Tag Archives: American Jewish Life and Politics

Iran’s Closing Technology Gap – J Street’s Response

02 Monday Nov 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

This past week the Israeli daily Haaretz reported about a closed-door meeting in Tel Aviv in which Major General Herzl Halevi was quoted as warning that Iran’s technology war with the state of Israel is rapidly “narrowing the quality gap.” http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.683442

This was the first time, Haaretz noted, that a senior official of the Israeli Defense Forces has ever made such an assessment. Major General Halevi was quoted as saying, “Our engineers are fighting Iranian engineers, today, and it’s becoming increasing significant….They use the most cutting-edge technology. It’s not carrier pigeons; it’s the most advanced communication systems, with the best encryption on top of that. It changes every couple of days.”

Upon my return from Israel a week ago where I was a delegate of the Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA) at World Zionist Congress (WZC) in Jerusalem, I met with Israeli members of my community to discuss the WZC, my experience in Israel and their concerns and anxieties about their Israeli families and friends.

Knowing of my position as the national co-chair of the J Street Rabbinic Cabinet (composed of 850 rabbis from all of American Jewry’s religious streams), some took the occasion to share their skepticism about J Street’s support of the Iran Agreement and Israel’s overall security interests. One insisted that J Street supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel. This is false and has always been false (see J Street’s policy position against BDS – http://jstreet.org/blog/post/the-boycott-divestment-and-sanctions-bds-movement_1.)

J Street is a pro-Israel pro-peace organization based in Washington, D.C. that advocates before the American government a two-state for two-peoples diplomatic resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the only way that Israel can continue to be a Jewish and democratic state and assure its security and future.

I emphasized that J Street’s goal has always been to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb and that Israel must maintain its technological and military superiority over all nations in the Middle East as a matter of both Israel’s and America’s security interests. As the Iran Deal was being closed, J Street sent its policy platform to Capitol Hill (see https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.jstreet.org/images/next-steps-on-iran.pdf), and called upon our government “to implement the nuclear agreement while advancing policies that complement that effort and advance priorities that strengthen the security interests of the United States, our ally Israel, and our partners in the region.”

J Street advocated upon the close of the Nuclear Agreement

“…acting quickly and in unison with the Administration this year to renew the Memorandum of Understanding with Israel on American military aid – set to expire just as the next administration takes office — and lengthening the duration of a new M.O.U. would underscore that the United States Government, across the board, is solidly committed to ensuring Israel’s military capacity and kinetic advantages for the long haul, no matter which party controls the government in either Washington, D.C. or Jerusalem.” (https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.jstreet.org/images/next-steps-on-iran.pdf)

J Street also issued recently a statement supporting Senator Ben Cardin’s new Iran Policy Oversight Bill:

“The bill’s provisions closely track the policy prescriptions J Street put forward immediately after last month’s key votes on the accord in Congress. Comprehensive reporting on Iran’s activities, enhancement of the President’s existing non-nuclear sanctions powers and further strengthening already unprecedented US security and intelligence cooperation with Israel are steps that will bolster the agreement and its critical objective of ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon.” (http://jstreet.org/blog/post/j-street-welcomes-iran-policy-oversight-bill_1)

J Street is uncompromising in its support of Israel:

“American assistance to Israel, including maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge, is an important anchor for a peace process based on providing Israel with the confidence and assurance to move forward on a solution based on land for peace. J Street consistently advocates for robust US foreign aid to Israel, and J Street also strongly supports continued aid to the Palestinian Authority which is essential to Israeli security.” (http://jstreet.org/policy/pages/usisrael-special-relationship–aid)

“Memo to U.S. Jews: Defend Israel, Support the Iran Deal” by Carlo Strenger, Haaretz, August 26

26 Wednesday Aug 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

I am tired of the sound-bite ads supporting and opposing the Iran Nuclear Agreement, the political hype and the slanderous accusations (mostly but not exclusively coming from the right-wing) against good and honest people who care deeply about both America’s and Israel’s security and well-being.

I am not a scientist, nuclear physicist or a security expert. Israel and the United States have plenty of both and it is these people who I listen to when assessing the strengths and weaknesses of this P5 +1 negotiated Iran Nuclear Agreement.

Israel’s former security chiefs who are no longer bound to silence, as opposed to Israel’s current security chiefs who are (though have talked off the record in support of the agreement), and a number of Israeli and American nuclear scientists support this agreement. That is why I do as well, despite its flaws.

Here is the complete Haaretz op-ed by Carlo Stenger (if you have not called your congressional representative to voice your support for the agreement, now is the time to do so):

Dealing with Tehran is not a matter of ideology but rather carefully balanced probabilities. Israel’s current and former security chiefs know this.

Jewish Americans are going through a harrowing dilemma. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been calling the nuclear deal with Iran a mistake of historical proportions. He has made opposing it the shibboleth of whether you are a good Jew and a true friend of Israel, or whether you let Barack Obama throw Israel under the bus. So Netanyahu keeps repeating it: By cranking up sanctions even more, a better deal with Iran can be reached, but Obama and the P5+1 group have been weak and defeatist.

Netanyahu’s tactic has created enormous problems. He has dealt further blows to Israel’s relations with the United States, created deep rifts in the U.S. Jewish community, and worst of all, he has turned the discussion into whether you are for Israel or against it. He has turned it into good versus evil: Care about the Jewish people or be willing to let them perish in the next Holocaust.

The shrillness of the debate has made many forget that dealing with Iran is not a matter of ideology but rather carefully balanced probabilities. Get the best deal under the given circumstances, and the best deal isn’t a matter of rhetoric but careful calculation.

