The Silence of Beinart

The following was sent to the Forward as an op-ed submission on March 24.

On April 8, due to my previous misunderstanding, I agreed to have it appear as a letter.

I checked today and my letter wasn't there. Another from April 16th was, however.

It may as yet still appear.

In the meantime, here it is:

Reading yet another Peter Beinart attack on AIPAC (“AIPAC IsPlaying The Victim, But It’s Palestinians Who Are Being Silenced”, March 26) as part of his decade-long assault on American Jewish Establishment institutions and influence, playing on one of his frequent themes that somehow the victims of an enforced campaign of silencing are the Arabs of the former British Mandate territory of Palestine who are still, after they have numerous times rejected diplomatic solutions for more than nine decades, seeking their state, I was first taken aback by his defense of Minnesota representative Ilhan Omar.

Her anti-Jewish agenda, expressed through many statements going back years, is clear. As is said, even for a “goyisheh kop” her sentiments are obvious. Money, hypnotism, etc. For Beinart, however, “Omar, has suggested, flippantly, that AIPAC wields power because its supporters give politicians money”. It was a joke. It was her sense of humor. If it weren’t so unfunny, I’d compare that remark to Hamas’ mistakes in consistently firing missiles from Gaza deep into Israel. But I realized that for Beinart, his success depends on how outlandish he can stretch his logic so that instead of disturbing people who actually think, he wows them with the most extreme convoluted possibilities.

By the way, Omar insinuated that AIPAC directly gives money, “Benjamins”, but why should Beinart need to feel he must be exact in his assertions. Many of his other assertions and ideological interpretations are also just enough inexact as to allow him to hypnotize, sorry, bewitch a younger generation of American Jews.

Beinart’s next step in this piece is to identify AIPAC with the “Right”. He does that writing “AIPAC also wields power because of a strong cultural, ideological and religious affinity for Israel, particularly on the right.” Why “particularly”? Hasn’t AIPAC been a power no matter what Israeli government has been in power? Hasn’t AIPAC been a power no matter who is on its governing bodies?

But Beinart is on a silencing campaign of his own and there is nothing better than to accuse someone or something of the exact sin in which you yourself are engaged in yourself. He is well aware of that maneuver.

He continues to silence Omar’s troping of anti-Semitic similes. Omar’s “push for allegiance to a foreign country” in relation to AIPAC and other Jewish groups “is simplistic and misleading”.  Note: Omar is not simplistic; her words are. And I would add that her intent wasn’t at all simplistic.

Beinart finally turns his rabid rhetoric on AIPAC which “is not victim but victimizer”. Why? It seeks to push the legislation of the Combatting BDS Act. As proof that that would be bad, Beinart avoids all legal opinions supporting the law and cherry-picks that of the American Civil Liberties Union. Why is their opinion better than any other in support of the law we do not know.

He attacks the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act and in doing so ridiculously suggests that “a student who called for transforming Israel from a Jewish state into a secular state with equal rights for all would be guilty of bigotry”. Firstly, Israel is secular albeit with a strong Jewish character.  That was the whole idea of Zionism as the Jewish national movement. It is worth pointing out that the United Nations recommended already in 1947 that a Jewish state be established within a portion of the original Mandate for Palestine territory. That territory, Beinart perhaps need reminding, was to become the Jewish national home due to its historical connection to the Jewish people and not just a state of its residents.

He continues and turns the most outstanding negative characteristic of the Arabs of the former Palestine Mandate, their self-imposed victimhood-for-sympathy and writes of the pro-Israel community that it acts as it does “because permanent victimhood creates moral license”.

He pooh-poohs Israel “as perennially facing existential threat” as if it doesn’t. His proof? In 1993 the PLO “recognized Israel’s existence”. That recognition was hollow as it sought to define Israel as not an expression of Jewish national identity. He trumpets that “Israel is the sole Middle Eastern nation with nuclear weapons” which may be true but that is only because Iran is not in the Middle East and a nuclear reactor in Syria, which is quite non-peaceful towards Israel, was destroyed. He is quite upset that Israel dares to claim any “moral responsibility” or that it faces “an existential threat” for in doing so, “then anything Israel does to defend itself is legitimate” as if Israel constrains itself more than any other country under similar acts of aggression whose sole aim is to kill and maim civilians whether by rockets, car-rammings, suicide-bombing or kite and balloon bombs.

