JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

JPOST: It’s not clear if we can all just get along

By Ami Eden · February 22, 2008

The Jerusalem Post has an editorial Friday voicing skepticism over reports that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is set to "commit Israel to a much more intensive engagement with the Jewish communities of the Diaspora."

Nothing that has leaked out of the first discussion on the issue, held at the Prime Minister's Office on Wednesday, and nothing in the record of this government or its predecessors, suggests that Israel understands the complexity and immensity of the challenge posed by the Israel-Diaspora relationship. Thus, while Olmert's initiative deserves praise, it also needs urgent direction.

The first important step, the Post's editors argue, is to understand the difference between Jewish existence in America and Israel.

Like other Americans, America's Jews are passionately individualistic. Like other Americans, they have no patience or understanding for government intervention in their private lives, including the religious sphere, and they intuitively understand their Jewish identity as a choice that their society challenges them to make. In Israel, meanwhile few of us are asked to choose to be Jewish. Our identity is not a religious choice, but a natural, organic and innate sense of communal identification. This is the gap that a new Israel-Diaspora relationship must bridge - not one of communication, but of understanding.

The new initiative will only succeed if it is the beginning of a generation-long project that engages American Jews in building a shared transnational Jewish culture. The initially suggested ideas - "rebranding" Israel, establishing Israeli cultural centers and unifying Israeli resources overseas that deal with Jewish identity - sound worryingly like a recap of old, arrogant attempts to impose Israeli cultural understandings on the American Jewish reality....

The prime minister is right to turn up the heat on a discussion of this issue. If we do not develop this shared culture, the centrifugal forces at work in the Jewish world will drive us farther apart. Without both communities committed to building together, the Jewish people as a whole are immeasurably weakened in facing the challenges of the 21st century, which are turning out to be as profound and complex as those of the 20th.

0 Comments | Share This | community, Israel, Israel-Diaspora |

Rosenblatt: Stopping Israel’s brain drain

By Ami Eden · February 22, 2008

Gary Rosenblatt, editor of the New York Jewish Week, tackles what he sees as Israel's biggest problem: "Israel's greatest worry," he writes in his latest column, "is not over its military, diplomatic or political strength, but its serious loss of brainpower, which effects every aspect of society."

During an interview here this week, accompanied by Mark Medin, the newly appointed, New York-based executive vice president of the American Friends of Bar-Ilan University, the soft-spoken professor warned that if what he called the academic "brain drain" taking place over the last few years in Israel continues, the results will be "a catastrophe" for a country reliant on developments in science, technology and other fields to bolster the economy and maintain a qualitative edge in the Mideast.

As chairman of the Council of Israeli University Presidents, Kaveh played a key role as point person between professors and the government during the country's longest education-related strike that ended several weeks ago after more than three months, losing most of the semester. But he said the underlying problem remains because the issue "is not just about the budget, it's about an attitude," and that's what disturbs him so much.

The Schochat Committee, an independent, blue-ribbon panel of academics and economists, was created last year to press for reforms in higher education that would address the growing problem.

The context for the crisis, according to [Bar-Ilan Univeristy President Moshe] Kaveh and his fellow university presidents, was that with tuitions so low — only $1,800 a year — Israeli universities have relied heavily on the government, which provides about two-thirds of their funding. But over the last seven years, that funding has been reduced by 25 percent. One of the many negative results has been that the universities had to cut some 800 teaching positions during that time.

According to Kaveh, some 4,500 Israeli professors — almost half of the country's total — now teach overseas, most of them in America, where they not only find posts but make about four or five times as much in salary as they would in Israel. ... To reverse the disturbing trend in higher education, the Schochat Committee is calling for giving back the government budget cuts to universities; providing professors with a 25 percent increase in salary; adding 100 Israeli academic posts a year; and releasing students (who usually start college after completing three years of army service) from paying tuition until after they have completed their studies, giving them 10 to 15 years to pay back their loans.

The catch? The plan would require a 100 percent increase in tuition, to about $3,600 a year – a move sure to be unpopular and draw student protests shortly before elections. So, Rosenblatt concludes, interested observers should keep their eyes on Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, to see if he "makes good on his promise of government approval of the Schochat Committee recommendations in the next two months."