This is my call to U.S. Jewry. Turning the Iran deal into a partisan issue is about as wrongheaded as checking your doctor’s political convictions rather than credentials and experience. This is why it’s best to listen to top Israeli security officials, who have both the professional competence and dedication to care about what serves Israel best.

U.S. Jews might therefore wonder: Why are there no prominent Israeli voices supporting the Iran deal? Well, the noise has drowned out the fact that a phalanx of security chiefs has publicly supported the deal.

I’ll mention just a few. There’s former Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin, who heads a leading Israeli defense think tank — and who was one of the pilots who destroyed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981. There’s Isaac Ben-Israel, a former weapons developments chief and current chairman of Israel’s space program. And there’s Ami Ayalon, a former head of Israel’s naval commandos and the Shin Bet security service, and Efraim Halevy, a former Mossad chief.

These men have spent most of their lives defending Israel; they are more competent than any politician to assess the security implications not only of the Iran deal but of the dire consequences of reneging on it.

Furthermore, as esteemed military analyst Amir Oren has reported in Haaretz, the majority of Israel’s serving military leaders disagree with Netanyahu’s position on the Iran deal. But as befits a democracy, officers in active service don’t take public positions. Senior security officials have expressed the same position to me on condition of anonymity.

The consensus on the Iran deal among security experts is very wide-ranging, and not only in Israel. I have just spent a number of days at the World Federation of Scientists’ annual meeting on planetary emergencies in Erice, Sicily, a group that I have been part of for 11 years. The Iran deal was discussed in depth, but not in the shrill tones of politicians trying to show how tough they are on Tehran. I heard experts who know the details of the deal to the last dot and have the intellectual tools to assess its viability.

Most prominent among them is Prof. Richard Garwin, one of the world’s leading nuclear scientists who with Edward Teller designed the first hydrogen bomb. Garwin, who has been an adviser to eight U.S. presidents on nuclear strategy, gave a presentation on the deal and came to a very clear conclusion: Under the current circumstances, this is as good a deal as we will get.

Let there be no mistake: Garwin has been dealing with situations in which humankind’s survival has been at stake; he by no means trusts the Iranian regime not to try to cheat. He gave very precise assessments on how the monitoring regime and the West’s technological means make it virtually impossible for Iran to surprise the West in the coming decade.

He has given me express permission to quote his speech, and I hope we will soon be able to upload it in its entirety. Let me add that Garwin is by no means a lone voice in this assessment but has been a leader of more than 70 nonproliferation experts who have endorsed the deal.

I have deep empathy for the plight of the U.S. Jewish community, which wants to stand by Israel in these difficult circumstances. Doing so means making up your own mind and not letting Netanyahu define for you what it means to be pro-Israel.

You should not forget that Israel’s security experts have no less an investment in Israel’s safety than Netanyahu, and that their expertise on the matter is superior to his. They have no political axes to grind but simply continue their work of keeping Israel secure. If all of them think the Iran deal is good for Israel, you can safely assume that it is and support it.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/.premium-1.673045?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

 

Congressman Adam Schiff Supports the Iran Agreement – His Full Statement Here

03 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

This morning (August 3), Congressman Adam Schiff’s District Director, Ann Peifer, sent to me (at the Congressman’s request) his just released statement of support for the Iran Agreement.

Congressman Schiff is not only a brilliant lawyer and diligent Congressional Representative in Los Angeles (my synagogue is in his district), but he is thoughtful, thorough, considered, and fair. The Congressman’s concern for the welfare of the United States and the Security of Israel is second to none.

I am deeply grateful for his leadership and his position on the Iran Agreement, and I hope that others in Congress and in the Senate regardless of party read his position carefully and come to the same conclusion that he did – that we need to support the Iran Agreement.

Following his statement, I have listed 4 articles worthy of your consideration.

Congress Should Help Strengthen Iran Deal, Not Reject It
By Rep. Adam B. Schiff

After several years of difficult negotiations with a dangerous and malevolent regime, the Administration and the representatives of the other P5+1 nations reached an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program.  The deal realistically precludes Iran from developing an atomic bomb for fifteen or more years, and does so while reducing the chances of war. As one would expect in any negotiation with a bitter adversary, there are elements of the deal that turned out quite well – in this case, America’s unilateral ability to snap back the whole range of sanctions in the event of Iranian noncompliance, and the intrusive nature of inspections into Iran. And there are other elements of the deal that are concerning, even deeply concerning – lack of robust access to the sites of Iran’s past military work on nuclear weapons, and the permissible scope of Iran’s enrichment program after only fifteen years.  In the absence of a credible alternative, Congress should accept the deal and work with the Administration to strengthen its impact, while joining forces with our allies to better contain Iran’s conventional capabilities and nefarious conduct in the region and beyond.

The primary objective of the United States in the negotiations was to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  Given the unthinkable consequences of Iran, the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism, obtaining the bomb, this has been an overriding national security imperative of the United States for decades.  As an American and as a Jew who is deeply concerned about the security of Israel, it is also intensely personal.  I believe our vital interests have been advanced under the agreement, since it would be extremely difficult for Iran to amass enough fissionable material to make a nuclear weapon without giving the United States ample notice and time to stop it.  We will still need to guard against any Iranian effort to obtain nuclear material or technology from proliferators abroad — a reality even if they had given up all enrichment — but the agreement likely gives the world at least a decade and a half without the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon and without going to war to make that so.  That is a major achievement.

The United States realized this objective by securing a number of important provisions in the agreement, including the power to snap back sanctions in whole or in part, and not subject to a veto in the United Nations. Over the past two decades, Iran has consistently and repeatedly cheated in its agreements with the IAEA. This cheating has taken many forms, including the construction of hidden enrichment facilities, some deep underground, as well as work to develop the technologies necessary to detonate a nuclear weapon. At the outset of the negotiations, Iran’s goal was to have the power to delay and obfuscate if caught, and to count on friendly nations (Russia) or nations deeply interested in its oil resources (China) to veto the re-imposition of sanctions.  But Iran failed, and the snapback mechanism provides the best guarantor of Iranian compliance.

