|
Obama vs. Netanjahu
Obama as well as Hillery Clinton have made it clear to the Israelis that they do want a real stop of any expansion of colonial settlements in the West Bank. But the Netanjahu government is defiant.
To increase the pressure the Obama administration is revealing the points it will use to build up further pressure:
The measures under discussion — all largely symbolic — include stepping back from America’s near-uniform support for Israel in the United Nations if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel does not agree to a settlement freeze, administration officials said.
Other measures include refraining from the instant Security Council veto of United Nations resolutions that Israel opposes and making use of Mr. Obama’s bully pulpit to criticize the settlements, officials said. Placing conditions on loan guarantees to Israel, as the first President Bush did nearly 20 years ago, is not under discussion, officials said.
Are UN Security Council veto votes really only 'largely symbolic'?
The idea behind this is that the Israeli public is said not to like governments that let Israel lose U.S. support. I am not sure how correct that view is.
There are also a somewhat obscure report that the U.S. is holding up Israeli requests for certain weapons. If true that is probably a more effective pressure point.
For now it seems to me that Obama is really trying to change Israels behavior. But the tools announced are not the most effective. Losing U.S. money would be a real problem for the Netanjahu government. But Obama would have to risk a defeat in Congress if he tries to lower Israel's allowance.
Still the pressure seems sincere, something I doubted at the start, and the fight Obama versus Netanjahu is now on.
Who will win?
U.S. Chabad Rabbi: “I don’t believe in Western morality
Chabad rabbi to Moment: “Destroy [Muslim] holy sites”
May 21st, 2009 by Josh Nathan-Kazis
In the latest issue of Moment magazine (which features a cover story by New Voices contributor Jeremy Gillick), a group of American rabbis respond to the question, “How Should Jews Treat Their Arab Neighbors?” Most of the responses emphasize equality, morality, and restraint. Then a Chabad rabbi wheels out the crazy:
I don’t believe in western morality, i.e. don’t kill civilians or children, don’t destroy holy sites, don’t fight during holiday seasons, don’t bomb cemeteries, don’t shoot until they shoot first because it is immoral.
The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).
The first Israeli prime minister who declares that he will follow the Old Testament will finally bring peace to the Middle East. First, the Arabs will stop using children as shields. Second, they will stop taking hostages knowing that we will not be intimidated. Third, with their holy sites destroyed, they will stop believing that G-d is on their side. Result: no civilian casualties, no children in the line of fire, no false sense of righteousness, in fact, no war.
Zero tolerance for stone throwing, for rockets, for kidnapping will mean that the state has achieved sovereignty. Living by Torah values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention.
Rabbi Manis Friedman
Bais Chana Institute of Jewish Studies
St. Paul, MN
When we published Jeremy’s piece on Lubavitch rabbis on the radical fringe of the settler movement, we were accused of exaggerating their importance. We were told that they were marginal figures, outside of the influence of Lubavitch HQ in Crown Heights, and that few American Lubavitchers shared their extremism. Rabbi Friedman’s wacky-if-it-weren’t-scary comment in Moment should defuse some of that criticism.
Friedman seems to be a fully integrated into the mainstream American Chabad movement. He was the Rebbe’s translator until 1990, he has almost 200 articles and videos up at chabad.org, the movement’s official propaganda arm, and his Minnesota women’s yeshiva is listed in the official online directory of Chabad outposts. His website is fancy and looks well-funded.
When I come across this sort of thing, I wonder at Chabad’s popularity among secular Jewish students. These aren’t just bad politics, they’re insane politics. At what point does the Chabad rabbi tell the prospective Ba’al Teshuva that he thinks that Israel should “destroy their holy sites”? Probably not at the first Shabbat dinner, right? Maybe after two Shabbat dinners, a “lunch and learn,” and a Birthright trip through Mayanot?
For more on these subjects, check out my editorial on how Israel should treat Israeli Arabs from our February issue, and our September issue on Lubavitch.
There’s no double standard in the U.S. — I mean, if an American Muslim or Christian cleric advocated destroying Jewish holy sites and killing men, women, children and cattle, I’m sure their “charitable” organization would be allowed to continue to collect
tax-deductible donations.
Mobile Mitzvah Centers is of the conservative, common-sense belief of peace through strength, deterrence, and a relentless, punishing military response to terrorism.
We believe that Israel’s enemies must be crushed to the point of offering peace of their own volition, on Israel’s terms…
Now, if we could just find a Muslim charity in the U.S. whose administrators are not being
viciously hounded and railroaded, we’d be able to test that hypothesis…
“Federal prosecutors and FBI agents “smirked” while most of the room was stunned and outraged at such a miscarriage of justice. The defendants were then taken away and flashed peace signs as they left, displaying their strength and pride for saving lives in Occupied Palestine.
…an aura of betrayal pervaded the room. Two decades ago, they came to this country to escape such Israeli-influenced persecutions, and now they” endured the same injustice in America. They plan to appeal and believe “truth and justice will emerge triumphantly from this gloomy low point in American history.” It’s a curse at a bad time to be Muslim in America. When the noblest among them are victims of injustice – prosecuted for their prominence, activism and charity. …
In spite of strong defense objections, an anonymous Israeli intelligence agent (identified as “Avi”) was allowed to testify as an expert witness – with no knowledge of who he is, his credibility if any, no fact-checking on his claims, his obvious bias, and no accountability if he lied under oath. It remains for the appeals court to rule on whether to reverse the verdicts because of this, the use of secret “evidence” unavailable to the defense, and other gross prosecution discrepancies.
Post courtesy of AlicetheKurious, from Jeff Wells blog.
Shalom.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 2 2009 8:48 utc | 22
|
