JustASC

JTA has a very useful wrap-up here of the Jewish reaction to the Biden-Netanyahu flap and fallout.

The classic definition of chutzpah involves the guy who kills his parents and then complains he’s an orphan. 

Here’s another — someone pokes you in the eye with a stick and then blames you for getting his stick all boody.

That’s just one of the tricks some commentators are using to try and absolve Israel for the Biden-Netanyahu disaster, and for any responsibility in the fate of the region.

This is from Mitchell Bard’s comments on the flap:

Biden was prepared to say all the right things, and did say many of them, but when he decided it was necessary to publicly blast Israel for announcing the construction of more homes in its capital, he frittered away any chance he had of accomplishing his objective. This is not to defend the Israeli decision, which substantively may have been justifiable, but could not have been publicized at a worse moment. Still, Biden could have just as easily told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu behind closed doors that this was an embarrassing and stupid announcement. Friends keep their disagreements private as much as possible, a lesson Obama could learn from Bill Clinton’s stewardship of U.S.-Israel ties.

Note the reversal of cause and effect: “when [Biden] decided it was necessary to publicly blast Israel,” although even Netanyahu has acknowledged the collosal embarrassment of announcing the housing plan in the middle of Biden’s visit (which even Bard admits ”was an embarrassing and stupid announcement”).  

As for Bill Clinton keeping disagreements “private,” Bard is obscuring the historical record. In March 1997, under almost identical circumstances, President Clinton publicly rebuked Israel for its plan to construct the Har Homa neighborhood in East Jerusalem, saying that “it builds mistrust.” Clinton’s rebuke was fairly mild, but soon after he warmly received Yasir Arafat at the U.N. in a pointed rebuke of the building project.

As someone once pointed out:

Though often described as the most pro-Israel President in history, Bill Clinton also was critical of Israel on numerous occasions.

That someone was Mitchell Bard.

JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, tries another tack: Biden was itching for a fight:

If the Israelis hadn’t obliged with the announcement of apartments, Mr. Biden certainly would have taken on the Jewish “heritage sites,” which the administration has already condemned. Or he would have fallen back on “settlements” or “checkpoints” or the “humiliation” of the Palestinians. The Palestinians, for their part, planned to accept whatever gifts Mr. Biden brought them and never, never, ever intended to be serious partners to either side.

A third tactic in deflecting blame is this one, by David Hazony: actually praising Israel for announcing the housing plan:

In making the move on Jerusalem, the Israeli government is trying to avoid the ambiguities that were the undoing of Oslo. Anyone hoping for a successful negotiation leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, they are saying, had better forget about the division of Jerusalem. Sometimes, it’s the timing that drives the point home.

Bard, meanwhile, also invokes another chutzpadik trope in this debate: Simultaneously supporting Israel’s building plans in disputed areas (“which substantively may have been justifiable”), while blaming the Palestinians for Israel’s actions. To whit:

If Biden really wanted to do something for the Palestinians, he would not feed their latest tantrum. Instead, he should point out to Abbas the simple historical truth that the longer he waits to negotiate an agreement with Israel, the more Jews will be living in the areas he wants and the less land he will get in the end. Had Jimmy Carter said this to Yasser Arafat 30 years ago when 12,000 Jews lived in the West Bank, the conflict might have been resolved. Now, nearly 300,000 Jews live in that same area. Whose side is time really on?

Martin Peretz in the New Republic tried this same trick last week: turning a left-wing argument — that time is running out on the two-state solution — into a “defense” of a right-wing tactic: continued settlement expansion. Writes Peretz:

The Palestinians have only themselves to blame on Jerusalem, as on other disputed matters. In 2000 and 2001, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak agreed to a peace that included handing over the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem for the Palestinian capital. (Ehud Olmert made the same offer in 2008). The Arabs always believed that time was on their side, that their reluctance to negotiate and then their reluctance to sign would somehow improve their position. But time does not stand still, and it certainly no longer stands still for the Jews. Having waited in exile for 2,000 years, having struggled over nearly a century for a Jewish commonwealth, have tried to engage its neighbors in parley for more than half a century, the Jewish polity will no longer tarry, and it is justified in not tarrying.

