August 19, 2019--Buy Greenland? No, Buy . . .

It looks as if our real-estate-mogul-in-chief wants to buy Greenland.

If he knew anything about U.S. history one might imagine he's thinking Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase; or Seward's Folly--the purchase of Alaska from, yes, the Russians--during the impeached Andrew Johnson's administration; or more arcanely the Gadsden Purchase which occurred when Franklyn Pierce was president and fleshed out our border with Mexico.

But, no, I think he's thinking about a non-governmental post-presidency deal for himself and his acquisitive family  He must have heard that the ice pack that covers 80 percent of Greenland is melting fast (not because of global warming since there is no global warming) and that means the land will soon be ready for "development"--condos, casinos, golf courses, hotels, and the like. Stuff Trump understands.

There is though one hitch--Denmark, which owns it, and the 50,000 people who are Greenlandians are fiercely opposed. But Trump will be visiting Denmark in a few months and will likely float the idea during his meetings with senior political leaders and perhaps bring along a suitcase full of Benjamins to lubricate the discussion. But that too is not going to work.

I have another suggestion--why not buy our 51st state. Israel. Yes, next time he sees him, which could be tomorrow, Trump should make an offer to his best friend, a real Benjamin, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who could be on his political last legs and may soon be fitted for an orange jumpsuit.

To get a sense of just how much they are each other's poodle and are depending on each other to get reelected, consider what happened last week when Trump lobbied Netanyahu and got him in a flash to block two Muslim U.S. congresswomen who have been critics of the Israeli government from entering the country. During the August break they were intending to pay an official visit to Israel and were planning, transgressively, to meet with Palestinians.

From Trump's and Netanyahu's  perspective this was outrageous enough for them to see the political opportunity to make the congresswomen the public face of the socialist, anti-semitic Democratic Party. Along with AOC the Squad are even better to caricature and demonologize than Nancy Pelosi.

In the meantime, Donald Jr. is thinking timeshares in Jerusalem.

December 8, 2017--Evangelicals: When Time Shall Be No More

While struggling to understand the logic and politics of President Trump's decision to move our embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, considering the disruption and violence it is already fostering, virtually all the analysis suggests that it is for religious reasons. 

To woe Jewish voters? To some extent yes, especially the likes of billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and some of Trump's other wealthy, intensely pro-Israel supporters and donors.

To throw a lifeline to about-to-be-indicted ultra-nationalist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has lobbied for this? Yes, as this will firm support for him from the right-wing religious parties in Israel who are a part of his ruling coalition. 

To appeal to Christian evangelicals? Especially yes. This is most mentioned by commentators and connects two dots--between Trump's huge national Evangelical base and Roy Moore's core of voters in the Alabama senatorial race.

But, in regard to why Evangelicals are such passionate supporters of non-Christian Israel, there is barely a word.

Religion can be such a hot-button subject that it is sadly understandable why the mainstream media would shy away from discussing it. For every Evangelical they might attract and thus boost advertiser sales and ratings, at least as many will, they fear, be offended And as they can be easily mobilized by rightwing demagogs, controversy and boycotts will likely follow.

But an understanding of why conservative Christians so universally support Israel, especially when it is governed by Jewish millennialists--those who believe in the imminent coming of their own Messiah and the commencement of a new religious age--to understand them in all their aspirations and nuances is critical right now as Trump rampages across the region where these issues are most intense and are at such a dangerous boiling point. 

I have been talking and writing about this for many years, ever since reading Paul Boyer's brilliant, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief In Modern American Culture.

If you haven't read it (it is scholarly and readable), I urge you to do so immediately. I feel certain it will reshape your view of the world.

Briefly, it begins with a discussion of prophetic religious belief in the Middle East and the West, particularly America where fully a third of the adult population believe that we are approaching the End Times--the Rapture when the most worthy Christians will be bodily lifted to Heaven (see image below), to the appearance of the AntiChrist, the 1,000-year Times of Tribulation, the Second Coming of Christ, and at the ultimate End--the Last Judgement.

To contribute to bringing this about, essential to the coming of the Millennium, all Jews in the diaspora must return to Israel, actually to Greater Israel, which includes Sinai and Iraq. To some this helps explain why born-again George W. Bush overthrew the government of Iraq and occupied the country.