He then launches his own explosive charge in comparing AIPAC to Israel’s defense measures, using the same words: “then why shouldn’t AIPAC use any means necessary to protect itself”, as if AIPAC employs lethal weapons.

Beinart challenges AIPAC to “confront the moral responsibilities of Jewish power”. He, conveniently, ignores the obverse element in his argument: will he come to an Israel which divests itself of power and live here during the horrific events that will surely follow?

_______________________

Email exchange:

Op-ed submission

Yisrael Medad
Attachments
Tue, Mar 26, 11:58 PM


Wed, Mar 27, 6:26 PM
to me

thanks, will post as a letter to the editor
--
Batya Ungar-Sargon
Opinion Editor
Forward.com

Yisrael Medad
Wed, Mar 27, 6:32 PM
to Batya

Thank you.


Yisrael Medad
Fri, Mar 29, 8:21 AM
to Batya

it will eventually appear here?
https://forward.com/opinion/letters/


Batya Ungar Sargon
Fri, Mar 29, 6:57 PM
to me

yes, edit below:

Yisrael Medad
Apr 5, 2019, 2:22 PM
to Batya

Too bad that the last update in the Letters Section is March 14 as of 10 seconds ago.

Batya Ungar Sargon
Apr 5, 2019, 4:25 PM
why too bad? I sent you an edit - just waiting on your ok... is that not clear?


Yisrael Medad
Fri, Apr 5, 4:37 PM
to Batya

Sorry.
I understood you as simply showing me.
As it you defined it as a letter, I didn't think you were requiring my approval.
It's fine.
Appreciated.


Yisrael Medad
Apr 8, 2019, 10:48 PM
to Batya

Repeat: okay.

^

Biding the Biden

We read:

Vice President Joe Biden warned on Sunday that Israel’s continued construction of settlements in the West Bank was eroding the prospects for peace in the region and said there was “no political will” from either Palestinians or Israelis to move forward with any proposals.
"Israel's government's steady and systematic process of expanding settlements, legalising outposts, seizing land, is eroding in my view the prospect of a two-state solution," Biden said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a leading pro-Israel lobbying group.
He said that, unlike Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he didn’t believe that there could be any way to reconcile settlements with a two-state solution.  "Bibi (Netanyahu) thinks it can be accommodated, and I believe he believes it. I don't," Biden said.

And this:

Israel’s policy allowing settlements to proliferate. Such activities, Biden said, move Israel “toward a one-state reality, which is a reality that is dangerous.”   That remark, which he acknowledged would anger Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., drew a mixture of boos and applause.

You can hear him directly here at 2:17:15 or so.

Well, we're asked, it seems the participants had to bide* Vice President Joe Biden's appearance at AIPAC.

We'll ignore his argument with Menachem Begin back in June 1982:

At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, however, both Mr. Begin and several senators were said by participants at the meeting to have been bristling with anger….The bitterest exchange was said to have been between Mr. Begin and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, who told the Israeli leader that he was not critical of the Lebanon operation but felt that Israel had to halt the policy of establishing new Jewish settlements in the West Bank….

After the meeting, Mr. Begin said: ”I enjoyed the session very much. I believe in liberty, that free men should freely discuss problems and if they have differences of opinion they should voice them in sincerity.”

”I said it was a lively discussion,” he said. ”If you want to use other adjectives. …” He paused, then said, ”Lively is enough.”

A Jewish presence in the Land of Israel is not a factor in making peace with Arabs.

On the other hand, Muslims kill Jews and others with no link to "settlements".

Unfortunately, we cannot bide our time while politicians like Mr. Biden and his boss attempt to fit their very square peg into any Middle East playboard.

*

to wait for —used chiefly in the phrase bide one's time

Is There a Parallel to the Upcoming AIPAC/Trump Ruckus?

In a 2009 meeting with the  Foreign Affairs Committee of the Israeli Knesset, former President Jimmy Carter was reminded of an event 30 years previously:

...Mr. Begin said on your first visit to the Israeli Knesset on March 12 1979, "We have a beautiful democracy," and you will be witness to democracy today. This is the meaning of Knesset, the meaning of parliament, and we have many views around this table. I think that most of the people here, maybe most Israelis were, to say the least, frustrated with some of your remarks about the Palestinian issue but respect your vision, commitment and love for the state of Israel, and this is why we felt we have to listen to you and also to share our feelings and thoughts with you today. You are the first former American President visiting this committee and we look forward to a fruitful discussion.