The United States and its allies also procured an extensive and intrusive inspections regime that lasts for twenty-five years. By applying to the whole chain of the enrichment process, from the ground to the centrifuge, it realistically precludes Iran from developing a hidden and parallel enrichment process.  As a practical matter, given our intelligence capabilities and this inspection regime, the deal should prevent Iran from developing a bomb for the duration of the agreement.  If Iran cheats, it is likely to do so in areas that do not involve nuclear material, such as work on nuclear weaponization and other research and development that are more easily hidden during the twenty-four days it is allowed to play “rope-a-dope” with inspectors. Here it will be important for Congress, the Administration and our allies to make clear that any cheating will be severely penalized and result in the re-imposition of some, if not all, of the original sanctions – Iran will not be allowed to merely cease the offending conduct.

With respect to the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program (PMDs), the United States does not appear to have obtained the more robust access to military sites that we sought, but this is mitigated by the fact that the IAEA and U.S. already have considerable intelligence about the type of work that Iran has done to construct, deliver and detonate an atomic bomb.  No one expects Iran or its scientists to be the least bit forthcoming about Iran’s past weaponization work.  To the degree that we need a baseline to estimate how long it would take Iran to dash to a bomb, however, our intelligence already provides a good basis for calculations even without Iran coming clean on its PMD.

The most troubling part of the agreement for me is therefore not those parts that have generated the most discussion or criticism from opponents – the sanctions, inspections or PMD – but the size, sophistication and international legitimacy of Iran’s enrichment capability allowed in only fifteen years.  At the outset of negotiations, it was hoped that if it was necessary to grant Iran an enrichment capability at all, it would only be a token one, and that apart from a small research facility, fuel for its reactors might be stored or produced outside the country.  Instead, while approximately 13,000 centrifuges will be removed from operation, the agreement allows Iran to operate over 5,000 centrifuges and, eventually, to bring on line a faster set of instruments that reduce the time necessary to create enough fissionable material for a bomb down to a matter of weeks.

It is important to understand that even after fifteen years – or fifty for that matter – as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran is never allowed to develop the bomb.  And it is certainly true that as a result of the agreement, we will have inspectors watching the enrichment process that we wouldn’t have otherwise. But at the end of fifteen years, Iran will have few constraints on the speed of its enrichment, and at that point it is the work necessary to produce the mechanism for the bomb that becomes the real obstacle to a breakout – and that work is among the most difficult to detect.

While much of the focus has been on the tradeoff between sanctions relief and limits on Iran’s nuclear program, the real painful heart of the agreement lies elsewhere — Iran is meaningfully prevented from developing atomic weapons for at least fifteen years, but it is left with a robust and internationally legitimized enrichment capability.  I have searched for a better, credible alternative and concluded that there is none.

Some opponents of the deal have argued that in the event Congress rejects the agreement, Iran has so much to gain from it that it will continue to comply even in the face of sustained American sanctions.  Given hard-liner Iranian opposition to the deal, the regime’s revolutionary ideology, and the opportunity this would provide the mullahs to continue playing victim, this hardly seems plausible.  Other opponents attempt to make the case that if we reject the deal, Iran will too, but America can somehow rebuild international support for sanctions and force Iran to come back to the table ready to concede its enrichment program.

When it comes to predicting the future, we are all looking through the glass darkly, but it is only prudent to expect that if Congress rejects a deal agreed to by the Administration and much of the world, the sanctions regime will – if not collapse –almost certainly erode.  Even if we could miraculously keep Europe on board with sanctions, it is hard to imagine Russia, China, India or other nations starved for oil or commerce, agreeing to cut off business with Iran.  The use of American financial sanctions is a powerful and coercive force, but relies upon at least the tacit acceptance of our objectives, something that would be lacking if we reject a deal agreed to by the other major powers.  A diminished or collapsed sanctions regime does not mean, as some have suggested, that Iran necessarily dashes madly for a bomb, but it will almost certainly move forward with its enrichment program unconstrained by inspections, limits on research and development of new centrifuges, metallurgy and other protections of the deal. In short, Iran will have many of the advantages of the deal in access to money and trade, with none of its disadvantages.

Instead of rejecting the deal, therefore, Congress should focus on making it stronger.

•       First, we should make it clear that if Iran cheats, the repercussions will be severe.

•       Second, we should continue to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to detect the mostly likely forms of Iranian noncompliance.

•       Third, we should establish the expectation that while Iran will be permitted to have an enrichment capability for civilian use, it will never be permitted to produce highly enriched uranium.  Not now, not after fifteen years, not ever.  If it does so, that will be construed as demonstrating a clear intent to develop the bomb and it will be stopped with force.

•       Fourth, if Iran – a nation which has threatened Israel’s existence – develops methods of shielding its nuclear facilities from aerial attack by the importation of missile defense systems or further burying its nuclear work, we will share with Israel all the technologies necessary to defeat those systems and destroy its facilities no matter how deep the bunker.

•       And fifth, we are prepared to work with Israel and our Gulf allies to make sure that every action Iran takes to use its newfound wealth for destructive activities in the region will prompt an equal and opposite reaction, and the nuclear deal will only reinforce our willingness to combat Iran’s conventional and malignant influence.

The Iranian people will one day throw off the shackles of their repressive regime, and I hope that this deal will empower those who wish to reform Iranian governance and behavior.  The fifteen years or more this agreement provides will give us the time to test that proposition, without Iran developing the bomb and without the necessity of protracted military action.  Then, as now, if Iran is determined to go nuclear, there is only one way to stop it and that is by the use of force.  But then at least, the American people and others around the world will recognize that we did everything possible to avoid war.

