Jewish American Heritage Month

Posted By admin on December 5, 2020

Jair Bolsonaros unexpected election to the Brazilian presidency in 2018 appeared to herald a major reorientation of the countrys foreign policy. A self-styled nationalist inspired by Donald Trump, Bolsonaro has associated himself with the American presidents former advisor Steve Bannon, the philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, and the political scientist Filipe Martins (currently a counselor to the Brazilian president on international relations)all of whom see Israel as a model of successful nationalism. To them, the Jewish state is to be emulated for standing up to the globalism and imperialism of the United Nations and other international institutions which they see as engaged in the destruction of the Judeo-Christian roots of Western civilization. In parallel, pundits and professors have lumped together Bolsonaro, Trump, and Benjamin Netanyahu, along with a disparate group of other leaders, as examples of the supposed rise of right-wing populists.

Such comparisons obscure more than they reveal. Nevertheless, Bolsonaro has, in practical terms, cultivated friendly relations with Israels Benjamin Netanyahu, breaking with his countrys longstanding coolness toward the Jewish state. In this he may be motivated less by anti-globalist ideology than by the growing electoral strength of the traditionally Catholic countrys evangelical Christians. Brazil is home to some 40 million evangelicals, approximately 20 percent of the overall population. Bolsonaro owes his election in no small part to their support. To win them over, he has made the promotion of traditional valuessuch as the defense of the family and the legal restriction of abortionkey parts of his platform. And he has embraced something that heretofore has had little purchase on the Brazilian right: Christian Zionism.

Appealing to what seems to be very real pro-Israel sentiment among his evangelical supporters, Bolsonaro promised in 2018 that relocating his countrys embassy to Jerusalem would be a high priority. Yet two years later the embassy has not been moved, although five bilateral agreements have been signed between Brazil and Israel, establishing cooperation in national defense, cybersecurity, science, technology, and other important areas.

Why hasnt the newfound friendship between Bolsonaro and Netanyahu brought more results? Are such results yet to come? And, perhaps most importantly, will the reorientation toward Israel outlast Bolsonaro, or will his eventual successors revert to the old attitudes?

Friends of Israel may not think of Brazil very often, but they should. Brazil is both the largest and the most populous country in Latin America, and it plays an important leadership role in the region. Brazils decisions could pave the way for its neighbors to follow suit. What happens there could indicate something significant about the influence of the growing evangelical movements throughout South and Central America. To assess the likelihood of Brazilian evangelicals strengthening the Brazil-Israel relationship, historical context is needed, as is an investigation of the obstacles that stand in the way of closer ties between the two countries, and an analysis of the political situation Bolsonaro now faces.

For Israel, outreach to Latin America is something relatively new. In the 1950s, Jerusalem, realizing that its Arab neighbors had no intention of accepting the existence of a Jewish state in their midst, and that many Muslim countries further afield felt similarly, began trying to strengthen its ties with the developing world, often through the provision of humanitarian aid and technological assistance. But these efforts were mostly focused on nearby Africa rather than far-away Latin America, and in any case they largely came to a halt following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when, under pressure from the Soviet Union and the Arab League, several African countries severed relations. Israel thereafter tried directing its humanitarian diplomacy elsewhere, but it continued to neglect the Western Hemispheredespite the fact that nearly every country in the region had voted for Israels independence in 1948. That neglect came to an end in 2009, when Benjamin Netanyahu and his then-foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman embarked on their current mission of building and strengthening ties with countries from Japan to Azerbaijan to Nigeria.

While this strategy has brought major dividends in Africa, East Asia, Eastern Europe, and most recently with the Gulf states, it has progressed at a much slower pace in Latin America. Netanyahu did not visit the region until 2017the first Israeli prime minister to do sotraveling to Argentina, Paraguay, Colombia, and Mexico. The next year brought a major breakthrough when both Guatemala and Paraguay decided to move their embassies to Jerusalem. Thus, the election of Jair Bolsonaro in 2018 seemed to Netanyahu an ideal opportunity to build on his recent overtures.

But unlike the United States, Brazil does not have a history of philo-Semitism that roots the demands of Bolsonaros Christian Zionists in a widely shared cultural consensus. Moreover, the Middle East, and Israel in particular, have generally not been priorities for Brazilian diplomacy. And there is the fact that Brazil is one of the worlds largest exporters of halal meat and that the Arab countries, when taken together, constitute its third largest trading partner, behind only China and the U.S. According to Brazils Ministry of Economy, exports to the Arab world in 2019 exceeded $10 billion, in contrast to just $371 million to Israel.

That was one of the factors that prevented Bolsonaro, on his March 2019 trip to Israel, from announcing the promised move of the embassy to Jerusalem. According to him, it should happen soon. A first step came in the form of the opening of a commercial office there, inaugurated in December of last year. Little by little, the obstacles for Brazil to join the U.S. in recognizing Jerusalem as Israels eternal and indivisible capital are becoming less insurmountable. But the gains still seem tentative. And there is also the instructive case of Paraguay, which, three months after moving its embassy, moved it back to Tel Aviv following the election of a new president. Will Bolsonaros successor simply undo whatever he has accomplished?

To answer these questions, and to understand Bolsonaros moves, some larger historical context is in order. Brazilian involvement in the Middle East goes back to the 1870s, when the countrys Emperor Dom Pedro II visited Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. His motivations were in part religioushe was a fervent Catholic eager to see the biblical landsand in part scholarly, as he was also an orientalist with a firm command of Arabic and biblical Hebrew.

When Egypt gained independence in 1924, and Lebanon in 1946, Brazilby this time a republic rather than an empirewas among the first countries to establish relations. In 1947, when the UN held its historic vote to partition Palestine, the Brazilian ambassador Oswaldo Aranha by happenstance presided over the session, joining the ayes.

Nonetheless, Brazil had no special sympathy for the Zionist cause, as evidenced by its reluctance to establish diplomatic relations with the new state. Brazil voted for Israels creation primarily because the U.S. had done so, and its government was eager to stay in Washingtons good graces. And like many lesser powers, it wanted to show that it was a member in good standing of the international community. It thus backed the creation of UNRWA, the UN organization that supports Palestinian refugees and their descendants, and in 1956 contributed troops to the UN peacekeeping mission in the Suez. Above all, it sought to project an air of neutrality and of support for the recommendations of the UN, whether those were to create a Jewish state in the former British Mandate or, in 1967, to call on Israel to withdraw from territory it had seized from Egypt and Jordan. While Brazils approach to the Middle East has gone through many shifts in the postwar era, the common thread running from 1945 to 2018 has been this almost blind adherence to United Nations resolutions.

This policy of UN- and U.S.-supported neutrality was already showing cracks when the Yom Kippur War and the subsequent Arab boycott shattered it. At the time, Brazil was ruled by one of a series of military governments, which had other reasons to distance itself from Washington and to seek greater autonomy by intensifying trade agreements with countries not aligned with either the West or with Moscowsuch as the Arab nations.

These commercial ties inevitably had political consequences vis--vis the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially when it came to votes at the UN General Assembly. In addition to calling for Palestinian statehood, Brazil recognized Yasir Arafats Palestine Liberation Organization as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians. Worse still, it voted in favor of the fateful infamous 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism.

As the cold war came to an end, and democracy returned to Brazil, its Middle East policy zigzagged. Lula da Silva, who was president from 2003 to 2010, sought to establish the countrys place on the world stage by distancing it from the U.S. Consequently Lula maintained a good relationship with Israel, but prioritized the Arab and Muslim countries, including Syria, Libya, and Iran. His approach brought impressive economic dividends: exports to Arab League states increased nearly sixfold during his presidency.

Brazilian faith in the United Nations is not as irrational as it might at first seem. To policymakers in Braslia, international organizations are a key means of exercising political influence, especially within Latin America. Brazil is a developing country with limited economic and hard military power, and thus it desires good relations with the largest number of countries possible. In forums such as the UN General Assembly, Brazil can demonstrate its soft power and position itself as a role model in the promotion of human rights and the protection of the environment.

Jair Bolsonaros election represents a rejection of this approach. By adopting Trump-style anti-globalist rhetoric, he incorporated into his foreign-policy platform ideas that have long played a role in the American national conversation. But although Bolsonaros appeals to nationalism struck a chord with voters, there is a mismatch between his rhetoric and geopolitical realities. Washington can afford to adopt a critical stance towards international institutions, and even withdraw from UN organizations such as the WHO or UNESCO, while maintaining its relevance on the world stage. If Brazil does so, however, it sacrifices its influence, alienates its allies, and even has trouble making trade agreements.