As this newspaper report makes clear, indeed there was a ruckus going on:

Here is another account:

In Carter's speech he said pointedly: "The people of the two nations are ready now for peace. The leaders have not yet proven that we are also ready for peace enough to take a chance." Begin's speech was interrupted repeatedly by members of the right and the Communist party, and MK Geula Cohen was removed from the chamber.  Carter believed that Begin took pleasure in showing him the strength of Israeli democracy.

So I suggest to the AIPAC heads that when the ruckus breaks out, just quote Menachem Begin.

^ 

If I Was Netanyahu's Speechwriter

Here is an excerpt from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's March 4 AIPAC speech:

...Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people  where the civil rights of all citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike, are guaranteed. The land of Israel is the place where the identity of the Jewish people was forged.  It was in Hebron that Abraham blocked [sic] the cave of the Patriarchs and the Matriarchs. It was in Bethel that Jacob dreamed his dreams. It was in Jerusalem that David ruled his kingdom. We never forget that, but it's time the Palestinians stopped denying history...

Here, if I were his speechwriter, is my version: 


It was in Hebron that Abraham bought the cave where our Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried and which, until 1967, no Jew had been permitted for centuries by the Muslims, to enter or even ascend higher than the 7th step. It was in Bethel that Jacob dreamed his dreams and where he heard God's promise:

"I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring. I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.”

It was at Shiloh where the Children of Israel erected a Tabernacle and there Joshua distributed the Land into tribal portions and where he urged them

“How long will you wait before you begin to take possession of the land that the Lord, the God of your ancestors, has given you?" 

and he instructed them

“Go and make a survey of the land and write a description of it. Then return to me, and I will cast lots for you here at Shiloh in the presence of the Lord.”

At Shchem, a city the Romans named Nablus, as recorded in the Bible,

The bones of Joseph, which the Children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, were buried...in a parcel of land Jacob bought from the sons of Hamor, father of Shechem, for a hundred pieces of silver 

It was in Jerusalem that David ruled his kingdom, having purchased the plot where the Temple would be constructed, built by his son, Solomon.  And where the returning exiles from Babylon, under the leadership of Ezra and Nechemiah, would rebuild it a second time.

The holiday of Chanukah, for example, is when we celebrate the rededication of the Temple and I remind you that almost all the battles our warrior forefathers won took place along the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria including Mitzpah, Beth Horon, Beth Zur, Ma'aleh Levona and Beit  Zachariya.  In these territories we were thyen "occupied" by being engaged in  a war of liberation against foreign rulers.  And it was Shimon the Maccabee who declared: 

"We have not occupied a foreign land; we have not ruled a foreign land; we have liberated the land of our forefathers from foreign occupation." 

Yes, my friends, we Jews have been constructing communities throughout the Land of Israel, by right, by promise of God, through purchase of property and by the right of our historical connection and of the decisions of the most supreme international institutions, for over 3000 years.  And not only the Bible and our cultural narrative is a proof but also scientific studies as well as the proof from out of the ground via archaeology.  Our history is inferior to none in this land. We have, indeed, reconstituted our state in our ancient homeland despite conquests and the occupations by foreigners.  We have asserted our rights.

Under the Mandate of Great Britain, our communities that had existed for centuries in Hebron, in Shchem and in Gaza underwent ethnic cleansing through violence and mob terror.  During the 1948 War of Independence, again Jews were forced out of their homes in Jerusalem's Old City and from newer communities such as the four kibbutzim of Gush Etzion, the Bet HaAravah kibbutz on the shores of the Dead Sea, and also the agricultural communities of Neveh Yaakov and Atarot north of Jerusalem.

Yehudah and Shomron, Judea and Samaria, are not foreign far-flung territories.  We have not acted as colonialists in building there.  Jews are not 'settling' but residing in those areas with their schools, their orchards, their factories and their children.

Ladies and Gentlemen of AIPAC, do not be fooled by Arab propaganda assertions, by anti-Zionist clap-trap or by misrepresentations of history and misreadings of international law.

I promise you, Jews will continue to reside and flourish in the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, our patrimony even as I seek a diplomatic resolution to Arab hostility to even the idea of a Jewish state.  I will act to retain the necessary security requirements for Israel's existence and the safety of all its citizens.