4 Articles Worth Reading

1. Republican Hypocrisy on Iran, The New York Times
“America is stronger when important national security decisions have bipartisan consensus,” stresses the Times editorial board. “None of that seems to matter to the accord’s opponents, many of whom never intended to vote for the deal and made clear during congressional hearings last week that facts will not change their minds.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/opinion/sunday/republican-hypocrisy-on-iran.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

2. AIPAC chooses sides: It picks Bibi over its own supporters, US Jews, Al-Monitor
According to Uri Savir, “A senior member of AIPAC’s political leadership told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “We have decided to go all out on the issue, despite this being a partisan cause. We cannot stand by when the prime minister of Israel makes defeating the Iran deal his cause celebre. This is the first time in AIPAC’s history that the lobby challenges a US president on such an issue; an issue where the president’s political credibility is on the line. Secretly, some of us pray not to succeed in this battle.”
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/07/aipac-iran-agreement-congress-republicans-democrats-obama.html#

3. 6 Biggest Myths about the Iran Nuclear Deal – National Interest
Hardin Lang and Shlomo Brom contend that the “this agreement represents the best chance to make sure Iran never obtains a weapon… While there are aspects of the deal that merit close review, many of these attacks just don’t stand up to scrutiny.”http://nationalinterest.org/feature/6-biggest-myths-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal-13443
4. On Iran, a regrettable rush to judgment, Times of Israel
“I believe my friends in AIPAC and some of my friends in Israel have made a regrettable rush to judgment in immediately opposing the Iran agreement and doing so in ways likely to cause long-term harm to Israel, especially in terms of Israel’s vital need for bipartisan support in the United States,” says Mel Levine. “And despite the loud and heavily funded campaign being waged against the deal, respected Israeli national security and intelligence experts are increasingly supporting the deal.”
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/this-is-a-good-deal-2/

Recommended Articles on the Iran Agreement and Middle East Realities

31 Friday Jul 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

According to a recent poll (below under #7) 49% of America’s Jews support the agreement as opposed to 31% who oppose it.

The following articles are gleaned from an avalanche of stories and op-eds that have appeared this past week in the American and Israeli media, that I believe are worth reading:

1. 6 Biggest Myths about the Iran Nuclear Deal – National Interest

Hardin Lang and Shlomo Brom contend that the “this agreement represents the best chance to make sure Iran never obtains a weapon… While there are aspects of the deal that merit close review, many of these attacks just don’t stand up to scrutiny.” http://nationalinterest.org/feature/6-biggest-myths-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal-13443

2. For the Mideast, It’s Still 1979 –  Tom Friedman – The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/opinion/thomas-friedman-for-the-mideast-its-still-1979.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

3. One Congressman’s Iran – Roger Cohen – The New York Times  

Cohen says that “longtime friend of Israel” Representative Sander Levin supports the deal “because the accord, if fully implemented, slashes Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium by 97 percent, prevents enrichment above 3.67 percent (a long way from bomb grade) for 15 years, intensifies international inspections exponentially, holds Iran at least a year from having enough material to produce a weapon (as opposed to the current two months), cuts off a plutonium route to a bomb, preserves all American options in combating Iranian support for Hezbollah, and is far better than an alternative scenario where international sanctions would fray and ‘support from even our best allies if we move to the military option would be less likely.’”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/opinion/roger-cohen-one-congressmans-iran.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

4. Why Don’t American Jewish Groups Represent American Jews on Iran? – Peter Beinart – Haaretz

Citing J Street’s poll showing American Jewish support for the Iran deal, Peter Beinart found that when determining their position, American Jewish federations didn’t survey the community, they consulted their donors. “That’s how American Jewish plutocracy works,” he wrote. “It’s composed of decent, sincere people but it’s designed to reflect the wishes of large donors and of Benjamin Netanyahu, not of American Jews overall.”

http://www.haaretz.com/beta/.premium-1.668571

5. For Israel’s Sake, Don’t Reject the Iran Agreement – Commentary – Amram Mitzna  –

“Nearly every day since the nuclear agreement with Iran was finalized, more Israeli generals and security chiefs have come forward with the same message: The deal is surprisingly good for Israel’s security. And as a retired major general who oversaw many elements of the Israeli military, I feel it is my duty to join my colleagues. I must state loud and clear — this agreement is better than no agreement and must not be rejected. If implemented, it will block all of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon, and extend the time Iran would need to build a bomb from only two months to more than a year.”  Amram Mitzna is former member of Knesset, former leader of the Labor Party, former mayor of Haifa and Yeruham, and a retired major-general in the Israel Defense Forces.                                                                  

http://blogs.rollcall.com/beltway-insiders/for-israels-sake-dont-reject-the-iran-agreement-commentary/?dcz=

6. Should Federation take sides?: A Rabbinic letter of support for the Iran agreement – Jewish Journal

As J Street’s Rabbinic Cabinet Co-Chair, along with 40 Rabbis in the Los Angeles area including my colleagues at Temple Israel, Rabbi Michelle Missaghieh and Rabbi Jocee Hudson, we urged, “It is critical that the American public and our congressional representatives recognize there are strong, committed Israel supporters in the American-Jewish community and among its leadership who, guided by many in the Israeli security establishment, support this agreement.”

http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/should_federation_take_sides_a_rabbinic_letter_of_support_for_the_iran_agre

7. The Los Angeles Jewish Journal this week has numerous articles and opinion pieces on the Iran agreement   

http://www.jewishjournal.com/current_edition –

“New Poll on US Jewish support for the Iran deal despite misgivings” by Steven M. Cohen, in which support for the Iran agreement among American Jews revealed that 49% of American Jews support passage of the agreement and 31% oppose.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/new_poll_u.s._jews_support_iran_deal_despite_misgivings –

“Federation Take it Back” by Editor-in-Chief Rob Eshman http://www.jewishjournal.com/rob_eshman/articl/federation_take_it_back

http://www.jewishjournal.com/cover_story/article/community_voices_mixed_reactions_to_federations_stance_on_iran_deal

“Federation’s letter against Iran deal brings community’s divide to the surface” reviewing Los Angeles community’s reaction –

Shabbat Shalom!

