JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

Ben-Ami responds to Foxman

By Eric Fingerhut · November 20, 2009

J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami says he's "deeply troubled" by ADL head Abe Foxman's criticism of J Street. Ben-Ami has authored an open letter to Foxman taking issue with Foxman's statements Thursday that J Street was "over the line" in attacking Sarah Palin for supporting settlements, and that the group was calling the "pro-Israel" portion of its slogan into question.

Ben-Ami said the comments by Palin -- who he called "doubtless soon to be a candidate for President" -- were "outside the mainstream of American and Israeli thinking" and reiterated that they were "misinformed and dangerous."

Foxman called J Street's original statement ripping Palin "the height of chutzpah" because it said her remarks --  that Jewish settlements "should be allowed to be expanded upon" because "more and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead" -- came at the expense of Israel's security. Foxman said Palin's remarks were "simplistic" but "clear and well-intentioned" and "didn't put any lives at stake."

Ben-Ami spends most of the letter taking issue with the ADL leader's contention that there is a "question mark" as to whether J Street is truly "pro-Israel":

Abe, we can disagree on matters of policy.  You may support unlimited settlement expansion, I do not.  You may support immediate, unilateral sanctions on Iran at a delicate moment in international negotiations, J Street does not. We say give diplomacy the full opportunity to succeed and if it doesn't then take action against Iran with broad, international support.  You may be willing to go along with the defamation of a world-renowned (and Zionist) jurist who has asked tough questions about the Gaza War, but, while we came out clearly against one-sided UN action against Israel, we have refused to join the chorus of personal attacks against Judge Goldstone.

You, of course, have every right to disagree with us. It's a free country.

But you have no right to decide who is and is not pro-Israel based on whether they agree with your views.

The full letter is after the jumpRead More >>>

8 Comments | Share This |

Foxman blasts J Street on Palin, questions its ‘pro-Israel’ slogan

By Eric Fingerhut · November 19, 2009

The head of the Anti-Defamation League says J Street's attack on Sarah Palin's defense of Israeli settlements was "over the line" and questioned whether the group should be calling itself "pro-Israel."

In a call to JTA late Thursday, ADL national director Abraham Foxman called "the height of chutzpah" J Street's statement Wednesday which said "Palin's pandering to her right-wing base comes at the expense of the security of the State of Israel" and her remarks "reveal a glaring ignorance of damaging facts."

"Who authorizes them to detemine what the security of Israel is?" Foxman asked of J Street. "Israel determines its security."

"They're attacking a celebrity for supporting Israel, but not in the way they want her to support Israel," he said referring to the former governor of Alaska.

As for the charge that Palin was pandering, Foxman said that "all politics is pandering" and that one could say the same thing about the members of Congress who spoke at the J Street conference last month.

Foxman acknowledged Palin's remarks -- in which she said Jewish settlements "should be allowed to be expanded upon" because "more and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead" -- were a "simplistic effort to be supportive of the Israeli government," but also "clear and well-intentioned" and "didn't put any lives at stake."

The ADL leader added that this was the latest of a series of actions by J Street which raised doubt about whether both parts of the organization's slogan of “pro-Israel, pro-peace” is accurate.

Foxman said that J Street's criticism of Israel's invasion of Gaza, its opposition to new Iran sanctions at the present time, its failure to support last month's congressional resolution condemning the Goldstone report and now the reaction to the Palin statement raise a “question mark” about the group's “pro-Israel” bona fides.

7 Comments | Share This |

Rosenthal is anti-Semitism envoy choice, announcement imminent (CORRECTED)

By Eric Fingerhut · November 19, 2009

A knowledgeable source tells JTA that Hannah Rosenthal is the Obama administration's choice for special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism.

The source said an White House announcement is "imminent" on the post, which has been vacant since Gregg Rickman left the position at the beginning of the Obama administration.

Rosenthal was the head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs for five years and is currently vice president of community relations at the not-for-profit WPS Health Insurance Company.

1 Comment | Share This |

The Gilo announcement—more than just an announcement

By Ron Kampeas · November 19, 2009

Lara Friedman at Americans for Peace Now writes in to correct me about the nature of Israel's Gilo announcement.

In my earlier post, defending the State Department's equivalence between the expansion of Gilo in southern Jerusalem and Palestinian plans to declare a state unilaterally, I said that -- contra an AP reporter (and my heart goes out to AP this week, so I'm not going make much more of this) -- "a planning committee's 'announcement' of intent pretty much equates to the Palestinian Authority's "announcement" of intent, rhetoric-wise -- they're both 'announcements.'"