^

Scarlett Moves From A Horse to Asses

Scarlett Johansson politely declined an invitation to speak to the 14,000 people gathering here Sunday for the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac...She has to be in Paris to collect an honorary César film award, her publicist said...But the Hollywood actress will be at Aipac in spirit...Ms. Johansson has become a hero to pro-Israel activists — a living, breathing, deeply glamorous repudiation of the movement to boycott Israel.

My comment:- 

^

And Who Is Coming to AIPAC's Conference?

Not me (so far).

Well, Obama and Bibi, you know.

The answer is (fifth name from the bottom) this woman:

Kathy Ireland is world's wealthiest supermodel-entrepreneur

She's appeared on three Sports Illustrated covers and in 13 consecutive swimsuit issues during the 1980s and ’90s — is worth an estimated $300 to $350 million via her product marketing company, Kathy Ireland Worldwide, and CelebrityNetWorth.com now lists her as the world’s richest supermodel-entrepreneur.

Here she is:

That should be an interesting session.

(kippa/tip=C)

^

Jew vs. Israel - Tells Congressmen: 'Don't Go to Israel'

From David Rothkopf's blog:

This week's reports that 20 percent of the U.S. Congress will be visiting Israel this month are stunning. Eighty-one members of Congress -- two thirds of them Republicans, 47 of them freshmen -- apparently think it is more important to be visiting Israel than it is to be at home dealing with the worst economic crisis in modern memory. America's economy is in flames and these guys are taking lobbyist-funded trips to what, watch Israelis take to the streets to protest the high-cost of living in that country? This Jewish, Israel-supporting, foreign policy specialist says, "It's time to come home, ladies and gentlemen."

...These folks should be back at their desks and hard at work. The president ought to take to his podium and demand they return...The political objectives behind these Israel trips are clear and they reveal the opportunity costs to the American people associated with campaign season. Every moment spent jumping through a hoop for a potential group of supporters is a moment spent failing to address one of the many urgent issues confronting the United States. When will these pretenders grow up or make way for serious, committed adults who have the appetite and the spine to grapple with our current challenges?...

You wouldn't know Rothkopf is Jewish from his Wikipedia entry. Nor from his FP bio.

Yes, two years ago, he socked it to Malt and Marshmellow Walt and Mearsheimeir, writing:

They may not be anti-Semites themselves but they made a cynical decision to cash in on anti-Semitism by offering to dress up old hatreds in the dowdy Brooks Brothers suits of the Kennedy School and the University of Chicago. They did what the most desperate members of academia do, they signed up to be rent-a-validators, akin to expert witnesses who support the defense of felons with specious theories served up on fancy diplomas. They would argue that they were daring to speak truth to power. In reality they were giving one crowd in particular precisely what it wanted to hear.

The AIPAC missions are annual and haveing been conducted for many years. Israel is a significant issue. A half week visit is not a great time loss for a Congressman. Congress has done what it can for the economy and there's no rush for any emergency legislation.

One only wonders to which crowd was Rothkopf playing?

^

Obama: 'God Bless Israel'

From his AIPAC speech today:-

Now, I have said repeatedly that core issues can only be negotiated in direct talks between the parties. (Applause.) And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. (Applause.) No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. (Applause.) And we will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace, including recognizing Israel’s right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements. (Applause.) And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years. (Applause.)

...I stated publicly the principles...the broad outlines of which have been known for many years, and have been the template for discussions between the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians since at least the Clinton administration. [how many years is that? maybe 10 out of 43 ?]

I know that stating these principles -- on the issues of territory and security -- generated some controversy over the past few days. (Laughter.)...Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian Territories. This will make it harder and harder -- without a peace deal -- to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state. [but are those demographic figures that threatening? ]

Second, technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself in the absence of a genuine peace. Third, a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region.

...No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the United Nations or in any international forum. (Applause.) Israel’s legitimacy is not a matter for debate. That is my commitment; that is my pledge to all of you. (Applause.)...Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist. (Applause.) And we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and for their rhetoric. (Applause.)

...the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps -- (applause) -- so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state...Israel must be able to defend itself –- by itself -– against any threat. (Applause.) Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. (Applause.) And a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign and non-militarized state. (Applause.) And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated. (Applause.)

...let me reaffirm what “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” means.  By definition, it means that the parties themselves -– Israelis and Palestinians -– will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. (Applause.) That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. (Applause.) It allows the parties themselves to take account of those changes, including the new demographic realities on the ground, and the needs of both sides. The ultimate goal is two states for two people: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people -- (applause) -- and the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people -- each state in joined self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. (Applause.)

