, the group said the Affordable Health Care for America Act meets many of the group's health-care reform goals.

"This landmark legislation would achieve near-universal coverage, including 96% of Americans," said URJ Commission on Social Action chair Cheryl Gutmann in a statement. "It contains a 'public option,' through which the government will compete alongside private insurers to hold down costs, expands Medicaid, includes subsidies to ensure that low-income Americans can afford coverage, and is projected to reduced budget deficits by $104 billion over 10 years."

Gutmann added, though that the bill is "not perfect."

"Among other shortcomings, the public option should be stronger to reduce costs and set standards of care," she said.

The full statement is after the jumpRead More >>>

0 Comments | Share This |

Hoyer on Goldstone

By Ron Kampeas · November 5, 2009

I  noted the other day that U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the U.S. House of Representatives majority leader, delivered the most fiery speech among those voting to condemn the Goldstone report on last winter's Gaza war. We've got the prepared remarks.

Interestingly, the portions I found most compelling -- Hoyer's "I've been there!", an implied rebuke to Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) who said he doubted if those opposing the report had been to Gaza; and Hoyer's empathy for the Palestinians expressed in criticism of their leadership -- seem to have been extemporized; they don't appear in the prepared text.

After the jump.

Gail Collins does Gematria

By Ron Kampeas · November 5, 2009

New York Times columnist Gail Collins has a little fun today at the expense of the conventional wisdom that Democratric gubernatorial losses this week in Virginia and New Jersey were a rebuke to President Obama.

Why stop there? she suggests, and explains how Michael Bloomberg's narrower than expected reelection as New York mayor also figures into the equation:

In the end, everyone got together and decided to re-elect Bloomberg by a margin that was much narrower than expected. I know this is the first time that you are hearing this, but I voted on my way out of town on Tuesday, and I can assure you that everyone in New York intended to convey their unhappiness with the administration’s foreign policy by electing Bloomberg by a margin of five percentage points — exactly the average number of letters in “Iran” and “Israel.”

0 Comments | Share This |