Veteran Israeli Commentator Takes on Bibi, Adelson and Israel’s Political and Media Establishment

28 Tuesday Jul 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

I love Uri Avnery. I don’t always agree with him, but you have to give this 91 year-old Israeli veteran journalist, peace-activist, former member of the Knesset, and Irgun fighter during the 1948 Israeli War of Independence credit for doing so well what Jews have always done – criticize themselves, take on the powers that be, smash sacred cows, and speak honestly about the direction of Jewish society and values.

As Avnery has always been, he is one of Israel’s greatest critics. I am eager to hear what he says because the old man’s wisdom and historic perspective frequently keeps me from slipping into mindlessly supporting positions that “experts” and leaders advocate.

This week, Avnery has done it again in his provocative op-ed that he calls “Sheldon’s Stooges” published by Gush Shalom, an Israeli peace organization that Avnery founded (July 25). http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1437736410

Do read the article. It is not long.

Here are Avnery’s main points and my brief reflection about them in CAPS:

1. Bibi, after failing in his “declared war on the President of the United States” should resign, but doesn’t for all kinds of nefarious reasons – I AGREE

2. Bibi is neither insane, nor a fool – I AGREE

3. Sheldon Adelson has no real interest in Israel at all. Rather, he is using Bibi to personally gain control of the White House in 2016 – INTERESTING, BUT I HAVE NO IDEA IF THIS IS RIGHT!!!!

4. Adelson is a caricature of the Jew that the Zionist movement was established to reject and excise from Jewish society – I AGREE

5. The Israeli opposition has caved to Bibi’s fixation on the Iranian move towards a nuclear bomb – THIS DEPENDS, OBVIOUSLY, ON ONE’S PERSPECTIVE. I CREDIT BIBI WITH RAISING THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR ISSUE TO THE WORLD’S ATTENTION. THAT BEING SAID, MANY IN ISRAELI POLITICS AND IN THE ISRAELI SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT BELIEVE THIS AGREEMENT IS THE BEST ONE AVAILABLE AND THAT IT IS NOT IN ISRAEL’S BEST INTEREST TO DO WHAT BIBI IS PLANNING TO DO WITH THE AID OF AIPAC, TO LOBBY CONGRESS TO DEFEAT THE AGREEMENT – SEE MY FORMER BLOG “MANY BELIEVE THE IRAN AGREEMENT IS SUPPORTABLE DESPITE ITS FLAWS” https://wordpress.com/read/post/feed/400228/759611871

6. Bibi’s arguments that the P5+1 agreement with Iran is bad and catastrophic are shallow, and that the Prime Minister’s fear-mongering has succeeded in producing what Avnery calls “total unanimity, …total absence of doubting and questioning.” JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES

7. No one in Israeli politics and the Israeli media is seriously debating the meaning of what Bibi has characterized as an “historic disaster” and “that the price of cottage cheese evokes more emotion” – I ACTUALLY AM HEARING DEBATE, BUT I AM NOT AN ISRAELI AND I DEFER TO THEM TO EVALUATE WHETHER AVNERY IS RIGHT OR NOT. THERE IS CERTAINLY A LOT OF DEBATE GOING ON IN THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY ABOUT THE MEANING OF THIS AGREEMENT, ABOUT WHICH I FEEL GRATIFIED. AFTER ALL, DEBATE IS WHAT JEWS DO BEST – WE ARGUE AS A PEOPLE ABOUT VALUES, ETHICS, REAL POLITIC, CONSEQUENCES, AND LIFE ITSELF.

You can learn more about Uri Avnery here https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Uri+Avnery.

May he live to 120 and continue to act as the grand provocateur of the Jewish people and the state of Israel!

Many Israeli Experts Believe the Iran Deal is a Supportable Deal Despite its Flaws

22 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

On July 21 the Los Angeles Jewish Federation Board sent an appeal to our community to urge Congress to oppose the joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s Nuclear Program saying the following:

“The proposed agreement with Iran is not a partisan issue; it impacts the security of the United States, the stability of the Middle East, the future of the State of Israel and the safety of every Jewish family and community around the world. This Iran deal threatens the mission of our Federation as we exist to assure the continuity of the Jewish people. Support a secure State of Israel, care for Jews in need here and abroad and mobilize on issues of concerns.”

The letter calls upon our community members “to raise their voices in opposition to this agreement by contacting their elected representatives to urge them to oppose this deal.”

There is an impression being promoted by many in the organized American Jewish community as well as many in the American and Israeli media that there is unanimity in Israel that this Iran deal fundamentally undermines Israel’s security.

This is not true.

The following are statements from leading Israeli security experts who offer a more nuanced view of the Iran agreement, and while acknowledging that there are imperfections, have come to the conclusion that this Iran deal is an important step forward in enhancing Israel’s security.

Ami Ayalon: Former head of the Shin Bet and former Navy commander-in-chief:

“[The Agreement] is the best possible alternative from Israel’s point of view, given the other available alternatives…In the Middle East, 10 to 15 years is an eternity, and I don’t believe that 10 or 15 years from now the world will stand by and watch Iran acquire nuclear weapons.”