...I will call not just on Israel, but on the Palestinians, on the Arab States, and the international community to join us in this effort, because the burden of making hard choices must not be Israel’s alone. (Applause.)...a genuine peace is the only path that will ultimately provide for a peaceful Palestine as the homeland of the Palestinian people and a Jewish state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. (Applause.)

...Thank you. God bless you. God bless Israel, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Hey, where did Jerusalem go? Did he read my blog post? Did my talk with an American diplomat go up to him that fast?

Ah, JTA notices:

This time at AIPAC, Obama didn’t talk about Jerusalem because he knew his views on the matter would not be welcome, observed Martin Indyk, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel and now a vice president at the Brookings Institution, during a panel discussion at AIPAC immediately after the president’s address.

That's a poor excuse.

^

J Street Backstabbing Begins

J Street backs alternative House letter on Mideast

J Street is backing a bipartisan congressional letter to the president...an alternative to House and Senate letters backed by AIPAC that also are being circulated on the Hill.

...The Cohen-Boustany-Carnahan letter states that "America best serves our historic friendship with Israel when it is actively working to de-escalate conflict and advance peace, and that our relationships throughout the Arab and Muslim world will be strengthened through a negotiated agreement that ends the conflict."

It adds that "Israelis and Palestinians have not been able to achieve peace on their own, and we therefore share your belief that American leadership is essential to achieving meaningful progress. Left to themselves, the parties have been unable to make the necessary progress toward ending the conflict, and an American helping hand is now needed to bridge those gaps."

The AIPAC-backed House letter urges the president to make "every effort" to achieve peace in the Middle East, but emphasizes that "the parties themselves must negotiate the details of any agreement" and that the United States must insist on an "absolute Palestinian commitment" to end violence and terror.

It also states that the United States needs to "work closely and privately together" with Israel "both on areas of agreement and especially on areas of disagreement."

E tu, Jeremy?

Another "League of Trembling Israelites" Moment

The "League of Trembling Israelites", as I was taught by Malvyn Benjamin, is that peculiar phenomenen of Jewish self-induced fear that attempts to avoid a situation that already exists, is doing damage and by their actions, supposedly soothingly assuaging, only make matters worse and never corrects it.

Case in point:

In a move that raised student ire, Erin Stalcup, a departing adjunct professor of English at Yeshiva, signed an open letter to President Obama calling upon him to cease his support of Israel’s “apartheid regime” and her “flagrant violation of international law and UN resolutions.”

The letter...likens the state of Israel to the racist regime of South Africa in the 1980’s, comparing their oppression of the black population to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians...It summarized by contending, “Every one of these acts is a crime against humanity. In their ensemble, they constitute one of the most massive, ethnocidal atrocities of modern times.”

Though the letter was composed and signed in January, it only reached the attention of the collective YU student body midway through last week – due to one student’s incidental discovery of it on the internet...

Alexander Fischman, head of YU’s SAIPEC, circulated a petition signed by a number of student leaders calling on President Joel to denounce Prof. Stalcup for her comments. An AIPAC representative, however, successfully pressed Fischman to stop the petition, arguing that the petition would draw more attention to the letter and not result in a useful contribution.

So, Maybe The Israel Lobby Is Weak and Vaccilatory?

And while Chas Freeman trumpets his anti-"Israel lobby" charges, we have this:

Steve Rosen, the former AIPAC foreign policy chief charged with receiving classified information, is suing his former employer for defamation, JTA has learned.

Rosen filed a civil action March 2 in the District of Columbia Superior Court seeking $21 million from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, its officers at the time of his dismissal in 2005 and an outside spokesman hired to deal specifically with the case...

...Rosen's suit alleges that AIPAC gave in to government pressure to fire the two staffers, casting Paul McNulty, the lead prosecutor in the case, as making threats that would not be out of place in a legal drama.

"We could make real progress and get AIPAC out from under all of us," the filing quotes McNulty as saying.

The filing draws its information from a motion by Rosen and Weissman to have the criminal case dismissed in 2007. The motion said the government violated the defendants' right to a defense by threatening to charge AIPAC as well unless it fired Rosen and Weissman and stopped paying their legal fees.

In sworn affidavits filed with the motion, lawyers for Rosen and Weissman quoted lawyers for AIPAC as saying that the decision to fire the two came under government pressure.

T.S. Ellis III, the federal judge trying the case, ultimately rejected the motion to dismiss but said its claims were credible.