Lara writes:

The committee (which by the way operates under the framework of the  Ministry of Interior)  approved the deposit of the plan for public  review.  This is a significant and tangible step that sets into motion  the end-game toward implementation of the plan.

With this step taken, it becomes very difficult to stop implementation  of the plan.  Prior to this stage the plan could have been quietly  delayed or quashed with nobody really noticing and no cost in political  capital to Bibi.  With this step taken, stopping or even significantly  delaying the plan will involve much higher political costs.

A quick summary of how this process works:  When a plan is deposited for public review (following completion of various earlier approval steps), the decision is published in local newspapers and in the Public Record and the plan is (for the first time) made available for public scrutiny.  The public may then inspect the proposed plan.  Once a plan is deposited for public review there is a 60-day period in which to file  objections.  Anyone who sees himself or herself adversely affected by  the plan may file an objection to the Jerusalem Regional Planning Committee.  Hearings are then held (usually one session suffices) and  after the Committee considers the objections, the plan is either rejected, amended, or approved.  As a rule the process is resolved within about a month (after the end of the 60-day public review period).  A final decision about the plan is taken the same day or  immediately thereafter. In some cases (like the Mughrabi Gate), where  the sensitivity of the plan makes the Committee especially cautious, the process may take significantly longer.

Once the public review is complete and the plan has gotten final approval from the Committee, the plan's statutory approval is published in the Public Record (gazette and the press), after which the plan enters effect. The Minister of Interior may notify the Regional Committee that a given plan requires his approval in order to enter  effect, in which case the publication of the plan's approval will take place only after the signature of the Minister. In the past it has been rather common for the Minister to exercise this authority in East Jerusalem construction schemes (like Har Homa and Ras el Amud) - but  clearly not to actually stop those schemes from being implemented.

So, this is more than an "announcement" and more than "rhetoric." I don't think this changes the thrust of my post (and Lara wasn't saying it does -- she is correcting me in on important point of fact, not interpretation), because the Palestinian Authority has also launched formal proceedings toward unilateral statehood -- so the equivalence still is justified. But I should have been less dismissive of both events, the Gilo expansion and the Palestinian countdown towards a unilateral declaration of independence.

My broader point is this: There was a imbalance of perception, at least, over the last eight years in how the Bush administration addressed violations of the "road map" peace plan by the Israelis and Palestinians. I say "imbalance of perception" to make the point that the Bushies did not ignore Israeli violations; they did address them, but mostly behind closed doors. The Palestinians, they took to the woodshed in public.

Whether there was a real imbalance requires a magazine-article length investigation of each violation and how it was dealt with; but in diplomacy, perception is often reality and an imbalance of perception is an imbalance.

The way to redress this is not to inaugurate a new imbalance, this time in the Palestinians' favor; all that does is create another imbalance. The way to redress this is simply to be fair. One may agree or disagree with the particulars of the Gilo expansion or the UDI; one may argue that fairness is not germane to justice, from the Israeli or the Palestinian perspective. But given what we know to be the outlines of Obama's Middle East policy -- evenhandedness -- slapping down both the Gilo expansion and the UDI is consistent.

Finally, in an aside, Lara makes another important point:

I know this may see far down in the weeds but it is important stuff and worth getting right, especially when we are dealing with an issue where people rely mostly on gut impressions (like, "but this is just construction inside Gilo! How can that be a problem?!") rather than facts (like, "this is construction on new ground that expands the footprint of Gilo toward Wallajeh and dovetails with another plan for a huge new settlement straddling the Jerusalem/West Bank line")

This is fundamental: There are plenty of arguments over how to define Gilo and other "new" neighborhoods, but this expansion appears to have little to do with how one defines Jerusalem's borders; it's about spilling over into the West Bank.

That point has been missing from much of the discussion of the latest controversy. At the very least it might stanch some of the bloodshed over at the Atlantic, where Jeffrey Goldberg has argued, essentially, "it's just Gilo" and Andrew Sullivan has countered, essentially, "so what if it's just Gilo."

An interesting argument, boys, but take it up another time. In this case, at least, it's not just Gilo.