The Peace and Security Association representing hundreds of Israeli security experts, IDF veterans, Mossad, Shin Bet and Police:

“Although the agreement signed in Vienna between the world powers and Iran is not optimal, it should remove the immediate threat of an Iranian breakthrough leading to a nuclear military capability within a few months.”

Efraim Halevy: Former Mossad Director and former Head of the National Security Council:

“Without an agreement, Iran will be free to act as it wishes, whereas the sanctions regime against it will crumble in any case…if the nuclear issue is of cardinal existential importance, what is the point of canceling an agreement that distances Iran from the bomb?”

Chuck Freilich: Former Israeli Deputy National Security Advisor:

“This is the agreement that was reached – and despite its faults, it is not a bad one. Crucially, it will contribute to Israel’s security.”

Yitzhak Ben-Israel: Chair of Israel’s Space Agency and a former IDF general:

“The agreement is not bad at all, it is even good for Israel…It prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon for 15 years.”

Uzi Even: Former lead scientist at Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor:

“I am sure the deal that was signed is preferable to the current situation because it delays Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear bomb by at least 15 years and in practice ends it nuclear aspirations.”

Eran Etzion: Former Deputy Head of the Israel National Security Council and a former Head of Policy Planning at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

“The agreement prevents Israel from obtaining a nuclear weapon for 10-15 years. Obama says and he is right—this agreement is not about trust, it’s about verification. No agreement can be perfect. We live in the real world and it is the best agreement that they could reach.”

Israel Ziv: Former Israeli Major General:

“This agreement is the best among all other alternatives, and any military strike – as successful as it may be – would not have delayed even 20% of what the agreement will delay.”

Eli Levite: Former Deputy Director General of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission:

“In the next 15 years, if Iran will respect its obligations, Iran’ won’t be a nuclear country. Period. They won’t have the materials. The question is whether they will respect their obligation, and that is the hard question.”

Good and intelligent people will disagree. However, the LA Jewish Federation cannot speak for all Jews and ought to account for other legitimate American Jewish community views on this deal.

As a long-time contributor to the LA Jewish Federation, I take exception to the insinuation that if one really cares about Israeli security then there is only one responsible choice – to oppose this agreement.

As a Zionist and ohev m’dinat Yisrael, I support this agreement, even with its flaws.

Should this deal fail now as a result of a veto-proof congressional vote, not only would sanctions immediately fall apart, but Iran will have nothing to stop its forward march to nuclear capability in short order. Many political and diplomatic experts agree that realistically, no other deal is possible.

Consequently, if the deal fails, the only way to stop Iran’s march to a nuclear bomb would be to bomb all its sites. Should that happen Israel will likely be the recipient of thousands of Hezbollah rockets aimed at Tel Aviv, Haifa and everything in between sparking a regional war the likes of which we may have never witnessed before.

I am disappointed and confused by our Federation Board that claims to represent all the Jews of Los Angeles when it is clearly not so. If you agree with the position articulated by the Israeli experts above, then I suggest that you write to and call your Congressional Representatives today and let them know of your approval of the Iran agreement. Also, I suggest that you express to the Federation Board your dismay with its letter and its presumption that it represents your views.

The Iran Nuclear Negotiations – Why I Am Ambivalent

28 Sunday Jun 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Much is at stake as the June 30 deadline approaches for the P5+1 nations and Iran to conclude nuclear weapons negotiations, and as Tuesday approaches I am uncomfortably ambivalent. Here are my reasons why.

The Iranian leadership, without question, is a tough, stubborn, brutal, dishonest, and ideologically driven group that seeks hegemony over the entirety of the Middle East, the acquisition of a nuclear bomb being but one element important in its strategy of intimidation and domination of the region.

The economic sanctions imposed on Iran by the P5+1 nations to force it to negotiate an end to its nuclear weapons program have been effective in at least bringing the Iranian leadership to the negotiating table as it seeks relief from the economic stranglehold in which it finds itself.

Both sides have much to lose if an agreement does not emerge from these talks, but I do not believe that time is on the west’s side. If no agreement can be reached, even with an extension of the talks by a few days or weeks, the P5+1 coalition could unravel given Russia’s and China’s fading-away act.

The alternative to an agreement is dire whether it be Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon or a western military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities that sparks a wider war.

Western experts believe that should the US and its coalition partners initiate a military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, not only would complete destruction be impossible, but military action won’t make a substantial difference. Iran’s current break-out time to produce a bomb of a few months would be delayed only two to four years, and then we’ll find ourselves back where we are now.

The military option is most probably not a real possibility anyway given the P5+1’s war weariness and reluctance to open another theater of violence in the Middle East.

That being said, let’s imagine for a moment the consequences of a military strike on Iran, should it occur.

Both Hezbollah and Hamas (Iranian proxies) could well join together in a coordinated counter-attack on the Jewish state. It is estimated that there are 100,000 Iranian supplied Hezbollah missiles sitting in launchers on the Lebanese border with far greater navigational accuracy than anything Hamas has had, and they are all pointed at Israel with the capacity to strike Kiryat Shemona, Haifa, Tiberius, Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Petach Tikvah, Holon, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ariel and all  the major contested settlements, as well as cities and towns leading up to and including Jerusalem. Though Israel’s Iron Dome would intersect and destroy many incoming missiles, many other missiles will find their mark and kill hundreds or thousands of Israelis. Israel would bomb the daylights out of southern Lebanon with a likely ground invasion, and many innocent Lebanese and Israeli soldiers would be killed.

Hezbollah’s tunnel system in the north is said to be far more extensive than anything Hamas built in the south, and we could expect an invasion into Israel itself with deadly results.

And so, a war involving Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas can be expected to be more destructive and costly than anything Israel has experienced before.

