Oren at Irvine
Courtesy of the Orange County Register comes this excellent video of the speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren on Tuesday night.
4 Comments |
Share This
|
A nuclear Iran: Good for America?
According to Adam Lowther, a defense analyst at the Air Force Research Institute who has an Op-Ed in Tuesday's New York Times, Iran's acquisition of a nuclear bomb could be good for America.
It would make the Arab states in the Persian Gulf indebted to the United States for protection against the threat from Iran, giving the U.S. leverage to get lower oil prices and political reforms in Arabia, cooperation on fighting Al Qaeda terrorists, and bigger market for the U.S. defense industry exports. Iran's getting the bomb would also push Israel and the Palestinians to reach a negotiated agreement, because a nuclear strike on Israel would devastate both peoples, and making peace reduces the likelihood Iran would use its nuclear arsenal to attack Israel. Lowther concludes:
What about the downside — that an unstable, anti-American regime would be able to start a nuclear war? Actually, that’s less of a risk than most people think. Unless the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and his Guardian Council chart a course that no other nuclear power has ever taken, Iran should become more responsible once it acquires nuclear weapons rather than less. The 50-year standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States was called the cold war thanks to the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons...
Iran may think its enrichment plans will put fear into the hearts of Americans. In fact, it should give us hopes of a renaissance of American influence in the Middle East.
Hurrah! If only the parties in the Middle East would see the light of these points!
Unfortunately, there's more than a little wishful thinking here.
It's true that an Iranian nuclear weapon represents a threat first and foremost to nations in the Middle East (both Israel and the Sunni Arab regimes) before the rest of the Western world. Iran's belligerent and expansionist approach toward its neighbors is evidence of that, and Arab nations are worried about Iran. But that hasn't translated into much more leverage for the United States.
Arab nations are also worried about American belligerence and expansionism in the region, eyeing the U.S. presence in Iraq and not-too-distant Afghanistan with skepticism and some measure of fear and anger. It's unlikely Arab states would rush to the American side in a Cold War-type confrontation between the U.S. and Iran. For its part, the United States would be loathe to rush into an agreement to provide Arab states with a nuclear umbrella and thereby commit America to war with a nuclear-armed Iran in the event that two Muslim nations in the Middle East go to battle against one another.
On the Israeli-Palestinian question, a nuclear Iran would give the Palestinians even more of a reason to stay away from the negotiating table. The Palestinians are not threatened by a nuclear Iran; they're buoyed by the prospect. Just as the Palestinians cheered Saddam's Iraq when its Scuds potentially threatened them as well, so too they cheer a nuclear Iran even if it could bring them harm. For the Palestinians, a nuclear attack on Israel would bring the ultimate martyrdom too many of them crave.
Finally, Lowther's assumption that the Iranian regime would not use its nuclear arsenal is just plain unsafe. The Iranian regime already supports terrorist groups around the world, including Hezbollah, Hamas and those groups' operatives in South America; the Iranian Revolutionary Guards already have shown a willingness to use deadly force against Iran's own population, and there's little to stop Iran from exporting its nuclear weaponry to its terrorist allies, who would be even more likely to use their imported nukes. The world cannot afford to gamble on a nuclear-armed Iran.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
The keffiyeh with the Star of David
From the New York Times:
A Jewish D.J. in Brooklyn finds himself defending his right to market what he calls an “Israeli remix of the keffiyeh,” featuring the Star of David.
An article last week in the Abu Dhabi newspaper The National compared the effort by Jewish hipsters like Erez Safar to claim the keffiyeh for themselves as just the latest in a series of battles over symbols of Middle Eastern culture whose appropriation by Israelis has enraged Arabs. The National’s report began like this:
First it was the hummus war. Then it was the tabouleh war. Now get ready for the keffiyeh war.
By contrast, an article on the new version of the scarf in The Jerusalem Post began:
It might be considered by some as a symbol of Palestinian ‘resistance’ or solidarity, but for a group of young, hip U.S. Jews, wearing a keffiyeh — especially one with blue embroidered Stars of David — is just as much their right as anyone else’s.
Mr. Safer, the D.J., is based in Brooklyn. He told the Israeli newspaper his company had gotten “some negative comments” when they started selling the blue and white “Israeli Keffiyeh,” which features a Hebrew slogan — “Am Israel Chai,” meaning “The Nation of Israel Lives” — as well as Stars of David. “We have had some Arab friends take offense to our new scarf remix,” he told the paper. Mr. Safer, who performs under the name Diwon, added:
We have some Muslim rappers who have taken part in our Hip Hop Sulha series, which is a Jewish and Muslim reconciliation concert series featuring hip-hop groups from around the world. We are having a concert in February, and one of the performers has actually backed out because of these scarves.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Conflict of interest?