0 Comments | Share This | Israel |

Tobin: It’s Iran, stupid

By Ami Eden · February 22, 2008

In his column this week, Jewish Exponent editor Jonathan Tobin complains that the release of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran seems to have put an end to the attention being focused on the question of how to stop the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

By leading with its claim that the Iranians had abandoned their nuclear-weapons program in 2003, the top American spies neatly spiked any chance that an international coalition could be formed to impose a tough sanctions regime on Tehran.... But there was one little problem with the NIE. It was probably wrong.

Critics of the document (in Israel, Europe and here) pointed out that a close reading of the text showed that, despite the opening language about a decision supposedly taken in 2003 on weapons design, the rest of the nuclear program was still going full-steam ahead. With their ongoing progress toward nuclear material capability, it wouldn't take much to take the last step toward a weapon.

If that wasn't reason enough to worry about the NIE's conclusion, then surely, Iran's brazen announcement earlier this month that it had begun to deploy a new generation of machinery to produce nuclear fuel should have set off alarms.

According to Tobin, "it isn't necessarily too late to undo the damage" done by the NIE. One key step is to figure out where Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain stand on the Iran issue. The problem, he adds, is that though "some tactical differences have emerged," observers are left with "a frustrating lack of information on what is, in all likelihood, the most important decision that the next president will take."

That makes it all the more important that the press and the public begin to press the candidates for specifics about their ideas on this subject.

Given the stakes involved, we can't wait until next year to find out more about their thinking. The latest revelations about the NIE make it imperative that the time to learn about their Iran policies is before November.

0 Comments | Share This | Iran |

AJC to Cable networks: Say no to immigrant bashers

By Ami Eden · February 15, 2008

We still can't believe that Abe Foxman and Lou Dobbs won't say anything about the CNN host's recent bashing of the ADL (these aren't exactly guys you associate with "no comment").

But American Jewish Committee is now wading into the debate, with a statement criticizing some of the guests on Dobbs' program and other cable shows:

AJC Appeals to Cable TV Executives to End Airing of Anti-Immigrant Hate

February 15, 2008 – New York – The American Jewish Committee is urging the heads of major cable television networks to ensure that the background of certain so-called immigration experts appearing on news shows is revealed to the viewing audience.

"It is inappropriate and offensive for major television programs to provide a microphone to individuals and organizations that promote hate, espouse vigilantism, white supremacy, or even violence in the immigration debate," AJC General Counsel Jeffrey Sinensky wrote in a letter to the heads of CNN, FOX and MSNBC.

"There is no excuse for television talk show hosts and commentators failing to investigate the backgrounds of the people they invite on their shows to speak on the issue of immigration."

The AJC letter was delivered today to Jim Walton, president of CNN Worldwide; Roger Ailes, chairman and CEO of FOX News Corporation; and Phil Griffin, executive-in-charge of MSNBC. AJC has partnered with the National Council of La Raza and its "We Can Stop the Hate" campaign launched recently to counter the increasing rhetoric on the airwaves that already has caused a rise in hate crimes against Latinos.

AJC pointed out specifically that Lou Dobbs Tonight, The O'Reilly Factor, and MSNBC News Live offer national platforms to spokespeople who represent known vigilante or hate-promoting groups, including Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox of the Minuteman Project and Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

They regularly appear on news programs as anti-immigration "expert commentators" and pundits. "Rarely is their status as a representative of a vigilante group or one that promotes hate acknowledged or challenged. Rarely do they face anyone with an opposing viewpoint," said Sinensky.

In addition, the AJC letter noted that spokespeople espousing vigilantism and fear regularly appear on nightly news programs. They often speak in code, calling immigrants "criminals," "an army of invaders," and "diseased"; and children born to immigrants are referred to as "anchor babies." Many talk show hosts and commentators parrot this hate speech on their broadcasts.

"Hate speech has no legitimate role in the media. History has shown repeatedly that it can be the precursor to violence," said Sinensky. "Issues such as immigration can be explored legitimately and thoroughly without demonizing an entire group of people."

AJC, the oldest human relations organization in the U.S., has been a longstanding advocate for fair and open immigration, and a strong supporter of comprehensive immigration reform.