4 Comments | Share This |

Another thing to complain about—White House party guest lists (UPDATED with Shemtov comments)

By Eric Fingerhut · November 19, 2009

Apparently trying to prove that there's nothing too small and petty for some in the Jewish community to complain about, The Jerusalem Post's Hilary Krieger has a story about some anonymous Jewish leaders expressing disappointment over the fact that President Obama is planning to invite only 400 people to this year's White House Chanukah party -- instead of the 800 on the guest list for President George W. Bush's final Chanukah bash last year. The reason is primarily cost in these tough economic times:

Though several Jewish leaders expressed understanding for the economic and other reasons behind the cut, they acknowledged that it would likely help feed feelings in som.e quarters of the American Jewish community thatthe White House is giving them the cold shoulder.

It comes as a different attempt at outreach to Jews - an appearance by US President Barack Obama before the General Assembly of North American Jewish Federations last week - was cancelled so that the president could participate in a Fort Hood memorial service.

"I don't know which people will be more upset about," said one Jewish leader, comparing the disappointment of those who had expected to see Obama speak with those who wouldn't be getting an invitation to the Hanukka celebration.

Given the current climate, the Jewish official continued, "The pressure on the White House to have the right people at the Hanukka party is going to be enormous."

When asked about the decisions surrounding the guest list and its trimming, a White House spokesman responded that Obama "looks forward to celebrating Hanukka atthe White House and having many members of the Jewish American community at that event."

The article points out that Bush's first Chanukah party also had a guest list of around 400 in year one of his presidency (also amidst tough economic times), and that officials want to have room for "natural growth" of the list over the next few years. On the other hand, it notes that there are many more Jewish Democrats in Washington and the country as a whole than there are Jewish Republicans.

The Orthodox Union's Nathan Diament suggests people should find something else to whine about:

"As we know from Biblical times, we Jews are very good at complaining," [Diament] said. "People shouldn't complain. It's very nice that President Obama is having a Hanukka party.

"People can choose to gripe about the guest list or any other aspect of it, but the fact is this White House is going to continue this practice, which is a lovely thing."

UPDATE: Rabbi Levi Shemtov, who as American Friends of Lubavitch Washington director has been involved with the White House Chanukah party since it formally began in 2001, says complaints about the size of the guest list are "very inappropriate" for an event that is the president's prerogative to hold in the first place.

"My delight at the continuation of this wonderful tradition is far greater than any disappointment in the cutting of the list," he said. "Inclusion from across the community is more important that how many specifically from each sector get to go."

1 Comment | Share This |

Tidbits: Food insecurity, Sarah Palin, anti-government rage

By Eric Fingerhut · November 18, 2009

• The Jordan Times puts the American Jewish Congress meeting with King Abdullah and Queen Rania on the front page.
• The Jewish Council for Public Affairs says the USDA report showing 17 million Americans reporting some degree of food insecurity shows the need for the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act and $20 billion of new funding over five years.
• National Council of Young Israel applauds new construction in Gilo.
• Americans for Peace Now on why "Sarah Palin is wrong on settlements (and why it matters)."
• In case you missed it earlier this week, here's a link to the Anti-Defamation League report "Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies."

1 Comment | Share This |

Reform movement: Don’t include Stupak amendment in Senate bill

By Eric Fingerhut · November 18, 2009

The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism is asking the Senate to make sure any health care reform bill it passes removes the "dangerous" restrictions on abortion funding contained in the House bill's Stupak-Pitts Amendment. The letter from RAC director Rabbi David Saperstein to senators includes this paragraph:

Quality care means access to care for both men and women.  The Reform Movement’s commitment to women’s reproductive health is related to our longstanding commitment to universal health care.  The anti-choice provision of the House bill (H.R. 3962) (introduced by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Joe Pitts (R-PA)), if included in the final bill, would effectively deny coverage for abortion services to women covered by the new federal health care plan. This provision would leave millions of American women with less adequate coverage than before reform. Women receiving federal funds to subsidize their health care expenses would lose their right to use those funds to access needed care.  Instead of advancing health care, the House bill as passed with this anti-choice amendment, rolls it back in violation of the spirit of the rights enshrined in Roe vs. Wade.  The Senate must pass health insurance reform that meets the needs of all Americans and repudiate dangerous anti-choice amendments that restrict access to reproductive health care services.

The letter also notes the other health care reform priorities of the movement, including that health care coverage be universal and affordable. The full letter is after the jumpRead More >>>

0 Comments | Share This |

More on that New Jersey Jewish vote

By Eric Fingerhut · November 18, 2009

Republican Jewish Coalition executive director Matt Brooks wasn't happy with my post yesterday. It cast doubt on the reliability of  a poll showing that New Jersey Republican Gov.-elect Chris Christie received 38 percent of the Jewish vote on Election Day. One of the biggest problems, I wrote, was the sample size of just 72 voters, which resulted in a margin of error of plus or minus 11.5 percent.