Despite these downsides, Bolsonaro has plowed ahead with this anti-globalist foreign policy. In a sense, moving the embassy to Jerusalem is a natural stepanother way for Bolsonaro to thumb his nose at the international consensus, albeit in this case with good justification. The same is true for the Bolsonaro governments support for Israel in international forums.

At the same time, the wealthiest Arab states no longer wish to punish countries for pursuing ties with Israel, and in this respect Bolsonaro has far more leeway than his predecessors. His recent trip to the Persian Gulf, and frequent meetings between high-ranking officials in his government and Arab diplomats and businessmen, suggest that he values cordial relations with the rest of the Middle East and that Brazil has not suffered economically from its pro-Israel turn. Likewise, it seems reasonable to speculate that moving the embassy wouldnt lead to substantial backlash.

Yet such an abrupt and concrete shift in favor of Israel would undoubtedly be met with intense criticism from Bolsonaros domestic opponents. It would also increase the risks that the next government would simply reverse course. Several Brazilian diplomats, unhappy with the countrys current direction, have already begun to outline what they believe the post-Bolsonaro Brazilian foreign policy should beand have made clear that this would involve returning to the former neutrality regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict. But the president remains popular, and he might intend to use the transfer of the embassy to Jerusalem as a way to strengthen evangelical support ahead of his bid for reelection in 2022.

The road from Braslia to Jerusalem, however, is long and has many stops. Not only in the Gulf, but also in Washington. As already mentioned, historically the Brazilian stance concerning the Israel-Palestinian conflicthas always been conditioned on relations with the U.S. This has never been truer than now. Bolsonaro has deliberately connected his support for Israel to the strengthening of Brazilian relations with the United States. This relationship, however, remains highly personalfocused on Trump and Netanyahu rather than on their respective nations.

Thus, during the summer and fall, the biggest obstacle in the strengthening of relations between Brazil and Israel has been uncertainty regarding the American elections. Currently, Bolsonaro is practically the only international leader who has not yet recognized Bidens victory, expressing doubt about the legitimacy of the voting and apparently holding out hope that Trump still has a chance of remaining in power.

This situation has left Brazil isolated in the Western world and has potentially worsened ties with the incoming American administration. President-elect Biden has already harshly criticized Brazils environmental policies during his campaign and has suggested that he will hold the South American country accountable for damage to its rainforests. Under these circumstances, moving the embassy to Jerusalem would seem too risky a step without Washingtons support. However, Bolsonaro has made clear several times that when it comes to foreign policy, his main concern is not the national interest as commonly understood but the preferences of his supporters. Thus he still might move the embassy to Jerusalem in the hope of winning a second term.

All told, the situation reinforces the prejudices many Brazilians have about Israel and the Jews: that they are aligned with the far right and engaged in a European colonial project in the Middle East. These opinions, and the anti-Semitic baggage that come with them, are especially common in certain precincts of the countrys leftwhich are precisely those likely to come to power at the end of Bolsonaros term in office. To create a lasting and solid friendship between Israel and Brazil, it will be necessary for Brazilian friends of the Jewish state to demonstrate that warm relations between the countries arent merely a boon to politicized evangelicals, but substantially benefit the national interest.

See the original post:
What Stands in the Way of Closer Ties between Brazil and Israel? - Mosaic

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on What Stands in the Way of Closer Ties between Brazil and Israel? – Mosaic
Tags:

Posted By admin on December 5, 2020

Not long after its founding, Agudat Yisrael came to be a metaphor for charedi Jewrys confrontation with modernity in general and with religious Zionism in particular.

Essentially born of anti-Zionism, Agudah maintained as one of its principal guiding ideas that Zionism is incompatible with Torah Judaism. As such, although it developed an active presence in Eretz Yisrael, its focus was on dwelling in the land which is a Torah commandment rather than establishing Jewish sovereignty there. Accordingly, while it sought recognition and status for the charedi community in Eretz Yisrael, it refused to be included in the political bodies of the Yishuv.

The origins of Agudah lay in the Tenth Zionist Congress held at Basel, Switzerland in August 1911 at which the Zionist movement suppressed the political aspect of Zionism in favor of cultural and economic policy, marking the end of the friction between the practical Zionists and the political Zionists.

Though ironically dubbed the Peace Conference, there wasnt much peace with or within the Orthodox Mizrachi camp, which was bitter due to the adoption by the Congress of the cultural program, pursuant to which the Zionist Actions Committee was charged with carrying out educational activities in Eretz Yisrael and Eastern Europe. This program was an anathema to many of the charedi leaders, who believed that religious Judaism could not coexist with a secular Jewish culture.

Charedi leaders were actually less worried about the threat presented by Herzls secular Zionism, which it saw as drawing much of its support from already assimilated Jews, than it was about the Mizrachi movement, a Torah-true organization with an appeal to Agudahs base and which therefore presented an unacceptable challenge to both Agudahs theological approach and to its general hegemony.

Seeing the writing on the wall i.e., that the cultural Zionists were about to take command of the Zionist movement the charedim held a meeting prior to the commencement of the Tenth Congress, which resulted in the drafting of a resolution that nothing that is contrary to the Jewish religion should be undertaken by any institution for cultural activity by the World Zionist Organization.

When the Congress defeated the proposal and adopted the cultural program, many delegates and leaders withdrew from the WZO and, a year later, joined German Orthodox separatist leaders and Eastern European traditionalist opponents of Zionism to form Agudat Yisrael.

The founding conference of the World Agudat Yisrael was held in Kattowitz, Upper Silesia in May 1912, with some 300 delegates in attendance, who began the difficult task of uniting the disparate views of Orthodox communities across Europe under the Agudah flag. The conference appointed a temporary council charged with founding Orthodox organizations across Europe and established the first Moetset Gedolei HaTorah (the Council of Torah Sages) as a rabbinical body charged with passing on the propriety of all the Agudahs major actions.

The aim of World Agudat Yisrael became to strengthen Orthodox institutions independent of the Zionist movement and Mizrachi. Due primarily to the efforts of Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Reines, head of the Mizrachi movement, most Mizrachi members remained with the WZO. (The Agudah would not drop its anti-Zionist position until after the Holocaust.)

Although the Agudah launched branches throughout Lithuania, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, it proved most successful in Poland and, by the early 1920s, it became perhaps the most influential political Jewish party in Poland. Agudah members held themselves out as good citizens indeed, as patriots of the Polish fatherland, thereby earning the goodwill of the Polish people and facilitating the promotion of Jewish civil rights within the existing political structure.

During World War I, German Rabbis Pinchas Kohn and Dr. Emmanuel Carlebach as the rabbinical advisors to the German occupation forces in Poland worked together with R. Avraham Mordechai Alter, the Gerrer Rebbe, to unify much of Eastern European and Western European Orthodox Judaism under the Agudah umbrella.

The movement, which quickly gained important support, particularly from chassidic and charedi Jews, ran a slate of nominees in post-World War I Polish elections and obtained great electoral achievements, including the election of Alexander Zusia Friedman, R. Meir Shapiro, R. Yosef Nechemya Kornitzer, and R. Aharon Lewin of Reysha to the Polish Sejm (parliament).

In August 1914, Agudah commenced preparations for convening a worldwide Knessiah Gedolah (Great Congress) as a counter to the Zionist Congresses, but the start of World War I made such a plan unworkable. The First Knessiah Gedolah, which was held in September 1923 (from the 4th to the 11th of Elul) at the elegant Opera House in Vienna, Austria, was a seminal event in the modern history of Jewish Orthodoxy. Chaired by Rav Yehuda Leib Zirelsohn, it was attended by many of the worlds greatest leaders, including R. Yisrael Meir Kagan, the legendary Chofetz Chaim.

Other attendees included thousands of Jews seeking to join their revered leaders in standing up for the ideals and goals of Agudat Yisrael. One segment conspicuously missing, however, were religious Zionists, whom the Agudah rabbis viewed as a danger on par with assimilationism.

The Chofetz Chaim offered a beautiful parable to explain the purpose of the Knessiah Gedolah as part of his address at the gathering:

Various medical professionals surrounded the bed of a critically ill patient. In accordance with his medical specialty, each of them paid close attention to a particular organ or body part and proposed various treatment regimens.

