Pete Wehner on the Blasphemous Pat Buchanan

Far be it for me to judge these things, but Pete is a righteous Christian, especially when compared to Pat Buchanan, who might be in for a big surprise if he ever does meet Jesus (Hint: He'll be the Jewish dude with the stringy hair and the kipah, and quite possibly a guitar):

This is really all quite ugly. For Buchanan, a Catholic, to compare Demjanjuk to Jesus -- who, according to Christian belief, was deity, holy and without sin -- is strikingly offensive. So is his effort to revive the charge of blood libel. Rarely do you find such an obscene mix of blasphemy and bigotry, and all in less than 900 words.

William F. Buckley, Jr. did many great deeds on behalf of conservatism over the course of his life. Near the top of the list was when he said in 1991 that he found it "impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what [Buchanan] did and said during the period under examination [the first Gulf War] amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it.

 

Hillary's Going Looking for Hamas Moderates

From Laura Rozen:

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as you've heard from us in the last nearly 100 days we will not deal with Hamas unless they renounce violence, recognize Israel, and agree to abide by prior Palestinian Authority agreements. We do not in any way support the kind of extremists that you see. What we are looking for is to separate out those who are, as we found in Iraq, part of an armed campaign for political reasons that can be reconcilable.

Hmmm. The hunt for the Hamas moderate can be a frustrating one. As Bibi suggested, correctly, moderates in Hamas would leave Hamas because the organization is, at its core, jihadist and committed to the eradication of Israel as a Jewish state.

Gaza = Power

Literally. And it turns a profit:

Running a power plant in Gaza might sound like a losing venture but, thanks to payments from the cash-strapped Palestinian government, its owners are making profits and promise another year of "unstoppable growth".

While Gaza's 1.5 million residents, blockaded by Israel, face electricity shortages, the Palestine Electric Co.'s (PEC) PEC.PL profits were $6.3 million in 2008, up from $4.4 million in 2007. Profits are largely distributed in tax-free dividends.

The gains came even though the plant has been operating at less than half capacity due to the embargo that chokes fuel and spare parts, and past bombings by Israel.

But, of course, there's the corruption:

Past efforts by West Bank-based Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to reopen the PEC's contract stalled. Many large PEC shareholders play a powerful role in the Palestinian economy and are close to Arafat's successor Mahmoud Abbas, officials say.

Wake Me Up When It's Ebola

I was in a Starbucks today when I was struck by an allergy-induced cough. Three people stared at me with something approaching panic. "Don't worry, it's just Marburg," I said, which caused them to visibly relax. Not that they knew what Marburg was. They were just glad to hear that I didn't have the dreaded swine flu. (Fun fact about Marburg: Those who manage to recover from Marburg frequently suffer from orchititis. Look it up.)

This is a bad flu, and I'm terribly sorry for the few people who have died from it, but I'm reasonably sure we're not all going to die (if we do, at least my family won't die hungry, since I have a bunch of MREs in my basement).

Frank Furedi, an expert on hysteria and paranoia, has this to say about our latest cable-television-induced panic: "The explosion of global fear about the outbreak of a deathly flu virus in Mexico is more a response to the dramatisation of influenza than to the actual threat it poses." He went on: 

There is nothing unusual about the outbreak of flu. Every year, thousands of people die from the flu, and, in normal conditions, society has learned to cope with the flu threat. From time to time, an outbreak of flu turns into a global pandemic, leading to a catastrophic loss of life. However, there is no evidence that the so-called swine flu, which has so far claimed a relatively small number of lives, will turn into a pandemic. Rather, what we are faced with is a health crisis that has been transformed into a moral drama.

Pat Buchanan is Slipping, Poor Thing

It used to be that Buchanan was clever and arch and indirect in his loathing for Jews. Occasionally, though, in particular when he was defending the rights of Nazis, the mask would slip. But never like this. In his latest defense of John Demjanjuk, Buchanan let's it all hang out. As Menachem Rosensaft points out, Buchanan has now deified Demjanjuk and, in so doing, revived the Christ-killing libel:

In his syndicated column of April 17, Buchanan not only called Demjanjuk an "American Dreyfus" and "the sacrificial lamb whose blood washes away the stain of Germany's sins," but he wrote that the "spirit" behind the U.S. Justice Department's efforts to bring Demjanjuk to justice is "the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago."

On Israel's Remembrance Day

Brad Hirschfeld makes a good point about the importance of remembering civilian deaths and military deaths separately:

For the second year in a row, Yom HaZikaron (Israel's Memorial Day) will mark the deaths of all those who have died, including civilian victims of terror. And despite having losses to remember from each group, this blurring of lines strikes me as a poor idea with potentially dangerous consequences.

Israel, like any other nation has both the right and the obligation to mourn those men and women in uniform who have sacrificed their lives for the safety and security of the citizens of Israel. But we ought not to confuse the issue by layering on our desire to mourn those civilians who died simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are not the same and should not be seen as such.

100 Days of Obama Foreign Policy

I recently spoke with my colleague Robert Kaplan about U.S. foreign policy. We discussed many different interesting things, including the new envoy system at the State Department, the China threat, South America and the break from the Bush Administration. You should read it, mainly for Bob's insights:

Goldberg: I think the tonal difference--and tonal differences can sometimes lead over to actual substantive differences--is enormous. Obama is hyper-consciously doing what pre-9/11 George Bush said he would do, which is to have a humble a foreign policy. My basic take is that national interests are permanent and a president is there to advance American national interests. If he does that through charm or bullying or bribery or glibness or appeals to morality or military force--it doesn't actually matter as long as he advances American national interests in the appropriate way.

