Archive for June, 2009

‘A Nation of People’

Friday, June 19th, 2009

How does the uprising in Iran look from my perspective, as a Jewish American?

Hundreds of thousands — by some estimates millions – of people protesting against a fraudulent election and a repressive regime? Thousands streaming through the streets in silent protest? A revolution facilitated by a Web site that gives users only 140 characters to make their point?

For nearly a week now, I’ve been contemplating how to respond, and I can’t get past one fundamental thing: The ire of the Iranian people is directed squarely at President Ahmadinejad, a madman with well-known and often articulated anti-Semitic and anti-Israel views.

Here are some of the Ahmadinejad quotes that are seared into the collective conscience of my Jewish community:

  • “The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”
  • “Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed.”
  • “The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless.”

This, and so much more.

I’m not naive enough to think that those people out on the street are somehow now embracing Israel. I doubt most of them have ever met a Jew — there aren’t many left in the country. This is clearly an Iranian uprising, with uniquely Iranian origins. But part of what the people are protesting against is Ahmadinejad’s totalitarian, anti-Democratic excesses, including his anti-Western sabre-rattling. It may not be linked, but they are risking their lives to stand against one of the world’s most notorious anti-Semites.

Before the election, it was so easy to imagine Ahmadinejad represented a monolithic Iranian viewpoint. When he said Israel would be erased, his was the voice of Iran.

Now, we see that Iran has another voice. And like everyone else, the Israelis are moved by what they hear.

“We are all revolutionaries here,” Bradley Burston writes in today’s Haaretz:

The people in Tehran’s streets have made it possible to begin to see past Ahmadinejad. I have to get used to Iran not as a cartoon bully, but as my neighbor. Not because they will go nuclear … though nuclear they may well go. But because it is a nation of people, as we are, not pawns in an increasingly obsolete revolution.

A nation of people. People who use cell phones and send tweets.

As much as we knew this before, if we stopped and thought about it, we see it now — we feel it — and that changes everything.

Report: ‘The Sky Is Falling’

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

I was starting to get depressed.

It seems that everyone I speak to in the Jewish community is worried. Obama is pressuring Israel, but not the Palestinians, they say. He’s naïve about Iran. And why did he go to Cairo and say that Israel’s founding was rooted in the tragic history of the Holocaust?

These, by the way, are the folks who voted for him in the last election.

I had breakfast in the Senate dining room this morning. After, in an ornate hallway, I picked up copies of three of the best newspapers covering DC politics.

The Hill newspaper had this four column lead: “Dems reel on healthcare.”

Congressional Democrats and the White House are scrambling to regain their footing after a series of setbacks has stalled political momentum to reform the nation’s healthcare system … The Democratic roll-out on health care has encountered significant bumps in the road.

Roll Call blared: “Health Care Bipartisanship Fades.”

As Senate health care negotiations enter the final phase at the committee level, Democrats are emphasizing their own policy preferences and conceding the unlikelihood of attracting significant Republican support for the legislation.

 
Obama’s top domestic priority, down the chutes, before anyone’s even seen a bill.

But, wait. There’s more.

Politico decreed: “Obama Draws Rural Dem Ire.”

Angered by White House decisions on everything from greenhouse gases to car dealerships, congressional Democrats from rural districts are threatening to revolt against parts of President Barack Obama’s ambitious first-year agenda.

The gay community is angry at him. Pesticide manufacturers are upset about the organic garden on the White House lawn. Doctors booed him this week for refusing to cap malpractice law suits. On Israel, my best friend’s mother feels personally betrayed.

And then I did something that everyone inside the Beltway, and everyone active in the Jewish subset of that world, should do – at least once.

On the way from the Capitol to my hotel, I stopped off at the Newseum on Pennsylvania Ave. I didn’t go inside. I just perused the exhibit they have along the sidewalk: morning front pages from around the country and the world. More than 50 in all, posted, neatly, in handsome window boxes.