Suddenly, one of the physicians approached the patient and listened to the beat of his heart. Wait, he announced to his fellow doctors, listen to his heart. The heartbeat is very feeble. First, let us get his heart to beat normally again, and then we can consider other medical issues.

My dear brothers, the heartbeat of the Jewish people is the Torah, and the slowed beat of its heart is manifest. We have come here to save the very heart of the Jewish people.

The slowed beat of its heart was the result of the new freedom Jews gained with emancipation, which flowed from the modern Enlightenment and led to materialism, socialism, and the abandonment of the Torah by many Jews and Jewish communities. The Knessiah represented the first 20th century gathering of world Torah leaders to unite in the struggle against secular and assimilationist movements that were threatening the survival of Torah Jewry.

Exhibited here is a rare and beautiful Knessiah Gedolah card mailed from Vienna on September 23, 1923. It depicts a globe inscribed Agudat Yisrael atop the three pillars of Agudah, based upon Pirkei Avot 1:2: Torah, the Temple service, and practicing acts of piety. Also shown is a Delegates Card for attendance at the Knessiah.

The Knessiah passed a resolution conveying its blessings and hopes for a successful term to President Calvin Coolidge and, while expressing gratitude that America served as a refuge for large numbers of Jews, it asked the president to use his influence to liberalize the immigration laws. To the great disappointment of the American Jewish community, Coolidge was unaffected by the Knessiah resolution and, worse, he signed the Johnson-Reed Act, an immigration bill that restricted Jewish immigration to the United States.

One of the major topics of discussion at the conference which caused great disagreement was Agudat Yisraels relationship toward organized Zionism in general and toward the Mizrachi in particular. The principal accomplishment of the Knessiah, however, was the remarkable ability of the various factions and interests to unify for a single directed purpose and to promote a feeling among world religious Jewry again, except for the Zionists that they were a single community united in its commitment to fight assimilation and non-Torah values.

Protesting the persecution of Jews in Russia, the Assembly also adopted separate resolutions urging the Soviets to modify their attitude on the subject; upholding schechita (ritual slaughter); and promoting increased religious observance, particularly greater Shabbat observance worldwide.

It also determined to send a prestigious group to America, including the Chofetz Chaim and the Gerrer Rebbe, to recruit followers for the Agudah. The mission (which ultimately did not include these two personalities) proved highly successful and led to the establishment of the Agudat Yisrael of America.

The Knessiah was further notable for challenging long-established Eastern European Orthodox practice by promoting Jewish education for girls. Although the idea to found yeshivot for girls had been initiated by Sarah Schenirer a few years earlier when she opened the first Bais Yaakov school, the Knessiah championed the establishment of Bais Yaakovs across Europe and allocated significant funds for their support.

However, the most historically significant event at the Knessiah an episode with repercussions that reverberate to this day was undoubtedly a proposal presented by a 36-year-old rabbi, who captivated everyone with his eloquence and brilliance. Rav Meir Shapiro, then rav of Sanok, Poland and future rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Chachmei Lublin, was selected to present to the plenum the suggestions and decisions of the Vaad LeInyonei Chinuch (Committee on Matters of Education).

On August 16, 1923, after enumerating the plans to strengthen Jewish education and practice, he sought permission to present a personal proposal, which shook the very foundations of Torah study: that Jews in all parts of the world should study the same daf (page of Talmud) each day, with the goal of completing the entire Talmud in about seven and a half years. As Rav Shapiro himself beautifully explained it to the delegates at the Knessiah:

What a great thing! A Jew travels by boat and takes Gemara Berachot under his arm. He travels for 15 days from Eretz Yisrael to America, and each day he learns the daf. When he arrives in America, he enters a beis medrash in New York and finds Jews learning the very same daf that he studied on that day, and he gladly joins them. Another Jew leaves the States and travels to Brazil or Japan, and he first goes to the beis medrash, where he finds everyone learning the same daf that he himself learned that day. Could there be greater unity of hearts than this?

In those years, only some of the 63 tractates of the Talmud were being studied regularly, while others, such as Zevachim and Temurah which focus on topics that relate to the Temple ritual were hardly studied at all. Originally, Rav Shapiro saw Daf Yomi as an appropriate program only for the religious youth of Poland, but his idea was greeted so enthusiastically by the nearly 600 delegates at the Congress, including many Torah leaders from Europe and America, that the program was accepted by practically all religious Jews worldwide.

The first cycle of Daf Yomi commenced a few weeks later on the first day of Rosh Hashanah 5684, September 11, 1923. To show support for the new program, the Gerrer Rebbe learned the first daf of Berachot in public. On November 12, 1924, when Tractate Berachot was completed, Rav Shapiro published a calendar for the entire cycle of Daf Yomi study.

Exhibited here is a very rare correspondence handwritten by Rav Shapiro on his personal letterhead and dated Sanhedrin 40 (it was his practice to use the Daf Yomi to date his correspondence). He sends blessings for the New Year to the rav of Sekowil and closes with a statement about saying the Shehecheyanu blessing on the second night of Rosh Hashanah.

Rav Shapiro (1887-1933), who earned broad recognition as a great illui and gaon at a very young age, received semicha from a number of the greatest rabbanim of the time, including the Maharsham. He went on to serve as rav in Galina (1910-1920), Sanok (1920-1924), Petrakov, and, finally and most famously, in Lublin, where he established the world-renowned Chachmei Lublin Yeshiva, which trained many hundreds of rabbanim who went on to serve as leaders of Polish Jewry.

The cornerstone of the yeshiva was laid in 1924, but it would not be able to open its doors until six years later at the culmination of R. Shapiros fundraising efforts throughout Poland and the United States. With R. Shapiro simultaneously serving as rav of Lublin and as rosh yeshiva, Yeshiva Chachmei Lublin became one of the most venerated yeshivot of its time.

In 1914, R. Shapiro was appointed head of the Education Department of Agudat Yisrael in East Galicia; went on to become president of Agudah in Poland (1922); and became an honored member of the Moetset Gedolei HaTorah. He became the first Orthodox Jew to become a member of the Polish Sejm, serving from 1922-1927; although his lack of proficiency in Polish limited his effectiveness, having a leading rabbi in the Parliament constituted an important symbolic encouragement to the Jews of Poland.

Sadly, he died of typhus at the very young age of 46.

Excerpt from:
The First Agudat Yisrael Knessiah Gedolah And The Introduction Of The Daf Yomi - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on The First Agudat Yisrael Knessiah Gedolah And The Introduction Of The Daf Yomi – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com
Tags:

Posted By admin on December 5, 2020

The Philippines national flag. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

The Confederation of General Zionists (CGZ) a faction of the World Zionist Congress (WZC) gave a special certificate to the first secretary and consul of the Philippines Embassy in Israel, Reichel Quinones, on Sunday in honor of the republics aid to Jews during the Holocaust and its support for the creation of the State of Israel, The Jerusalem Postreported.

The certificate, awarded in a ceremony at the Philippine Embassy in Tel Aviv, noted the republics vote in favor of UN General Assembly Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947, and the Open Doors policy of the late former Philippines President Manuel Quezon.

Quezon offered a safe haven to Jews seeking refuge from Nazi persecution and his Open Doors policy saved over 1,300 Jews, according to a CGZ press release, cited by The Jerusalem Post.

Resolution 181 called for the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Philippines was the only Asian country to support the resolution, which helped pave the way for the creation of the State of Israel.

The Jewish people have a long memory and President Quezon deserves to be remembered for his brave act of kindness during such a dark period of Jewish history, stated CGZ Vice Chairman David Yaari. As leaders of the General Zionist faction of the World Zionist Organization, we deeply appreciate the consideration of the Philippines to vote in favor of Resolution 181 (the partition plan) on November 29, 1947.

Former Knesset member and CGZ Secretary-General Dov Lipman said, In a world filled with enemies of Israel and the Jewish people we cannot take it for granted when a country saves Jews and supports Israel.

We owe a debt of gratitude to thePhilippine government and people, and today was just the beginning of showing our appreciation, he added.

Excerpt from:
Philippines Honored for Aiding Jews in Holocaust and Support for Creation of Israel - Algemeiner

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Philippines Honored for Aiding Jews in Holocaust and Support for Creation of Israel – Algemeiner
Tags:

Posted By admin on December 5, 2020

The recent publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation reconfirmed what many of us have been arguing for some time: that antisemitism is a real issue in the Labour Party, that requires serious confrontation.

