Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
April 19, 2013
The Boston marathon terror incident awakens numerous responses. Perhaps the saddest one alluded to previously here and which has been mentioned in countless reports is that Boston is the new reality. It represents the nature of the modern world within which we sadly live. This is the way of the 21st Century.
It is, of course, the way of the world with which Israel largely has lived throughout the last several decades. Only more recently have the number of suicide bombers and gruesome bombings declined, only to be replaced by the more conventional choice of terrorists; Qassam rockets. The size of the potential dangers is so much greater in the U.S. than in Israel, but the finality of wholesale attacks in Israel could be cataclysmic.
There was an ironic juxtaposition in the tragedy in Boston on Monday and the failed Senate vote on background checks for gun purchases on Wednesday. While clearly unrelated, they do speak to the violent world within which we see apparently obsessed individuals sending terrifying chills through a nation, while elected lawmakers lack the courage to invoke a simple initiative which perhaps could reduce the threat of weapons ending up in the hands of deranged individuals.
It was predictable as well that now that the presumed perpetrators of the Boston tragedy have been identified as foreigners—here legally—that voices would be raised challenging the just introduced immigration reform proposal. It was suggested that admitting or legalizing those foreigners here illegally could well escalate the likely dangers to the U.S. imposed by foreigners. The opposition to immigration reform did not need very much help and now it remains to be seen if this perspective will shake votes away from the pro-reform forces.
Finally, the fears that these two apparent Chechnyian brothers may have been seduced by radical Islamic teachers suggests what many have feared for some time would occur. Al Qaeda and radical Muslims would seek non Arabs as the next generation of potential “messengers” to carry their poison to the West. No one ever believed that radical Islam needed a staggering number of converts from the West. If they now have succeeded in developing a string of recruits, the events in Boston may be only the beginning of what is yet to come.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
April 19, 2013
The Boston marathon terror incident awakens numerous responses. Perhaps the saddest one alluded to previously here and which has been mentioned in countless reports is that Boston is the new reality. It represents the nature of the modern world within which we sadly live. This is the way of the 21st Century.
It is, of course, the way of the world with which Israel largely has lived throughout the last several decades. Only more recently have the number of suicide bombers and gruesome bombings declined, only to be replaced by the more conventional choice of terrorists; Qassam rockets. The size of the potential dangers is so much greater in the U.S. than in Israel, but the finality of wholesale attacks in Israel could be cataclysmic.
There was an ironic juxtaposition in the tragedy in Boston on Monday and the failed Senate vote on background checks for gun purchases on Wednesday. While clearly unrelated, they do speak to the violent world within which we see apparently obsessed individuals sending terrifying chills through a nation, while elected lawmakers lack the courage to invoke a simple initiative which perhaps could reduce the threat of weapons ending up in the hands of deranged individuals.
It was predictable as well that now that the presumed perpetrators of the Boston tragedy have been identified as foreigners—here legally—that voices would be raised challenging the just introduced immigration reform proposal. It was suggested that admitting or legalizing those foreigners here illegally could well escalate the likely dangers to the U.S. imposed by foreigners. The opposition to immigration reform did not need very much help and now it remains to be seen if this perspective will shake votes away from the pro-reform forces.
Finally, the fears that these two apparent Chechnyian brothers may have been seduced by radical Islamic teachers suggests what many have feared for some time would occur. Al Qaeda and radical Muslims would seek non Arabs as the next generation of potential “messengers” to carry their poison to the West. No one ever believed that radical Islam needed a staggering number of converts from the West. If they now have succeeded in developing a string of recruits, the events in Boston may be only the beginning of what is yet to come.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
April 17, 2013
Since 9/11 many of us have been waiting for the next shoe to drop. Perhaps the truly amazing story is how successful law enforcement has been in actively or passively, directly or indirectly preventing another major event until now; but we all knew it would come and now it has.