Contemplating a scenario like this with a full Israeli military response is a nightmare of epic proportions. Yet, the bottom line in negotiations has to be that there can be no agreement that directly or indirectly recognizes Iran moving towards nuclear military capability.

One has to consider whether some kind of P5+1 control over Iranian nuclear ambitions is better than no control at all, and that some agreement that achieves many of the goals of the western powers is better than no deal.

All this is why I find myself ambivalent about what is the right course should negotiations fail. On the one hand, it is almost always a mistake to allow our actions to be influenced inordinately by our fears. Yet on the other, our leaders are going to have to choose what the better course is between two bad choices – all-out war or a partial agreement.

In an effort to clarify the important issues involved, a document called “Public Statement on U.S. Policy toward the Iran Nuclear Negotiations” was recently published under the auspices of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The group assembled to discuss the Iran nuclear issue that produced this document included an impressive non-partisan group of American military, security, diplomatic, nuclear arms, and Middle East experts. The names of participants are listed. The 4-page document is worth reading and can be accessed here:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/StatementWeb2.pdf

The politics driving the right and the left, unfortunately, have obfuscated many of the most important issues at stake. Most of us cannot claim to understand the physics of nuclear technology and weaponry and so we have to rely on the experts, and some of them disagree with each other.

For now, we will have to wait and see what transpires this week between the two parties and, if there is an extension of the talks, what will be the final outcome?

National Poll of American Jews on Iran Negotiations and The Forward’s Response to Adelson’s anti-BDS Campaign

11 Thursday Jun 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Two matters of vital interest to American Jewry and Israel:

1. J Street conducted a national poll of American Jewish support for Iran nuclear negotiations. American Jews are strongly in favor of the current negotiations with Iran and the P5 +2 going forward with proper inspection of all sites (including military sites) and provisions to reinstitute sanctions immediately upon Iranian violations of the agreement. See findings https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.jstreet.org/images/j-street-iran-poll-1-pager.pdf

– See also this Times of Israel article on poll – “Most US Jews support Iran nuclear deal, J Street poll finds”, – http://www.timesofisrael.com/most-us-jews-support-iran-nuclear-deal-j-street-poll-finds/

“Overall, President Obama’s approval rating remains higher among American Jews than among Americans in general. Fifty-six percent approve of the way he is handling his job as president, compared to 45% of the general population, according to a calculation published by website Real Clear Politics from the same period.”

2. Wealthy Republican Right-Wing supporter of PM Netanyahu Sheldon Adelson is pouring money into fighting BDS on American college campuses. I am opposed to BDS, but we have to ask ‘Is Adelson’s money and approach good or bad in the fight against the BDS movement on college campuses?’ The Jewish Daily Forward editorial staff says it is not, and I agree with them.

See “The Wrong and Right Way to Beat BDS,” Jewish Forward
http://forward.com/opinion/editorial/309821/how-sheldon-adelson-could-really-fight-bds/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Main

“It’s hard to see what sort of productive role Sheldon Adelson can play in [fighting BDS],” writes the Forward editorial board. “But there is something that he can do. He can call his friend Benjamin Netanyahu and remind the prime minister that it is in his power to resurrect genuine negotiations with the Palestinians, repair his frayed relationship with the Obama administration and rescue Israel from growing international isolation. That might, indeed, save the day.”

J’accuse! Social Media and Moral Culpability

04 Thursday Jun 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

I follow the principle that unless I’m prepared to have reported what I say and write on the front page of the New York Times, I keep my mouth shut.

Too many people, however, think little about the consequences of what they write on the internet. They use social media without discretion and without a sense of responsibility for the negative consequences on others when they vent their rage, disappointment, irritation, frustration, and disagreement.

In Israel last week, an Israeli government bureaucrat was accused of racism on Facebook. The accuser is an African American woman who made aliyah years ago. She entered a government office with her children to arrange for passports, claimed she was rudely shunted aside by the clerk and not treated as other women with children were treated in the office. She said that the government clerk, 47-year-old Ariel Runis, “told me that if I was complaining about discrimination, I should ‘Get the heck out of his face.’” (Haaretz, May 26).

Enraged by the perceived slight, she went home and posted on Facebook that Runis treated her badly because of the color of her skin. Her post spread quickly and grabbed more than 6000 “likes.” News sources picked up the story without fact-checking and ran it. It became a national story.

Mr. Runis was attacked widely throughout the state of Israel in an already charged racial environment following alleged racist police brutality against Ethiopian Jews and PM Netanyahu’s election campaign against Arab-Israeli citizens.

Runis’ description of the incident is very different from that of the offended woman. He said she had refused to wait in line, demanded special treatment and wanted to push ahead of other mothers with children who were quietly waiting their turn. He denied that his treatment of her had anything to do with the color of her skin.

Runis was humiliated and shamed by the accusation that he was a “racist,” said that his life’s work, including personal activism on behalf of social equality and justice, had been “erased with one stroke.”

The Facebook slander of his character and the media extravaganza pushed him over the edge. He shot himself in the head.

Runis’ suicide could not have been caused only by the public shame he suffered. Other inner demons had to have played their part in his psychology. However, one cannot deny the damage done to his reputation and the public humiliation he suffered by this woman’s Facebook post.

Fundamental ethical questions about responsibility in this case have to be asked. Who is responsible?

Runis himself ? Of course.

The woman?  Yes.

Facebook? Yes.

The media in its 24/7 news-frenzy and rush to get the story first? Yes.

Everyone who read the Facebook post, forwarded it and commented on it? Probably.

It’s my conviction, and I believe backed up by Jewish tradition, that all the above are morally responsible in this case.