Antisemitism in left-wing and radical movements is not new, dating back to at least the mid-19th century. One of the oldest themes of antisemitism, the conflation of Jews with money and finance, was incorporated into some early critiques of capitalism. Since the 2008 financial crash, conspiracy-based critiques of capitalism, which often demonise particular Jewish figures, have had a resurgence.

This has happened most prominently on the far right, including via Hungarian Prime Minister ViktorOrbns promotion of conspiracy theories about George Soros, and Donald Trumps campaign ads that overlaid footage of Jewish figures from the financial sector with narration about global special interest groups but also on the left, including in sections of movements such as Occupy.

Antisemitism on the left has also manifested in certain critiques of Israel and Zionism, which radically overstate Israels role and power, and allege a powerful or even controlling Zionist influence on world affairs. The late Moishe Postone, a Marxist academic who wrote extensively about antisemitism on the left, called this form of anti-Zionism the anti-imperialism of fools: a version of anti-imperialism that makes Zionism central to, and synonymous with, world imperialism.

The presence of these ideas on the left significantly predates Jeremy Corbyns leadership of the Labour Party, and there is not one quick fix to uproot them. The publication of the EHRC report could have been an opportunity to discuss these issues and turn the page on how antisemitism in the Labour Party is dealt with. However, so far this necessary process has been obstructed by vicious infighting.

Jeremys statement on the day of the EHRC report was ill-advised. But the decision to suspend him and remove the whip was, I believe, unjust and lacking due process. When we should be coming together to tackle antisemitism and reach out to Jewish communities who of course are not monolithic, and contain lots of different experiences and opinions we again end up fighting each other instead.

Party members feel strongly and want to do something about the situation. Many are putting motions to their Constituency Labour Party (CLPs). I support the right of party members to express concerns about due process and natural justice, and to express solidarity with Jeremy and I believe a blanket ban is wrong for this reason. Neither do I support the threat of suspending CLPs for hearing such motions.

However, it is also the case that officers of the party have legal duties with regard to the EHRC report. It is important that, when we discuss the situation, we separate the issue of fairness for Jeremy from those of the general issues of the EHRC report and wider problem of antisemitism.

When this separation does not take place, I am concerned that many Jewish members feel unwelcome and, yes, unsafe as a result of the way that debates relating to antisemitism are often conducted and handled at CLP level. We have a duty to protect the wellbeing of all Jewish members and ensure they feel welcome and included in everything we do in our local parties. After all, how democratic can a debate or discussion be said to be if many Jewish members do not feel able or safe to attend in the first place?

Tackling antisemitism and implementing the EHRC recommendations must be at the forefront of our minds and form a bare minimum in terms of the basis for any further or related discussions. The position of our side of the party, or short-term accumulation of political capital, should not come into it.

I appreciate that this balance between democracy, freedom of expression and inclusivity is a difficult one for us all to navigate, and that we might not always get it right. I include myself in this. In any case, contributions that are antisemitic or deny or downplay the existence of antisemitism in the party can never be acceptable and must always be challenged, and we should all take responsibility for this. In particular, it is the responsibility of CLP chairs and other party agents to intervene and to ensure a safe space where all party members feel comfortable and welcome.

A transparent disciplinary and complaints process, that ensures due process for both complainant and accused, is essential for making the party a hospitable and accessible environment for all its members. However, disciplinary measures are in themselves an insufficient way of tackling antisemitism on the left, given that it often comes not from a place of hatred or conscious hostility towards all Jewish people, but ignorance about common tropes that have been used against Jews, and why they can be discriminatory or hurtful.

Confronting antisemitism in the party means mobilising a large cross-section of the membership in an effort of political education, and convincing members as yet unsure about the issues of a political common sense that rejects these tropes. This requires the ability of members to discuss these issues in an atmosphere of mutual respect, and it is a great shame that the current atmosphere in the party doesnt enable such conversations. Thats why a timetable of training, education and any changes to disciplinary measures needs to be communicated to CLPs as soon as possible.

Admirably, some local parties have taken it upon themselves, without national resources or support from party officials, to arrange training on antisemitism. As one of the organisers of Sheffield Heeley CLPs education series wrote on LabourList: In recent years, the party has waxed lyrical about political education but actually done very little Here, we have tried a more participatory and discursive approach. It has, we believe, allowed us to cut through the often fraught arguments about antisemitism on the left and grapple with the complexities of the issue on their own terms. While we would not claim to have all the answers, we are proud of what we have achieved and urge other comrades to follow suit.

The national party should support other local parties in rolling out similar programmes. Until the party makes a serious turn to consistent political education (and not only on this issue), we will be unable to establish the robust, critical, rational political culture one that rejects antisemitism, conspiracy theories, and bigotries of all types and ensures that we are effective in arguing for the democratic, internationalist, socialist policies our party should advance.

Its tempting in these emotive debates to pick a side and refuse to listen to one another, when what we need is nuance, clarity and empathy. Its not a contradiction to fully support the recommendations of the EHRC report, to believe Jeremys statement was ill-advised and to oppose the way he has been treated. Communicating the idea that more than one thing can be true at the same time is difficult to navigate particularly on social media platforms where there is a decided lack, and even deliberate removal of, any nuance.

I know I am not alone in my determination to move on from this period. We have a Tory government mishandling the coronavirus crisis, an economic recession that is about to bite hard and a new round of brutal public spending cuts to fight. I still believe that the left of the party, as well as the party as a whole, can come out of this dark episode stronger and more united, but only if we are willing to be crystal clear on the acceptance and implementation of the EHRC report in full and are determined to do the hard work to contribute to the party being a safe and welcoming place for all members.

Read more:
Labour antisemitism must be confronted with nuance, clarity and empathy - LabourList

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Labour antisemitism must be confronted with nuance, clarity and empathy – LabourList
Tags:

Posted By admin on December 5, 2020

Written by Isheka N. Harrison

Dec 04, 2020

On Jan. 5, Georgia voters will head to the polls again to decide whether Republican incumbents Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue will retain their seats or if their Democratic challengers Rev. Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff will prevail.

The run-off races for Georgias senate seats are being watched around the world since they will determine who has the balance of power in the congressional body.

With it begin called two of the most important Senate races in history, GOP candidates are doing everything they can to try and pull out a victory.

One of the most recent strategies by Loefflers campaign has been to launch vicious attacks on Warnock, who is the senior pastor of Atlantas historic Ebenezer Baptist Church (The church was once pastored by Rev. Martin Luther King Sr. and was heavily involved in the Civil Rights Movement).

Ads from Loefflers camp accuse Warnock of him of celebrating hatred by allying with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the once longtime pastor of former President Barack Obama who came under fire for remarks from his sermons which included him saying God d**m America for its racist history.

In the sermon, Wright said the following: When it came to treating her citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing God Bless America. No, no, no, God d America, thats in the Bible for killing innocent people. God d America for treating our citizens as less than human. God d America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme! The United States government has failed the vast majority of her citizens of African descent. Think about this, think about this. For every one Oprah, a billionaire, you got 5 million Blacks who are out of work.

In the ads, the announcer calls Warnock a radicals radical and says Warnock defended Jeremiah Wrights hatred, then gave him an award for truth-telling. Warnock celebrated anti-American hatred.

However, the ad includes heavily edited footage from a Fox News interview from 2008 that omits key information and context, The Washington Post reported.

But that snippet leaves off a long, nuanced explanation from Warnock. We celebrate, uh, Reverend Wright in the same way that we celebrate the truth-telling tradition of the Black church, which when preachers tell the truth very often it makes people uncomfortable. He went on to say that the country had been done a disservice by the airing of clips of Wright without the context in which he made these remarks, the Post reported.

Loefflers campaign also has a website called Radical Raphael.com that calls Warnock, The Most Radical and Dangerous Candidate in America. Her ads also leave out the fact that it was the divinity school Warnock attended that honored Wright, not Warnock himself, Politifact reported.

The attacks, however, dont seem to be working as a recent poll exclusively commissioned by 11Alive shows though the races are still too tight to call Warnock is leading over Loeffler.

Listen to GHOGH with Jamarlin Martin | Episode 73: Jamarlin Martin

Jamarlin makes the case for why this is a multi-factor rebellion vs. just protests about George Floyd. He discusses the Democratic Partys sneaky relationship with the police in cities and states under Dem control, and why Joe Biden is a cop and the Steve Jobs of mass incarceration.