Are you sitting? Brace yourself.

Exactly three front pages had stories on health care. One of those was the USA Today, and the other two — The Alabama Gadsen Times and the Mississippi Hattiesburg American – actually ran an AP article with favorable headlines, about how the Dems were trimming the cost of the health care bill.

The Wyoming Star Tribune had a story about health care, too – Medicaid, focusing on cuts in the Wyoming department of health.

Only nine of fifty newspapers had front page articles about the uprising in Iran – and that includes the NY Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. The Anchorage Daily news had the story, but it gave more prominence to a story about Gov. Palin’s pick for attorney general.

The Kentucky Enquirer did run a piece about concerns over nuclear power – but not in Tehran.  A new facility is planned for Piketon, Ohio.

In Montana, the Billings Gazette gave huge play to an animal cruelty case. The Morgantown, West Virginia Dominion Post had unsettling pictures of emergency workers trying to extricate a teenager from his overturned car. The news in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was about a bus that nearly tumbled down a city staircase. The Home News Tribune – my former hometown paper in Central Jersey – trumpeted: “Jeweler’s Death Still a Mystery.”

The stories about Iraq had a local angle. (The Telegraph, in Nashua, N.H., gave prominent play to a 23-year-old Salem High grad killed in Iraq over the weekend.) The scandals had a local flavor. (The Detroit News had a story about Conyers – not Michigan Congressman John – but city councilwoman Monica, facing bribery charges.) “’Magical Season’ ends for Cinderella Team” had nothing to do with the Magic of Orlando, and everything to do with the Southern Mississippi Golden Eagles, whose baseball team lost in the College World Series.

There were front page stories about swine flu and fires, gas leaks and calorie counting, floods, misbehaving teachers, and great hamburgers.

Sure, you could sit down and google all of these local papers, and view them one at a time. But walking along the row of windows, looking at one after another, had a downright cathartic effect, all its own. It was as if, all at once, the inside-the-Beltway-Jewish-world bubble I’m living in burst, and a burden lifted. Not a single story about how President Obama is dragging the country over a cliff while simultaneously destroying the special relationship between the United States and Israel!

Here’s the thing: Obama knows what’s on the front pages of all those newspapers. He has a long view. He knows that even people who disagree with him are giving him a lot of leeway right now. (The Times has his approval rating at 63 percent today.)

He understands that most people – including most Jews – aren’t paying that close attention to Israel at this point; they are not parsing every word of his Cairo speech or waiting to hear Bibi Netanyahu’s response. They are, first and foremost, worried about their jobs and their health and their communities; they want their kids to come home safe from prom.

Yet at the same time, Obama knows Israel is critically important, not only to the United States, but to a broad swath of American Jews. That’s why he goes so far to affirm and reaffirm the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel; he knows full well that the Jewish claim to Israel is first and foremost about the land; he has filled his White House with pro-Israel Jews who send their kids to Jewish day school, like Dan Shapiro and Rahm Emanuel. Dennis Ross, the Middle East negotiator and staunch friend of Israel, just moved from the State Department to the White House, where he will have the president’s ear.

Obama is pressing a peace process that most Jews support, because he believes it is ultimately in Israel’s best interest, the only way for the Jewish state to achieve true security. My sense is that by and large, Jews — from Nashua to Hattiesburg to Kenosha — understand this, and hope fervently that he succeeds.

Obama Praises Netanyahu’s Speech

Monday, June 15th, 2009

President Obama had a pitch-perfect response today to Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s speech, calling it “positive movement,” and adding: “What we’re seeing is at least the possibility that we can restart serious talks.”

“He acknowledged the need for two states,” Obama said.

The president took time at the end of a joint press conference with Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi to praise Netanyahu, and reiterate his support for Israel:

Now, I’ve been very clear that, from the United States’ perspective, Israel’s security is non-negotiable.  We will stand behind their defense.

What struck me about the President’s comments was that he agreed with Netanyahu that the Palestinians will have to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and also put “an end to incitement against Israel and an end to violence against Israel.”