The expected array of questions arise including as always where was the intelligence failure? (This question is like asking why can’t the police prevent all robberies and murders! They can’t prevent everything unless we find a way to change human nature.) While at this point no one appears to know if the Boston Marathon terrorist incident was the action of an individual or a group; a domestic or foreign motivated source; a deranged psychopath; or a potential serial bomber. What is clear is that the violent attack deliberately targeted one of America’s most peaceful, spring sporting events; and for no apparent reason—at least up to this time.
As is the lesson from previous incidents in the U.S., Britain, Israel and elsewhere, life must go on. New and additional precautions and vigilance must be instituted, but not ones which will encumber the freedoms which are an integral part of American democratic life. Heightened alerts and caution must not translate into restrictions on individual rights and freedoms. No demented individual or group or political enemy must be able to believe that they achieved any of their goals as a results of the horror that was committed in Boston.
Similarly, it is clear that all the resources of the finest crime fighting, anti-terrorist organizations in the world cannot prevent all potential terrorist activities. While the United States possess outstanding law-enforcement resources, no democracy can successfully restrict public activities in way that will guarantee that terrorist attacks will not re-occur. Deterrence and vigilance prevented numerous potential incidents over the past almost 12 years; and these are only the events about which we are informed. Criminal and sick minds will always be able to find ways to circumvent even the finest prevention models.
We are confident that law enforcement efforts will produce an accounting of what, how, and why this incident occurred. Hopefully, they will apprehend the perpetrators. Citizens continue on with their lives. As we reach out to the victims and we also soldier on.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
April 11, 2013
The announcement that the Chief Rabbi of France Gilles Bernheim has resigned brings to an end his personal deliberation as to how to respond to the scandal that surrounded the disclosures concerning his having committed plagiarism several times and to having mis-represented his own academic credentials on numerous occasions. The fact that it should not have taken him so long and that he should not have equivocated, unfortunately, likely will remain the central focus of discussion about this embarrassing episode; but in fact this ugly scandal within the French Jewish community exposes several other problems which also need to be reviewed.
Rabbis as leaders within the Jewish community are respected for their piety, their writing, and their scholarship. It is not sermons, speeches, or public style which is the measure of a rabbi’s greatness and authority. By plagiarizing, Rabbi Bernheim has undermined the very essence of what all rabbis are judged on. Publishing the words of someone else and representing them as your own can be considered to be theft and according some rabbinic opinions is actually precisely that. While Rabbi Bernheim’s actions are not as heinous as pedophilia, or sexual harassment for which other clergy have been implicated, they certainly bring great pain and embarrassment to the Jewish community; especially in France. This is so despite France’s long traditional willingness to expect and tolerate all forms of scandal from public figures.
Rabbi Bernheim’s conduct was clearly unconscionable; so much more so because he was a public personality not only within the French Jewish community but in his role representing the community to the French authorities. The shame that he has brought not only to himself but to the entire 600,000 or more Jews in France can only be exceeded by what consequences it might bring to the credibility and effectiveness of those who follow him in being accepted and respected as advocates for Jewish issues. Rabbi Bernheim had been in the lead in trying to fight the growing Muslim anti-Semitism in France. In addition, he had made significant inroads in interfaith dialogue. Now his successor and the leadership of the community will need to re-establish their credibility all over again.
There is another more complicated consequence to Rabbi Bernheim’s embarrassing behavior which relates more to the internal life of French Jewry. French Jews are overwhelmingly Sephardic today although before World War II they were almost totally Ashkenazi. When Rabbi Bernheim, an Ashkenazi scholar, was chosen to be Chief Rabbi, his selection had many implications in many French circles. He was seen as a more modern leader; a secularly educated figure; and considered to be more open, broad-minded, and enlightened than many of the leading French rabbis including the former Chief Rabbi; and his progressive philosophy was contrary to the direction that France’s religious Jewish community was moving. His resignation probably will reverse all of these directions as his successor is likely to be more traditional and less sensitive to a modern consideration of the contemporary agenda facing France’s Jews. At the beginning, he also will have less credibility within the larger French public. Given the fears and threats that many French Jews have about the Jewish situation in France today, the loss—to scandal—of a strong advocate at this moment could be very problematic.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
April 9, 2013
Leaving aside the vital and crucial role that the President plays in the legislative process, the constitutional forum within laws are made in the U.S. is supposed to be the Congress. Over the past few years there has been a very clear reluctance on the part of the Members of Congress to perform their jobs. While this has come about largely because of ideological battles within the Republican Party and vis-à-vis the Democrats in Congress, nevertheless, there are two procedural battles being waged and contemplated at this time which are a complete repudiation of the roles which legislators ought to be performing in the American Government. While there are many examples, it is specifically concerning the filibuster that both parties are operating foolishly and are failing to even gain a political advantage from their obstructive behavior.