According to the SurveyUSA Poll, Warnock leads Loeffler 52 to 45 percent. In the other race between Ossoff and Perdue, they each have 50 percent of the vote, with Ossoff having a 2 point lead.

Loefflers campaign has also painted Warnock as anti-Israel, but the reverend called the accusation false.

I know Rev. Wright, Warnock told MSNBCs Willie Geist. Im not an anti-Semite. Ive never defended anti-Semitic comments from anyone and Kelly Loeffler knows better Any fair-thinking person would recognize that everything a government does, even the American government, is not consistent with Gods dream for the world.

A spokesperson for his campaign doubled down on Warnocks statements.

The reservations he (Warnock) has expressed about settlement activity do not change his strong support for Israel and belief in its security which is exactly why he opposes ending direct military aid to such a strong ally, the spokesperson to the New York Post.

Read more:
MAGA Weaponized Rev. Jeremiah Wright And Zionism Against Rev. Raphael Warnock: Its Not Working - Moguldom

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on MAGA Weaponized Rev. Jeremiah Wright And Zionism Against Rev. Raphael Warnock: Its Not Working – Moguldom
Tags:

Posted By admin on December 5, 2020

Come next month, in January 2021, the Israeli politician Gilad Erdan will be joining a long and storied list of characters, and heroes, who have had the job as Israels top representative in Washington. As Erdan both prepares for and settles into his new positionshe has already begun serving as Israels ambassador to the UNit might behoove him, and the rest of us, to learn about his predecessors, and their experiences representing the Jewish state in the American capital.

Israels first ambassador to Washington, Eliahu Eilat (1948-1950), was not one of the better known of Erdans predecessors. He did, however, receive what may have been the most illustrious assignment: notifying President Harry Truman of Israels declaration as a state and requesting American recognition of that state. In a May 14, 1948 letter to Truman, signed with his not-yet-Hebraicized name of Epstein, Ambassador Eilat let the president know of Israels pending assertion of independence, and expressed the hope that your government will recognize Israel and welcome Israel into the community of nations. After a legendary internal struggle, and over the objections of Secretary of State George Marshall, Truman agreed to do so, beginning a long friendship between the two nations.

While Truman started a friendship between the United States and the nascent Israel, Marshall held a grudge against its ambassador. He would not deign to meet with Eilatas we shall see, he would not be the last secretary of state to refuse such meetingsso Eilat looked for allies on the Hill. Eilat started a long Israeli tradition, taken up with special ingenuity by its ambassadors, of finding Congress to be more friendly territory than the State Department, and often more generous as well. Eilat successfully lobbied Congress to help Israel get a vital $100 million Export-Import Bank loan in 1949.

Eilat only had the job for a few years, but he was replaced by one of the longest serving and best known of the Israeli ambassadors to Washington, Abba Eban (1950-1959). On becoming ambassador, Eban went to the White House to present his credentials to Truman, a formal occasion typically steeped in protocol. Truman, however, would have none of it, grabbing Ebans credentials from him and saying, Lets cut out the crap and have a real talk!

If Eilats innovation was learning how to work Congress, Ebans innovation was reaching the larger American public. He did this both through travel and via the relatively new medium of television. Eban charmed Americans with his posh British accent and his witticisms, becoming informally known as The Voice of Israel. To a Boston audience, he said, If your tea is always like what I drank here this morning, Im not surprised that you threw it into the harbor. Eban, who had earned a rare Triple First at Cambridge, one of the highest designations possible there, had a quick wit. Once, when praised for his Oxford English, he retorted, Cambridge actually, but in politics one expects to be smeared.

Eban had a difficult assignment because advocating for Israel in Washington was an uphill battle. (He was ambassador to the UN as well, the last person to wear both hats until Erdan). There were vicious splits regarding Israel inside the Democratic Truman administration; the Republican Eisenhower White House was more unified, but unfortunately more hostile. As Eban wrote in his autobiography, if there was anything to admire in America in the mid-fifties, it surely lay outside its Middle Eastern policies.

Even though the Soviets were helping Egypt, the Eisenhower administration began by refusing to assist Israel. To try to change Eisenhowers mind, Eban used a variety of tools, including eminent figures on the American scene. According to Emmanuel Navons new diplomatic history of Israel, The Star and the Scepter, Eban got the celebrated physicist Albert Einstein to weigh in on Israels side. Einstein died before embarking on the planned media tour on behalf of Israel, but the letter he wrote with Ebans help on the issue was released after he died. It was one of the last things Einstein ever wrote.

Ebans efforts in front of American audiences, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, helped improve Israels standing in Washington. But his charms worked better abroad than in Israel itself, where television was a rare luxury. In 1956, according to his biographer Asaf Siniver, Eban was more recognizable in America than he was in Israel. This sense of Eban as more of a foreigner, as Mr. America to Israelis, stunted his political ambitions at home. When his rival Golda Meir was told that Eban wanted to run for prime minister, she acidly asked, Of what country?

Another famous ambassador to the U.S. was the Israeli general and future Labor prime minister Yitzak Rabin (1968-1973). Rabin remains the only Israeli ambassador to the U.S. to rise to the top job in Israeli politics, although the current Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu did serve as the deputy chief of mission. While in Washington, Rabin befriended the Nixon speechwriter William Safire, and they both attended the 1970 Yom Kippur services at Washingtons Adas Israel Congregation. Regardless of their levels of religiosity, hitting the synagogue circuit was an important way for ambassadors to see and be seen in the American Jewish community.

On this occasion, Rabbi Stanley Rabinowitz gave a blistering sermon attacking those who would use alliteration to polarize our societyan unsubtle allusion to the famous speech Safire penned for Vice-President Spiro Agnew criticizing the nattering nabobs of negativism in the American media. Safire, who had made a serious effort to stop traveling with Agnew and return to Washington for the holiday, squirmed uncomfortably during the sermon; he wrote later that this was not the sin he had come to atone for. Rabin comforted Safire about the slight and, according to Safire, probably chided the rabbi about it afterwards. Safire was forever grateful for Rabins commiseration, and they long remained friends, despite frequent ideological disagreements.

Besides his friendship with Safire, Rabins tenure in Washington had other lasting effects. He had developed a good relationship with President Nixon, which was helpful when Nixon pushed through crucial arms shipments to a beleaguered Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. And on a personal level, Rabin recalled picking up a love for both tennis and whiskey during his Washington tenure, two habits that remained with him. He also picked up an American bank account, in his wifes name, which was illegal at the time and later caused him to step down from the premiership in 1977.

Even more involved in the 1973 Yom Kippur War was Rabins successor at the embassy, Simcha Dinitz (1973-1979). Dinitz was in constant contact with the U.S. national security adviser Henry Kissinger throughout the war, both on the rearmament issue and on the complex negotiations governing a ceasefire. Once Israel had turned the tide and was on the offensive against the Egyptians, Kissinger was desperate to get the Israelis to stop their advance, both to facilitate a ceasefire and to reduce the risk of the Soviet Union entering the conflict. He called Dinitz from the White House Situation Room to stress the point, eventually exclaiming, Jesus Christ, dont you understand? Suddenly remembering to whom he was speaking, Kissinger stopped, and said, Oh. Dinitz, in response, told Kissinger that he might be more persuasive if he would cite a different prophet.

Kissinger, typically, gave back as good as he got. During a spring 1974 shuttle diplomacy trip to the Middle East, Kissinger saw Dinitz speaking to some reporters. Referring to the good press Israel used to get in those long-ago days, Kissinger joked, See, Dinitz is now handing his instructions to the press, adding Simcha is reviewing his troops. Kissinger may have been irked, but, in working the media, Dinitz was doing his job.

Despite his squabbles with Kissinger, Dinitz was happier dealing with the Nixon administration than with Jimmy Carters team a few years later. The administrations hostility started at the top with Carter, but also with National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. Brzezinski and Vance were rivals who disagreed on nearly every key foreign policy issue, but they presented a united front when it came to being critical of Israel. At one point, Dinitz went to Carters domestic policy adviser, Stuart Eizenstat, to complain about the negativity, saying, I would like to take away [Carters] anger at Israel. He is dealing with an ally.