According to the AP: “To the Palestinians, Obama repeated that leaders must end anti-Israeli rhetoric in schools and recognize Israel.”

“Israel’s security concerns extend beyond simply the Palestinian Territories,” Obama said. ”They extend to concerns that they have in a whole host of neighbors where there’s perceived and often real hostility towards Israel’s security.  So I’m glad that Prime Minister Netanyahu made the speech.”

My point is that yet again, the president is going out of his way to stress the extent of the U.S. commitment to Israel and Israel’s security.

You can read the full transcript of Obama’s remarks here.

Netanyahu’s Olive Branch

Sunday, June 14th, 2009

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu mentioned the word “peace” 43 times in his much-anticipated speech at Bar-Ilan University today. He invoked the path of Yitzhak Rabin. This, from Israel’s leading hawk. It was a remarkable, must-read speech (here’s the text from the Prime Minister’s Office), with an unmistakable message to President Obama: We want to work with you. Our hand is unclenched.

Netanyahu is already being criticized by Palestinians and those on the political left – a drum beat that will no doubt intensify — for not going far enough. But critics miss a key point.

To understand just how big a gesture Netanyahu made today, you have to go back to Wednesday. That’s when he met with Likud Members of Knesset at his Jerusalem office. Here’s the Jerusalem Post’s take:

Every MK who spoke at the meeting pleaded with him not to utter the catchphrase “two states for two peoples” when he delivered his policy address on Sunday at Bar-Ilan University. The MKs reminded him of statements he made at a Likud central committee meeting in 2002, in which he warned against the dangers of even a demilitarized Palestinian state, and urged him, “Don’t found a Palestinian state at Bar-Ilan.”

Despite the intense pressure from his own party, today’s headline will be: Netanyahu Backs Two States. Here’s what he said:

In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect.  Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government.  Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.

These two realities – our connection to the land of Israel, and the Palestinian population living within it – have created deep divisions in Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more that unites us than divides us …

If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitarization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.

We have much more that unites us than divides us, Netanyahu said. That language might very well have been lifted verbatim from an Obama campaign speech.

It’s true that Netanyahu said he could not meet Obama’s call for no natural growth in Israeli settlements. But he did say: “We have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.”

Again, to understand the extent of this give, the political context is necessary.  Here’s David Horovitz’s analysis, in the Post:

The prime minister’s refusal to halt natural growth at existing settlements still leaves him in direct conflict with Washington. But Netanyahu will have privately explained to the Americans that meeting that restriction would not merely counter his own outlook, but also doom his government, and his Sunday night mention of the Gaza disengagement served as a timely reminder of Israel’s demonstrable willingness to dismantle even entire settlement communities – albeit, in Netanyahu’s view, for entirely misconceived reasons.

The New York Times said the White House reaction was ”positive, if limited, focusing on what it called ‘the important step forward’ of Mr. Netanyahu’s support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

That is clearly a genuine recognition that this speech was a major Israeli give, especially given Netanyahu’s political realities. This White House, more than most, understands that words matter — words make worlds – and it no doubt appreciates that Netanyahu used the word “peace” more than forty times, stating unequivocally that “the advancement of peace” is “exceedingly important.”

“I also spoke about this with President Obama,” Netanyahu said, ”and I fully support the idea of a regional peace that he is leading.”

‘A Sunni-Jewish Alliance’

Friday, June 12th, 2009

On my way back from Washington, D.C., yesterday, sitting in a Subway in Breezewood, Pa., I read this must-read article by Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic. And when I say read, by the way, I mean actually — sitting at a bench overlooking the gas pumps, holding the paper in my hands, trying unsuccessfully to avoid staining it with mustard from my turkey sub.

The headline: “How Iran Could Save the Middle East.”