The New York Times' correspondent in Jerusalem, Ethan Bronner, has a son who has enlisted in the Israel Defense Forces. Does that compromise Bronner's ability to report for the Times from Jerusalem?
The Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, says yes, and calls for Bronner to be reassigned:
There are so many considerations swirling around this case: Bronner is a superb reporter. Nobody at The Times wants to give in to what they see as relentlessly unfair criticism of the paper’s Middle East coverage by people hostile to objective reporting. It doesn’t seem fair to hold a father accountable for the decision of an adult son.
But, stepping back, this is what I see: The Times sent a reporter overseas to provide disinterested coverage of one of the world’s most intense and potentially explosive conflicts, and now his son has taken up arms for one side. Even the most sympathetic reader could reasonably wonder how that would affect the father, especially if shooting broke out.
I have enormous respect for Bronner and his work, and he has done nothing wrong. But this is not about punishment; it is simply a difficult reality. I would find a plum assignment for him somewhere else, at least for the duration of his son’s service in the I.D.F.
Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor (the boss), says no:
Ethan Bronner is fully capable of continuing to cover his beat fairly. Your concern is that readers will not be capable of seeing it that way. That is probably true for some readers. The question is whether those readers should be allowed to deny the rest of our audience the highest quality of reporting.
Readers, like reporters, bring their own lives to the newspaper. Sometimes, when these readers are unshakeably convinced of something, they bring blinding prejudice and a tendency to see what they want to see. As you well know, nowhere is that so true as in Israel and the neighboring Palestinian lands. If we send a Jewish correspondent to Jerusalem, the zealots on one side will accuse him of being a Zionist and on the other side of being a self-loathing Jew, and then they will parse every word he writes to find the phrase that confirms what they already believe while overlooking all evidence to the contrary. So to prevent any appearance of bias, would you say we should not send Jewish reporters to Israel? If so, what about assigning Jewish reporters to countries hostile to Israel? What about reporters married to Jews? Married to Israelis? Married to Arabs? Married to evangelical Christians? (They also have some strong views on the Holy Land.) What about reporters who have close friends in Israel? Ethical judgments that start from prejudice lead pretty quickly to absurdity, and pandering to zealots means cheating readers who genuinely seek to be informed.
My point is not that Ethan’s family connections to Israel are irrelevant. They are significant, and both he and his editors should be alert for the possibility that they would compromise his work. How those connections affect his innermost feelings about the country and its conflicts, I don’t know. I suspect they supply a measure of sophistication about Israel and its adversaries that someone with no connections would lack. I suspect they make him even more tuned-in to the sensitivities of readers on both sides, and more careful to go the extra mile in the interest of fairness. I do know he has reported scrupulously and insightfully on Israelis and Palestinians for many years.
4 Comments |
Share This
|
Sephardic Film Fest opens Thursday
Moroccan Jewish crime families. An Israeli chef turned sumo wrestler. An Ethiopian Jewish rapper.
For sheer eclecticism, it's hard to imagine a motlier mix than the films at the Sephardic Film Festival, which opens tonight in New York City.
The festival, the only one of its kind in the country, has gotten some good advance press, including items in the Huffington Post, the Jewish Week, and the New York arts website GothamGirl.
Here's George Robinson's take, from the Jewish Week:
How do you preserve a culture and yet move forward in a changing world? That dilemma is at the heart of the Jewish experience, so it comes as no great shock that almost all the films in this year’s New York Sephardic Jewish Film Festival center on that theme. The documentaries in this year’s event are particularly sensitive to the nuances of evolving cultures and the results are frequently as dramatic and poignant as you will find in any fiction feature this year.
1 Comment |
Share This
| 
arts,
film festival,
Sephardic |
J Street, Effi Eitam and Hillel [UPDATED]
J Street is holding kickoff events Thursday night in more than 20 cities as part of its campaign to open local chapters across the United States.
The organization -- which backs U.S. pressure on Israel and the Palestinians to produce a two-state solution, criticized the Israeli invasion of Gaza and accused some establishment Jewish groups of undermining the peace process -- has proven to be a controversy magnet.