Again, this takes the language of the left to absolve Israel of responsibility for the “300,000 Jews” who now live in areas Palestinians eyed for a state — as if Jewish settlement is an act of nature, and not the result of political decisions made by a democratically elected government.

So is Israel captain of its own fate, or is it all up to the Palestinians? I’m more persuaded by Tom Friedman’s take on the flap, which respects Israel’s ability to be a main actor in its own drama, as opposed to a country vulnerable to forces beyond its control:

…Israel needs a wake-up call. Continuing to build settlements in the West Bank, and even housing in disputed East Jerusalem, is sheer madness. Yasir Arafat accepted that Jewish suburbs there would be under Israeli sovereignty in any peace deal that would also make Arab parts of East Jerusalem the Palestinian capital. Israel’s planned housing expansion now raises questions about whether Israel will ever be willing to concede a Palestinian capital in Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem — a big problem.

Israel has already bitten off plenty of the West Bank. If it wants to remain a Jewish democracy, its only priority now should be striking a deal with the Palestinians that would allow it to swap those settlement blocs in the West Bank occupied by Jews for an equal amount of land from Israel for the Palestinians and then reap the benefits — economic and security — of ending the conflict.

[UPDATE: One more way to downplay Israel's culpability: trivialize the central dispute. Here's U.S. Senator Sam Brownback:

"It's hard to see how spending a weekend condemning Israel for a zoning decision in its capital city amounts to a positive step towards peace.”]

Mitchell Bard’s oped is not yet on-line, so I include it after the jump:

(more…)

A friend turned to me last night and joked, “I guess we can stop worrying about Jewish continuity for five minutes.”

We were in the audience at Cong. Rodeph Sholom in NYC for the 17th Annual Gala for HaZamir, the international Jewish high school choir. 200 kids from 17 HaZamir chapters in North America and Israel performed a diverse Hebrew repertoire, from Renaissance composer Solomono Rossi to Leonard Bernstein. It was a good, old-fashioned, non-ideological, multi-denominational, Zionist pep rally, and the weekend of rehearsals that preceded it (if my daughter is a reliable witness) were in the time-honored tradition of all Jewish youth group get-aways  — that is, lots of eating, hugging, and flirting (and don’t worry, moms and dads, praying and learning).

I’m a sucker for choral music and uncomplicated Jewish enthusiasm (as supposed to the complicated variety I write about week in and week out), so I ate this up. A warm, glowing end to a weekend that was in turns scary, unsettling, and, in my neighborhood, tragic.

When that awful little Westboro Baptist Church came our way late last year, we and many others debated whether reporting or acknowledging the group only serves their odious cause.

At GetReligion, which critiques press coverage of religion, Terry Mattingly suggests why we can’t ignore the “God hates fags” church, even if we wanted to: the Supreme Court is taking up a case about them:

The Supreme Court will review whether anti-gay protests at funerals of American soldiers are protected by the First Amendment, taking up the appeal of a Maryland man who won and then had reversed a $10 million verdict against the small Kansas church that conducts the demonstrations. 

But if we must write about them, Mattingly implores that we at least do so with “accuracy, balance and perhaps even good taste.” Most importanly, we should:

stress that — like thousands of other “Baptist” flocks of all sizes — this church is totally independent from ties that bind it to any other group that calls itself “Baptist.”

…

Simply stated, it is wrong to hang the actions of the Westboro team around the necks of other Baptists. It would only take one or two sentences to clear this up.

Just the other day, my colleague in Jewish journalism and hyphenated last names, Elana Kahn-Oren, had this cute Facebook update:

I’m getting concerned about my friends at the Westboro Baptist Church. I haven’t received a fax since Friday. I’m beginning to forget that America is doomed.

A hot read in my synagogue-going circle is Empowered Judaism: What Independent Minyanim Can Teach Us about Building Vibrant Jewish Communities, by Rabbi Elie Kaunfer.  Kaunfer is co-founder of Hadar, perhaps the best-known of the “independent” or “emergent” minyanim (which is basically Conservative Judaism for people who actually enjoy the prayer service more than they do the kiddush. But I kid.).