That’s the worst part of the story, though, because it’s only about Iran in the negative sense. His thesis is this: the fall of Iraq and corresponding rise of Iran, by unleashing a tsunami of Shia political power in the Middle East, has created yet another moment of unprecedented opportunity in the Middle east — for Sunni’s (in the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) to unite with Jews against the common threat.

His meta point is that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is more than just a cliche in the Middle East. Westerners don’t comprehend the depths of Sunni-Shiite hatred, or, more importantly, the raw fear that the rise of Iran has created among Sunnis in the Middle East. “The Shia are apostates,” Goldberg quotes a Palestinian as saying. “…They want to use Iraq as a base to convert Sunnis.”

Jews, as bad as they might be in the eyes of Palestinians, are not trying to steal their adherents.

As Goldberg writes:

A Palestinian cannot become Persian, but he can become Shia. And this, to a Sunni Muslim—even to a wine-drinking, pork-eating Marxist Sunni Muslim—is a reprehensible idea.

Here’s the nut:

The remarkable thing about this moment in the Middle East is that Arab leaders speak about Iran more critically than even Netanyahu does. In March, Morocco broke diplomatic relations with Iran over what it claimed were attempts by Iranian Shia to convert Moroccan Sunnis…

Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, recently told me that he has sensed an oncoming revolution in Sunni thinking. “For the first time, the majority of the Arab world thinks that Iran is the real danger, not Israel. Seventy percent of the Arabs are Sunnis. The Sunnis look upon us, whether they say it or not, not as a problem but as a hope.”

Peres may be overstating, but moderate Arab leaders would obviously like a Sunni-Jewish alliance: Israeli compromise—an agreement, for instance, to freeze settlement growth on the West Bank—would prove to their pro-Palestinian constituents that Arab states, and not Iran, are guarantors of Palestinian interests, and it would allow them to deepen their subterranean military-intelligence connections with Israel on the Iran question. Such an alliance has even more obvious strategic advantages for Israel: Netanyahu has said he will lobby Europe, China, and Russia on the necessity for strong action to stop the Iranian nuclear program. His case would be strengthened immeasurably if he could make these arguments in concert with Arab leaders.

This puts Obama’s — and Hillary Clinton’s — comments about settlements in a very powerful context: It’s not about peace, in the ephemeral sense, but about a concrete alliance between Jews and Sunni’s united against an Iranian/Shiite threat. And about Netanyahu’s own powers of diplomatic persuasion on the Iranian nuclear issue.

The article goes on to quote David Makovsky, former executive editor of the Jerusalem Post and author of a new book on the peace process:

“There is a convergence of interests between the Arabs and Israelis on Iran. As such, this moment is a gift that shouldn’t be wasted,” Makovsky says. “The two sides need to put their differences in perspective to address the common challenge.”

Makovsky suggests that settlements may be too thorny of an issue right now; instead, the two sides could move to another issue: demarcating the borders of the eventual Palestinian state.

“This is not like the issues of Jerusalem and the status of refugees or security arrangements,” [Makovsky] said. “Both sides have already come very close on the West Bank land issue.” The former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, before leaving office, suggested that the future state of Palestine be built on 93 percent of the West Bank, and receive additional territory from Israel in a land swap.

I really love this idea. It feels fresh, and much less fraught, than settlements. If borders are drawn, it would make much of the on-the-ground settlement questions — who can build an addition in which city — totally moot.

And it would help build trust — the bedrock of any alliance, especially a Sunni-Jewish one.

‘There are Be-ers, and There are Doers’

Wednesday, June 10th, 2009

There’s a good article by Matt Bai in the Times Magazine this week that tries to articulate what Obama is doing differently from Clinton and Carter to keep the Democrats in Congress on his side, so that he can pass his domestic agenda — and succeed where both Clinton and Carter failed.

Instead of a top-down approach — Clinton handing Congress a 1,000-page health care bill — Obama is, by design, not dictating, instead giving a broad policy framework, and letting the legislators hammer out the details. Congress is filled with professional legislators who like to legislate; they don’t like to be told what to do. Ronald Reagan, the article notes, used this same strategy to reform the tax code and shore up Social Security in his first year in office.