Brooks had a legitimate argument: Why do you treat those presidential exit polls of the Jewish vote as so definitive every four years, when their sample sizes aren't that large either? I responded that while they're not perfect, they are conducted in the same way every four years -- so at least we can compare "apples to apples" and observe trends in the Jewish vote even if the exact numbers are perhaps given too much importance.

Brooks retorted that if the margin of error were too big to be reliable in those exit polls, then they shouldn't even be used for comparison's sake -- since they wouldn't be accurate. I thought that was a fair point, so I decided to check out the sample size and margin of error on those presidential exit polls.

In fact, the sample sizes for the presidential exit polls are all larger than for the New Jersey gubernatorial poll -- although some years larger than others.

In 2004, according to this Solomon Project analysis by Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, 268 people were surveyed for a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percent. While not as low as the three to four percent margin of error in some national polls, it's still low enough -- and a big enough sample size -- for pollsters to feel perfectly comfortable using.

Last year's election was a little different. According to a Mellman memo prepared for the National Jewish Democratic Council, just 104 Jewish voters were polled in the national exit poll sample which gave 78 percent of the Jewish vote to Barack Obama -- for a margin of error of plus or minus 8 percent. But Mellman also cites an aggregation of 28 individual state exit polls which found a similar 76-22 Jewish vote for Obama, and had a large sample of 825 Jews for just a 2.9 percent margin of error.

Brooks, though, did e-mail to me another poll, taken by GOP pollster Neil Newhouse showing similar results to the RNC poll the RJC released Tuesday. The Newhouse poll also had a small sample size of 78 voters, and had Christie garnering 34 percent of the Jewish vote. Newhouse suggests combining the two samples, which would amount to 150 Jewish voters giving the Republican 36 percent of the Jewish vote.

Of course, we don't have numbers for Democrat John Corzine's defeat of Republican Doug Forrester in 2005, so it's not clear if, as Brooks argued, this shows Jewish independents turning Republican or is simply a typical breakdown of Jewish voters in gubernatorial races in New Jersey.

But in Brooks' favor, I will say that one pollster I spoke to said that a poll taken the night of and day following the election is, in his opinion, just as reliable as an exit poll taken all on the day of the election. While, as I noted, voters tend to want to identity with the winner in post-election polls and would have thus been more likely to say they voted for Christie, such an effect usually takes more than a day to develop.

So what have we learned? I'm not sure, except that I've probably spent way too much time analyzing the New Jersey Jewish vote.

0 Comments | Share This |

Palin on settlements: Jews ‘flocking’ to Israel need a place to live

By Eric Fingerhut · November 18, 2009

 Sarah Palin says she disagrees with the Obama administration's demand that Israel halt settlement construction, although her reason for that opinion is puzzling (or at the least demonstrates she's not familiar with the term "natural growth" that much of the debate has revolved around). She tells Barbara Walters that she disagrees with the White House because all the Jews moving to Israel need a place to live. From ABC News:

I disagree with the Obama administration on that," Palin told Walters. "I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.

J Street responded by releasing a lengthy statement which condemned Palin's comments and accused her of pandering and ignorance. An excerpt:

J Street rejects Sarah Palin’s comments attacking President Obama’s sensible policy on Israeli settlements in the West Bank yesterday during an ABC News interview with Barbara Walters.

Palin’s pandering to her right-wing base comes at the expense of the security of the State of Israel, the lives of those actually living the conflict, and the fundamental American interest in achieving a two-state solution in the near term. Her words reveal a glaring ignorance of damaging facts and a callous disregard of past and present U.S. policy.

27 Comments | Share This |

Obama: Settlement expansion could be ‘dangerous’

By Eric Fingerhut · November 18, 2009

President Obama had harsh words Wednesday about Israeli settlement expansion, saying it "embitters the Palestinians in a way that could be very dangerous." He made the comments in an interview in China with Fox News which will be broadcast in full Wednesday evening, but here's the quote from a report on the Fox News website:

The situation in the Middle East is very difficult, and I've said repeatedly and I'll say again, Israel's security is a vital national interest to the United States, and we will make sure they are secure," Obama said. "I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel's security. I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors. I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous.
 

2 Comments | Share This |