So, is AIPAC, and other groups and organizations, the Golem anti-Israel propagandists claim or...?

To Whom Is She Referring?

Condi Rice, speaking before the AIPAC Conference said:-

The opportunity before us has been created by painstaking work since 2001, painstaking work that rejected the leadership of Yasser Arafat and said that it could not be that peace would be made by a corrupt leader who had one foot in terrorism. (Applause.)

That couldn't be Olmert, could it? He is, it seems, corrupt but for terrorism? Maybe she means that he pushed for the disengagement and therefore is responsible, one foot much, for what's going on with the Qassams reaching Gaza and environs as far as Ashkelon with Ashdod and Kiryat Gat next?


P.S.

Here's another extract:-

Now, we [Ariel Sharon] had a wonderful relationship because I saw him as a man of courage and a man who deeply believed in the democratic Jewish state, but also in the desire for peace. And he once told me a story that I will never forget. It was before Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, and he said that he went out to talk with Israeli settlers, because he, of course, had been the father of the settlement movement. He went to one family and he explained to them why it was important to share the land. And this man said, “Let me show you something.” And he showed Sharon the mezuzah above their house, and he told Sharon, “You personally put that mezuzah there. You told us that this was good for Israel, for us to settle here, and now you tell us that we have to leave for the good of Israel.” Sharon was deeply pained by that. I could see it even as he told the story. But that is what great leaders do: They make hard decisions confidently for the sake of peace.

Really? That's what they do?


P.P.S.

JTA added:-

Condoleezza Rice at an AIPAC conference stressed the urgency of establishing a Palestinian state.

"The expansion of violence in the Middle East makes the establishment of a peaceful Palestinian state more urgent, not less," the U.S. secretary of state said Tuesday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference in Washington.

"The present opportunity is not perfect by any means, but it is better than any other in recent years and we need to seize it. Israelis have waited too long for the security they desire and deserve, and Palestinians have waited too long amidst daily humiliations for the dignity of a Palestinian state."

Rice's remarks were greeted with silence.

Finally, Good Money News

Top donors criticize AIPAC
on backing for P.A. funding

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Two top donors to AIPAC are raising objections over its support for a congressional letter that urges the Bush administration to increase assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

An active Republican, Adelson likened AIPAC to a friend assisting Israel's suicide.

"If someone is going to jump off a bridge, it is incumbent upon their friends to dissuade them," he told JTA. He added, "I love and admire the concept of AIPAC."

The other donor who has raised questions is Gary Erlbaum, a property developer prominent in the Philadelphia Jewish community. He said he would urge others to lobby against the letter.

"We should lobby our own congressmen never to sign the letter, unless there is clear evidence Palestinians have changed their educational system and have fought terrorism," Erlbaum said.

The letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, which was to have been sent out Friday, was initiated last month by U.S. Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and Charles Boustany (R-La.). So far, 118 of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed, including 12 Jewish Democrats.

It casts increased assistance as necessary to help Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, make the changes needed to guarantee Israel's security.

"Addressing corruption and public safety in the P.A., while continuing to engage with Israel to coordinate a remittance schedule for Palestinian tax monies and to improve access and movement," the letter states, "will ensure that assistance will be effective in reviving the Palestinian economy and creating the atmosphere of hope required for the success of diplomatic efforts."

Neither Adelson nor Erlbaum would address whether AIPAC's support for the letter would influence how they donate to the group. Speaking generally, Adelson said, "I don’t continue to support organizations that help friends committing suicide just because they say they want to jump."

An AIPAC spokeswoman confirmed that both men are supporters of the organization and described Adelson as a "major" donor.

Adelson, with an estimated net worth of $26.5 billion, often contributes in the millions to favored Jewish causes. He donated $25 million last year to Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust memorial, and gave birthright israel -- the program that flies Jewish youth to Israel for free tours -- $55 million over the past two years.

...Adelson, who recently launched a giveaway tabloid in Israel, said his research showed that vast majorities of Israelis opposed the concessions Olmert is reportedly considering, particularly sharing Jerusalem.

"Governments have to listen to the people -- of course, Olmert was duly elected, but promises made" on not dividing Jerusalem "are being neglected," Adelson said.

Rice has acknowledged pressing the sides toward a solution before her boss leaves the Oval Office. Still, Adelson would not criticize the Bush administration.

"The Bush administration and Condoleezza Rice can't be holier than the pope if the government of Israel wants to accept the destruction of Israel," he said.