Kaunfer’s book is a program for breathing life into traditional, egalitarian Judaism, based on the success of the Hadar model. Which means? In this excerpt, Kaunfer describes its influence at, ahem, my synagogue:

Two former independent minyan leaders moved to the suburbs when they outgrew their one-bedroom apartment in New York City. They joined a synagogue that was well-attended and warm, but whose “main sanctuary” services didn’t offer the vibrancy they had experienced at Kehilat Hadar (www.kehilathadar.org), a flagship independent minyan in Manhattan. These former minyan leaders were looking for something that emphasized a vibrant, participatory service—and one that incorporated young children. So they started Minyan Koleinu. Koleinu is not strictly an independent minyan—all of the participants are members of the larger synagogue. But the service they put together is largely based on the model of an independent minyan: It is participant-led, includes the full liturgy, and incorporates new melodies on a regular basis. Significantly, the minyan has drawn in new people in addition to a number of long-time synagogue members. When clergy are open to this model, it represents a real possibility for change within a synagogue structure.

 Lots to talk about, which I’ll do when I finish the book.

Interesting and telling release from The Israel Project, titled:

Israeli Minister Apologizes for Timing of Jerusalem Building Plans

TIP is among the most visible of the groups formed to improve Israel’s public image, saying its mission is to help people “see a more positive public face of Israel. This helps protect Israel, reduce anti-Semitism and increase pride in Israel.”

If they’re being pro-active in getting Israel’s apology out there (as opposed to defending the housing plan and scoring Israel’s critics), it suggests that the pro-Israel mainstream thinks Israel fumbled this one, and damage control is necessary. Note among the suggested “expert sources” are Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major american Jewish Organizations, and Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States.

Of course, TIP squeezes in a defense of the housing plan, saying Netanyahu’s previously decared freeze on new settlements “would not apply to Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem that lie beyond the pre-1967 borders.”

The debate over who’s “pro-Israel’ continues. Here’s yeshiva principal Yotav Eliach’s “Litmus Test for Zionism“:

Until now, those who opposed the Jewish state’s basic policies were outsiders, if not outright enemies of the Zionist cause. But now we have Jewish groups who place the primary responsibility for the Mideast peace impasse on Israel, and call for a return to the pre-‘67 borders. They claim to be enlightened Zionists and call for the tent to be expanded to include them and their point of view.

I would propose a simple litmus test for organizations seeking to be defined as “pro-Israel,” and that would be the readiness to affirm each clause of Israel’s Declaration of Independence, including: that the Jewish people are a nation, rooted historically, religiously and culturally in the land of Israel; that Zionism is Jewish nationalism; and that Israel was re-established, not established, as a Jewish state in 1948.

When I checked the Web sites of J Street, and the other sponsors of the recent J Street conference in Washington — including Americans for Peace Now, New Israel Fund, Israel Policy Forum, the Shalom Center, Brit Tzedek V’Shalom, and Ameinu — only Ameinu had a clear, unambiguous statement of belief in Israel as a Jewish state.

Ameinu’s national president, Ken Bob, responds in “Big Tent Zionism Includes Progressive Wing“:

When Rabbi Eliach and others try to expropriate the word “Zionism” and the phrase “pro-Israel” for their own exclusive use, they are doing a disservice to the Jewish people. (more…)

Words of wisdom from Chuck Klosterman’s collection, Eating the Dinosaur:

But there’s one kind of writing that’s always easy: Picking out something obviously stupid and reiterating how stupid it obviously is. This is the lowest form of criticism, easily accomplished by anyone. And for most of my life, I have tried to avoid this. In fact, I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time searching for the underrated value in ostensibly stupid things.

Wow. He just condemned 90 percent of what can be read on blogs, including this one. I’d like to think that I can rise to his challenge. First step, I’ve got to stop reading stupid things. Wish me luck: I write about Jews and Israel.