So, not surprisingly, comes a story from the Jewish Exponent about some communal figures being upset by the decision of the Hillel at the University of Pennsylvania to lease space to J Street for one of Thursday's events:
In the local Jewish community, where the left/right divide has often cut particularly deep over the years -- and where many in the peace camp have long lamented that more hawkish elements have held sway -- sparks have already begun to fly.
Gary Erlbaum, who sits on the Jewish Community Relations Council's Israel advocacy committee and is also a board member of the Jewish Publishing Group, has been outspoken in his opposition to J Street, and is upset about Hillel's decision to host the group's Feb. 4 event.
"What makes them pro-Israel? If the Palestinians had a lobby, it would be called J Street," said Erlbaum. "The Hillel building is an inappropriate spot for a group that's anti-Israel."
Steve Masters, a Philadelphia lawyer who is playing a major role in J Street's efforts to build its local presence, said that the group has been misunderstood. (He served as the national president of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom-Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace before it merged with J Street last year.)"J Street is a completely pro-Israel organization -- and there are so many different ways to be pro-Israel," he said. Creating a narrow definition of pro-Israel and excluding "anybody who doesn't follow a particular point of view or path" is a "ridiculous proposition."
In response to the brouhaha, Jeremy Brochin, director of Penn Hillel, posted a statement explaining the decision to lease space to J Street:
Not long ago, the J Street organization requested to rent space in Steinhardt Hall for a regional meeting and nationwide Webcast on February 4th. The Hillel of Greater Philadelphia Executive Staff and board leadership considered J Street’s request and applied to it the same criteria we would apply to other Jewish communal organizations making the same request: that they accept and subscribe to the Hillel International statement that “Hillel is steadfastly committed to the support of Israel as the Jewish state with secure and recognized borders and as a member of the family of free nations”; that they do not advocate actions that will materially harm Israel or its representatives such as boycotts, sanctions or judicial action; and that present their views with civility.
Consistent with its academic orientation and location on the university campus, Hillel of Greater Philadelphia provides a platform for speakers with different points of view on Israel. As examples, last year we hosted Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, Jewish Agency for Israel Chairman Natan Sharansky, Knesset member Effi Eitam, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer, Prof. Daniel Pipes, Prof. Ken Stein, Israeli Vice Counsel Ishmael Khalidi, media trainer Neil Lazarus, Jerusalem Post journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, and writer Nonie Darwish, among others. Individually, these speakers represent a diverse set of views, experiences, and perspectives on Israel; together they represent an exciting conversation of the meaning and direction of Zionism.
It is important to emphasize that, as with all of our speakers, J Street’s use of our facility does not constitute an endorsement by Hillel of the policies of the group or of the opinions expressed during its meeting. Moreover, the J Street program under question is not part of our ongoing Israel education activities and Hillel is not sponsoring this particular event. Nevertheless, we believe it is important that all voices that abide by our principles regarding Israel’s right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish People have an opportunity to express their opinions in our building as long as they commit to maintaining civility in their presentations.
We at Hillel view our education mission as being one of enriching the lives of Jewish college students and providing them with exposure to points of view regarding Israel consistent with our mission so that they may have all of the information they desire to understand the complexity of the world in which we live. We take pride in both the role we play in engaging Jewish students in the issues of the day and the way we model an inclusive Jewish community that will keep them engaged as they mature into adulthood. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Jeremy Brochin
Hillel also hosted an event Wednesday night billed as a debate over the question: "Is J Street Bad for Israel":
J Street, a new lobby on Capitol Hill, calls itself "Pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, and pro-Peace." This certainly sounds nice, but what are the group's actual intentions? On Wednesday night, Daniel Pollak, Co-director of Government Relations for the Zionist Organization of America, will engage Penn students in a debate on the following issues (and more): - Is J Street actually pro-Israel? - What does it mean to be pro-Israel? - What type of work is J Street really doing in Washington? - Where does J Street get its funding? - Is J Street acting in the interest of peace in the region, or are they simply another group attempting to pressure Israel into making concessions to her neighbors? - How is J Street different from AIPAC and other similar organizations? - Most importantly, is J Street bad for Israel? We look forward to a lively evening of debate and discussion! And don't forget to bring great questions! Co-sponsored by the Zionist Organization of America and the Penn Zionist Freedom Alliance.
As J Street's defenders were calling for open debate and a wide communal tent in Philadelphia, on the other side of the state the organization's backers were protesting communal support for an event at Hillel featuring Effi Eitam.