Kaplan: I agree. And I would add that in a global media environment, charm and packaging matter a lot more than they used to matter.

Goldberg: This is where tone actually become substance in a way.

Kaplan: Yes. We do live in this fishbowl media environment where setting the right tone matters so much. But that's been the real shift. ...

An Increasingly Ridiculous Country

The Jewish State -- emphasis on Jewish, as in Maimonides and a thousand years of innovation and leadership in medicine -- has a fundamentalist shmendrick named Yakov Litzman currently running its health ministry. On Monday, he said that swine flu would be known in Israel as "Mexico Flu," because swine isn't kosher. What is kosher, apparently, is embarrassing your country and alienating Mexico.

Libyans Sure Do Know How to Dress to Impress

Libyan national security advisor Mutassim Qadhafi, who visited Secretary of State Clinton last week:

Ahmadinejad Sows Confusion on Israel (Again)

In an interview broadcast yesterday, George Stephanopoulos asked Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if he would support a peace agreement signed between Israel and the Palestinians. Ahmadinejad answered, "Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that is the right of the Palestinian people, however we fully expect other states to do so as well."

The Israel Policy Forum's  M.J. Rosenberg responded to this by writing, "This is a huge story. Kudos to George and ABC."

Well, kudos to George and ABC for getting the interview, but Ahmadinejad isn't really saying anything new. Last September, when David Bradley, the Atlantic's chairman, James Bennet, the magazine's editor, and I went to New York to interview Ahmadinejad with a small group of journalists (all a tin-pot dictator has to do to get attention from the American media is to deny the Holocaust), James asked him almost the exact same question. Here was Ahmadinejad's response: "If the people of Palestine make a decision, everyone must abide by that decision.  What we say about Palestine is very clear: we say let the Palestinian nation determine its own fate, without anyone interfering."

In 2007, Ahmadinejad told Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes, "The decision rests with the Palestinian people. This is exactly what I'm saying."  Pelley asked him, "And if that decision is a two-state solution, you're good with that? You could support a two-state solution?" His response: "Well, why are you prejudging what will happen? Let's pave the ground first for a free and fair choice. And once they make their choice, we must respect that. All the people, all the Palestinian people must be given this opportunity, allow them to make their own decisions."

Ahmadinejad's consistent position is that the state of Israel is an illegitimate state, and his policy has been to support terrorist organizations that seek its destruction. This isn't so hard to see. Unless you're the Israel Policy Forum's M.J. Rosenberg, who gives the benefit of the doubt to Iranian leaders, but not to Israeli leaders. 

From a Former Merrill Broker

I'm getting a lot of mail off my cover story on the financial debacle. I thought I'd highlight the more thoughtful ones (and maybe a couple of the stupid ones as well). Here's one from a former Merrill broker:
 

First and foremost, I never "sold" my clients something that I thought would harm them.  What would be the point?  Take the other side of the transaction for a minute -- if a broker recommends something and it goes sour, he/she has to call each and every client and relay that unpleasant fact to them.  Try doing that all day.  Because, frankly, as a broker, no matter how much you read, study and learn there is NO WAY that 100% of your recommendations will work.  Not possible.  If averaged about 70% to 80% on the right side.  But I had my losers and after one week of calling customers and explaining what went wrong and why I thought we needed to sell the stock I became ill.  I kept going back, however, because until the last five years the business was basically run in an ethical, moral way.  Merrill NEVER told me what to present to a client.  When I retired in 1996, I knew my clients, their families, their pets, their dreams and their aspirations.  I felt I had helped them navigate and understand the financial world and I felt proud of the job I had done.
 
As a retiree, however,  I am saddened at how Merrill's name is dragged through the mud on a daily basis.  Mr. O"Neal can be held largely responsible for the demise of the firm, though Mr. Thain did not do much to help it either.  It is ironic to me that they both came from the investment side of the business, not the brokerage side of the business.  Previous CEO's had all come up through the brokerage side and understood the importance of client relationships.  Think you you would feel if your career went up in smoke as people attacked on a daily basis the firm you were once proud to work for.  And think how you would feel if the stock you were given turns out to be worthless with no income coming from it to help ease your retirement years.
 
I sympathize with the broker who did not call you.  After 16 consecutive months of markets blowing up right and left, I can imagine that he/she was shell shocked and also felt betrayed -- believe it or not as betrayed as you felt.  Wall Street is not full of liars and thieves.  There are bad apples in every profession.  But the vast majority of Merrill brokers are caring, hard working and smart.  My heart goes out to them and to you.

King Abdullah II To David Gregory: America Tortured

Earlier today, David Gregory interviewed Jordan's King Abdullah II for this Sunday's Meet the Press and asked him if he thought the United States engaged in torture. The King's answer: "Well, from what we've seen and what we've heard, there are enough accounts to show that this is the case. But there is still a major battle out there. And I think that America, and I think what President Obama is trying to do, is make sure that the legal system that America is known for is transparent."

David then interjected: "That's an important point. You actually do believe that the United States engaged in torture." To which King Adullah responded,  "From what I see... on the press they show that there were illegal ways of dealing with detainees."

King Abdullah II has emerged as the linchpin leader of the Arab world -- it's no coincidence that he was the first Middle East leader to visit President Obama (noticeably ahead of Bibi Netanyahu), so I'm looking forward to the whole interview, to be broadcast this Sunday morning. Here's a preview:

Michael Oren as Israel's Ambassador

Michael Oren, who may become Israel's ambassador to the United States, is a friend of mine, so I haven't commented on his possible appointment, but now that David Rothkopf, who is also a friend of Oren's, has weighed in, I will too, mostly by quoting David. Minor controversies seem to erupting in Israel about Oren's past statements (he is an accomplished historian and a frequent commentator on the Middle East, so there is a great big body of past statements to dissect).  Gershom Gorenberg astutely points out that, depending on which Israeli newspaper you read, Oren is either too hawkish, or too dovish, for the job. Here is Rothkopf on the article that is drawing the most attention:

While he did indeed write an academic article that speculated about the consequences of the possible election of either Barack Obama or John McCain, it was not only an admirably thoughtful, fact-based, balanced and accurate piece (and do let's try to remember he is the possible Israeli Ambassador to the United States and not the other way around) but he is distinguished among leading experts on these issues by his broad bi-partisan base of admirers in the United States including - and I can say with absolute certainty -- many at high levels within the Obama administration. As for categorizing his views as being too close to the neocons, that's just a distortion and reflects a deep misunderstanding of Michael's views which have often diverged with that group (or those closely associated with it in Israel) whether on Iraq or on the issue of how to handle the question of settlements on the West Bank and, in fact, are difficult to categorize except to say that they are exceptionally and consistently well-informed and independent.

I'll leave it here for now, but I think Michael would be a terrific choice for the post: No one is better qualified to explain America to Israelis and to explain Israel to Americans than Michael. And no one is smarter.   

More News from the JNFL

On the one hand, distressing news from the Jets. On the other hand, this Sunday, former Patriots linebacker Andre Tippett, who was just a huge sack machine, will be inducted into the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame. Mazel Tov.

The NFL Can Kiss My Tuchus

The Jets have a problem:

Meshaal: An Explosion is Coming

In a speech to British members of Parliament, Hamas Politburo chief Khaled Meshaal said that "resistance" was just "a means to an end" -- though he didn't appear to mention to the MPs that the end Hamas yearned for was the destruction of Israel -- and he looked forward to finding a different way to end the occupation. He also threatened an "an explosion in the region" if Hamas didn't get what it wanted.

But no doubt Hamas is secretly moderating its views on the Jewish right to self-determination.

A Ron Paul Tea Party Goes Off the Rails

A California Tea Party isn't trying very hard to win over Jewish taxpayers. Here's the graphic pitch:

Further Proof that Washington Is Hostile to Jewish Life

No, not the Jane Harman mess (sorry I'm not blogging on it more, but I'm busy with other journalism, and anyway the whole ridiculous AIPAC case makes me ill, because it shouldn't even be a case).

This is why Washington is so un-Jewish. I meet David Ben-Gregory this morning for breakfast at Morty's, a deli in my neighborhood, and I overhear a woman in the booth behind me ask her companion, "What kind of bread is challah?" except that she pronounces the "ch" like she's saying "chapstick" (or "cholent," not to introduce another foreign concept here). I don't think she was Jewish, but it doesn't matter -- in New York, everyone knows how to pronounce challah. I'm sure by now that that 16-year-old Somali pirate in a New York jail cell knows how to pronounce challah.

Sometimes I feel like a stranger in a strange land. I want to move back to my true homeland, which is to say, 92nd St. and West End Avenue. 

Do Palestinians Really Want a State?

My colleague Bob Kaplan considers whether the Palestinians actually want a state, because statelessness has its benefits:

[T]he most tempting aspect of statelessness is that it permits a people to savor the pleasures of religious zeal, extremist ideologies, and moral absolutes, without having to make the kinds of messy, mundane compromises that accompany the work of looking after a geographical space.
...

Statehood would mean openly compromising with Israel, and, because of the dictates of geography, living in an intimate political and economic relationship with it. Better the glory of victimhood, combined with the power of radical abstractions! As a stateless people, Palestinians can lob rockets into Israel, but not be wholly blamed in the eyes of the international community. Statehood would, perforce, put an end to such license.

Bradley Burston asked a similiar question a while back:

Today, the question of whether the Palestinians can take the steps necessary to maintain a state - that is to say, whether they really do want a state, rather than just the flag they already have and the representative at the United Nations they already have, and the righteous indignation that they have in spades - remains an open question.

If they would rather demand the right of return until the end of time, rather than accepting some formula that amounts to a lesser gain, and with it, a Palestinian state, then the question is answered.

If they would rather insist on the right to violent resistance against Israel - allying themselves in the minds of others, if not in their own, with terrorist movements that bedevil civilized countries worldwide - rather than a renunciation of armed struggle and entrance into the community of nations, then we have their answer. If they insist on a one-state solution, then it is a one-state solution that they will get, and that state will be Israel.

What Passover is Like in My House

People often ask me, "Jeff, what is your seder like?"

It's exactly like this:

Is The AIPAC Case Over?

The Washington Post is reporting that federal prosecutors are considering dropping charges against Rosen and Weissman. Stay tuned. 

One Small Observation on the Jane Harman Case

Congresswoman Jane Harman is in a pickle this week after Jeff Stein at CQ reported that an NSA wiretap caught her wheeling and dealing with a suspected Israeli agent (for more on this complicated matter, see Laura Rozen's invaluable blog). This alleged conversation was prompted by accusations that two AIPAC officials, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, received secrets from an American government source and passed those secrets orally to an Israeli embassy official and to a reporter for The Washington Post, Glenn Kessler. Rosen and Weissman are scheduled to go on trial in June for passing these secrets.  But by the standards set by the Justice Department (standards never before enforced -- the law under which the two men are being prosecuted was passed in 1918 but never employed until now), shouldn't the government be investigating the source of the NSA leak to Stein, and shouldn't that person -- and Stein, for that matter -- be prosecuted for trafficking in presumably classified NSA material?

The answer, of course, is no, because this is not Great Britain and we don't have an Official Secrets Act in this country. And we certainly don't punish the recipients of leaked information.
I know the conspiracists out there believe that the Rosen/Weissman case is about the pernicious influence of Israel on American foreign policy, but, as The Washington Post pointed out last month, in an editorial arguing that the case ought to be dropped, this is a free-speech issue, pure and simple.  

UPDATE: The annoyingly accurate Jack Shafer points out to me that the Espionage Act has been employed before, in the case of a Navy intelligence analyst caught providing classified satellite photographs to a British military journal.

Jane Harman and the Israeli Spy

This story smells a bit funny, and Ron Kampeas points out why:

There are a lot of problems with how this story came about. Its sources seem to have it in for Harman, yet their supposedly damning leaks are rehash - and the story's major news is not about her alleged misdeeds, but that the National Security Agency was listening in on her call, and that the CIA boss wanted to get a tap on her.

Also, the timing, weeks before the trial, is supect, and looks a lot like a desperate late in the game bid to salvage what has become a dog of a case.

Also, Haim Saban is an Israeli spy? Really? He's Israeli, yes, but a spy? This is what is being intimated, at least.

Goldblog Reader Explains the Market

In response to my article on the financial mess, Goldblog reader Dan Simon writes in to explain the market's recent follies. In essence, investors have lost discipline:

Why have stocks consistently outperformed bonds over the long term? 
 
The answer is simple:  stocks have long outperformed bonds because stock market investors have consistently demanded superior returns from stocks, to the point of being willing to unload stocks that they judged incapable of generating those returns. That discipline has had the effect of keeping stock prices down, and hence return rates up: a stock too expensive to generate the requisite return on its investment gets bid down to the point where its return, given its price, is superior to that available on the bond market.
 
Then, around the early 1980s, the idea of index investing gained popularity. The original idea was quite clever: savvy, disciplined investors provided a reasonably good estimate of long-term stock returns, and ordinary investors could exploit that estimate by simply investing in the market as a whole, and sharing in the resulting high return rates. And as long as such passive investors were a small enough fraction of the investor population, the strategy worked perfectly.
 
But like all successful investment strategies, it fell victim to its own success and resultant popularity. As millions of investors poured their money robotically into the market, they bid up the price of stocks to the point where they couldn't possibly generate returns at their traditional rates. By that time, however, the strategy of carefully following the lead of disciplined investors had morphed into a kind of blind faith in the power of the market to generate high long-term return rates. So the zombie-like buy-and-hold investors kept coming, bidding stock prices higher and higher, and thus pushing return rates lower and lower. 
 

Erectile Dysfunction and the Yankees

So I'm watching the Yankees play Cleveland yesterday (it was definitely fan interference on that Posada home run, in my humble opinion), and I leave the room for a minute, at a commercial. When I come back, my eight-year-old son asks, "What's E.D.?"

E.D., huh? Why do you want to know? He tells me he just saw a commercial for Niagara that promises help with E.D. "Niagara" gives me a way out: "E.D.," I explain, "is.... Earth Dissection. Waterfalls like Niagara are signs of geological dissection. The river is just going along and all of a sudden it drops over a cliff, like there was a sudden dissection of the earth."

"That's not what it is," he says, but the game starts up and I duck the subject for a while, until the next commercial break, which features a commercial for Levitra. Unbelievable. Does Broken-Johnson Syndrome afflict all Yankees' fans, or just most? I'm a pretty diehard Yankees supporter, but if this is the ultimate price, I would even pull for Boston. (Sorry about that one.) 

Advertisers surely know their audiences, but is it really necessary during a day game to be assaulted by these commercials?

Obama's High-Speed Rail Plan

Christopher Beam assesses the program's problems -- especially the exorbitant expense of high-speed rail tickets:

Obama has spent his career opposing policies that disproportionately benefit the rich. But it's hard to think of a service more skewed toward the wealthy--and employees of wealthy companies--than high-speed rail.

On Firing My Broker, and Other Financial Shenanigans

My new cover story on the financial mess is now posted, but do me a favor, and yourself a favor, and The Atlantic a favor, and civilization as a whole a favor, and buy the magazine on the newsstand. Or better yet, subscribe -- just click right here -- and help protect journalism from the tapeworms at Google. 

The Hard, Unleavened Cracker-Like Bread of the Jewish People

Thurber on 1933-vintage matzah:

During the past six months, something like five hundred and twenty million matzoth have been baked for Passover. A matzoh (unless we have it backward, that's the singular) is the hard, unleavened cracker-like bread of the Jewish people. Some of the matzoh bakers round about are interesting. The B. Manischewitz Company is the largest--in the world--with four plants, the nearest being Jersey City; that one takes care of New York business, a big proposition, for about half of the yearly output of the matzoh bakeries is consumed in this city.

Glasnost, Saudi-Style?

A Jewish professor wins a big Saudi prize.

David Brooks on Israel

He gets it:

One Israeli acquaintance recounts the time he was depositing money into his savings account and everybody else behind him in line got into an argument about whether he should really be putting his money somewhere else. Another friend tells of the time he called directory assistance to get a phone number for a restaurant. The operator responded, "You don't want to eat there," and proceeded to give him the numbers of some other restaurants she thought were better.

He also has Roger Cohen's number:

Today, Israel is stuck in a period of frustrating stasis. Iran poses an existential threat that is too big for Israel to deal with alone. Hamas and Hezbollah will frustrate peace plans, even if the Israelis magically do everything right.

 According to Roger Cohen, of course, Israel poses an existential threat to Iran.

But They Told Me The Social Work Part Was Separate from the Terrorism

It turns out that Hezbollah doesn't distinguish between its jihad wing and its Head Start programs. According to Borzou Daragahi in the L.A. Times, Naim Qassem, the Hezbollah Number Two, said that "Hezbollah has a single leadership." He went on to say, "All political, social and jihad work is tied to the decisions of this leadership. The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions in the struggle against Israel."

Now, if you listen to Hezbollah apologists in the U.S. you would think that a) Hezbollah's terrorism is run by a completely separate organization, possibly based on Saturn, but not based in Beirut, and definitely not in Teheran, and, b) Hezbollah doesn't commit terrorism anyway.

Israel, the Common Enemy of the U.S. and Iran?

Max Boot shares an interesting insight into the addled mind of Roger Cohen. He suggests that Cohen moves from "wishful thinking" to perniciousness when he argues that the latent love affair between the U.S. and Iran could be derailed "at any time by an attack from Israel, which has made clear it won't accept virtual nuclear power status for Iran, despite its own nonvirtual nuclear warheads."

Boot writes:

So you see the Iranians are ready to change their ways, to become a paragon of Western liberal virtue. The only thing standing in the way is mindless Israeli belligerence. If only the nasty Israelites would let the nice Iranians have a nuclear program, everyone could walk off into the sunset, arm in arm.  It is rare to get such insights outside of official Iranian government organs.

A Memo to Roger Cohen

Everyone knows that the first rule of writing a New York Times column is: Never attack your critics, particularly in personal terms. Columnists for the Times have scaled the Mt. Olympus of punditry; when they attack their critics they demean their lofty position, and inevitably draw more attention to the criticism than it would otherwise receive. Roger Cohen never learned this rule. Please don't get me wrong -- I'm happy to have gotten under Cohen's skin. He is a Jewish apologist for an anti-Semitic regime, and he should be reminded often that he has debased himself. But in a way, I'm disappointed that he's so easily rattled. 

Peace

I'm checking out for a while. I've got to go buy horseradish, among other things. Happy Easter, and Happy Passover to everyone.

Oh, Come On Already

News from Pakistan:

Federal Minister Senator Azam Khan Swati of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) said on Saturday that the flogging of the 17-year-old girl in Swat was a Jewish conspiracy aimed at destroying peace in Swat and distort the image of those Islamists who sport beards and wear turbans.

An Annotated Guide to America's Top Rabbis

Every year, Newsweek, for reasons not entirely clear, runs a very entertaining list of the country's 50 Most Influential Rabbis, a feature has become the NCAAs of the rabbinate. The list is meant to be picked over, so pick over it I will, especially because after an almost-literally endless book tour, I think I've met most of the rabbis in America. Now to Newsweek's list, with my comments beneath each entry in italics:

1. David Saperstein (2008 Ranking #5)  Saperstein jumps to the top spot because of his role as Washington insider and political powerbroker and Friend of Obama.  He is the Director of the Religious Action Center and the Co-Chair of the Coalition to Preserve Religious Liberty.

This pick is typical of the list, which slights congregational rabbis (the ones who interact with, you know, Jews), but it makes a certain amount of sense: Saperstein has become a central player in the liberal wing of American Jewry, which is the wing on steroids.

2. Marvin Hier (2008 Ranking #1)  Hier is a major player in national and world politics and has built one of the world's leading human rights organizations, the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Not so sure about this one. The Wiesenthal Center represents yesterday's sort of American Judaism, i.e., the relentless focus on anti-Semitism and Israel. Hier wouldn't be here on the list if Abe Foxman were a rabbi, by the way.

3. Mark Charendoff (2008 Ranking #10)  Charendoff is President of the Jewish Funders Network, an international organization of family foundations, public philanthropies and individual funders.

Again, he plays a role in Jewish life that could be played by a non-rabbi. But the Jewish Funders Network decides where what remains of the money goes.

4. Yehuda Krinsky (2008 Ranking #4)  Krinsky's impact continues to grow as the global leader of the Chabad movement.

The Lubavitcher survivor. He's probably still mad at me for reporting 15 years ago in the Forward that the Lubavitcher rebbe spent his last days watching CNN. He's taken effective control of a tumultuous organization, so credit him with serious management skills.

5. David Ellenson, Ph.D. (2008 Ranking #8)  Ellenson is charged with training tomorrow's leaders as the President of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, the nation's oldest institution of higher Jewish education.

The father of a friend of mine, so I'm biased, but he's a real mensch who has helped introduce tradition into Reform Judaism.

6. Robert Wexler, Ph.D. (2008 Ranking #3)  Wexler is the President of American Jewish University.

Don't know him. American Jewish University is a lacrosse powerhouse, I think.

7. Shmuley Boteach (2008 Ranking #9)  Boteach calls himself "America's Rabbi." He continues to promote himself and his perspective on his daily radio show, on television and in his long list of books, including the recently published "The Broken Male and How to Fix Him."

Oh, come on. If self-promotion were a Jewish virtue, the man would be the new Moses.

8. Eric Yoffie (2008 Ranking #2)  Yoffie is the leader of the Reform movement, representing 1.5 million Jews in over 900 synagogues.  He has pioneered dialogue programs with Christians and Muslims nationwide. 

Yoffie should be higher on the list.  He's rescued the Reform movement from the assimilators. Also, he represents the vast silent middle of American Jewry that is sometimes uncomfortable with AIPAC but uncomfortable with its alternatives as well.

9. Uri D. Herscher, Ph.D. (2008 Ranking #6)  Herscher is the Founder and President of the Skirball Cultural Center.

Nice place, that Skirball Cultural Center.

10. Irwin Kula (2008 Ranking #7)  The Co-President of CLAL and bestselling author continues to raise his profile nationally as an innovator committed to reshaping America's spiritual landscape. 

Very charismatic and thoughtful. I met him in Aspen. He's the sort of rabbi who shows up in Aspen.

11. David Wolpe (2008 Ranking #12) Wolpe is considered one of the most dynamic pulpit rabbis in America

One of my all-time favorite rabbis. Should be higher on the list. Actually has a pulpit. Also took on Roger Cohen, to his credit.

12. Peter J. Rubinstein (2008 Ranking #15)  Rubinstein is the spiritual leader of New York's Central Synagogue. 

Never met him. I've heard good things, for what it's worth.

Continue reading "An Annotated Guide to America's Top Rabbis " »

J Street Gets it Right On Lieberman

Among other things, the rise of Avigdor Lieberman could rupture relations between many American Jews and Israel:

We as an organization cannot and will not remain silent in the months and years ahead should Israel adopt anything like the policies and views outlined by Avigdor Lieberman as a candidate and politician prior to entering the Foreign Minister's office.  Those views - particularly towards the minority Arab citizenry of Israel - are in our opinion contrary to both our democratic and our Jewish values.  Not only will we ourselves make our views clear, but we will urge other Americans, Jews and Jewish organizations to do so as well.

Gerecht on Farsi Verbs and Nuclear Obliteration

Reuel Marc Gerecht writes in:

That was a nice but limited posting you did on Ahmadinejad.  This subject is embarrassing:  the issue is not whether Ahmadinejad wants Israel to go bye-bye.  He, Khameneh'i, Rafsanjani, Larijani, and every member of the ruling elite in whom some have put hope for a normal relationship have stated repeatedly their desire for Israel to cease to exist.  It matters not whether it's from a map or from our memories, it's the verb that always matters.  "Mahve Shodan" is a strong verb.  It is in the passive here ("mahve shovad" in the original), but the intent is beyond dispute.  One can take some comfort that Ahmadinejad did not use the active voice, but that would be presumptuous even for him.   I don't have at my finger tips the original Persian newspapers celebrating the destruction of the US Marines in Beirut in 1983--I can't recall reading a mournful account from Iran--but I'm willing to bet large quantities of money that the verbs used to describe the slaughter of the US Marines were not in the active since there was no desire on the part of the regime to take credit even though credit was deserved.

The issue was surely not the voice employed, but the explosion.  Those who dwell on verb voices and tenses make one deeply suspicious about their intellectual integrity.  Ali Khameneh'i might not use a nuclear weapon against Israel for a variety of mundane reasons--and each of those reasons is a little less compelling when the delivery mechanism is an unnamed and unclaimed terrorist.  But among those reasons would not be the most comforting reason of all:  because he ethically would find it horrific. His statements, those of Ahmadinejad, and even those of the reformist clerics in whom some people had once put their faith do not allay the fear that we are dealing with a regime that would, if it could, slaughter Jews in Israel as it once slaughtered US Marines. Joyfully.

Quote of the Day

From The Washington Post: "Even if the Israelis had done better operationally, I don't think they would have been victorious in the long run," said Andrew Exum, a former Army officer who has studied the battle from southern Lebanon. "For the Israelis, the war lasted for 34 days. We tend to forget that for Hezbollah, it is infinite."

A Man Who Makes Bibi Look Like A Radical Leftist

Which is to say, his father, the ninety-nine-year-old Benzion Netanyahu. Noam Sheizaf's Promised Land blog carries translations of Benzion's Ma'ariv interview this weekend. One excerpt:

Q: You don't like the Arabs, to say the least.

A: "The Bible finds no worse image than this of the man from the desert. And why? Because he has no respect for any law. Because in the desert he can do as he pleases.
The tendency towards conflict is in the essence of the Arab. He is an enemy by essence. His personality won't allow him any compromise or agreement. It doesn't matter what kind of resistance he will meet, what price he will pay. His existence is one of perpetuate war."

Avineri: Talk to Hamas About its Anti-Semitism

A smart idea:

...Perhaps it is nevertheless worthwhile talking to Hamas - not about its contribution to peace but rather about what is stated in its covenant. Perhaps those who espouse the view that we must talk with Hamas will first talk with it about these subjects? Who knows, perhaps it will change its principles? I do not expect this to happen exactly, but I am certainly curious to know what those who think Hamas is the key to peace in the Middle East will say about these things.

Paging Stephen Walt: Obama's Mind Captured by AIPAC

President Obama, speaking in France, had this to say about al-Qaeda's motivations:

Al Qaeda is still bent on carrying out terrorist activity. It is-- al Qaeda is still bent on carrying out terrorist activity. It is, you know, don't fool yourselves because some people say, well, you know, if we changed our policies with respect to Israeli/Palestinian conflict or if we were more respectful towards the Muslim world, suddenly, these organizations would stop threatening us.

That's just not the case. It is true that we have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect and changing our language and changing our tone. It is true that we have to work very hard for Israeli/Palestinian peace.

But what is also true is that these organizations are willing to kill innocent people because of a twisted distorted ideology and we, as democracies and as people who value human life, can't allow those organizations to operate.

Questions About Ahmadinejad's Famous Quote

Questions periodically arise about whether or not Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement that he wants to see Israel "wiped off the map" really means, in the original Farsi, that he seeks the elimination of the Jewish state. I republish here, then, a handy list of Ahmadinejad's statements on the subject. Judge for yourself what he hopes to see happen to Israel:

October, 2005: "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine... I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks."

July, 2006: "Nations in the region will be more furious every day. It won't take long before the wrath of the people turns into a terrible explosion that will wipe the Zionist entity off the map...The basic problem in the Islamic world is the existence of the Zionist regime, and the Islamic world and the region must mobilize to remove this problem. It is a usurper that our enemies made and imposed on the Muslim world, a regime that prevented the progress of the region's nations, a regime that all Muslims must join hands in isolating worldwide."

August, 2006: "Our position on the Middle East is clear. We want the root of tensions to be removed. During these sixty years what was the root of massacres, crimes and conflicts?...The solution is clear and nothing has changed."

October, 2006: "This regime (Israel) will be gone, definitely..."You (the Western powers) should know that any government that stands by the Zionist regime from now on will not see any result but the hatred of the people...The wrath of the region's people is boiling... You should not complain that we did not give a warning. We are saying this explicitly now..."

November, 2006: "The great powers created the Zionist regime to extend their domination in the region. Every day this regime is massacring Palestinians...As this regime goes against the path of life, we will soon see its disappearance and its destruction."

December, 2006: "The Zionist regime is on the slope of disappearance and the freedom movement and the struggles of the Palestinian people have more success every day...It is the religious duty of all Muslims to stand by the Palestines...The continued crimes of the Zionist regime will only accelerate the downfall of this fake regime."

December, 2006: "I want to tell [Western counties] that just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and does not exist anymore, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out and humanity will be free."

June, 2007: ''God willing, in the near future we will witness the destruction of the corrupt occupier regime..."

June, 2007: ''In Lebanon, the corrupt, arrogant powers and the Zionist regime did all they could in an unfair 33-day war. But after 60 years [Israel's] greatness fell apart...The countdown to this regime's destruction started through the hands of Hezbollah's children...We will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future thanks to the endeavours of all Palestinian and Lebanese fighters.''

August, 2007: "Our support (for the Palestinian people) is unconditional. As for the Israelis, let them go find somewhere else."

August, 2007: "The Zionist regime is the standard bearer of invasion, occupation and Satan...When the philosophy behind the establishment of a regime is in question, it is not unlikely that it will find itself on a course of decline and dissolution."

October 5, 2007: "Canada and Alaska have vast lands, why don't you relocate them over there and keep helping them over there with (aid of) 30 to 40 billion dollars per year for building a new existence over there?"

November, 2007: "It is impossible that the Zionist regime will survive. Collapse is in the nature of this regime because it has been created on aggression, lying, oppression and crime..."

January, 2008: "I advise you to abandon the filthy Zionist entity which has reached the end of the line... It has lost its reason to be and will sooner or later fall. The ones who still support the criminal Zionists should know that the occupiers' days are numbered."

February, 2008: "World powers have created a black and dirty microbe named the Zionist regime and have unleashed it like a savage animal on the nations of the region."

March, 2008: "Gaza is the beginning, the real issue is elsewhere. They should know that both in the prelude and in the real thing they face a defeat and this time they will be uprooted."

April, 2008: "The time has come to see the weakness and collapse of the Zionist regime and its supporters. They are doing everything in order to save it, but they will not succeed."

May, 2008: "Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken... Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned and this regime is on its way to annihilation...has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese."

June, 2008: "(Israel) has reached the end of its function and will soon disappear off the geographical domain."
 
 

Netanyahu and Obama: A Controversy, and an Update

There's some controversy about just what Bibi Netanyahu said to me when we were talking about the challenge President Obama faces on Iran. Gary Rosenblatt, the editor of the New York Jewish Week, writes:

 "This week (Goldberg) landed another major interview, this time with Benjamin Netanyahu on the day he was sworn in as Israeli prime minister. The interview offers insights into Netanyahu's priorities and strategies in dealing with foreign policy. But it does not make good on its headline: "Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran - Or I Will." Nowhere in the Goldberg piece does Netanyahu say that Israel plans to attack Iran, nor does it even hint that the new Israeli leader will offer an ultimatum to Obama."

Rosenblatt's got a partial point here -- the headline is an interpretation of Netanyahu's statements, and framed in such a way to perhaps make an Israeli prime minister squeamish -- even when Israeli leaders make demands on America, they don't like to be seen as making demands on America. On the other hand, Netanyahu signals in about a dozen different ways that if the world doesn't deal with this problem, Israel will be forced to. And his advisers, speaking on background, made themselves even more clear.

But since there's some confusion on this point -- and since, through the miracle of blog technology, I can update articles as I see fit -- I'll give you two quotes that I neglected to include in the first piece. The first one is from one of Netanyahu's defense advisers, speaking on background: "We have to make sure our friends in Washington know that we can't wait forever. There will come a point soon when it will be too late to do anything about this program. We're going carefully, but if we have to act, we will act, even if America won't."

The second is from Netanyahu: "Iran has threatened to annihilate a state or to have a state wiped off the map of the world. In historical terms, this is an astounding thing. It's a monumental outrage that goes effectively unchallenged in the court of public opinion. Sure, there are perfunctory condemnations, but there's no j'accuse - there's no shock and there's a resigned acceptance that this is acceptable practice. Bad things tend to get worse if they're not challenged early. Iranian leaders talk about Israel's destruction or disappearance while simultaneously creating weapons to ensure its disappearance."

I followed this statement with a question: Is there any chance that Iran could be stopped through non-military means? Netanyahu responded: "Yes I do, but only if the military option is left on the table."

Based on all these statements, I think it's fair to say that Netanyahu, when he comes to America, will tell President Obama that should America fail to suppress the Iranian nuclear program, Israel will have to try.  

Joe Klein on Netanyahu

Joe calls my Netanyahu interview "more depressing than alarming, since you've got to figure that the new Israeli prime minister is mostly blowing smoke."

Netanyahu is also completely wrong when he says that Iran, with a bomb, will be able to coerce Arab neighbors to its side. The precise opposite is true: Iran with a bomb would touch off an Arab arms race. The very prospect of Iran with a bomb is freaking out the Arabs now--in private, your average Egyptian, Jordanian or Saudi diplomat is far more passionate about the threat from Iran than the "atrocities" Israel undertook in Gaza.  

Is This How the Israeli Media Works?

Department of Insane Phone Calls:

A half-hour ago, my phone rang; it was a reporter from Israel Channel 10 News.
"There's a big controversy about your Netanyahu interview," the reporter says.
"What is it?" I ask.
"Netanyahu's people are denying that he threatened President Obama. Do you have proof that he threatened him?"
"What are you talking about?"
"You wrote that Netanyahu threatened Obama and told him that if he didn't attack Iran, Israel would. Do you have a recording of this?"
"Of what?" I asked.
"Of Netanyahu saying this to Obama."
"This is completely crazy. What are you talking about?"
"People here think you said that Netanyahu threatened Obama."
"People? What people?"
"Everyone."
"What I wrote is that Netanyahu told me he believes Iran is going to be Obama's principal foreign challenge, and that he needs Obama to work to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And Netanyahu's people said that Israel might have to deal with Iran itself if America and the West don't stop Iran."
"That's what you wrote?"
"Yes. Did you read the story?"
"Only quickly. Where is it?"
"At www.theatlantic.com."

I hope Israeli intelligence is applying more stringent standards of fact-checking to this general subject. 

The Mesopotamian Balance of Terror

Ross Douthat being smart on the subject of Iran's nuclear program. I'm looking forward to his many debates with Roger Cohen:

I think we need to be clear-eyed about what a Mesopotamian balance of terror is likely to mean for U.S. policy in the region. Saying that we can live with a nuclear-armed Iran is the beginning of managing the problem, not the end of it. Deterrence proposed is easier than deterrence implemented. In an earlier post on the subject, Massie expressed the hope that "the United States retains (I trust!) sufficient institutional memory as to be able to play the nuclear game with rather more finesse, subtlety and confidence than it has sometimes shown in more assymetric struggles." I hope so too! But that game isn't an easy one to play, and it has tendency to enmesh you in ever-deeper layers of regional commitment, with all the difficulties that such commitments entail.

Israel Denial

Howard Jacobson on the abuse of the Holocaust by Israel's enemies:

We are now described as abusing the Palestinians in exactly the same terms as the Germans abused us - "abused" for God's sake! And in this way, we are actually made to pay for the Holocaust itself. I talk about it as a kind of retrospective guilt for the Holocaust. It's almost as if we've turned time the wrong way round, that because of what we are now doing to the Palestinians, we lose the right to the dignity of the Holocaust, if you can call it dignity.This is a very sinister move. It's at the heart of the Caryl Churchill play [Seven Jewish Children, performed at the Royal Court Theatre] and you get a lot of it at the universities, because it's appealing in its neatness, it's vaguely post-modern, you can mention Freud, you can chase around the names of several fashionable intellectuals. It is also very sinister, because it begs the question of what Israel is in fact doing or not doing to the Palestinians.