Jewish tradition has much to say about the ethics of gossip (l’shon hara – lit. evil tongue) and slander (r’chilut), comparing l’shon ha-ra to the three cardinal sins of murder, adultery and idol worship, the commission of which prevents perpetrators a place in the world to come. (Babylonian Talmud, Arachin 15b).

Tradition also warns that the people who listen to gossip are considered worse even than the person who tells it because no harm could be done by gossip if no one listened to it. The Talmud says that l’shon ha-ra kills three people: the person who speaks it, the person who hears it, and the person about whom it is told. (Ibid.)

Yes – social media has a positive function in our society, but social media is a potentially dangerous weapon in the hands of irresponsible and self-centered individuals who think little of or care little about destructive consequences to other human beings.

I’m reminded of the young yeshiva bucher who told tales about his classmates, was called into the rebbe’s study who instructed the boy to take a pillow, climb a hill, cut the pillow, release the feathers into the wind, and then return to the rebbe for further instructions. When the boy completed the task and returned his rebbe told him to collect every single feather, return it to the pillow and report back to him.

The boy said, “I can’t do that Rebbe!”

His rebbe said: “So too you must guard your words, for once you speak them you can never get them back!”

This tragic incident in Israel shows how important it is for us to hold our tongues and remember that if we don’t want what we say and write to appear on the front page of the New York Times, then we must be silent less we shame others publicly and destroy their good name.

“The Disaster that Judaism Won’t Survive” – A Response to Haaretz Op-Ed

06 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

,

Tomer Persico is an Israeli intellectual, a popular blogger on religion and spirituality, an advocate for freedom of religion, and a serious observer of Israel’s religious life. When he writes, Israelis take him seriously.

Persico has concluded in a recent Haaretz op-ed (“The Disaster that Judaism Won’t Survive,” April 25  http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.653125) that after the shelving of the vision of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “Israel will not be able to continue being both Jewish and democratic.” He is alarmed that Judaism in Israel is increasingly being equated with autocratic despotism and oppression, and this turn away from both democracy and liberal Judaism to extremism will eventually lead to disaster for the Jewish people and state of Israel:

“When our best friends, the countries with which we like to boast that we share values, increasingly perceive Israel’s Judaism as an antithesis to the state’s democratic character and a threat to the liberal approach and equality of rights to which Israel committed itself in its Declaration of Independence – it appears that we are closer than ever to having the Jewish tradition relegated to the abhorrent status of Communism in the past and of Salafi Islam in the present. We are witnessing Judaism being tarred-and-feathered, and the charges will stick to it more than any anti-Semitic calumny in the past, simply because this time no blood libel will be involved.”

For an increasing number of Israelis, Persico says, Judaism is regarded as inconsistent with democratic values and when asked to choose one over the other, they prefer Judaism over democracy. He worries that when western Diaspora Jews fully understand what has happened in Israel they will separate their practice of Judaism from the state of Israel and turn their backs on Zionism and the Jewish state.

Based on data collected by the Israel Democracy Institute, he reports: “If in 2010, 48.1 percent of Jewish citizens replied that the two elements [Judaism and democracy] are equally important to them, in 2012 this fell to 41.9 percent, and in 2014, it was 24.5 percent. At the same time, the proportion of Israeli Jews for whom the Jewish element is the most important rose to as high as 38.9 percent; 33.5 percent of the respondents opted for democracy as most important.”

Despite these disturbing trends, I believe that Persico’s fears are overheated, exaggerated and misleading. Non-Orthodox liberal Judaism and interest in the study of classic Jewish texts are being embraced by significant numbers of Israelis who seek meaning in Jewish life-cycle and holiday celebration outside of Orthodoxy. These Israelis are western and liberal in outlook and they highly value the life that democratic institutions support. Nevertheless, Persico’s alarming conclusions have to be taken seriously because so many Israelis, fed by the settler movement, extreme right-wing orthodoxy, and the politics of fear, believe today that democracy and Judaism cannot co-exist.

The original sin leading to this polarized view was committed by Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion who gave a monopoly of control over Jewish religious life to a then very small right-wing orthodox community. Successive Israeli governments have allowed the polarization to continue over the entire 67 years of statehood because of pragmatic coalition politics and the ruling party’s need to secure a majority of mandates in the Knesset.

The second sin was committed after Israel conquered the West Bank during the 1967 Six-Days War. Then Israeli right-wing religious nationalists, seeing God’s hand behind the redemption of Judea and Samaria into Israel proper, conflated Judaism with the Greater Israel movement thus morally justifying Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and giving the settlement movement religious and national credibility.

Historically, there has always been tension in Jewish tradition between tribal and universal impulses and values. However, we Jews need not have to choose between being patriotic to the Jewish state or being universal humanitarians concerned about justice for Palestinians and other peoples. We can be both. Each trend ought to be a check against the other’s excesses, and though Persico is right in his worry that the two-state vision has been shelved after the Kerry mission, the two-state solution is still the only concrete assurance that Israel can remain Jewish, democratic, just, peaceful, secure, and part of the family of nations.

It must be said that Judaism as a whole embraces both orthodoxy and liberalism. It’s neither a fair demand that all Jews be either liberal or orthodox. It’s also inaccurate to claim that Judaism can survive only if Jews become right-wing extremist nationalists or live in consonance with the left’s worldview as expressed regularly in Haaretz.

What is, I believe, a certain threat to the Zionist enterprise, arguably the greatest single achievement of the Jewish people in two millennia, is the pitting of Israel’s Judaism against democracy and the continuing monopoly over Jewish life by the ultra-Orthodox political parties and rabbis.

The only way to buttress democracy in Israel is first and foremost to support the two-state solution, and at the same time encourage all efforts to separate church from state because that will also support the health and vitality of Judaism and Jewish life.