[CLARIFICATION: In case it wasn't clear... J Street did not take a position on the Eitam event. The people in question are invovled with the organization, but acting on their own.]
[UPDATE: Full statement from J Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami: "Contrary to recent news reports, J Street has not taken an official position on, nor is it protesting, upcoming speakers or events in the Pittsburgh Jewish community. In fact, part of J Street’s mission is to broaden debate and to encourage an open, honest Jewish community conversation what is best for Israel's future and the health of our community. We look forward to participating in that vigorous debate in Pittsburgh and around the country. We trust that the best counter to hateful, racist views is to expose them to the light of day, to counter them with arguments based in Jewish tradition and values, and to rely on the good judgment of the majority of our community to reject them."]
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports:
In Pittsburgh, liberal supporters of J Street, which calls itself a "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobby advocating a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, are protesting this evening's address by Efi Eitam. A retired general and former leader of two right-wing religious parties in Israel's Knesset, Mr. Eitam will talk to local college and high school students about the threat of a nuclear Iran. ...
Rabbi Art Donsky and Naftali Kaminski, J Street activists acting in this case as individuals, sent out alarms last week about Mr. Eitam. The messages called him a "racist" who has advocated expelling Palestinians from the West Bank and banning Israeli Arabs from national politics. They noted that Israel's attorney general warned Mr. Eitam in 2006 that he could face charges for repeating those statements.
Mr. Eitam is considered a war hero by many Israelis for his part in Operation Entebbe, the war in Lebanon and other military actions. Now an emissary of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he is traveling the United States as part of the Caravan for Democracy, a program of the Jewish National Fund, which brings speakers to college campuses to "promote constructive dialogue about Israel and the Middle East," according to its website.
The local grant for his visit to Pittsburgh came from the United Jewish Federation Foundation. It was designed to bring more college speakers to talk about Israel, but was made before a speaker was chosen, according to Jeff Finkelstein, the federation president. He said the federation had no involvement in inviting Mr. Eitam.
Dr. Kaminski said his objection was not to Mr. Eitam's appearance per se, but to the use of community money to bring him here, and to high school students being bused to the event by J-SITE, an educational program that serves local Jewish teens. He called it "a scandal" that unknowing parents might be sending their teenagers to hear "hate speech" without realizing it. He also wants J-SITE to clearly denounce Mr. Eitam's incendiary statements (J-SITE sent out an e-mail yesterday saying it does not endorse the views of speakers). ...
The Jewish Chronicle has more on the Pittsburgh story.
Meanwhile, back in Philadelphia, several of those involved in J Street's local chapter there have drawn criticism for their remarks -- about Israel.
One example: Rebecca Alpert, chair of Temple University's religion department, who had this to say in a Yom Kippur sermon discussing her efforts to take part in a fast protesting Israel's actions in Gaza:
How can we as a Jewish community think it’s our obligation to end genocide in Darfur and pretend that there is no problem in Gaza? There is no question in my mind that if what was happening in Gaza was being perpetrated on any other country by any other country, we Jews would be in the lead, decrying such collective punishments and lack of respect for international humanitarian law, demanding an end to the blockade, proclaiming never again!
Even if your love for Israel makes you see the political situation differently; even if the rockets Hamas sends into Southern Israel make you furious and anxious, (and it should), even if in your eyes Hamas is nothing but a terrorist organization, what Israel is permitting to take place in Gaza is wrong. I have to believe, like Isaiah, that God is calling on us to choose this fast: these are the bonds of wickedness that we must loosen, and the heavy burdens we must undo: The people of Gaza are oppressed and must go free, and the blockade is the yoke that must be broken (Isaiah 58:6)
5 Comments |
Share This
|
What if it had been an El Al plane that crashed on ‘Lost’? [UPDATED]
The New Republic's Marty Peretz and the Zionist Organization of America smell something fishy in Preisdent Obama's failure to mention Israel when he praised other nations for their cooperation in Haiti.
Here's the original quote from Obama:
At the airport, help continues to flow in, not just from the United States but from Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, among others. This underscores the point that I made to the President this morning: The entire world stands with the government and the people of Haiti, for in Haiti's devastation, we all see the common humanity that we share.
It's not that Israeli participation in the Haiti horror was being kept secret. I myself saw it reported several times on television—on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN.
So didn't Obama notice? For God's sake, everybody noticed the deep Israeli involvement. I understand that Obama doesn't like Middle East narratives that do not contain "one side and the other side" equal valence. But he couldn't have that here. The Arabs don't care a fig, not for their impoverished and backward own, and certainly not for strangers.