It seems that the Republican Party is no longer prepared merely to vote against a bill they oppose or even to speak out against such a bill—even filibustering against it; there is now actually a group of 14 Republican Senators including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who are seeking to filibuster against the very motion which would permit gun control legislation even to be debated on the Senate Floor. Forget about whether they oppose the bill or proposals within and fear it could pass with a simple majority, this core of Republicans do not even want to have the issue debated. Regardless of whether one supports or opposes increased restrictions on how, when, where, by whom, etc., guns may be used in the country, it is readily apparent to the National Rifle Association and its supporters in Congress that the American people, after the Newtown massacre, want change. They know that if debated some bill will emerge from the Senate. Their solution, which Majority Leader Harry Reid now is opposing, is not to let the debate begin.
This brings us to the other side of the insane abuse of the legislative process. Democrats should cease avoiding to let the opposing side engage in an actual filibuster; as they did with Senator Rand Paul against the Brennan nomination to be CIA Director. To date Democrats have counted heads and when they did not have the votes to invoke cloture (60 votes to cut off debate) they did not let the filibuster continue. They refused to realize that permitting their opponents to talk themselves silly will ultimately—in the current climate—make the Republicans eventually lose the debate, the vote, and lose seats in the 2014 elections.
While it might be a political gamble, a few days—or even weeks--of non-stop debate in the Senate could be a major coup for the Democrats; but it requires leadership which like Obama in the White House the Democrats in Congress have not demonstrated. The debate over gun control, and eventually immigration, tax reform, Medicare, and Social Security should all be hung out by the Democrats for the country to watch as Republican refuse to vote on the bills, let alone to try to construct reasonable compromises. If the opposition to legislating is a filibuster let the speech-making begin and watch the public’s reaction.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
April 8, 2013
In his first term, President Obama established his place in history by gaining passage of the Affordable Health Care Act, but he was pursued by an entire array of national security issues beginning with the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars; the pursuit of Al-Qaeda; interrogation and prisoner abuse; and the implications of the political turmoil caused by the Arab Spring and the turnover in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and, what will certainly be, in Syria. Now he would like to address the economic crisis, tax overhaul, entitlement reform plus immigration and gun control. Unfortunately, as inevitably is the case, his large wish list may well be overwhelmed by North Korea, drone use, China, trade, Russia, and all the lingering Middle East issues.
There are also two perplexing behavioral issues about the beginning of this second term one of which may be easily resolved the other of which is beginning already to increase the skepticism among many observers as to whether the President has learned anything about the actual art of governing after four years in the White House. The first issue is why Obama waited so long to finally submit his budget to Congress. Given the outrageous performance that the public has witnessed during the past year as the President and Congress dilly-dallied about the FY 2013 budget plus the debt ceiling battles and sequestration, even the excuse that they needed to wait to see how everything left over washed out before submitting the FY 2014 budget does not work. This delay is an absolute guarantee for another budgetary circus next fall and winter.
Second, the President appears to be no more willing to use strong arm tactics to get anything done than he did in his first term. Admittedly he still has time to demonstrate the arrival of a new forceful legislative leader image as the battles are engaged very shortly on gun control, immigration, and social security. His weak behavior since January, however, does not suggest that a new model of tough guy President is emerging. While, there may well still be major legislative accomplishments to come in the months ahead, given that this work period for Congress until Memorial Day is critical, President Obama’s preparation to take on the Republicans and to force his own party members to make tough compromises does not look to be very optimistic.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
April 4, 2013
There is a fascinating phenomenon that may be developing in Israeli politics. The Israeli political party system just might be on the verge of changing without realizing it is doing so. The chaotic multi-party system might actually see itself merge individual, strict ideologies and programs into amalgams of the various parties; something parties in Israel have resisted since its inception; in fact even since the First Zionist Congress in 1897.