Jews who do not return will be doomed and those who do emigrate to Greater Israel will be given a final opportunity to convert to Christianity. Thus the Jews for Jesus movement. If we Jews, as dupes, do not avail ourselves of this opportunity, we too will be doomed for all of eternity.

Trump's rock-solid base of supporters who see him as an essential part of this narrative, his 30-33 percent, are mainly Americans who share this apocalyptic prophecy, and almost all of Roy Moore's potential voters are of this persuasion.

From this brief synopsis it is obvious why CNN, the New York Times, and even Fox News would shy away from touching this. They are more concerned about their numbers than the fate of America.

We, I feel, must understand and confront this as the fate of our democracy may be at stake.

In the "Actual" Rapture, Those Raptured Will Be Naked

May 23, 2017--Trump On the World Stage

Tell the truth--weren't you, like me, expecting, even hoping to see President Trump stumble on the world stage? While in the Middle East, while with the Pope in Rome, while meeting in Sicily with European counterparts at the G-7 summit?

Weakened at home as criminal investigations swirl around him, if he made a fool of himself, if he insulted Islamic leaders, made a botch of talks with the Israelis, again insulted Chancellor Angela Merkel, and said something inappropriate to the new president of France, in the aggregate, if his trip turned out to be a political disaster, it would move him one step closer to impeachment or resignation.

But, four days into his nine-day trip, from all reports, even from media sources that are not well disposed to him, he appears to be staying on script and, remarkably, actually saying a number of things that make sense. Or at least are worth putting on the table.

Before an assemblage of more than three dozen presidents of Sunni Arab nations, carefully avoiding the phrase "radical Islamic terrorists," Trump drew a distinction between ISIS fighters and the peaceful citizens of Islamic nations--

This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people, all in the name of religion, people that want to protect life and want to protect their religion. This is a battle between good and evil.

These comments were met with enthusiastic applause.

He continued, saying he wanted "partners not perfection" and that it was up to Muslim leaders to expunge extremists from their midst--

Drive them out. Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land. And drive them out of earth.

This was a play to engage Sunni leaders in contrast to President Obama's alleged desire to strike deals with Shia-dominated countries such as Iran.

One could delete references to Obama and still make the case that a focus on Sunnis, the vast majority in the region, makes more sense. Including as part of an attempt to broker movement toward a two-state solution in Israel, something Trump spoke about yesterday when he told Benjamin Netanyahu that he heard from Sunni Arab leaders while in Saudi Arabia that if this were to happen they would consider expanding relations with Israel. Something that is occurring in private as power shifts across the Middle East.

It was also noted that Air Force One's direct flight from Riyadh to Tel Aviv is the first time there has been such a flight. Whoever added that to Trump's agenda (likely Jared Kushner) deserves praise. Gestures and symbols go a long way in that fraught region.

December 26, 2016--Our Israeli Allies

I'm prepared again to be accused of being a self-hating Jew.

But because of the explosion of rhetoric about the U.N. Security Council vote to condemn Israel's "settlement" practices, especially the outrage expressed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu--much of it directed at the United States in the person of Barack Obama--impels me to speak out.

For all intents and purposes the annexation of the occupied territories by building homes there for Israeli Jews is against international law. But it proceeds apace with more than 500,000 Jews now living, or settled, on the West Bank, which was seized from Jordanian Palestinians in 1967 as the result of Israel winning the Six-Day War.

Under pressure from the United States, though periodically and grudgingly dragged into negotiations with Palestinian representatives in an effort to forge a lasting peace that can only come after there is agreement about the details of what a two-state "solution" would look like, Israeli leaders for decades have pretended to be interested but never, except briefly, suspended the bulldozing, the building, or the resettlement of Jews on the Islamic West Bank. They have done this in the guise of securing their borders but in reality to change the facts on the ground. To in this way assert that the West Bank is a part of Greater Israel.

And until this past week, whenever the issue of a two-state solution or to criticize the settlement practices has come before the U.N. Security Council, the United States, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, has used its veto power to block the resolutions.

That is, until Friday when Obama with less than a month remaining in his presidency finally unburdened himself, allowing his true feelings to show, by directing U.N. ambassador Samantha Power to abstain, effectively allowing the condemnation of Israel to proceed. The resolution promptly passed, 14-0.

This led immediately to a storm of criticism. First from swaggering president-elect Donald Trump who postured via a tweet that things "will be different January 20th" and then later from Netanyahu who said he can't wait for Trump to become president.

What an unholy alliance.

They were quickly joined by members of Congress from both parties. It seems that unflinching support for the Israeli government is the one issue about which members of both parties reflexively agree. All say that Israel is not just the only democracy in the Middle East but that they are also America's "most important ally." Not just in the region but globally.

I've heard this my entire life from family-member Zionists who made excuses for the abuses of one Israeli government after another, and, of course, all of the serious media across the ideological spectrum, since 1948, have done much the same thing--from the New York Times to Fox News.

What jumped out at me this time was the claim about Israel being our most important ally.

Israel is not that.

It is possible to see them as an undesirable ally.  And that the nature of our alliance does not contribute to peace or security for either them or us.

In fact, Israel may be our most dangerous ally.

Every time another Palestinian village is leveled or another apartment house constructed on the West Bank, Israel makes new enemies for themselves and for us. Images of settlement activity engenders hatred and serves to help recruit terrorists worldwide.

Israel's very existence contributes to similar sentiments and though Israel does have a legal and moral right to a homeland, even nationhood, but not when it insists on continuing to expand its borders by encroaching on the territories of neighboring countries. And, of course, resists any possibility of the Palestinians having a state of their own.

These practices have contributed to the Middle East becoming the most dangerous region in the world, one that has sucked us into various wars and acts of aggression with hundreds of thousands on all sides killed and maimed and which have cost us $3.0 to $5.0 trillion borrowed dollars.

What that is positive have we received from our alliance with Israel?

I have been thinking about this for quite a while and cannot think of much that is worth the cost. At most, they share intelligence with us gathered by Mossad, their excellent intelligence agency. And some high-tech U.S. businesses have formed useful partnerships with Israeli firms. Not enough in either case to justify the geopolitical price our uncritical relationship with them has imposed upon us.

Of course there is the long historical memory of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi that saw more than six million European Jews exterminated. This does without question put the Jewish people in a special category of concern and reparation. But that commitment should be, originally was, to the Jewish people, not the regressive governments of Israel. It is important to keep that separation in mind when thinking about the current threatening situation.

And there is more--

Part of the almost universal support for Israel by American governments and citizens also has a religious foundation.

Millennialists of all kinds from Christian apocalyptic fundamentalists to ultra-orthodox Jews who are waiting for the Messiah to apppear (in Hebrew, the Mashiach) see Israel, again Greater Israel, or as they prefer, Judea and Samaria, as playing an essential role in bringing about the End Times. It is only when all of Greater Israel is united that the conditions will be in place to begin the process of unleashing Armageddon and the Millennium.

With eyes wide open, this is the world America has been drawn into.

I am not sure it is in our best interests to rush to get entangled further. Let's see if Donald Trump can figure this out and make a deal to de-intensify matters. At the moment, considering his choice to be our ambassador to Israel, he is on a hot course to make things worse. And in the Middle East worse often means catastrophe.

April 16, 2015: Germany, Japan, Cuba & Iran

They bombed Pearl Harbor and after we defeated them in World War II, with great loss of life and limb as American's invaded island after bloody island in the Pacific, after just few years of occupation, Japan became one of our closest allies.

They invaded and conquered most of Western Europe; exterminated more than 6.0 million Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies; and mercilessly bombed civilian populations in England and elsewhere. After we entered the war, they killed more than 300,000 U.S. soldiers. And yet, again, after the allies defeated them and after just a relatively few years of occupation, with our help Germany was rebuilt and became one of our closest allies.

As with Japan, this relationship endures.

So why is there such a big problem with Cuba and Iran?

We were versions of allies with both until 1959 when Fidel Castro seized power and quickly thereafter announced that Cuba was in fact a client state of our Cold War adversary, the Soviet Union. And, in Iran's case, we related well (perhaps too complicitously) until 1979 when the Islamic Revolution erupted and the new government, dominated by ayatollahs, captured and held hostage 66 American embassy workers.

Now, via his executive power, President Obama is moving rapidly to resume normal diplomatic relations with Cuba and there is evidence that Iran wants to make a deal with the West by agreeing to scale back its nuclear weapons program.

The former, normalized relations with Cuba, is long overdue and now all but certain to occur. The most significant resistance to such a deal is the demagogic posturing of presidential candidate Marco Rubio, whose parents were born in Cuba, and his pandering to the remnants of the Cuban-American community in the hope that they and other American Latinos will rally to support his ambitions.

There are also Cold-War-minded dead-enders who are still fighting the Soviets through its former proxy, Cuba.

Then of course there is the on-going resistance to anything Barack Obama wants to do, especially if it is potentially historic and would burnish his image as president.

Much more troubling is the widespread opposition among virtually all Republicans, and sadly many Democrats, who oppose the semblance of any deal with Iran, out of fear that they will be smitten politically by the Israeli lobby or yelled at by Benjamin Netanyahu.

If things were not to work out with Cuba, it would not be catastrophic. They are not strategic players and are no longer military allies of the Russians. No Soviet missiles with atomic warheads remain on the island and they are not in any way a threat to our security.

But unless the West is able to consummate a deal with Iran it is likely that we will be maneuvered into a war with them, siding with the Israelis and egged on by congressional hawks and passionate evangelical supporters of Israel. So this is quite serious and should not be a venue for political striving and demonologizing.

If we managed to overcome our hatred for the Japanese and Nazis and established sound and enduring relations with them, we should be able to do something similar with Cuba and especially Iran. But it is very much a we'll-see situation.

April 6, 2015--The Iran Deal

I just heard this on Face the Nation.

Without blinking Senator Lindsay Graham said that the deal with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program is not acceptable because it was negotiated by Barack Obama. He didn't cite one specific disagreement with the outline of the agreement (he didn't appear to have read it), rather he said that if Obama had anything to do with it by definition it is flawed and that we should not do anything regarding Iran until we have a new president. He mentioned that Hillary Clinton and all the Republican candidates except Rand Paul could do a better job.

Not do anything, I assume, means that before president-elect Cruz is inaugurated it would be OK if Obama decided we needed to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. That is, if Graham's favorite chief executive, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is now running the Republican Party, offers his approval. And of course his bromantic pal John McCain gets out his bomb, bomb, bomb Iran dancing shoes.

Netanyahu, also, made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows to attack the agreement, revealing that he as well hasn't read it since everything specific he mentioned was either not true or, in true demagogue fashion, totally made up by Bibi.

Republicans led by Graham are foaming at the mouth that Obama may very well have pulled off something historic. First the historic Obamacare, then a substantially restored economy, and now this. Something no one thought possible. What if half-African Barack Hussein Obama were to go down in history as a near-great president. Not just the first President of color. What will Lindsay and all the over-50-year old white boys think about that? Nothing good.

We used to be closely allied with Iran. It was one of Jackie Kennedy's favorite places to visit and all Republicans until Ronald Reagan couldn't say enough nice things about the Shah and his dictatorial leadership--just what was needed to keep those Wahhabi extremists in line. And recall, Reagan almost got himself impeached when his administration got caught playing footsie with the Ayatollahs in order to get arms sent illegally to the Contras in Nicaragua.

Whatever one thinks of the Shah and the current leadership, Iran is a real country (not created by colonial powers after the Second World War) with a proud history as Persia. Persia which back in the day dominated much of what we now refer to as the Middle East or the Islamic world. And, not so between the lines in the agreement just negotiated are allusions to that remarkable history and the unexpressed hope that if Iran behaves itself in regard to ratcheting back its nuclear program, and thereby is once again welcomed back into the community of nations, maybe, just maybe they will begin to step back from funding al Qaeda, ISIS, and Hezbollah.

Hidden in the details of the proposed agreement between Iran and the group of nations that negotiated it is a note about what is to become of the centrifuges in Fordo, Iran's most secret, best protected nuclear fuel concentration facility. Most of the centrifuges will be deactivated (and inspected regularly to avoid cheating) but some 1,000 will continue to spin.

Here's what's revealing--though they will remain on line they will not contain any fissile material. They will continue to spin and spin impotently but, for the sake of Iranian pride will not produce anything but continue to fuel Iran's image of itself as a great and powerful nation. Which it was and is.

Hopefully over the decade, in other ways, Persia will act more and more that way.

So it's time for the big boys, the few adults in Congress to step up, swallow their hatred of President Obama and grab a bit of history for themselves. Our security and future may depend on it.

Fordo

February 19, 2015--"That's a Lot of Ice Cream"

"That's a lot of ice cream," Rona said after I read her an article from the New York Times website about Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu's and his wife Sara's personal spending. Spending that gets paid for or reimbursed by Israeli taxpayers.

In a report by Israel's state comptroller, it was revealed that the couple spends $2,700 annually on ice cream. He apparently prefers pistachio, she French vanilla.

This is far from the worst of it. Basic food expenditures have tripled to $120,000 a year since Netanyahu took office in 2009. To tell the truth, it does look as if he has put on weight. Now we know why.

In addition, the state spends $2,000 a month to clean their seaside cottage (which they rarely go to) and over the past two years, $68,000 for Sara's makeup, hairstyling, and what the controller calls her personal "presentation."

They also in 2013 billed the state for a "rest chamber," whatever that is, that was retrofit into the El Al plane that took them to Margaret Thatcher's funeral.

On the literal nickel-and-dime front, Sara Netanyahu was forced to reimburse the state $1,035 after being exposed for having pocketed the deposit money from recycled beverage bottles. That's a lot of Coke and Pepsi.

The report stated that the Netanyahus "strayed from the cornerstone principles of proportionality, reasonableness, saving, and efficiency."

They "strayed" so far that it is being suggested by legal authorities in Israel that they may be criminally liable for many of their expenditures.

In the meantime, with Bibi Netanyahu set to speak in early March to a semi-joint session of Congress (many Democrats have indicated they will risk the ire of the Israel lobby and boycott the Republican-sponsoerd campaign speech--Netanyahu is up for reelection a few days after he is scheduled to address Congress), he and Sara must be making plans to get El Al to reconfigure the cabin for them so there is enough freezer space for their ice cream supply and all the empty soda bottle they will be scooping up while in Washington.

February 18, 2015--Bibi, the Fanatic

"Eli, the Fanatic," one of Philip Roth's wonderful short stories, is also one of his most overlooked. Perhaps because of the direct way in which it deals with and excoriates secularized, seemingly-assimilated Jews.

Set in suburban America, the story concerns a non-observant Jew, Eli Peck, who is hired by his Jewish neighbors to convince a recently-arirved group of orthodox Jews to close the yeshiva they established in their midst. The other Jews in town are embarrassed by the visible presence of these Hasids, fearing they will call attention to them and thereby interfere with their desire to blend in among the largely gentile residents of Woodenton.

To make a short story short, Eli fails in his attempts to get the ultra-orthodox to back off, including abandoning their traditional way of dressing, and, after an epiphany of his own, gives up his normal wardrobe and appears before his stunned and outraged Jewish neighbors in Hasid garb. The last thing they want is to be identified as Jews. And, thus, they became what some call self-hating Jews.

It is worth reading these days when throughout the Middle East and the West a fierce new religious war has broken out with people being attacked, tortured, enslaved, and killed just for being who they are--the wrong kind of Muslim, Christian, or Jew. It's a from of back to the Middle Ages.

The latest outrages, just over the past few days, are the shootings in Copenhagen, the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians by ISIS in Libya ("We will conquer Rome, by God's permission"), and of course the murder of three Muslin university students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

As evidence that fanaticism is not just confined to ISIS and other Muslim extremists, pay attention to what Benjamin Netanyahu is calling for. As after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, this week following the murders in Denmark, Netanyahu again called for all European Jews, by "mass immigration," to give up their countries and European roots and emigrate to Israel where, he claims without evidence, that they will be safe from religious extremists of all stripes.

He makes no mention of Hezbollah fighters in the north of Israel nor rockets fired into Israel from Gaza. And, of course, the real possibility that Israel, under Netanyahu, will preemptively wage war against Iran.

In Bibi's own words--

Jews have been murdered again on European soil only because they were Jews. Of course, Jews deserve protection in every country, but we say to Jews, to our brothers and sisters: Israel is your home.

This call is hardwired into the consciousness of many Jews who remember the Holocaust when millions of Jews, on European soil, were slaughtered for just the fact of being Jews. Since then, there has been pressure on Jews living in more than 100 countries to "make Aliya," which literally means to "ascend," to "return" to Israel and for Israel to call for the "in-gathering" of Jews living in the Diaspora, in "exile."

This call for Jews to in-gather is about much more than safety. It has deep religious roots.

For the orthodox, to foster conditions that will call forth the Messiah (for Jews, of course, Jesus is not the Messiah) and lead ultimately to the End Times and Last Judgement, all Jews in the Diaspora must return to what messianic Jews refer to as Eretz Israel, the Land of Israel, which to many means Greater Israel.

There is dispute about what is biblically-defined to be that Land, especially Greater Israel. With the latter it is a geopolitically dangerous view of national boundaries, because to those Jews literally right now awaiting the appearance of the Mashiach, Greater Israel stretches from the Nile River in western Sinai all the way to the shores of the Euphrates. In other words, from land belonging to Egypt to territory that is a large part of current-day Iraq. Settling the West Bank is a part of this strategy.

So these are not just eschatological ideas but political ones. And dangerous ones at that.

Thus, the seemingly empathetic, welcoming call by Prime Minister Netanyahu to Jews in so-called exile to emigrate to Israel resonates much more deeply that a simple reminder and offer to descendants of those who died in the Holocaust. It also serves a larger purpose--to have Jews return to ancestral lands and thereby help flesh out the boundaries of Eretz Israel and to contribute to the circumstances that will lead to messianic times.

As an American of Jewish descent I resent and reject these fanatical notions. I am not Philip Roth's Eli.

Though assimilation is never easy--even in polyglot America--I do not consider myself as living in anything resembling a diaspora. Any more than Americans of Italian descent consider themselves living in an Italian diaspora. Israel is not my home. No matter what might happen here (and there have been waves of dangerous anti-Semitism in America) this is my home, my land, my America.

January 15, 2015--Fanatics All

Do you know what happened to Angela Merkel?

I mean, I thought she was in Paris last Sunday to participate in the Je Suis Charlie march, joining governmental leaders from 40 or so other countries. (As a sidebar--not including the United States which sent the ambassador.)

I may have been hallucinating, but I thought I saw a picture of the front row of marchers with Francois Hollande, president of France in the center, locking arms with Palestinian president Mahmond Abbas on his right and Chancellor Merkel on his left.

But then when I picked up my copy of HaMevasar, the Israeli newspaper of the ultra-Orthodox, there was that same picture but no Angela Merkel.

So either I'm confused or losing it.

Before I could see if the New York Times had anything to say about this, I spoke with a friend who knows a lot about neurology to see if he thinks I'm losing it (yes and no, he said) and about the possibility that the image might have been doctored.

"Send me a link to the HaMevasar picture," he said, and within 15 minutes of my doing so he called to report, "It's obviously Photoshopped. I mean, the editor of the paper had Merkel crudely deleted from the photo. And also a few other female world leaders who were in the first two rows, making it look as if the march was an all-male affair. Just like a . . ."

"Just like an ultra-Orthodox Jewish wedding," I interjected, "where the men and the women attend and participate separately, including dancing with each other."

"Exactly," he said, "And here are a few ironic thoughts. First, they cut out the picture of the chancellor of the country that spawned the Nazis and perpetrated the Holocaust, but the country that now stamps out any manifestations of renewed anti-Jewish behavior and still pays reparations to Israel. Then the paper, HaMevasar, ranted about how the whole Hebdo massacre was about Islamic anti-Semitism, ignoring the fact that the initial victims were mainly French Christians. Finally, they completely ignored the fact that the march in Paris was about defending France's essential freedoms, very much including the right to free expression. And though HaMevasar does mention that the attack was on freedom of the press, it is in a journalistic context that is self-contradictory since by cropping the photo as they did it gives the lie to the very freedom this massacre was planned to stifle."

"Then there was Benjamin Netanyahu's reaction," I said. "On the day after the massacre he sent the French an impassioned letter of condolence that claimed, to quote him, that 'Israel is being attacked by the very same forces that attacked Europe.' As if the arrack on Charlie Hebdo was about Israel rather than about France."

"And he followed it up the next day when he linked the Paris suspects to Israel's enemies, likening the killings to the rockets fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip."

"Talk about chutzpah."

"And can you explain to me how the four Jewish victims of the kosher supermarket shootings all wound up in Israel for a ceremony and burial?"

"As I understand the situation," I said, "only one of the four had any direct connection to Israel. I think he had two chidden living there."

"The other three are either from North Africa or born in France and had no family in Israel. I don't want to be overly cynical," he said, "But it feels as if the Orthodox forces there have co-opted the situation and are representing the attacks in France as being about Israel and anti-Semitism. That is not to say that there isn't a reemergence of anti-Semitism in Western Europe, including France, though mainly from nationalistic forces, and so what Netanyahu and HaMevasar are up to is shameful."

February 5, 2014--Boycott Israel?

When the American Studies Association late last year voted to exclude Israeli academic institutions from participating in events it sponsors, it was a blip on the academic landscape. After all, the ASA has only a few thousand members and, truth be told, who cares.

But when Secretary of State John Kerry made some relatively innocuous comments about a larger, economic boycott of Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nearly had a stroke.

Forget for the moment that Kerry was not advocating a boycott but rather referring to talk about it that he feels will grow louder if the American-sponsored peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis fail to produce even a fig leaf of results, the very fact that Netanyahu went, pardon the reference, ballistic should tell us something.

That "something" being that there is a growing movement among some Western people (Jews as well as non-Jews, which is significant) and corporations to boycott Israel if the government in Jerusalem continues to expand the occupation of the West Bank and refuses to get serious in negotiations with the Palestinians.

Netanyahu and his associates can try to ignore more local calls for a boycott (by New York Times op-ed columnist and Palestinian human rights activist, Omar Barghouti, for example) but they cannot so easily  shrug it off when the $200 billion Dutch Pension fund PGGM begins to divest itself of investments in Israel and Secretary Kerry says that unless there is serious progress on a deal the nascent boycott will be dwarfed by what will follow--in his words, a "boycott on steroids."

That's what friends are for--not to threaten (as Netanyahu sees it), but when necessary for your well-being, to tell you the unpleasant truth. And, in Kerry's case, to, by implication, imply such a boycott would be understandable. Kerry also knows how to play hardball.

So, he's not Netanyahu's best friend.

A boycott would be understandable because even reasonably objective observers are seeing comparisons between today's Israel and yesterday's South Africa.

How else to put it--with so many Palestinians forced to live behind militarized fences, allowed to enter and leave at the behest of Israeli occupiers of their territory, it feels to many to be too much like the old South African apartheid state.

And, recall, the worldwide imposition of economic sanctions ultimately brought an end to that hideous era. And, it appears, equivalent sanctions may be gaining the attention of even Iran's formally impervious "supreme leaders."

Perhaps, then, an expanding boycott of Israel may be the best and only thing that will enable the peace movement there to again assert itself.

November 25, 2013--Good Cop, Bad Cop

Thinking about the deal just struck with Iran to scale back its nuclear program in exchange for some loosening of sanctions, wouldn't it have been brilliant if Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu had had this conversation three month ago--

Obama: Bibi?

Netanyahu: Barry?

Obama: Can you talk?

Netanyahu: As long as your NSA isn't tapping my phone. (He chuckles.)

Obama: Or your Mossad. (He chuckles.)

Netanyahu: I told them to take the afternoon off. I'm all ears, Barry.

Obama: So here's what I'm thinking, Bibi.

Netanyahu: Shoot.

Obama: That's why I called.

Netanyahu: I'm not following you.

Obama: About shooting. Actually bombing.

Netanyahu: Go on.

Obama: Look, we both know we don't want to bomb Iran.

Netanyahu: True. Though we have to keep the heat on them and the best way to do that--we both agreed--is to convince them we're prepared to do so. Israel especially.

Obama: That's what we agreed to. You'd be the bad cop and we'd be, sort of, the good cop. You'd publicly put pressure on me to draw red lines. To state that though we want diplomacy to work every option is on the table. Including military action. But we'd emphasize negotiations while you'd press for bombing.

Netanyahu: And I'd keep prodding, critiquing your Iran policy, and playing your Israel Lobby both in Congress and the Jewish community in the states. To convince the Iranians that though you might be rational and reasonable we're out of control. Particularly your control. That we're prepared to go it alone, go rogue--to quote one of your favorite politicians. (Obama chuckles.)

Obama: So, here's my new plan.

Netanyahu: I'm listening.

Obama: We get Kerry to start talking with the new Iranian regime, telling them that our Congress, including all sorts of Democrats, are chomping at the bit to increase the sanctions--they're so serious that they're even willing to override my veto--and that you guys are getting ready to arm your nukes. He tells the Iranians that if we don't get some sort of deal done in the next few months who knows what the Israelis will do. That I can't keep you on hold.

Netanyahu: Great plan! So as soon as we hang up I'll give the order here to move to a higher state of readiness as evidence of our seriousness or, if you prefer, our craziness.

Obama: Exactly, Bibi. The more we ramp up the diplomacy the more crazier you behave. We have to scare the you-know-what out of them.

Netanyahu: I love it. You'll work out some kind of deal that's good for us--at least the beginning of a long-term deal--which will also be good for you. It will get the Republicans off your back--talk about crazies--at least for awhile.

Obama: Maybe for half an hour. (Netanyahu chuckles.)

Netanyahu: I hear clicking on the line. Are you sure the NSA doesn't have this phone bugged?

November 20, 2013--Bomb, Bomb, Bomb . . . Bomb Iran

Here's what has me worried--

As dramatically weakened Barack Obama confronts three more years of his presidency, with the unlikelihood of anything, anything being approved by Congress (it will get even worse after Republican victories in the upcoming midterm elections), as with other presidents who had second-term problems, he will likely be tempted to do something dramatic in foreign affairs where as commander in chief he has considerable independent authority and the ability to act without congressional approval.

This is not in itself a bad thing--plagued by sex scandals, Bill Clinton almost pulled off an historic deal between the Israelis and Palestinians; Ronald Reagan negotiated significant disarmament agreements with the Soviets; and even Richard Nixon made progress in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

But then there is the wag-the-dog problem--the temptation to get involved in overseas adventures to distract the public or repair tarnished presidential reputations. If was thought, for example, that to change the subject from Monica Lewinski and her blue dress, Clinton was itching to go to war in the Balkans.

Obama is on the ropes. The botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act is just the most recent in a string of failures that has ruined his political reputation and seen his approval ratings sink to George W. Bush levels.

On that list of failures and blunders is his now infamous pledge to draw a red line in Syria--if Bashar al-Assad crossed it and used chemical weapons against the rebels, Obama forcefully stated, the United States would take military action against the regime.

Assad did cross that red line and Obama backed down. He ordered lots os saber rattling but no intervention. The situation was saved by Russian President Putin who put pressure on his Syrian allies to give up their WMD program, which they are proceeding to do under UN supervision.

This failure to follow through has ruined Obama's reputation in that region.

Not only do the Israelis distrust him--if he failed to act in Syria what is his word worth when it comes to Iran where he has drawn another redline about Iran's nuclear capabilities?--now our other allies, the Saudis, Turkey, and Jordan, wonder if we will come to their assistance if the Iranians develop nuclear weapons or there are threats to their survival.

Clearly Obama wants to make a deal with the new, seemingly more moderate Iranian leaders. In fact, an initial, interim agreement may be struck as early as this week. This is not just a good thing for Obama's political reputation but a good thing in itself. We have to find a way to pull back from the brink. If Iran goes nuclear, it is virtually certain that the Saudis, Egyptians, and Turks will as well. This is not a part of the world where we want to see a nuclear arms race.

But beyond diplomacy, with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu marshaling local as well as U.S. congressional opposition to any deal with Iran, threatening to take unilateral military action against Iran's nuclear facilities, the political pressure on Obama--at this vulnerable time in his presidency--is almost beyond calculation.

The temptation to show that his word is good--especially when it comes to staking out positions in the world where there are threats to our allies and to our own security--may impel President Obama to want to show some muscle.

He hasn't done very much of that with Congress and other than killing Osama bin Ladin and numerous al Qaeda leaders with drones (which is generally commendable), Obama has been a disengaged, passive leader more including to deliver speeches than exert forceful leadership.

One place where he can take a form of forceful action is in Iran where he can join the Israelis in bombing their uranium enrichment facilities in an attempt to set back their nuclear clock.

This could in time be necessary. But diplomacy may now be working and it will require considerable courage from Obama to fend off pressure from Israel and Congress to keep talking and dealing with the Iranians.