Here’s the nut:

Obama has an entirely different theory of how to exercise presidential power, and he has consciously designed his administration to avoid Clinton’s fate. …Obama seems to think that the dysfunction in Washington isn’t only about the heightened enmity between the parties; it’s also about the longstanding mistrust between the two branches of government that stare each other down from twin peaks on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

To this end, Obama has appointed Congressmen and Senators to key positions (think: Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden), filling his administration with “dozens of … former top-level Congressional aides.”

At the same time, Bai concludes that Obama can’t be too removed by the legislative process — particularly if he is seeking passage of laws that may be politically unpopular.

It’s fine for a president to stand back from the process — but not so far back that Congress thinks he’s trying to duck the consequences or that the public comes to see the whole enterprise as just another Congressional spending spree.

The stimulus bill, for example, was not going to pass without Obama hitting the campaign trail — in Indiana and Florida — and rallying public support.

It’s a difficult balancing act, Bai concludes, and one Obama won’t easily sustain during the upcoming health care debate.

Still, I was left with a sense that — as with the election campaign — Obama’s vision has as much to do with process, and learning from the mistakes of the past, as with ideas.

There is an incredible quote from Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is the Senate point man on health care, and who seems pleased with Obama’s inclusive approach to lawmakers.

“How do I say this delicately?” he asked. “President Bush, he liked being president. You know, there are be-ers, and there are doers. And I think he liked being president, as opposed to doing.” Obama, on the other hand, strikes Baucus as a doer. “You’ve really got to work at it, rather than just enjoying the job,” he said.

Obama Helps Tilt Lebanon

Tuesday, June 9th, 2009

As I noted in my post yesterday, one of the most important things Obama did with his Cairo speech was to blunt the appeal of would-be terrorists throughout the Middle East. The Islamic extremists are reportedly getting nervous.

Now we have an election result in Lebanon — the American-backed Christian coalition defeated the Iranian- and Syrian-backed bloc that includes Hezbollah — which many experts are attributing, in part, to Obama’s speech.

For Middle East watchers, it was a surprising election result, defying the conventional wisdom that Hezbollah would win easily.

Here’s a news analysis today in the New York Times (“Hopeful Signs for U.S. in Beirut Vote”):

… For the first time in a long time, being aligned with the United States did not lead to defeat in the Middle East. And since Lebanon has always been a critical testing ground, that could mark a possibly significant shift in regional dynamics …

Reporters across the Pond are drawing a similar conclusion.

In the lead commentary on worldjewishdaily.com this morning, Simon Tisdall, writing for the British Guardian, concludes:

… The calmer, unconfrontational tone adopted by Washington on Middle East issues since George Bush trudged home to Texas appears to have struck a chord in a country that was teetering on the brink of sectarian civil war one year ago …

The result is a setback for Iran, which has sought enhanced influence via Hezbollah. And it confirmed Lebanon’s 2005 rejection of Syria as the master manipulator of its affairs, confounding suggestions that Damascus was inching back.

It’s not just the speech, of course. Analysts say the Obama administration laid the groundwork for the vote, with pre-election visits to Lebanon by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden. And at the end of the day, all politics is still local. But it certainly looks like Obama’s speech may have helped tip the scales.

Will there be a ripple effect in Iran, were voters go to the polls Friday — a referendum on the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Most agree that the moderate challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi, still has an uphill battle. But Moussavi did draw 30,000 supporters to an exuberant rally last month, an extraordinary event, as the Times reported, “because the supporters were not paid, given free food, bused in or ordered by their workplaces to attend, a tactic sometimes used by Mr. Ahmadinejad’s campaign.”

As Tisdall writes:

It’s possible that watching Iranians will be encouraged in their turn to go out and vote for reformist, west-friendly candidates in Friday’s presidential election. Lebanon may be just the beginning of the ‘Obama effect’.