0 Comments | Share This | immigration, Media |

The political cartoon Hamas doesn’t want Gazans to see

By Ami Eden · February 15, 2008

Here is the Palestinian-produced political cartoon, titled "The Illegitimate," that Hamas is trying to ban newspapers in Gaza from publishing:

1 Comment | Share This | Comedy |

JPOST editor on U.S. backtracking on NIE: Too little, too late

By Ami Eden · February 15, 2008

Jeursalem Post editor David Horovitz takes a shot at Michael McConnell, "the man responsible for the US National Intelligence Estimate that two months ago essentially cleared Iran of pursuing a nuclear bomb."

Last week, in testimony to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the admiral said that in hindsight, "I think I would change the way that we described [the Iranian] nuclear program."

Here's the very first sentence of that immensely ballyhooed NIE, which was greeted rapturously by Iran and with horror in Israel when it was published in early December: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Teheran halted its nuclear weapons program."

What McConnell is now saying amounts to the very opposite: Yes, runs the amended narrative, we think the Iranians may have halted what we narrowly, foolishly and misleadingly defined as their nuclear weapons program four years ago, we're not sure if they've restarted it, but the fact is that we led you all astray with our definition of that program in the first place.

You see, the new line continues, weapon design and weaponization – those narrow aspects that might have been halted – really constitute the "least significant portion" of a nuclear weapons program. In retrospect, we should have relied on more than a footnote to make that clear. The "most difficult challenge" is actually "uranium enrichment [to] enable the production of fissile material," and, as we probably should have stressed more prominently, work on that is proceeding apace. …

Or, to put it another way: Whoops. We meant to say that Iran is closing in relentlessly on a nuclear weapons capability, but we didn't express ourselves very effectively, and wound up making you believe the reverse. Sorry. But we're fixing that now, so we're all back on the same page. No biggie, right?

Wrong.

Horovitz notes that McConnel's backtracking received scant coverage in the American press – and has done nothing to undue the various levels of damage caused by the NIE.

It has done nothing to dent Ahmadinejad's public confidence that nobody is going to stop the Iranian drive now, and nothing to suggest to Iran that it need halt what McConnell acknowledged last week was the range of dual-purpose activities that daily bring it ever-closer to a nuclear weapons capability. The admiral's climbdown has injected no new urgency, and no stronger teeth, into the weak and snail-paced UN-centered sanctions effort. It has prompted no rethink by Moscow about assisting Teheran's "peaceful" nuclear programs. And with this US administration now counting down its final months, his "recalibration" has restored no credibility to Bush's efforts to thwart Iran - credibility that was swept away when the shattering original NIE essentially removed his administration's military option.

In short: Iran continues to threaten Israel and moved toward the bomb – "No biggie, Admiral McConnell," Horovits concludes with a sarcastic finish.

0 Comments | Share This | Iran |

Women in uniform

By Ami Eden · February 15, 2008

The Israel Policy Forum has published an article heralding the recent arrival in Washington of a delegation of security experts consisting of three Palestinian women (Amal Jadou, Enas Nazzal, and Haitham Arar) and three Israeli women (Israela Oron, Eynat Gepner-Goldstein, and Etty Yevnin).

An all-female joint delegation consisting of an Israeli general and two colonels alongside officials of the Palestinian interior ministry is unusual enough. But what made this group stand out was not gender, but the message—from a group of established security professionals—that military means alone will not bring security to Israelis or Palestinians.

They maintained that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not one where victory is decided on the battlefield between uniformed soldiers, but rather it is a dispute fought within civilian communities.

Memebrs of the delegation stressed that women are "often on the first line of defenses for families and the first victims of failures in security." In addition, they assume formal security roles.

Israeli women have always been required to serve in the military or an auxiliary service, while the first group of Palestinian police women only recently completed their training. …

Greater participation of women is one fundamental aspect of making sure that security concerns are not only handled by military forces, but involve civil society as well. Just as women are more likely to admit when they need to ask for directions, former Brigadier General (ret.) Israela Oron said in a talk she gave in Cambridge, they are also more likely to say when a new approach is necessary. That approach is negotiating toward peace. And "Peace," Oron said "is the only way to achieve security.

2 Comments | Share This | Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Sex |

Imad Mughniyah: A worthwhile target

By Ami Eden · February 14, 2008

Ha'aretz's Amir Oren argues that Imad Mughniyah, the Hezbollah leader allegedly killed by Israel, is irreplaceable.

Mughniyah's assassination has a substantive side but also a psychological one. Both challenge the myth commonly disseminated by those who fear (because they know why) that they will be targeted for assassination. It is the myth that "everyone can be replaced." This myth aims to keep Israel and other countries from targeting senior figures in terrorist organizations. The theory is that there is no point in taking such action if every assassination only further enrages the masses and stokes their determination to rally to the cause. Moreover, sometimes the successor is more effective and worse for Israel than his predecessor.

In rejecting this line of argument, Oren says that you can 't blame Israel's problems in the Lebanon war of 2006 on its leaders and then "deride the significance of people in key positions." Besides, he adds, Hezbollah leaders ultimately conduct themselves as if they are irreplaceable, always sending others into dangerous situations, while going into hiding for long periods of time.

As for the recent assassination:

Mughniyah belonged to the blacklist of arch-terrorists whose organizations will find it very difficult to prepare a replacement for them, with the kind of skill, professional knowledge and personal contacts in the shadow world, where trust and experience are acquired through years of work. The bedlam that this creates in an organization hurt in this way, and so suddenly, leads to further intelligence and targets.

The killing also sends an important message to Syria and its proxies regarding Israel's knowledge and reach when it comes to retaliating against terrorists.

This operation will not deter Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guard, but it will be a reminder that others are also not deterred.

3 Comments | Share This | Arab-Israeli Conflict |

Dr. House vs. Chabad

By Ami Eden · February 14, 2008

Lubavitch.com has a post from writer Mordechai Shinefield breaking down the recent "Chabad" episode of "House" (which he notes was the highest-rated program of the night):

The episode opened with a wedding officiated by California Chabad House representative Rabbi Yossi Mintz, and the singing of a Chabad style Chasidic melody. Richard Kaplan, a cantor from East Bay, sang the niggun for the episode.

Kaplan, who was contacted by the music department at NBC Universal, says that he is "not formally connected with Chabad, but [I] have great respect for Chabad and derive great benefit from Chabad teachings."

The episode of the medical drama revolved around a music executive (played by Heather Joy Sher Laura Silverman) who recently traded in her secular life for the world Chasidism actress played Tova, a recent returnee to Judaism. She is suffering from the expected mix of mysterious physical symptoms, plus, House insists, some sort of altered mental state that would explain her sharp turnabout ("She went directly to the extremes of Chasidism. A life of stringent rules. She became a masochist").

In the end, Shinefield writes, the woman's problem is strictly physical, poking a hole in House's mantra that "people don't change."

People do change. And as this show illustrates, even within the television industry, attitudes change, at least towards those who, like Chabad Chasidim, put no stock in the lifestyles and values of popular television.

Creator David Shore, 46, is not Orthodox himself. He grew up in what he calls 'a typical Reform-type Jewish household,' and now attends a Conservative synagogue in LA.

But the show he created does portray the baal teshuvah couple—human beings with the foibles of human beings—as loving, sincere, and committed to their faith and G-d.

To be sure, the dialogues contained a few one-liners stereotyping Chasidic Jews. And yet, in unscripted irony, the episode might have actually piqued the curiosity of some of the many millions glued to the tube, and motivated them enough to look beyond the TV screen for real life fulfillment that last week's character seems to have found in living Jewishly.

4 Comments | Share This | Pop Culture, Religion |

In Seattle, the V-word is cool for shul, but not the local paper

By Ami Eden · February 12, 2008

The image on the left is plastered all over Seattle-area synagogues, plus the local Jewish newspaper. But it's too hot for the Seattle Times. On the right is the image on the Web site of the Seattle chapter of the National Council of Jewish Women.

And, to think, it was only a few years ago that Seattle's Jewish Federation wouldn't let Leonard Nimoy show all of his Shekhina photos.

0 Comments | Share This | Media, Sex |