This is not at all a consequence of the decision made by Bibi and Lieberman to run their Likud and Yisrael Beitanu parties together for the election. That move was merely a matter of expediency and power politics, which actually failed. This joint team won considerably fewer seats in the new Knesset than they had amassed in the previous one. The merged parties received 31 seats where they previously had controlled together 42 seats (Likud 27 and Yisrael Beiteinu 15).
The evidence perhaps of new era in Israeli politics, rather, is suggested by the political behavior of the two political novices in the new Knesset, Yair Lapid and Naphtali Bennett. How Lapid decided to join a governing coalition together with Bennett, as a team together, may indeed signal the beginning of a new behavioral pattern in Israel. In truth, HaBayit HaYehudi and Yesh Atid have some positions in common especially with respect to making serious, substantive demands on the haredim including, but not only, military service. Yet, it appeared during the campaign and indeed when one considers the nature of their followings, that these two parties are strange bed-fellows.
Specifically the membership and followers of Bennett, which consist largely of right-wing, hardline religious Zionists as well as many from the settler movement in general, do not favor much movement, if any, on the peace process. On the other hand, Lapid and his supporters were clearly in favor of a two-state solution, although he admittedly displayed significant skepticism as to how much success could be achieved, at least at the present time.
It was the strength of how forcefully this duo succeeded in forcing their demands concerning the haredim on Netanyahu in their negotiations to join the Government that suggested perhaps the beginning of a systemic change. Their tenacity in holding firmly together under Bibi' s enticing offers was, politically speaking, unprecedented. The political implications of this action, should it indeed sustain itself or even grow, suggests the Israel party system may be on the verge of maturing. If these two groups can swallow their differences and make mutually acceptable compromises, then the entire Israeli political system could be in for a shock. Furthermore, if they also brought in under their umbrella someone like the former Shas maverick, Rabbi Haim Amsellem, their potential voter base could actually approach a majority. (In Israel’s almost 65 year history no party has ever controlled a majority of the seats without the need of coalition partners.)
Most scholars have argued for years that the multi-party insanity that constitutes the Israeli electoral system is totally unacceptable; despite the fact that no one denies that it is highly democratic. A system that is a contraction of the parties themselves would be revolutionary; but it means party leaders ready to sublimate their own rigid ideology for a more a more general goal.
Israeli parties are not there yet, but it soon may be time to start watching for a sign in how the parties start voting in the new Knesset.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
March 29, 2013
Between elections, forming a new Government, and Obama's visit, there was almost a total disregard of the nastiness of the environment within which Israel lives. Now matters seem to be heating up and at least some people are taking serious notice of the situation. Curiously, one of the tense spots in the region appeared, at the end of last week to have quieted down as a result of Obama's intercession, yet nowTurkey appears to be unsettled again as well.
Sadly, if indeed Turkey' Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan persists in ratcheting up the price for a resumption of normal Israel-Turkey relations, not only will he unnecessarily put the entire region through a heightened level of unnecessary stress and danger; but he may have actually confirmed to President Obama precisely the difficulty Israel has in trusting deals conducted with Muslim countries. The U.S. has failed to grasp that problem for years in Pakistan, now after the President publicly negotiated an Israeli apology to Turkey, it had been expected that the two countries were agreed to resume relations as they were before the Mavi Marmara incident. Now the Turkish leader seems set to place new conditions and further roadblocks before he will consider the return to prior relations. Ironically, this is precisely a moment--specifically given what might be developing in Iranand Syria-- that Turkey could actually benefit greatly from a joint strategy between Israel and Turkey.
**********
No Dove
Wednesday's Haaretz carried an extraordinary op-Ed column by Moshe Arens, a former Israeli Defense Minister, Foreign Minister, Ambassador to Washington, and very close Likud ally of Menachem Begin ,commenting on the Obama visit. Entitled Obama-friendship and empathy, Arens, not one to offer praise casually, sounded clearly confident that a new relationship had arrived. Said Arens:
No doubt, there has been a reset in the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
March 24, 2013
Atmospherics
The President’s whirlwind trip to Israel was a public success despite some absurd grumbling by some people about the traffic tie-ups in Jerusalem and on the major highways as the President kept to an intense and insane schedule of meetings. Jerusalemites were even angry that presidential helicopters could not fly due to a freakish sandstorm forcing last minute road closures for the motorcade to the airport. Some people observed that Obama was so exhausted that he was thought to have nodded off during the Presidential banquet. Other locals were frustrated that Obama messed up their pre-Passover activities by keeping them from their appointed preparations.
Overall, however, most Israelis were very pleased with what sObama aid and how he said it. Having waited for four years, Israel—the Government and the people—should be pleased that they successfully achieved much in this visit, although not all of it yet probably articulated. While the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, Obama left feeling he delivered his message well and the Israeli public was treated to the President at his best.
Any slights will be more than excused by most Israelis, except for many of the 80,000 plus American olim leaving in Israel who voted for Romney in November, as well as the preponderance of those American and foreigners who are arriving in Israel to celebrate Passover. These are not Obama supporters and nothing he could have said or done would have changed their mindset.
***********
The Arab Message
There are two reactions to the Obama message to the Arab world. On the one hand to the Muslims and to Iran he could not have been clearer concerning his commitment to back Israel. If Arab leaders listened carefully they understood that also as a challenge to them to move ahead on a peace initiative without preconditions.
As many Israelis saw the message to the Arabs, Obama was far less explicit to the Arabs than he was to the Israelis with respect to steps to peace. Some felt there continues to be a genuine timidity on the part of the White House to directly and bluntly recommend specific steps from the Muslims. The ultimate Israeli decision will be whether they recognize that a “possible” opportunity with no security danger?
*********
Turkey
An obvious accomplishment for President Obama was convincing the Israelis that they had much to gain if they repaired their relationship with Turkey. Israel ate crow and Turkey had assured the President that they would accept Israel’s apology if extended; so the two countries, hopefully, could return to normal relations. With respect to trade, security training, weapons systems assistance, Turkey has much to gain. Israel presumably once again has gained the rights to possible over-flying or aerial re-fueling over Turkey on the way to Iran—should that be necessary. It also probably has an agreed upon strategy to deal with Syria; the Assad Government, the refugee issue, the rebel forces, and military coordination. (This Israel-Turkey arrangement also will assist the U.S. in its growingly more complex relationship in Syrian conflict.)
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn
March 20, 2013
John Kerry’s early arrival in Israel for prep meetings before the President’s arrival and the announcement of his intention to return after the Jordan trip to meet with Bibi on Saturday night, sends two important signals which should not be ignored amidst the “fun and games” that these 48 hours are producing. Both suggest the interests and focus on the new Secretary of State as well as the White House.
First, when Kerry arrived at Foggy Bottom he reiterated his interest and commitment to try to work on moving Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. The fact that he did not drop in during his first round of diplomatic visits looks like it may well be even more compensated for by his focus now. The prep meetings were therefore an effort to begin the process so that perhaps a statement can emerge to this effect even before Obama leaves the region.
Second, Kerry is saying very clearly that he is willing to get his hands dirty to try to move the peace process along; even if it presents the frustrations that he knows it has always presented. Unlike the President and Hillary, Kerry must believe that has had longer and more on-going contacts with the parties as Senator. His sense must be that he has relationships upon which he can now draw. Finally, since Kerry lost his opportunity to be President,he would like to have a major accomplishment at State for the history books. He has gotten a green light from a very skeptical President to try it.
We shall see as thing develop.
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »
BACK TO TOP
Follow NJJN
E-Newsletter Signup