Adelson and Erlbaum are also donors to the Zionist Organization of America, which has driven a campaign against any further funding for the Abbas-led Palestinian Authority.

"It is high time to condition any further U.S. aid on the Palestinians arresting terrorists, outlawing terrorist groups and ending incitement against Israel in their media, schools and speeches," ZOA president Morton Klein said. "Otherwise, the message is sent that the U.S. is not serious about the Palestinians changing their actions."

Safire's "Headline of the Year"

Headline of the Year

Writers of headlines — their words cabin’d, cribb’d and confined in capturing the gist of an article — on rare occasion break through with an inspiring turn of phrase. My nomination for Headline of the Year appeared early this month above a full-page commentary infused with original reporting by the Pulitzer-winning Dorothy Rabinowitz of The Wall Street Journal.

Her subject was a largely downplayed instance of the current campaign to undermine the First Amendment by Justice Department prosecutors and their F.B.I. satraps of entrapment. Having failed for years to find the “mole” inside the F.B.I. who sold out to the Russians, the agent sought to salvage his reputation by running a “sting” operation. The F.B.I. found a Pentagon analyst who had foolishly taken home papers and — by threatening him with prosecution — induced the analyst to type a supposedly classified document about policy toward Iran and fax a “leak” of it to two staff members he knew in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. F.B.I. agents then wired him for sound and further drew the unsuspecting targets — whose jobs were to stay in touch with analysts and known journalists — into the trap.

The Pentagon analyst pleaded guilty to keeping classified documents at home, for which big shots draw a fine. He is trying to reduce his 12-year sentence by testifying in June, as Rabinowitz reported, in “the first ever attempt by government prosecutors to convict private citizens under the 1919 Espionage Act.” That F.B.I. bell tolls for thee and me.

Here is the headline in the Journal that Rob Pollock, who grasped the universal civil-libertarian point of her article, put across the top of the page: “First They Came for the Jews.”

Those words are from an approximation of what Martin Niemoeller, the German pastor who outspokenly opposed the Nazis and suffered through concentration camps, said to a seminary audience in Georgia in 1959: “First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Soros vs. AIPAC

George Soros is in The New York Review of Books, that den of left-wing dissident radicalism, publishing "On Israel, America and AIPAC" (I doubt that he wrote it so I'll be generous and say he published it).

Here's his summary:-

I am not sufficiently engaged in Jewish affairs to be involved in the reform of AIPAC; but I must speak out in favor of the critical process that is at the heart of our open society. I believe that a much-needed self-examination of American policy in the Middle East has started in this country; but it can't make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Some leaders of the Democratic Party have promised to bring about a change of direction but they cannot deliver on that promise until they are able to resist the dictates of AIPAC. Palestine is a place of critical importance where positive change is still possible. Iraq is largely beyond our control; but if we succeeded in settling the Palestinian problem we would be in a much better position to engage in negotiations with Iran and extricate ourselves from Iraq. The need for a peace settlement in Palestine is greater than ever. Both for the sake of Israel and the United States, it is highly desirable that the Saudi peace initiative should succeed; but AIPAC stands in the way. It continues to oppose dealing with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.

Whether the Democratic Party can liberate itself from AIPAC's influence is highly doubtful. Any politician who dares to expose AIPAC's influence would incur its wrath; so very few can be expected to do so. It is up to the American Jewish community itself to rein in the organization that claims to represent it. But this is not possible without first disposing of the most insidious argument put forward by the defenders of the current policies: that the critics of Israel's policies of occupation, control, and repression on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem and Gaza engender anti-Semitism.

The opposite is the case. One of the myths propagated by the enemies of Israel is that there is an all-powerful Zionist conspiracy. That is a false accusation. Nevertheless, that AIPAC has been so successful in suppressing criticism has lent some credence to such false beliefs. Demolishing the wall of silence that has protected AIPAC would help lay them to rest. A debate within the Jewish community, instead of fomenting anti-Semitism, would only help diminish it.

Anticipating attacks, I should like to emphasize that I do not subscribe to the myths propagated by enemies of Israel and I am not blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel's policies nor the critics of those policies should be held responsible for anti-Semitism. At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward Israel are influenced by Israel's policies, and attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby's success in suppressing divergent views.

Him, with his money, fears attacks?

He's the one attacking. He had a version of this in the Financial Times.

But since he's Jewish, let's just say: what chutzpah!