Moshe Arens (1982-1983) would encounter a friendlier environment when he served as the Israeli ambassador to Washington during the Reagan administration. Arens, one of three Israeli ambassadors to Washington to have grown up in the U.S., was well regarded in Reagan world. He developed close friendships with Reagans two secretaries of state, Alexander Haig and George Shultz, as well as Reagans vice-president and successor George H.W. Bush. Another important Arens friendship was with then-Congressman and future Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp. Kemp was an advocate for free-market economics and influenced both Arens and Arenss protg, a man by the name of Benjamin Netanyahu, on the benefits of the market system. Kemps teachings would have huge implications for Israel, since Netanyahu as both finance minister and prime minister would later help drag Israel away from its socialist origins and transform it into the startup nation that it is today.

Arens also helped develop the relationship between Israel and Americas evangelical Christian community. He befriended the Israel supporter and Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell, Sr. during his tenure as ambassador. Later, as defense minister, he spoke to Falwell and a group of 600 evangelical leaders visiting Israel. In helping to convert Israel away from its socialist past and in cultivating Christian Zionists, Arens was instrumental in developing two of the key drivers that transitioned the Republican party from its anti-Israel past to its current incarnation as a staunchly pro-Israel party.

Another ambassador during the Reagan years was Meir Rosenne (1983-1987), who was known for his sharp sense of humor. When the lights went out at a dinner at his residence with Secretary of State Shultz, the dinner guests sat in near darkness as the security people went on alert. Rosenne, however, used the situation to his advantage, telling Shultz, You see we need economic assistance. . . . I couldnt pay the electric bill. The line was particularly resonant given that Israel was in the midst of real economic misery at the time, with 400-percent inflation, and Shultz was an important figure in helping reshape U.S economic aid to benefit the struggling Israeli economy. A tougher Cabinet secretary to woo was Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. Weinberger was so incensed over the U.S. Navy analyst Jonathan Pollards spying for Israel that he told Rosenne that he thought that the U.S. should have executed Pollard instead of imprisoning him.

Zalman Shoval (1990-1992 and 1998-1999) would have a tough time as ambassador during the George H.W. Bush administration. The Bush team fought with Israel on the issue of $10 billion in loan guarantees for housing for refugees from the Soviet Union, which the American administration wanted to condition on their exclusive use within the Green Line, demarking Israels 1948-1949 armistice lines. Israel would not commit to the ban. This blowup led to the notorious incident in which Bush, complaining about pro-Israel lobbying on the issue, especially from Hadassah, publicly grumbled that, I heard today there was something like 1,000 lobbyists on the Hill working on the other side of the question. Weve got one lonely little guy down here doing it.

Shoval was one of those complaining about the Bush administrations approach, both to the American Jewish community and in the press, which irked the Bush team even further. As part of his efforts to work the media, Shoval had given an interview to Reuters in which he criticized the Bush administration for its delay on the loan guarantees and also for noting that Israel had yet to receive one cent in aid for Iraqi Scud missile attacks. The Bush administration was furious with Shoval over his comments, with the president himself calling them outrageous. Shoval had to apologize, saying, I did say some things which diplomats are supposed not to say, and I am sorry for that.

One exception to the hostility to Israel in Bush-world was Vice-President Dan Quayle, a longtime Israel supporter dating back to his days in Congress. In the midst of the loan guarantee tiff, both Shoval and Quayle appeared before the Miami convention of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council. The 1,000 attendees gave Shoval multiple standing ovations in a show of support. Quayle did not say anything, but embraced Shoval to convey that he still stood with Israel. Shoval was appropriately diplomatic about Quayles signal, smiling and saying, I think the message got across. I will now prove my diplomatic proficiency and expertise by not adding any comment. Quayles support was also indicative of the rising pro-Israel sentiment in the GOP, which would be evident both in Congress and in subsequent Republican administrations.

Shoval found the Bush administration difficult, but he also got to appreciate the challenge his predecessor Dinitz had faced with the Carter administration. When he and his wife Kena met Carters national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, now a private citizen, they were dismayed to find out how little he knew about Israel. Brzezinski expressed surprise at learning that Kenas parents arrived in Palestine in 1921. What? Brzezinski asked, There were already Jews there?

Shoval left for a number of years but returned to Washington during the Clinton administration. He recalled being surprised when he first saw the youthful-looking Bill Clinton and Al Gore, remarking that they looked like a couple of bar-mitzvah boys. Later, he would visit Clinton and give him a copy of Psalms, telling him, Mr. President, you will find the solution to all your problems in this book. What Shoval did not know at the time was the extent of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Later, after all of the lurid details came out in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starrs report of the Clinton affair, Shoval was afraid that Clinton might not have taken the gift in the way it was intended. In Shovals mind, Clinton was thinking, Not only did that Jewish girl get me into this bind, the Jewish ambassador comes along to make fun of me.

Shoval also accompanied Clinton to the Israel-Palestinian negotiations that took place at Wye Plantation on Marylands Eastern Shore in October 1998. While there, he got into a golf cart with then-Minister of Trade Natan Sharansky, which, Shoval recalled, Sharansky operated like a race car. (Interestingly, Shoval was not the only Israeli ambassador to have a scare in a motorized vehicle while visiting an American president. Ephraim Evron [1979-1982] recalled visiting Lyndon Johnsons ranch in the 1960s, long before becoming ambassador, and driving around with Johnson in his jeep. Johnson, who liked to scare passengers with his aggressive driving, ended up flipping the jeep with the two men inside it. Nervous Secret Service agents had to rescue them from a ravine.)

Shovals replacement, David Ivry (1999-2002), had previously served as head of the Israeli Air Force during Israels successful raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. The U.S. issued an obligatory condemnation of the raid at the time, but when George W. Bush came to office, there was a newfound appreciation for this bold act. Vice-President Dick Cheney, who had served as defense secretary under Bush senior during the first Gulf war, was particularly appreciative of Ivry. Cheney gave Ivry a signed satellite photo of the destroyed Iraqi reactor, which the latter proudly displayed in his embassy office: For Gen. David Ivry, with thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job he did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981which made our job much easier in Desert Storm.

Danny Ayalon (2002-2006) benefited from strong relationships with top members of the George W. Bush administration, as well as members of Congress from both parties. A much chillier reception greeted his successor, the historian-turned-diplomat Michael Oren (2009-2013). He repeatedly asked for a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, only to be consistently rebuffed, reminiscent of Eilats failures to get a meeting with Secretary of State Marshall. In one instance, Oren ran into Clinton while both of them were attending the same event and she mocked his failure to get a meeting with her. According to Oren, Clinton approached me and socked me in the arm, laughing, Michael Oren! Ive been calling you and calling you but you never return my messages!

Clintons snubs were far from the only indignity he encountered in the Obama years. President Obamas famously profane chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, unhappy with Prime Minister Netanyahus challenging of Obama at a White House visit, made his displeasure clear to Oren. As Oren recalled, Emanuel pump[ed] a half finger into my chest ... and bark[ed], You do not fking come to the White House and fking lecture the president of the United States!

But perhaps the worst indignity that Oren suffered was after Israel announced the building of housing in eastern Jerusalem while Vice-President Joe Biden was visiting Israel. After Clinton berated Netanyahu over the announcement, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg summoned Oren to the State Department for his own talking to. As Oren recalled, Steinberg added his own furious commentdepartment staffers, I later heard, listened in on our conversation and cheeredabout Israels insult to the president and the pride of the United States. Little wonder that Oren would write Ally, a revealing memoir about the Obama administrations treatment of both him and Israel.

Given his challenges with the administration, Oren had to diversify his efforts, doing a lot of media, outreach to the American Jewish community, and work in Congress. But he had to walk a careful line while doing so. Once, when scheduled to appear on Fox News, Oren found out that the appearance would be in a split-screen interview with the Obama critic and outspoken Israel ally John Bolton. This put Oren in a quandary of either having to defend Obama or join with Bolton in piling on him. Neither option was appealing, and so he demurred and asked that the interview be solo. Bolton, however, was unhappy with Orens Solomonic approach. When they met in person after the interviews, Bolton physically lunged at Oren, he wrote, so fiercely that my security detail stepped in to restrain him. In addition to the physical assault, there were words as well, as Bolton told Oren, Youre afraid to go on a split screen! You know what you are? Youre a weenie!

With the Jewish community, Oren made a special effort to highlight Israels increasing disquiet with Iran. In 2010, Oren did the Yom Kippur trifecta, speaking to Conservative, Orthodox, and Reform synagogues over the course of the one-day holiday. In his visits, he conveyed the message that Iran was the key issue facing Israel, over and above the challenges of Gaza and peace with the Palestinians.