Over at JPost, Shmuel Rosner, no lefty, has some strong words about the Israeli Interior Ministry’s decision, in the midst of Joe Biden’s visit,  to announce approval of plans for some 1,600 housing units in northeast Jerusalem. (Eli Yishai, of the Orthodox Shas Party, is the Interior Minister): 

1. This latest brouhaha will surely become yet another right-left debate on building in east Jerusalem. It should not – because it’s not about building, and not about Jerusalem: It is about the competence of the Netanyahu government.

2. If fact, there’s no debate to be having. All people, left and right, should be concerned by this show of stupidity.

3. Either one believes Netanyahu and his friends in government (saying it is all misunderstanding and bad timing). In such case, one should be concerned by Israel’s chaotic decision-making process on delicate matters. Or – one might choose not to believe. One might think Netanyahu isn’t telling the truth, or that Yishai is bluffing. If it’s the former, one will conclude that Netanyahu has no intention of seriously exploring the just-announced peace negotiations. If it’s the latter one will realize that Shas and Yishai are strong enough to toy with Netanyahu as much as they want – as much as embarrassing the American VP! – without paying a price. Not an encouraging thought.

Did the New York Times’ Ethan Bronner unfairly deal the race card in talking about Obama’s lack of popularity in Israel?

Mark Finkelstein of NewsBusters (“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”) suggests as much in this blog post, citing Bronner’s recent appearance with Chris Matthews. Finkelstein quotes the transcript of the interview:

MATTHEWS: OK, that tells you a lot. So tell me why the President of the United States is so far [less popular than the Clintons or Joe Biden]. Is it his middle name? Hussein?

BRONNER: I would say that there is some level of prejudice about the fact that he had some Islamic background through his stepfather. But I think it has more to do with the fact that when he came into office a year ago he wanted to recalibrate the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world. And the easiest and clearest way of doing that was to put some distance between the United States and Israel. And he did that, and that made people nervous. I think there’s also some sense here, some degree of racism to be perfectly honest.

MATTHEWS: Yeah, because they see him as a black man.

Finkelstein explains:

Are Israeli Jews much more bigoted than their American co-religionists? An astounding 77% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama. But according to Ethan Bronner [with a little "help" from Chris Matthews], anti-black “racism” and anti-Arab “prejudice” are significant factors accounting for PBO’s unpopularity in Israel.

A few questions of my own. Did Bronner insult Israelis by suggesting there may be “some” racists among them? Perhaps  Bronner, living and working in Israel all these years, has seen signs of racial intolerance in Israel in general and directed at Obama in particular. If so, I’d like to see the polling, the literature, or the anecdotes. Without evidence, it makes the “racism” less plausible than the other factors he describes, which have at least been reflected by poll data (polls, by the way, that also find that Israelis are more likely than American Jews to describe Obama as a “Muslim”). 

In invoking “racism,” is Bronner demonstrating “liberal media bias”? No doubt Obama’s defenders have been known to play the race card to deflect criticism of the president (not counting those instances when the racism is real).  So perhaps Bronner was parroting the liberal line in talking about racism. On the other hand, he also asserts that Obama “put some distance between the United States and Israel,” an assertion that conservative critics of Obama like to make (and many Obama supporters would deny).

By the way, Finkelstein writes that  Bronner considers ”racism” and anti-Arab (actually, anti-Muslim — Obama’s father’s people weren’t Arabs) “prejudice” as “significant factors” in Obama’s unpopularity. However, in referring to both, Bronner used the term “some,” as in “some level” and “some degree.” I suppose that even by raising them as issues Bronner suggested their “significance.” But even some American Jews were clearly racist and anti-Muslim in their opposition to Obama – I’ve spoken with and received emails and letters from Jews who were both. So to suggest that there is “some” degree of both in Israel doesn’t necessarily suggest that Israelis are more prejudiced than American Jews. I’m just saying…

If a reporter like Bronner can’t back up the charge of Israeli racism, his remarks were certainly wrong-headed. Were they biased? I’d need more proof.  (And for what it’s worth, Bronner’s critics today are as likely to be found on the left as they are on the right.)