In seconding Peretz, the ZOA noted that President Bill Clinton did give props to Israel.
Paranoia or astute political analysis? We'll let the readers decide.
[UPDATE: Looks like I picked the wrong set-up for our "Lost" routine: Eric Fingerhut points out that when Obama gave the speech in question, the Israelis were only just arriving on the scene. So unless the president had "Lost"-like abilities to see the future, he couldn't have been expected to know about everything good that the IDF would soon be doing.]
More importantly, with the final season of "Lost" set to kick off Tuesday night (not to mention everyone going ga ga over "Start-Up Nation"), the JTA staff started wondering: What if it had been an El Al flight that crashed on the island?
- In the first place, the plane would have never crashed because the pilots would have been able to perform evasive maneuvers. But if it had…
- Jack would not have been the only doctor.
- John Locke would have been named Yeshayahu Leibowitz.
- Sayid would have never made it on to the plane.
- Instead of his makeshift radio, some of the Israeli passengers would have set up a high-speed Internet link.
- Some Lubavicther would have shown up before long to open up a Chabad house.
- There would be more than just one recklessly driven, German-made vehicle on the road.
- The existence of a nuclear weapon on the island would never have been acknowledged.
- Gratuitous shots of Kate in her underwear would be replaced by quick peeks of haredi women sans sheitels.
- The island would suddenly have attracted the attention of the entire world, with the U.N. accusing the passengers of illegally occupying territory and using disproportionate force to fend off attacks by the Others.
UPDATE: A friendly rabbi adds: " The back fuselage was what stayed intact, so all the people davening in the back would have made it. Breakaway minyan, anyone?"
4 Comments |
Share This
|
Live video from the Herzliya Conf.
Live video from this week's 10th annual Herzliya Conference, an annual gathering in Israel on politics and security, is available online here.
If you're interested in quick recaps of conference sessions, check out the video highlights on the conference's YouTube page.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Maharat becomes Rabbah
Avi Weiss' office just issued a statement saying that Sara Hurwitz, who was ordained with the unusual acronym Maharat last year (shorthand for leader in legal, spiritual and Torah matters), would henceforth be known as "rabbah."
Here's the statement in full.
It is almost a year since Sara Hurwitz was given the title Mahara”t at a conferral ceremony. I indicated at that time that Sara Hurwitz is a full member of our clergy staff.
Over this past year, I have, on numerous occasions, in talks and symposia around the country, said as clearly as I could that Mahara”t means rabbi, and that Sara Hurwitz has received semikha. Having studied the same curriculum as any man would study for ordination, she has achieved this goal.
We decided when Sara Hurwitz was conferred that we would be assessing whether the title Mahara”t has taken hold in the community. After a year, what we have seen is that it has gained traction within our own community, at the Bayit.
But outside our community, when Sara Hurwitz has officiated at funerals or visited hospitals or when the title Mahara”t appears in newspapers, it has not resonated. Moreover, at times the term Mahara”t has been used inappropriately in a disrespectful way.
And so, after consultation with Rabbi Daniel Sperber, who is signing the klaf with me, we have decided that Sara Hurwitz’s title will now be Rabba. This will make it clear to everyone that Sara Hurwitz is a full member of our rabbinic staff, a rabbi with the additional quality of a distinct woman’s voice.
4 Comments |
Share This
|
Avi Weiss,
orthodox,
Orthodox,
rabbis,
Sara Hurwitz |
Hitler’s Fish Knife
It's been a month since the theft of the famous sign at the entrance to Auschwitz and the BBC has taken a look at the trade in historic Nazi artifacts. Seeking to understand the appeal of such relics, the BBC's Claire Bolderson makes a move that one can't help but feel is going to taint the enterprise even more (assuming that's possible). She visits a prolific trafficker in Nazi memorabilia better known for his controversial (and in some countries, illegal) views on the era: David Irving.
Visited at his home outside London, Irving talks about owning several tufts of Hitler's hair, which he has inexplicably mislaid, as well as Hitler's walking stick, which Irving says "radiated a certain kind of je ne sais quoi." Does it compromise my journalistic impartiality to observe that that's just a little bit weird? You be the judge.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Auschwitz,
David Irving,
Hitler,
Nazis |
Not registered? Sign up now. It's fast and it's free.
Recent Comments
Blog Roll