When it came to Congress, Oren found himself working increasingly closely with Congressional Republicans. He worked with House Speaker John Boehner on setting up a speech by Prime Minister Netanyahu in front of Congress, something that infuriated the Obama administration. Boehner had a ready explanation for why the conversations took place without involving the administration, saying, Theres no secret about the animosity that this White House has for Prime Minister Netanyahu. I frankly didnt want that getting in the way. Unsurprisingly, this explanation failed to assuage the administration, and the Obama team warned that no administration officials would receive Netanyahu on his visit.

Like Oren, the current ambassador Ron Dermer (2013-2020), Erdans immediate predecessor, also had his troubles with Democratic policymakers. The biggest disagreement, in 2015, stemmed from another address by Netanyahu to a joint session of Congress, in which he denounced the Obama administrations Iran deal. Once again, many Democrats blamed Dermer for his role in setting up the visit in conjunction with the GOP leadership in Congress and without, they claimed, first consulting with the White House. Both Oren and Dermer saw firsthand the increasing challenges Israel was facing with a Democratic party that was becoming increasingly split over the issue of Israel.

Dermer would find things easier in the current White House, where he was a frequent visitor. He had a particularly close relationship with Vice-President Mike Pence, with whom he attended an Indiana Pacers-Miami Heat basketball game when Pence was governor of Indiana. Dermer, a Miami native and sports fanatic, bet Pence on the outcome of the game, which the Pacers won. The next day, Dermer, a good sport, was seen wearing a Pacers yarmulke in payment for his loss. It remains unclear what Pence would have had to wear had the Heat won.

Regardless of different approaches, these emissaries have all had the same basic mission: to represent the state of Israel in the capital of its most important ally. To navigate the challenging waters of Washington, Erdan will have to deploy humor and straight talk, cultivate relationships with the media, maintain good ties on both sides of the aislean increasing challenge these daystend to the demanding splits and fissures within the American Jewish community, and keep his government at home happy as well. Its a difficult job, but theres no better way to figure out how to do it than to look to the example of his impressive predecessors.

Barak Eisenman assisted with research for this article.

Excerpt from:
A Brief History of Israel's Ambassadors to Washington, Their Successes, and Their Troubles - Mosaic

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on A Brief History of Israel’s Ambassadors to Washington, Their Successes, and Their Troubles – Mosaic
Tags:

Posted By admin on December 5, 2020

This Weeks Guest: Richard Goldberg

It has been widely reported that, in late November of 2020, the Israeli prime minister secretly flew to Saudi Arabia for a meeting with the kingdoms crown prince. That these two leaders met at all is noteworthy; that they might have discussed the possibility of normalizing relations between the Jewish state and the wealthiest and most influential Arab country is momentous.

It is easy to see what Israel stands to gain from peace with the Saudis. But whats in it for Saudi Arabia? What would it gain, and what would it risk losing?

Richard Goldberg, a Middle East expert and a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, tackled these questions last week here in Mosaic. In this podcast, he joinsMosaic editor Jonathan Silver to discuss what brought the Middle East to this current moment, how the upcoming change at the White House is affecting Saudi thinking, and whether Israeli-Saudi normalization is truly on the horizon.

Musical selections in this podcast are drawn from the Quintet for Clarinet and Strings, op. 31a, composed by Paul Ben-Haim and performed by the ARC Ensemble.

Excerpt (42:49-45:24):

Richard Goldberg

Theres two thoughts here. One is: why waste time? The Emirates didnt wait, you [Saudi Arabia] shouldnt wait either. Its not going to be any less beneficial to you to normalize if you wait versus if you do it now, so just do it now. Start normalizing the normalization in Washington; make people start seeing you a different way before the Biden administrations even installed, so youre getting ahead of whatever they might be planning in their first few days, so you have the initiative, not the other way around. I think the case for doing it sooner rather than later is very strong. You want to shift the media narrative preemptively. You want to change the strategic calculus preemptively. We dont have nominees even declared for several sub-cabinet posts that will prove critical. The whole Middle East changes before theres a new presidency, and that new presidency has to deal with it if you do it now.

The case for waiting, as Ive been told, is that this will be our [Saudi Arabias] gift, our foreign policy achievement for President Biden to have. This wont all have been a Trump legacy of Arab-Israeli normalization that Democrats want to distance themselves from, so they too will have ownership over this major accomplishment. It will be Bidens to tout and to believe in, and therefore if he likes the fact that he is also a co-father of Middle East peace, maybe even a bigger Middle East peace prize, then it will ingratiate the Saudis to the new administration and give them a seat at the table in all these conversations about Iran policy and Muslim Brotherhood policy, in addition to the security guarantees of continued arms sales and the strategic relationship with the United States. Its to make it something that a President Biden not just wants to defend, but wants to claim as an accomplishment and to build upon.

More about: Abraham Accords, Israel & Zionism, Israel-UAE Peace Agreement, Saudi Arabia

Read the rest here:
Podcast: Richard Goldberg on the Future of Israeli-Saudi Relations - Mosaic

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Podcast: Richard Goldberg on the Future of Israeli-Saudi Relations – Mosaic
Tags:

Posted By admin on December 5, 2020

Abraham Lincoln once said The Philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. If Lincolns statement holds true, stormy days may be in store for bilateral relations between the US and Israel.

The last three decades have ushered in a hostile discourse surrounding Israel on University campuses. With the war in Vietnam ending and a post-communist world order emerging, Israel became a convenient target for the far left in academia. Jews were now builders and creators of the most ethical and moral country in the Middle East, no longer shrouded in a post-Holocaust victimhood status. This newfound Jewish resilience, coupled with a rise of Anti-Zionist sentiments at US Universities fueled by overseas funding, may result in shifting dynamics between the US and Israel.

I can recall taking a course at George Washington University 20 years ago titled Imperialism in the Middle East. As part of the course curriculum, we were required to visit Georgetown University one evening to hear Edward Said speak. As he embarked on his remarks disparaging the Jewish state, I remember looking around the auditorium and being in awe of the sheer number of people who came out to hear him.

Without a doubt, Said helped pave the way for academics such as Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer to mainstream AntiSemitism with the publishing of their book The Israel Lobby in 2007. He also helped elevate the careers of many Professors schooled in Anti-Zionist ideology such as Prof. Rashid Khalidi, who serves as an endowed chair in Saids memory at Columbia Universitys School of International and Public Affairs. More recently, Palestinian terrorist hijacker Leila Khaled was invited to speak at San Francisco State University. Under the guise of being a free marketplace of ideas and thoughts, it would seem that even terrorists are now being welcomed onto University campuses.

In an article titled How Middle Eastern Governments Encourage Anti-Semitism on Campus which appeared online on Mosaicmagazine.com this year, it was revealed that from 1986-2018, Middle Eastern Muslim countries donated a total of $6.5 billion to U.S universities. Qatar, for example, is one of the largest funders of Hamas and The Muslim Brotherhood while also providing the bulk of Middle Eastern donations to American universities (over $1 billion over the last decade) through their Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development. And while Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has taken steps to liberalize Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud has pumped more than $350 million into 37 American schools over the last decade.

These spending sprees by Middle Eastern countries are often used to set up Middle East Studies departments and sponsor faculty who will propagate their own views on Israel and Western civilization as a whole. Mitchell Bard, a fellow at Campus Watch, recently cited a report on foreign gifts where the US Department of Education noted, There is very real reason for concern that foreign money buys influence or control over teaching and research.

The synergy between the establishment of the Qatar Foundation and the rise in popularity of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a group who has initiated and tried to implement the antisemitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, is also hard to ignore. Both were founded within five years of each other, a mere couple of years following the fall of the Soviet Union. Once a loosely formed and disorganized group, SJP now has over 150 chapters worldwide and hosts an Israel apartheid week on hundreds of University campuses.

SJP can also lay claim to a political victory. This past September, Columbia Universitys student body voted in favor of a BDS referendum. While only 40% of the student body participated, the referendum passed with approximately 61% of the students approving the measure. Incidentally, Columbia is where Edward Said started to shape the dialogue surrounding Israel and the BDS movement and where Professor Khalidi currently teaches.

While the framing of the conversation surrounding Israel has changed dramatically on college campuses, has it altered U.S. policy towards Israel? Fissures in the bilateral relationship have started to emerge. We now know that former president Barack Obama quietly pushed for passage of UN Resolution 2334 in 2016, which demanded an end to Israeli settlement building east of the 1949 Armistice line. The United States then refused to exercise its veto power and abstained, knowing the resolution would pass.

