How to sum up 2009? For starters, recall that it capped the first decade of the new millennium, a decade that effectively began on September 11, 2001. A decade marked by a string of losses that would put the New York Mets to shame: the loss of America’s global respect and its economic stability, the loss of public civility, of three million jobs, the polar ice cap, the newspaper and automobile industries, a city called New Orleans. A decade like that demands a “wow” finale, and 2009 did not disappoint.
The year dawned amid high hopes. America had elected its first black president, a charismatic intellectual who promised to heal partisan divisions, reboot the economy, bring the troops home and end extra-legal detentions of terror suspects. Many Americans saw 2009 ushering in a post-racial era of civic amity and progressive policies.
But many other Americans didn’t agree. Almost from the moment he was sworn in, President Obama faced unceasing attacks from conservative politicians and talk-show hosts. He was called a socialist, a Nazi, an elitist egghead, a clueless buffoon, a secret Muslim and a godless liberal. Congressional debate over his initiatives, from economic stimulus to health care reform, deteriorated into trench warfare.
And where he wasn’t stymied, he balked. He threw money at bankers while joblessness soared. The wars raged on. The detainees remained detained. Americans looked to the man called Barack, leader of the peace party, and found him playing war-maker.
Oddly enough, Israelis had a similar experience. The leader of their peace party, a man named Barak, was their chief war-maker. They held an election three weeks after Obama’s inauguration, and like Americans they chose drastic change. While America shifted from right to left, Israel switched from center-left to right. America chose a leader who promised peace but delivered more war. Israel chose a leader who promised toughness but delivered concessions.
New Year’s Day had found Israel in day six of a 22-day campaign against Hamas in Gaza. Israelis found a rare unity around the operation, seen as a justified response to years of rocket attacks. Outside Israel, though, the massive destruction and some 1,400 Palestinian deaths sparked a wave of anger unlike anything Israel had seen. Courts in Britain and Spain issued war-crimes indictments against Israel’s leaders. Boycott Israel campaigns gained new momentum and respectability in Europe and even America.
As anti-Israel anger grew, Israel’s Diaspora Jewish supporters became targets. Attacks on pro-Israel advocacy moved in 2009 from the fringe to the mainstream.
Major Jewish organizations responded to the hostility by standing closer to Israel. Inevitably, attacks on pro-Israel advocacy became inseparable from attacks on the Jewish organizational world — that is, on the visible Jewish community. The result was not a decline in criticism of Israel but an increase in criticism of Israel’s Jewish allies. The decades-old taboo on attacking the Jewish community was collapsing.
Surprisingly, the event thought most likely to generate antisemitism in 2009 — the Bernard Madoff scandal — seemed to glide by without an uptick. Madoff was arrested in December 2008 on charges of running the largest Ponzi scheme in history, cheating his investment clients out of some $50 billion. Many of his victims came from a network of Jewish philanthropies and donors where he was a familiar, trusted figure. Sentenced in June to 150 years in federal prison, his crimes were one of the year’s most talked-about news stories. Yet there was little evidence in polling or public discussion that anyone’s opinions about Jews had changed. The only ones worried about Madoff’s Jewishness were Jews.
Nor did much bigoted chatter emerge from the arrests in July of five prominent Sephardic rabbis among the people caught in a New Jersey money-laundering and corruption sweep that also netted mayors, state legislators and a Brooklyn Hasid accused of human kidney trafficking. Nothing seemed to harm Jews in the public’s mind — nothing, that is, except Israel.
This year also saw the collapse of the old taboo — whatever was left of it — on internal Jewish dissent. With the Democrats back in power, Jewish liberals were re-empowered. When the president met with Jewish organizational leaders, groups like Americans for Peace Now were among the invitees. A new Jewish lobby, the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” J Street, convened its first gala Washington policy conference in October with National Security Adviser Jim Jones as a keynote speaker and newly minted Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren conspicuously absent.
For years the Jewish community had been a vital conduit between Washington and Jerusalem. Now there were two Jewish communities, one emotionally tied to the new administration in Washington, the other with its heart in Netanyahu’s Jerusalem. The border between them was like Israel’s border: ill-defined, porous and shifting but gradually becoming clearer.
Contact J.J. Goldberg at goldberg@forward.com and follow his blog at blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
The Mirror in the Mikveh
If Rabbis Are Allowed To Intermarry, Get Ready for the Non-Jewish Rabbi
Top 10 Badass Mah Jongg Jews
A Moral Responsibility
You've successfully signed up!
Little was heard of the Saudi peace plan after the Alliance of Peace episode. Until recently, that is.
Abdullah’s peace plan, also called the “Arab Peace Initiative” and the “Arab League Plan,” was presented on an “all or nothing basis ” in 2002. It insisted on the Arab interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which demands a return to the 1949 armistice lines, a position at odds with the American and British drafters’ intentions. The plan also demands a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue “in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.” That resolution is understood by the Arabs to include the Palestinian “right of return” to areas they fled between 1947 and 1949, areas and even major cities in today’s Israel. Israel rejects “the right of return” as a mortal threat to its existence.
Today, the Saudi plan is a major tenet in J Street’s platform.
J Street’s website position papers state, “U.S. leadership can be deployed … to normalize relations between Israel and the Arab world, utilizing the Arab Peace Initiative and helping to create institutional frameworks for regional cooperation.”
When asked about the plan in a Ha’aretz interview in June 2009, J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami responded, “Yes, we support the idea behind the Arab Peace Initiative — which is that resolution of the conflict needs to be regional and comprehensive.”
In a November CNN interview with Christine Amanpour, Ben-Ami referred to the Arab plan repeatedly, including: “The Arab League has put on the table not simply an Israeli-Palestinian deal, but an Israeli-Arab comprehensive peace with the entirety of the Arab world.”
Why does J Street push the Saudi initiative? Perhaps the answer lies in the new “alliance” that has been formed — the very close ties between Saudi Arabia, the Arab American Institute, and J Street.
In September 2009, J Street joined some 30 ethnic and religious groups to support Obama’s Middle East diplomatic efforts. One of the groups was the Arab American Institute, which posted on its Internet site the coalition’s statement. Included was this clause: “We support the idea of a comprehensive regional peace that builds on the Arab Peace Initiative.”
A member of J Street’s advisory board, Judith Barnett, worked on aspects of the Saudi account for Qorvis in 2004. She was also one of the first contributors to J Street’s PAC and was later joined in the PAC by Nancy Dutton, the Saudi Embassy’s Washington attorney; Lewis Elbinger, a U.S. State Department official who was based in Saudi Arabia; and Ray Close, the CIA’s station chief in Saudi Arabia for 22 years who later went to work for Saudi intelligence bosses. Close’s son Kenneth registered at the Justice Department as a foreign agent, working for Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, the author of the Saudi peace plan.
Beyond sharing support for the Saudi plan, the J Street-AAI financial and ideological ties also appear to be very tight. Richard Abdoo is a member of J Street’s finance committee with its minimum contribution of $10,000 to J Street’s PAC. James Zogby recently wrote in the Bahrain Gulf Daily, “On October 25, [2009] the Arab American Institute and J Street convened a joint meeting that brought leaders and activists from both communities together as an expression of our shared commitment to advance a just and comprehensive Middle East peace.”
J Street’s embrace of the Saudi initiative is not a surprise, considering the strong endorsement the plan received from George Soros, J Street’s purported godfather and sugar daddy.
“The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative,” Soros wrote in a 2007 manifesto, “[is] a settlement to be guaranteed by Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, based on the 1967 borders and full recognition of Israel. The offer was meant to be elaborated by Saudi King Abdullah at the Arab League meeting to be hosted by Saudi Arabia at the end of March. But no progress is possible as long as the Bush administration and the Ehud Olmert government persist in their current position of refusing to recognize a unity government that includes Hamas.”
Incredibly, the billionaire blames AIPAC for the initiative’s failure, a factor that may explain Soros’ burning desire to create a left-wing alternative to AIPAC. “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.”
Despite its recent national conference, J Street still defies definition. Beyond Ben-Ami, its ubiquitous and loquacious director, the decision-makers and major funders of J Street remain anonymous. The Saudi-Arab-American Institute-J Street nexus begins to provide some definition to the self-proclaimed “pro-Israel” organization. But more disclosure is needed.
When brother does not recognize brother tragedy ensues. The story of Yosef and his brothers drives home this point emphatically. Yes, there was a happy ending of sorts, which we read about in this week's parasha, Vayigash, where Yosef first reveals his identity to his dumbstruck brothers, and is then reunited with his father Yisrael. But even this joyful conclusion to a painful and prolonged estrangement is clouded by the exile and enslavement which will soon engulf the children of Israel.
If there is a long-term silver lining to this gloomy episode, it is the emergence of true leadership, as exhibited by Yosef and Yehuda, who nearly come to blows as Vayigash opens. Torah is teaching us is that true leadership is characterized by recognition and love for one's brother, and, indeed, love for one's brother is a prerequisite of true leadership. Any individual seeking to impose his will upon others, whether it be a social occasion, the local school board, business, or national politics, who does not acknowledge and accept the uniqueness of others, and cherish their welfare, will be, at best, a failed leader, a false leader, and at worst, a tyrant who inflicts endless misery upon his brothers.
Torah makes it clear that conflict between brothers has afflicted man from the moment that two siblings walked the same earth. From Cain and Abel, to Yitzchak and Yishmael, and Yaakov and Esav, brotherly strife has plagued mankind. Torah makes it equally clear that only reconciliation between brothers can bring about the longed-for redemption of mankind, and this is alluded to in the story of Yosef and his brothers. True, two hundred years of servitude were about to commence, but the unity which now bound the brothers together, and their shared trust in G-d's providence, would see them through the years of bondage, and be the source of the strength of vision which ultimately break their bonds as they left Egypt forever, and set off for the promised land.
It was, in fact, the issues of trust and vision which first tore the brothers apart. Yosef was given a coat by his father which roused the jealousy of his brothers. Was it the beauty of the coat or its outrageous price tag which so incensed the brothers, or was it simply that it was a coat that, at Midrash teaches, had been handed down from generation to generation since the time of Adam, the first man. Was it the coat that they later drenched with blood that they coveted, or were they keenly aware that Yosef possessed something far more valuable: the generations-old tradition of G-d's word and G-d's protection, as embodied by the coat.
But Yosef possessed in his heart something even more precious than the coat, and this is what really drove the brothers to entertain the thought of murdering Yosef, of abandoning him to perish, and eventually to sell him to a passing caravan of merchants heading south to Egypt: Yosef possessed a dream. Yosef's dream existed for the good of the entire nation: "for it was to preserve life that G-d sent me before you." (Genesis 45:5) Yosef knew this, and this knowledge gave him the strength to persevere in the face of his brothers' hatred for him, and in the face of all the hardships he was to encounter. But his brothers, who did not possess the ketonet passim - the many-colored coat - the mantle of knowledge and closeness to G-d, understood Yosef's dreams in another light altogether. They sensed imperiousness on Yosef's part, and feared subjugation to him in the fulfillment of his dreams. Their lack of vision, their isolation, perhaps, from G-d, blinded them and drove them to violence against their brother.
We are intended to learn from the triumphs and tragedies that beset our forefathers, and not to repeat mistakes made in the past. But we can hardly expect from those who have turned their backs to our history, who have torn the beautiful coat of Yosef, as it were, to learn from what they have already forgotten. And so today, in the land of Israel, there is a younger brother with a dream and with a vision. His dream is of a vibrant Jewish nation in all the land of Israel, and at its center, the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, from which will shine forth G-d's light and the Divine truth of Torah to all the world. But today's dreamer also has brothers who are frightened and wary of his dream, and while he knows his dreams to be for the preservation of life and the good of all, the brothers fear for their own roles in the visionary landscape.
The modern nation of Israel has arrived at its own "vayigash" moment, its own existential crisis demanding the only resolution possible: the preservation of the nation, the preservation of the dream and the preservation of life on earth. In spite of all the "bad blood" between Yosef and his brothers, it was the mutual love by all of the brothers for Binyamin that both precipitated the crisis and resolved the crisis.
There are those in Israel today who seek to shy away from our responsibility to G-d and to one another, who try to flee from the destiny that Torah has spelled out for us, and to hide from the prophetic promise of the rebuilt Temple, of the Divine light which will spread forth from Zion, and of a world imbued with the knowledge of Torah. But at the same time there is a growing community dedicated to the land of Israel, the Torah of Israel, the G-d of Israel and the destiny of Israel. The time has come for us all to draw near, to reconnect as brothers, and unite as the children of Israel. Only thusly can we realize the dream.
I think the lesson, as Obama demonstrated, is that sometimes attempts at bipartisanship and reconciliation are a foolish and self-defeating.
Sometimes you just have to choose up sides and fight.
When I read people like Lenny Ben-David on here, I conclude that (as Paul Krugman recently said) there's no chance of reasoning with some people. All you can do is gather together the people like you who do want peace and organize to get it.
J Street is a good development. Of course there's been a Jewish peace movement fighting in the wilderness for decades. http://www.muzzlewatch.com/ I'm glad that J Street is sticking its nose into the establishment.
I agree with you that Operation Cast Lead has led to an increase in attacks against the Jewish community. I've seen that on the comments pages of the Wall Street Journal.
I think we have to tell the Israelis that their behavior is a danger to the Jewish community. It's time for them to wrap it up and move back to the 1967 border. The longer they delay, the worse a deal they're going to get.
The Saudi "peace" initiatives calls only for "normalization" of relations, but not for recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. After the Polish state was reborn in 1918, and its battle to survive in the early 1920s, both Germany and the USSR "normalized" relations with Poland, exchanging embassies, and engaging in trade and the like. The problem was, that neither Germany nor Russia ever really accepted Poland's right to exist. My mother's family fully felt the consequences when first the Red Army took their ancestral home and properties, and then, little over a year and a half later, the Nazis put them into the ghettos and slated them for extinction. Poland had been torn in half between the two wolves. The Saudi initiative is a wolf in sheep's clothing. "Normalization" is quite distinct and very different from recognizing the sovereign right of a people to their sovereign state. While the Saudi plan can be seen as better than nothing, it must be seen as little more than a plan to pull the wool over our eyes in our eager hopes for peace and reconciliation with our neighbors. For them it's nothing more than a strategy to weaken and eat Israel in nibbles.
The Saudi "peace" initiatives calls only for "normalization" of relations, but not for recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. After the Polish state was reborn in 1918, and its battle to survive in the early 1920s, both Germany and the USSR "normalized" relations with Poland, exchanging embassies, and engaging in trade and the like. The problem was, that neither Germany nor Russia ever really accepted Poland's right to exist. My mother's family fully felt the consequences when first the Red Army took their ancestral home and properties, and then, little over a year and a half later, the Nazis put them into the ghettos and slated them for extinction. Poland had been torn in half between the two wolves. The Saudi initiative is a wolf in sheep's clothing. "Normalization" is quite distinct and very different from recognizing the sovereign right of a people to their sovereign state. While the Saudi plan can be seen as better than nothing, it must be seen as little more than a plan to pull the wool over our eyes in our eager hopes for peace and reconciliation with our neighbors. For them it's nothing more than a strategy to weaken and eat Israel in nibbles.
The State of Israel's first responsibility is to defend and protect its own citizens, and not concern itself with the consquences that might befall those who have chosen to remain in the diaspora. Does China, India or Pakistan concern themselves on how their actions might reflect on, or what consequences their actions may have on their ethnic kinsmen elsewhere? Antisemitism and pogroms existed long before there was a State of Israel, and today those anti-Jewish racists use "anti-Zionism" to disguise and excuse their anti-Jewish virulence. That should not stop Israel from taking the proper actions it must take to defend its citizens and national existence.
When Norman says that there has been "a Jewish peace movement fighting in the wilderness for decades", he means to say that there has been American Jewish opposition to Israel for years. It's an old propaganda trick wherein one presents oneself as a "peace activist" - even though violence against Israel will never be condemned. Norman justifies the Hamas war against Israel. He belongs to a "peace movement" in the same sense that the Palestinian National Charter speaks of peace: "the destruction of Israel in an armed struggle will restore peace to the land".
In the years preceeding the founding of Israel, the anti-Zionists in America claimed regularly that the founding of a Jewish state would endanger the status of Jews in the USA. The American Council for Judaism was perhaps the most outspoken organization that made this claim. However, American Jews continued to succeed in American society. Norman's raising the issue of "danger" to American Jewry was, again, a propaganda war against Israel. J.J. Goldberg merely mentioned that there is "an increase in criticism of Israel’s Jewish allies" in America - not a physical danger. No one questions the status of American Jewry. Norman, too, does not feel that his safety is in any danger. He mentions that Israel is "a danger to the Jewish community" just to win support for his anti-Israel ideology.
Lastly, Norman (again) gives a link to a website claiming that anti-Israel activity is being "muzzled". Interesting. There is so much anti-Israel publicity in the world. The UN is so busy with us, and the number of condemnations of Israel is mind-boggling. Anti-Zionist Jewish activity has always been present in the Jewish world. The pre-Holocaust Bund was a very popular ideological movement (perhaps more popular than Zionism) which strongly opposed Zionism. In the haredi community, the Satmar and the Neturei Karta express opposition. The above mentioned American Council for Judaism is from Reform Judaism, and its founders were Reform rabbis. In short, it is another tool of propaganda to claim that the opposition is being silenced. No, no one is silencing you, Norman, but I am questioning your intellectual honesty as a "peace-activist who believes in war" (war against Israel).
David Mamet's book, "The Wicked Son," really opened my eyes to the reality of what J Street and the Jewish Left ignore.
Either pretending that we don't have a stake in Israel being a "Jewish State" or thinking we "know better" is absolutely ridiculous. One only has to read the comment sections on sites like The Huffington Post to realize with whom the Left is truly aligning - people all too content to single out Israel on any number of issues for the age-old reason, and shame on us for crying anti-semitism.
I'm sorry, American Jews should be throwing their lot in with Israel, even if their decisions made to protect a Jewish Israel are morally questionable. J Street, Noam Chomsky, and Rabbi Lerner all make the mistake of ignoring the intentions and words of their bedfellows, at our collective peril.
Gwendolyn Brooks wrote: "Poetry is life distilled."
Closing poem in the Forward for 2009, by BK [above]: "American Jews should be throwing their lot in with Israel, even if their decisions made to protect a Jewish Israel are morally questionable."
It is amazing to me that all the "self rightous Jews for Peace" who post on this opinion Blog have never paid an ounce of blood for their freedom to comdem or demean the State of Israel. All they have done, these leftist "drek", is take from the blood and sweat of those who fight for survival as a people.
I constantly read, especially in the Forward, of how the younger American Jew has no connection to Israel as a Jewish State or a home for the Jewish People. It is over 60 sum years since WW II and the Holacaust ended. Those born after these two events have no real knowledge of what transpired. The Academic "lefties" have poisoned their minds as to their connection to a Jewish homeland. Those of us who have put our lives on the line for survival, I speak of Veterans, are different from civilians who have accepted the largress of those who have. This though was adequately expressed on History Channel's week portrayal of WW II photos never seen before. We do look upon these phony Peacenicks as parasitic cowards destroying any self respect a Jew has.
Norman is a prime example of this embodiement. He preaches the same old dispespect and defeatism that the cowardly Jew did of the Thities. WW II changed that image.
Back on point. This administration is as anti-Isreal as any I have seen in my 85 years. One deludes themselves if they think that behind all of Obama's attacks that there is a hidden agenda of defending Israel. One sure thing, the Jewish people will outlast this failed Presidency.
It is amazing to me that all the "self rightous Jews for Peace" who post on this opinion Blog have never paid an ounce of blood for their freedom to comdem or demean the State of Israel. All they have done, these leftist "drek", is take from the blood and sweat of those who fight for survival as a people.
I constantly read, especially in the Forward, of how the younger American Jew has no connection to Israel as a Jewish State or a home for the Jewish People. It is over 60 sum years since WW II and the Holacaust ended. Those born after these two events have no real knowledge of what transpired. The Academic "lefties" have poisoned their minds as to their connection to a Jewish homeland. Those of us who have put our lives on the line for survival, I speak of Veterans, are different from civilians who have accepted the largress of those who have. This though was adequately expressed on History Channel's week portrayal of WW II photos never seen before. We do look upon these phony Peacenicks as parasitic cowards destroying any self respect a Jew has.
Norman is a prime example of this embodiement. He preaches the same old dispespect and defeatism that the cowardly Jew did of the Thities. WW II changed that image.
Back on point. This administration is as anti-Isreal as any I have seen in my 85 years. One deludes themselves if they think that behind all of Obama's attacks that there is a hidden agenda of defending Israel. One sure thing, the Jewish people will outlast this failed Presidency.
It is amazing to me that all the "self rightous Jews for Peace" who post on this opinion Blog have never paid an ounce of blood for their freedom to comdem or demean the State of Israel. All they have done, these leftist "drek", is take from the blood and sweat of those who fight for survival as a people.
I constantly read, especially in the Forward, of how the younger American Jew has no connection to Israel as a Jewish State or a home for the Jewish People. It is over 60 sum years since WW II and the Holacaust ended. Those born after these two events have no real knowledge of what transpired. The Academic "lefties" have poisoned their minds as to their connection to a Jewish homeland. Those of us who have put our lives on the line for survival, I speak of Veterans, are different from civilians who have accepted the largress of those who have. This though was adequately expressed on History Channel's week portrayal of WW II photos never seen before. We do look upon these phony Peacenicks as parasitic cowards destroying any self respect a Jew has.
Norman is a prime example of this embodiement. He preaches the same old dispespect and defeatism that the cowardly Jew did of the Thities. WW II changed that image.
Back on point. This administration is as anti-Isreal as any I have seen in my 85 years. One deludes themselves if they think that behind all of Obama's attacks that there is a hidden agenda of defending Israel. One sure thing, the Jewish people will outlast this failed Presidency.