This is in stark contrast to the moving speech that the late liberal icon Daniel Patrick Moynihan gave on November 10, 1975 fighting back against the UNs Zionism is Racism declaration. He stated, his voice laced with emotion, that America does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act. Additionally, the growing influence of the anti-Israel Squad within the Left wing of the Democratic party will also potentially damage the bond between the US and Israel. Their votes in The House carry equal weight to their pro-Israel colleagues. Their popularity has also emboldened other candidates with questionable views on Israel to run for office, as evidenced by the candidacy of Raphael Warnock for that critical Senate seat in Georgia.

Was President Obamas actions at the UN one last parting shot at Israel, or was it the catalyst for a departure from precedent regarding US protection of Israel at the UN? Are the rise of anti-Israel left wing forces within the Democratic party part of a passing fad, one that will lose its luster in the coming years? Or is it part of a larger movement destined for increased influence and power within a major political party in America? For those of us who care deeply about the future of the US-Israel relationship, these events should force us to start thinking more critically about the current climate on our college campuses. After all, the students now walking the halls of our universities will be the future decision makers walking the halls of Congress.

Irit Tratt obtained her Masters in International Affairs with a focus on the Middle East from The George Washington University. Upon graduating, she worked as a Legislative Assistant handling foreign affairs for several members of Congress. She currently lives in New York.

Read more here:
Are Universities Producing the Anti-Israel Foot Soldiers? - The Times of Israel

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Are Universities Producing the Anti-Israel Foot Soldiers? – The Times of Israel
Tags:

Posted By admin on December 5, 2020

Joe Bidens up and coming climate czar John Kerry has claimed the reason Russia came to Syrias aid several years ago was because ISIS was threatening Damascus. And he also more or less admitted to the U.S. role assisting ISIS because the U.S. thought Syria might thus be brought to the negotiating table. But what has been most elusive in this carnage, a decade long in Syria that continues with Zionist strikes on Syria that have gone unchallenged by the U.S. and the EU, is an adequate explanation as to why Syria under popular Assad ever constituted a real threat to anyone in the Middle East (West Asia). Was it a threat because Syria has long hoped that the Golan would be returned to Syria? Not likely. Or that Syria has long condemned Israeli apartheid and land theft? Not likely.

The answer actually is quite simple. The U.S. and the Zionists want to remain dominant in the Mideast (West Asia), and so the aim is to reduce sovereign countries to vassalage and penury. Already the world in this century has seen millions of innocents murdered in the region. And the assassination on November 27 of one of Irans top nuclear scientists, almost certainly by Mossad or its proxies, really has very little to do with a nuclear weapons program in Iran that in fact does not exist.

Heres the problem: expertise with nuclear science and even its use for energy and medicine, even when its not directed to weapons specifically, gives a country like Iran the potential nuclear weapons. The JCPOA was and remains, if only it would be resurrected by a U.S. return to the deal and the elimination of sanctions, an effective bar to a shift of Iranian nuclear expertise to weapons. The mere fact that the U.S. scuttled the deal bares the Trumpist aims: incite Iran to respond as a pretext for a U.S./Israel/Saudi/UAE war on Iran.

As to who was behind the killing of one of Irans top scientists (again), one highly respected writer, who before retirement worked at the CIA for over two decades wrote a private message to a friend on the 27th: Yes this is one instance where it (the assassination) begs to be credited to Israel, but in reality I am sure it is Trump/Pompeo who ordered it...and more is coming.

If this ex-CIA employee is correct about more is coming between now and Bidens inauguration, one can only literally pray that Irans leadership has the resolve and strength not to respond to the provocation of November 27 or any other provocation that would be used as pretext for war, at least not between now and January 20 when Biden is supposed to become President based on his apparent, resounding election win.

Iran has shown remarkable restraint, and the world knows it, for a very long time, a time measured in decades. In the U.S., too, one also must wonder if Trumps aggressions, if they do result in a war, might be a war staged as a ploy by Trump to declare a national emergency and suspend Bidens move into the White House come January 20th. This is a question that must be asked, since Trump and his gangster administration seem hell-bent with trying to nullify the election by any means possible.

It has been said that it is always darkest before the dawn. Its hard to imagine a darker moment in the Middle East (West Asia) than now. Netanyahu and the Zionists are doing more damage than ever in the West Bank, planning more settlement expansion and destroying Palestinian property with extreme prejudice. The faux peace deals with the corrupted Arabs along the Persian Gulf have nothing to do with peace, but largely involve arms sales to frightened Arab regimes whose economies are not doing well. The Nobel Peace Prize is even begging to be abolished what with the nomination of Netanyahu and the UAEs despot for the prize.

It is almost unreal, or surreal, how dark things have suddenly become. It would be strongly in Irans favor if the Islamic Republic does not overreact to the provocations at this time and save their responses for a day when the U.S. and its horrific allies have been badly weakened by their ignorance and spite. That day is coming, someday.

Read the original here:
An assassination has made a dark Mideast darker than ever - Tehran Times

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on An assassination has made a dark Mideast darker than ever – Tehran Times
Tags:

Posted By admin on December 5, 2020

CHAUTAUQUA, N.Y. Chautauqua Institution and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum will jointly present an online program titled The Tehran Children: Irans Unexpected & Suppressed Connection to the Holocaust, inspired by Mikhal Dekels 2019 memoir Tehran Children: A Holocaust Refugee Odyssey.

Dekel will participate in each segment of the two-part, 90-minute presentation, to air live beginning 7 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 8, on the institutions CHQ Assembly video channel.

Chautauqua Institution is honored to reconnect with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and to continue a partnership that began in 2018 when Sara Bloomfield delivered a stirring and poignant lecture in our Amphitheater. That lecture, during a week on History and Memory in the 21st Century, has a clear and meaningful through line to this co-presented program on the Tehran Children, said Michael E. Hill, president of Chautauqua Institution. We at Chautauqua feel mission-bound to facilitate these important cross-cultural and historically minded conversations, as part of our exploration of the best in human values through civil dialogue. In our current political and societal moment, we are proud to provide opportunities for understanding, and we thank USHMM for their enthusiastic partnership.

A finalist for the 2020 Chautauqua Prize, Tehran Children tells the little-known story of the of the more than 1 million Polish Jews who fled the Nazis by traversing the Soviet Union, and in particular nearly 1,000 children who were evacuated to Iran. Dekels late father, Hannan Teitel, was one of these Tehran Children; the book is the culmination of her decade-long journey to understand the 13,000-mile odyssey at the core of his young adulthood an experience which he never talked about, though it informed every aspect of his being.

The program is part of the museums Sardari Project, with IranWire.com. Today Irans leaders actively suppress and deny Holocaust history and spread antisemitic propaganda and conspiracy theories. As a result, Iranian citizens are largely unfamiliar with their countrys role during World War II.

The first segment of the Dec. 8 program will be a panel discussion exploring Irans role in this lesser-known Jewish refugee rescue and how this discovery has the power to shape identity and transform the perspective of young Iranians. Dekel will be joined in conversation by Arash Azizi, a journalist with IranWire and former international editor of Kragozaran, an Iranian daily newspaper, and author of the new book The Shadow Commander: Soleimani, US, and Irans Global Ambitions. The discussion will be moderated by Dr. Edna Friedberg, a historian with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The second segment, an Authors Talk, will feature Dekel in conversation with Chautauqua Institution Director of Literary Arts Sony Ton-Aime on the power of the storyteller, how history and current events shape the writers identity and perspective, and, specific to Dekels life, how new knowledge has informed one Holocaust descendants identity.

The two-part Tehran Children program will be presented among the complimentary offerings of Chautauquas CHQ Assembly platform. Audiences are invited to pre-register for the free program at tehranchildren.chq.org. Each segment of the program will conclude with a live audience question-and-answer.

Today we think of the Iranian regimes Holocaust denial and antisemitism, but there is also a rarely told story about the Iranian people welcoming Jewish refugees during WWII, said United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Director Sara J. Bloomfield. Exploring lesser-known aspects of this history can challenge our assumptions which is what good education does.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Follow this link:

'The Tehran Children: Iran's Unexpected & Suppressed Connection to the Holocaust' program set - timesobserver.com

Category: Holocaust Denial | Comments Off on ‘The Tehran Children: Iran’s Unexpected & Suppressed Connection to the Holocaust’ program set – timesobserver.com
Tags: