Obama Counter-Offensive: The Malley Defense

Rob Malley: the Willy Horton of right wing Jewish nut jobs
By Dan Fleshler | February 1, 2008

Unable to find anything in his past to prove that Barack Obama will sell Israel down the river, right wing bloggers in my community are now focusing on one of his Middle East advisors, Robert Malley. Malley served various roles in the Clinton Administration and was President Clinton’s special assistant during the Camp David talks.

Ed Lasky’s character assassination of Malley in American Thinker spews accusations that are being echoed all over the right wing Zionist blogosphere. Normally, I don’t worry about what Lasky and other contributors to American Thinker have to say. Some of them make Bill Krystal seem like a member of the War Resisters League, or a Deadhead. But someone needs to address the current, vile frenzy to use Malley as the Willy Horton of Likud sympathizers and those much further to the right.

Normally, it is best not to call attention to the irrational bile that often passes for analysis when Israel is discussed in the digital world. But Lasky’s article is extensively quoted by the Greater-Israel-right-or-wrong crowd. One can find posts entitled “OBAMA IS FUNDING TERRORIST…..this MUST STOP” and “Obama’s Pro-Terrorist Foreign Policy Advisor,” which opens with “Robert O’Malley [sic] goes past appeasement, directly to alliance with terrorists out to destroy Israel.”

As far as I can tell, nobody attacked Willy Horton’s father, but Lasky can’t forgive Malley for being the son of a well-known, leftwing francophone journalist, Simon Malley, who was born to a Syrian family in Cairo. That ancestry presumably makes his son immediately suspect and someone who should be carefully screened at American airports. So does the fact that Simon Malley, like much of the post- World War II intelligentsia, lauded liberation movements in Africa and also supported the Palestinian cause. Lasky asserts:

Malley has seemingly followed in his father’s footsteps: he represents the next generation of anti-Israel activism. Through his writings he has served as a willing propagandist, bending the truth (and more) to serve an agenda that is marked by anti-Israel bias…Robert Malley’s writings strike me as being akin to propaganda. One notable example is an op-ed that was published in the New York Times (Fictions About the Failure at Camp David). The column indicted Israel for not being generous enough at Camp David and blamed the failure of the talks on the Israelis.

The column did no such thing, of course. Read it youself. Malley overturned conventional wisdom by blaming everyone, including the Palestinians, for missing a historic opportunity.

Lasky’s piece is quite instructive, because each and every article by Malley that he deems to be anti-Israel propaganda is precisely the kind of article Israel needs. His writing is balanced, evenhanded, refusing to rely on received wisdom when dealing with a conflict that both sides must take responsiblity for inflaming. He comes across as very…reasonable. We have reached the point where anyone who tries to be cool and level-headed about the conflict is absolutely terrifying to those who think of it as a zero sum, Manichean game.

I don’t know Malley well but I do know that in the Clinton Administration, his “agenda” was to promote and protect America’s best interests. Those interests –and indeed, Israel’s interests–will be well-served if the next president uses America’s leverage with both sides, rather than just one side, to help them solve a conflict they cannot possibly solve by themselves.

There is no way to stop anyone from saying anything they want about Rob Malley in the lawless, rhetorical wild wild west of the blogosphere. But I hope Obama’s campaign does not take the bait and disassociate itself from Malley. And if this smear campaign continues, I hope the mainstream American Jewish community will rise to Malley’s defense, just as they did for Obama.

Topics: American foreign policy, Palestinians, Middle East peace process, Israel, American Jews, Hamas, Barack Obama |

Correction on Malley’s role, and a cyber-dilemma
(liberal guilt)

---

(my response - to the above post - some keying errors corrected)

The NYT article that you say is balanced is an apology for one of the great villains of the 20th century. The "myths" perspective is correct. The "fact" that Arafat merely wanted land is the real myth.

The truth test, or the best evidence as to Malley’s skewed views, (better uninformed views) is the line "to imagine that the 100-year conflict between Jews and Palestinians living in this region, with roots going back thousands of years more and tens of thousands of victims along the way, could be resolved in a fortnight without any of the core issues..".

There was no "Jews and Palestinians" conflict 100 years ago, nor ergo, no conflict "with roots thousands of years" ago. In 1900 there was no Arab nationalist movement let alone "Palestinians". Even leaving an illusion of such a thing as Arab nationalism in Israel in 1900 is anti-Jew and a significant lie. See THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM IN 1900 . Please do not respond to this by saying, "it is a literary technique on the part of Malley". It is not. It is an intentional usage of arab propaganda. Malley is anti-Jew and Obama for not doing his homework deserves the attention from the blogosphere.

- additional

Peretz on Obama in JPOST

The blinders of liberalism covering the eyes of logic and analysis have always surprised me. Just when I think that the logic sinks in, I tend to be taken aback at how deeply engrained some foolish beliefs truly are. In my post Obama? Oh My! I presented what I believed was a well-reasoned conclusion that Obama is just not worth the risk due to inconsistencies in his comments over the years concerning Israel and his associations. I based that position on historical interpretations of the Jew and Israel in the world and how Obama seems to fit into the posture those interpretations leave in their wake. Then I backed into the blog site above looking into Martin Peretz's commentary in Jpost (at the above link). And there I found numerous leftist Jews and Malley defenders all seemingly trying their hardest to insulate Obama. What I discovered was the lengths to which political inclination can shield a person from the truth. Read the NYT's piece written by Malley and draw your own conclusion. It may be worth your time to read the comments left on the Realistic Dove blog found at the top of this post responding to that blog's Malley post. Jews need to stay vigilant.

Words to a Son, Words of Truth

A Jewish father's plea

AVI SHAFRAN , THE JERUSALEM POST Jan. 30, 2008 .

Dear Sean, I know this might sound strange coming from a father who's far from an observant Jew, but now that you're dating, there's something I need you to understand.

The single most important decision you'll ever make in life will not be about your education or career but about whom you'll marry.

Because who your wife is will determine, more than anything else in your adult life, the person you become, the family you'll raise, what you'll leave on earth when it will be time to go.

I know the end of life isn't something you probably give much thought to. Not many of us do, at least not until we became sick or old enough to see it hovering on the horizon. But a final day does arrive, sooner or later, for each of us. And when it comes, very few of the things we thought made such a big difference will seem to matter at all anymore. And other things we never gave much thought to will suddenly be very important. We'll want to look back at our lives and feel that, in those areas, we pretty much did the right thing.

Sean, the right thing for a Jewish person is to marry another Jew.

Not only because our religion requires it. But because when Jews marry out, they disrespect who they are, they are disloyal to the Jewish past and they chip away at the Jewish future.

Whether or not our family kept strictly kosher or celebrated Shabbat or attended services often enough is all one thing. But the thought of bringing about the end of a proud Jewish line stretching back in time for centuries is something else. It's more than some religious transgression.

YOU NEVER asked to be a Jew, I know. You were born one. But being Jewish isn't a burden. It's a gift. It means you are part of something bigger, much bigger, than yourself.

Each of us Jews represents the hopes of so many Jewish ancestors. Don't forget, you're not just Sean, you're Shmuel too. And even if you only used your Jewish name when you made the blessings over the Torah at your bar-mitzvah, it is still who you really are, an inheritance from your grandfather. And it was the same thing to him from an ancestor of his. You can't just ignore the meaning of something like that. It's a responsibility. All of my ancestors and your mother's, all those Jews who came before us, lived, and sometimes died to keep their Jewish identity and heritage going.

I know that love is a powerful emotion. That's exactly why I'm writing this as you begin to date. The young women you become close to will form the pool where you'll find the person you want to spend your life with. Don't give yourself the opportunity to fall in love with someone you cannot, as a Jew in good conscience, marry. And never forget that what the world calls "love" isn't all there is to a successful and happy life. Every marriage that ended in divorce or worse, after all, started in a rush of love. For a marriage to really work, there has to be not only attraction and care but shared ideals and goals. And part of a Jewish man or woman's goals has to be to take their Jewish identity seriously, and to instill it into their children.

I don't care whether the girl you marry is white, black or yellow. I don't care if she speaks English, Hebrew, Yiddish or Swahili. I don't care if she was born a Jew or became one, legally, properly, and sincerely. But if she isn't Jewish, I know there will be tears, in your mother's eyes and mine - and also in heaven.

They say these days that most Jewish parents in the Diaspora don't care if their children marry other Jews or not. I hope it's not true, but even if it is, we do. Remember what I've told you many times: Being a Jew means being ready to buck the tide, to say no to others - even a lot of others - when something important's at stake. Sean, you're the future of our family. I hope you'll have the courage and the strength to do the right thing.

Love,

Dad

Rabbi Shafran is director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America.

---

A Jewish soul calling from the pit, the fear brought on by darkness and hopelessness praying for merely the glimmer of Holy light is a most stirring vision. A father pouring out his heart's visions and fears to his son is equally stirring. When the father happens to be Jewish and his fear is couched in an idea larger than himself, spiritual preventative medicine, how much the more so can we not be stirred?

This father's message to his son could truth be told, apply to so much of Jewish life. Don't give in because to do so is to "disrespect who they are, they are disloyal to the Jewish past and they chip away at the Jewish future". Every aveirah, every lost mitzvah opportunity, a chesed let go by, is chipping away at the Jewish future, distancing a Jew further from HaShem, distancing all Jews further from HaShem.

The father brings together many important ideas. What is "being disloyal to the Jewish past"? What does it mean to "disrespect who they are"? Why does any of this apply to us?

Continuity is of course important, but without meaning is irrelevant. Jewish continuity is more than demographics, it is about purpose. One of Judaism's primary goals is to make this world a proper dwelling place for HaShem, to bring down to this physical place, a spiritual purpose. It takes Torah to do that. Somewhere in the continuity Torah must come along too. Maybe the father should have advised "Sean/Shmuel" what sort of girl he should marry not just what sort of girl he shouldn't marry? I wanted to read into the word's of the father "Shmuel, you should marry a girl who will be a shining example to your Jewish children, who will lead them into the Jewish future they are entitled to inherit and build an everlasting foundation for your descendants, bringing us closer to the time of Moshiach".

The emotional appeal of the Yakov Shewky song "Shema" elicits feelings similar to those of this prayerful father. To answer the questions posed above, take a look at the lyrics at the link. It tells the story of a Jewish mother's attempt to save her son from the Shoah leaving him with those word's that can elevate a Jew's sense of self to the point of not having any self, words that restore souls to their lofty heights. "Know that there is but one G-d above". Shmuel, don't disappoint either your father or your Father. Maybe you didn't have the Jewish upbringing you could have had, as long as you are moving up the ladder and not down the ladder you are on the right track. For you that means, date only Jewish girls. And as for your father, it is never too late. A man that can write this type of letter has the potential inside to ascend to great heights. Both father and son could commit to being better Jews together.

Remember what I've told you many times: Being a Jew means being ready to buck the tide, to say no to others - even a lot of others - when something important's at stake. Sean, you're the future of our family. I hope you'll have the courage and the strength to do the right thing.


Indeed. Being Jewish means doing things the Jewish way even when it requires a superhuman effort. This is when Jewish souls are at their best. That striving to do what is right by their Creator overcomes all societal barriers. The world passes by, doing whatever "comes naturally" what is interpreted as "good" and believed to be "right" yet the Jew does what the Jew is supposed to do, no matter how different and well, "Jewish" it is to the uncircumcised eyes of the world.

How disheartening it was to read some of the Jpost talkbacks for this article. The scorn, the see I told you so self-righteousness, the disbelief, where praise should have been heaped on this father for the self-examination, confession and advice to his son, left me shocked. Who would conclude this letter was written from guilt and self-interest? Unlike one of the talkbacks which criticized Rabbi Shafran for sharing this letter, I applaud him for doing so. We can all grow and learn from the example of true emuna, the pintele yid of this father emerging at a moment of truth and with G-d's help bringing his son into a new sense of reality. A Jewish reality. The only reality.

If a Burglar is Caught... Mishpatim

2nd Amendment Foundation - SLOW Load

(link will open a download box in a separate window. the file is 10mg)

This slow loading audio of a 911 call is a must for anyone who questions the right to keep and bear arms. How convenient that Parshas Mishpatim falls this week. I received a link to this audio from the 2nd Amendment Foundation in my email. The Torah text comes from Navigating the Bible from the Ort website.

As stated in the email:
She is alive today because she had a handgun and defended herself. It only took five minutes for her attacker to make it to her locked bedroom where she hid herself in a closet. Only five minutes and the police were still on their way to help but were not there yet.

I know no other human right in Judaism as important as the preservation of life.

Obama? Oh My!

Jewish Leaders Question Obama's Stand on Middle East

17 Shevat 5768, January 24, '08
(IsraelNN.com) Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama still is reeling from negativity from the Jewish community, which is questioning his position on the Palestinian Authority (PA)-Israeli conflict. Earlier this week, seven Jewish democratic senators wrote an open letter condemning an e-mail campaign that falsely accused Sen. Obama of being a Muslim.

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) circulated a memo questioning Sen. Obama on his approach to Iran's nuclear development and on negotiations between the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israel. The Jewish Forward revealed the memo, which stated that Sen. Obama "appears to believe the Israelis bear the burden of taking the risky steps for peace, and that the violence Israel has received in return does not shift that burden. The AJC expressed "regret" that the internal memo was published.

The memo also notes that Sen. Obama previously has made statements favoring diplomatic talks with Iran and negotiating with Syria.

---

January 23, 2008

Barack Obama's Middle East Expert
By Ed Lasky

Barack Obama's real thinking about Israel and the Middle East continues to be an enigma. The words he chose in an address to AIPAC create a different impression than the composition of his foreign policy advisory team. Several advisors have evidenced a history of suspicion and worse toward Israel. One of his advisors in particular, Robert Malley, clearly warrants attention, as does the reasoning that led him to being chosen by Barack Obama.

A little family history may be in order to understand the genesis of Robert Malley's views. Normally, one should be reluctant in exploring a person's family background -- after all, who would want to be held responsible for the sins of one's father? However, when close relatives share a strong current of ideological affinity, and when a father has a commanding persona, it behooves a researcher to inquire a bit into the role of family in forming views. That said, Robert Malley has a very interesting father.

His father Simon Malley was born to a Syrian family in Cairo and at an early age found his métier in political journalism. He participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World. He wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations. In Paris, he founded the journal Afrique Asie; he and his magazine became advocates for "liberation" struggles throughout the world, particularly for the Palestinians.

Simon Malley loathed Israel and anti-Israel activism became a crusade for him-as an internet search would easily show. He spent countless hours with Yasser Arafat and became a close friend of Arafat. He was, according to Daniel Pipes, a sympathizer of the Palestinian Liberation Organization --- and this was when it was at the height of its terrorism wave against the West . His efforts were so damaging to France that President Valerie d'Estaing expelled him from the country.

Malley has seemingly followed in his father's footsteps: he represents the next generation of anti-Israel activism. Through his writings he has served as a willing propagandist, bending the truth (and more) to serve an agenda that is marked by anti-Israel bias; he heads a group of Middle East policy advisers for a think-tank funded (in part) by anti-Israel billionaire activist George Soros; and now is on the foreign policy staff of a leading Presidential contender. Each step up the ladder seems to be a step closer towards his goal of empowering radicals and weakening the ties between American and our ally Israel.

Robert Malley's writings strike me as being akin to propaganda. One notable example is an op-ed that was published in the New York Times (Fictions About the Failure at Camp David). The column indicted Israel for not being generous enough at Camp David and blamed the failure of the talks on the Israelis.

Malley has repeated this line of attack in numerous op-eds over the years, often co-writing with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Yasser Arafat (see, for example, Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors ). He was also believed to be the chief source for an article by Deborah Sontag that whitewashed Arafat's role in the collapse of the peace process, an article that has been widely criticized as riddled with errors and bias.
(excerpt - the remainder of the article is here.)

---

Just a few days ago, the heads of major Jewish organizations released a press release denouncing smear jobs on Obama but seemed to ignore what Obama is really about. One wonders why Abe Foxman, Marvin Hier and company are spending their time worrying about urban myths aimed at Obama's feelings instead of examining the candidate's positions. With all fairness, Obama is not as best as I can determine anti-Semitic (in that he has no hatred for Jews or Israel based upon economic, political or religious beliefs) although his long time pastor Jeremiah Wright probably is. I give credit to Obama for distancing himself from Wright's infatuation with Farrakhan.

However, Obama's history lends itself to an interpretation that he may be anti-Jew if he really concludes that Israel is to blame for the conflict in the middle east. I draw that conclusion based upon the available evidence: the AJC memo, his associations and interest in negotiating with Israel's enemies. A casual reading of the comments quoted in the Israel National News story of the AJC internal memo as reported by Forward, show a callousness towards Israel which causes concern.

Israel must never be pushed into "taking the risky steps for peace" as the memo reveals Obama supports. Such moves lead to an increase in terrorist attacks and the spilling of Jewish blood. All the more so, if attacks by lunatic barbarians who seem to be intentionally trying to provoke a significant military response from Israel by firing rockets into Sderot daily cannot evoke from Obama a sense of sympathy, what must one conclude? Obama, in order to hold this position, (if accurately reported) must not value Jewish life or feels that randomly dropping rockets on civilian population centers is a legitimate form of warfare. (Warfare for the underclass nationalist movements, etc.) An opinion such as that one leads the same casual observer to wonder what Obama must have learned in Midrassa.

The belief that the Jew must take his punishment and still be responsible for changing the scenario where the punishment is being meted out is anti-Jew. There is no way around this conclusion. But give Obama a benefit of the doubt. The underpinning of his belief is no different than that held by many others, primarily but not limited to the left in America today. The leading proponents for a mythical two-state solution are on the left. (Bush and Condi excluded). Blaming Israel is part of counter-culture mythology a function of a mis-interpretation of who is the aggressor and who is the victim, who has ill will toward whom. When Israel is viewed as the oppressor of the poor palestinians, a view held more so on the left than the right, the logical conclusion is that Israel must give something to compensate the victims of their anger. While the arabians are the weaker party in terms of the pali-Israel conflict, they are clearly not innocent. The left avoids studying how the situation got to where it is today; liberals need no justifications. Someone should ask Obama if he knows why there was a war in 1948 and if he believes that had a "palestine" been established at that time if there would be peace today. Why was the PLO established before Israel "occupied" Yesha? Why did the Six Day war occur? Readers of this blog know the answers to these questions. Does Obama? Hillary? One wonders whether Foxman, Hier and company have the seichal to ask?

MoJo Debates Israel

5 Questions On Israel For The Next Debate

As I've said before, there's been a vacuum surrounding Israel and Palestine this campaign season. Moderators have broached the issue only twice in the last 13 debates. And the most recent question, posed by Wendell Goler last week at the Fox News debate in South Carolina, was pretty weak. As Goler wound up—"Mayor Giuliani, President Bush is in the Middle East ... laying the groundwork for a Palestinian state"—there was, briefly, a glimmer of hope. Then he tossed this doozy of a softball: "I wonder, sir, how you would keep a Palestinian state from becoming a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism." One of several surreal assumptions behind the question seemed to be, "The Palestinians are prostrate, mightn't it be better if they're kept that way?" And that to the candidate with the Likudnik A-team advising him. Oh, well.

Since the debates have been so deficient in this area, I asked five well-informed Middle East observers what they would ask the candidates on the issue, if they could ask anything. The only ground rule was to keep it brief; no other boundaries. Here are their responses:

From Juan Cole of Informed Comment: Has Israeli colonization of the West Bank proceeded to the point where a two-state solution has become impractical? And, if so, isn't there now a choice between an Apartheid state or a one-state solution?

From Matthew Duss of TAPPED: Recognizing that Israel's settlements in the occupied territories are considered illegal under international law, and recognizing that their relentless expansion, which has continued over the last decade despite repeated Israeli assurances to the contrary, is both a source of Palestinian suffering and a major instigator of extremism and violence, as well as being deeply prejudicial to final status negotiations, are you prepared to take a firm stand against the settlements, and to carry through with real consequences if Israel does not cease settlement expansion?

From Trita Parsi, author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States: Since 1993, the United States has pursued a policy of seeking peace between Israel and Palestine by isolating Iran. As former Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk said, the two were symbiotic. Peace was necessary to isolate Iran, isolating Iran was necessary for peace. Fifteen years later, we can conclude that this strategy was an utter failure. Yet, the Bush Administration is following a similar path, seeking to create an alliance of Israel and Sunni Arab dictatorships to isolate Iran under the guise of peacemaking. In your administration, how would you approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? By repeating the Bush/Clinton policy or by pursuing a holistic approach aimed at giving all regional actors a stake in the outcome and process of peacemaking?

From Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss: Why is it that our last two presidents only made a major push on Israel/Palestine at the end of their 8-year terms, when they had nothing politically to lose? Doesn't this show that this is the big enchilada in foreign affairs and that our politics around this issue are unhealthy? What will you do differently, before your 8 years are up?

From Stephen Zunes of Foreign Policy in Focus: For Senator Clinton. During the 2006 war in Lebanon, you co-sponsored a resolution condemning Hezbollah for its alleged use of "human shields." Since then, detailed on-the-ground studies by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, while highly critical of Hezbollah's responsibility for civilian deaths in Israel, have challenged the claims by the Bush administration that Hezbollah's alleged use of "human shields" contributed to the high numbers of civilian deaths from Israeli bombardment in Lebanon. Similarly, the reports of these credible human rights organizations have placed responsibility for the vast majority of the 800 Lebanese civilian deaths on the government of Israel. Are you willing to acknowledge that Israel was culpable for most of the Lebanese civilian deaths? And, as president, would you belittle the findings of human rights groups in order to support violations of international humanitarian law by U.S. allies?

I'll be sending these along to the next few debate moderators. Have a good question for the candidates on Israel? Put proposals in the comments.—Justin Elliott

---

I do not usually go out looking for liberal tripe (is there any other?) But one of the feeds on the right hand side of the APRPEH blog is a Google news about Israel feed. Most of the time the main stories of the day appear there originating from various news services around the world. In terms of Israel news, it doesn't really make too much of a difference which news service you read. While the product of bias can be expressed through endless variation, begging indulgence in the mixing of metaphor, when it comes to pigs in a poke, a squeal is still a squeal. Characterizing the comments of these "well-informed Middle East observers" as anything other than an exercise in anti-Jew reflux would be to unfairly attribute a benefit of the doubt to the undeserving. But then again it is "Mother Jones".

Briefly skimming the surface of the comments for the basic assumptions of the questions, objectivity requires an honest assessment of credibility. None can be found. Israel's legal right to all of Yosh (setting aside the strongest case for not only developing Yosh but for retaining sole authority in Yosh; that is, G-d deeded assignment of this land to the Jews) is not only more credible than that posed by the Arabians it is justified by history and precedent. Using the terminology of "colonization" and "apartheid" muddy the waters of reason with emotional appeals relying on sound bites. All states set their boundaries, by fighting if necessary, and determine who is a citizen and who is not entitled to remain within those borders. If this is what the so-called “well informed observer” above means, than guilty as charged. Since Israel is by right, owner of Yosh, then these decisions justifiably are as legal for Israel to make as is for any state. Further, the idea that Israel is the reason for arabian extremism somehow causing barbarians living in and around Israel to act barbaric must be measured against the actions of those arabians who do not live in and around Israel. And not only in comparison to the nearness to Israel but also to the lengths of years for which arabian barbarism has existed. If Israel is to blame for the attacks of islamic facism and arabian terrorism, what was the cause for this behavior prior to Israel's re-establishment or prior to Jews even returning to the land in large numbers in the late 1800s? Such a line of reasoning and questioning is based solely on blame the Jew illogic.

Jews, as almost everyone knows have been the most loyal of voters for the democrat party. Is it the desire to intervene in the affairs of Israel and jeopardize her security which drives these voters to the liberal's home of political power in the US? Is it the will of the Jewish liberal voters to bring an unfavorable resolution of the conflict (as if it were negotiable) thereby endangering their brethren, (the ultimate in self-hating Jewish guilt) or is it the supposed guarantee assumed by the leadership of the left that espousing such clearly anti-Israel policies has no cost? Why worry about losing Jewish voters? Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III earned a reputation of scorn amongst Jews for supposedly saying something of the sort " F--- the Jews, they don't vote for us anyhow". And the collective voice of leftist elitists, what do they say?' F--- the Jews, they'll vote for us anyhow!" The Jew is left to be the Jew. And judging from the voices printed in this leading journal of liberal thought, what conclusion can one objectively draw?

As to the final claim regarding human shields, it is astounding that anyone would question what has been an arabian war strategy for as long as anyone can remember? The US has faced the same tactics in Iraq as Israel has in every war beginning in 1948. Who cares what HRW reported? The best evidence of course, is general neglect of ascribing any rights to civilians by arabians during war. The use of bomb belts strapped to the religious youth, "our future" we in the west would call it (ergo- Whitney Houston) produces the kal v'chomer. If arabian and islamic tactics permit human bombs, surely they permit the lesser offense of shooting at Jews from within civilian residential neighborhoods, mosques and public centers? Certainly, storing munitions in schools and using ambulances to haul fighters are all therefore permissible? Since these offenses have been documented repeatedly, one wonders what motivation is driving reports that are contrary to the precedent? But to be purely logical, the question presented above ignores motive. Did Israel target civilians or military positions in Lebanon? Did Hizbollah (or substitute any of your favorite arabian death gangs) shoot at civilians during the war or military targets? The weight of evidence exceeds overwhelms deniability. Hizbollah has not earned the reputation of "terrorist organization" for nothing and Israel the reputation of being one of the most professional military organizations in the world despite the unimpressive results of the war against Hizbollah.

Maybe in future debates, the candidates should be asked to whom they extend a benefit of the doubt? Or maybe they should be asked this question instead of the questions suggested in the article: "If Israel is to make a deal with the "palestinians", provided that the “palestinian” side has a legitimate negotiating authority with the power to implement a deal and the will to do so, and the deal in your opinion served to weaken Israel's ability to defend itself and thereby damages American interests in the middle east, should US policy be to support or oppose the peace agreement?" Let this question be the truth test.

Human Shield backgrounder

Who Speaks For the Rebbe?

"The Rebbe would never tolerate Wolpe's actions"

The Forward: In a major blow to a decade-long campaign to play down divisions within the Chabad-Lubavitch ultra-Orthodox movement, the movement's Israeli leadership appears ready to publicly distance itself from a significant messianic strand within the movement.

Nathan Jeffay/The Forward
Rabbi’s Incitement Against Olmert Threatens To Split Apart Chabad
Lubavitch Messianist: Prime Minister Should Be ‘Hanged From the Gallows’
In a major blow to a decade-long campaign to play down divisions within the Chabad-Lubavitch ultra-Orthodox movement, the sect’s Israeli leadership appears ready to publicly distance itself from a significant messianic strand within the movement.

The unexpected development has been forced on the Chabad leadership by a spreading tide of anger toward the movement this week, after a rabbi from the messianic strand declared that, were Israel properly run, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert would be “hanged from the gallows.”

Rabbi Shalom Dov Wolpe, a Chabad educator and author, launched into a tirade about Israel’s negotiations with Palestinians at the conference of a right-wing organization he runs, S.O.S. Israel.

“The terrible traitor, Ehud Olmert, who gives these Nazis weapons, who gives money, who frees their murderous terrorists, this man, like Ariel Sharon, collaborates with the Nazis,” Wolpe said on Wednesday, January 2, in remarks that were shown on Israeli television news.

A Chabad spokesman in Israel, Moni Ender, lashed out at Wolpe for his comments.

“This is not Lubavitch. Rabbi Wolpe is talking by himself. We have nothing to do with him. He makes dirt for Chabad,” Ender said.

Wolpe is the most popular leader of the messianic strand of Chabad, which holds that the 1994 death of the Lubavitcher rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson did not challenge the belief held in parts of the sect that he was the messiah. Wolpe was the first rabbi to go public with this position in 1994. A conflict has festered since then between followers of this belief and others, who present themselves as the mainstream and who reject such overt messianic claims.

Leaders on both sides have struggled to honor a ruling of a Brooklyn-based rabbinical court, issued immediately after the rebbe’s death, that said the movement should not split in two and the factions should not publicly undermine each other. This week, though, Ender told the Forward that Wolpe’s comments are doing such damage to the sect’s reputation that it could become necessary to publicly declare that the messianists cannot act or speak on its behalf.

“If we are needed to make it black and white we are different to [the messianists],” Ender added. “We never talk about politics. If necessary, I will do that.”

Some Chabad leaders in America also directed strong words at Wolpe. Rabbi Levi Shemtov, the Chabad representative in Washington, told the Forward that Wolpe’s comments “contravene the most basic tenets of Chabad philosophy” and are “beyond the pale of what the rebbe would tolerate.”

Mainstream Chabad newsletters did not reference the matter.

Wolpe’s outburst is so problematic because incitement to violence by rabbis has become the ultimate taboo, since rabbinical injunctions were blamed for inspiring Yitzhak Rabin’s assassin in 1995.

In the past, mainstream Chabad leaders have been on the right side of the political spectrum in Israel. During the 1990s, a number of leading Chabad rabbis in Israel were involved in the opposition to the Oslo peace process.

During that time, one messianist rabbi, Yitzhak Ginsburgh, was put in administrative detention for incitement to violence. But at that time, few observers connected Ginsburgh to the Chabad movement.

This time around, the backlash to Wolpe’s comments is taking on Chabad more generally, even resulting in calls to stop it from engaging in its trademark task — taking Judaism to secular Jews. Meretz party Knesset member Chaim Oron has urged the Knesset to issue a blanket ban on all Chabad activists from Israeli army bases. Other politicians have also responded angrily.

Chabad occupies a privileged position among Israel’s ultra-Orthodox groups, being the only major Hasidic group whose members serve in the army. Its rabbis are also regarded as informal chaplains.

It is the threat to this activity that could force Chabad to declare the messianists separate from the movement, Ender said. The sect would “prefer to get to every soldier and every Jew wherever they are, rather than pay the price of Rabbi Wolpe’s comments.”

In America, Shemtov said that Chabad would not comment on whether it would back such a move “unless or until such a situation arises.” He did say that as a rule, Chabad headquarters back Israel: “In general, when the Chabad rabbinate in Israel makes a decision, you don’t find opposition to them in America or around the world. They have a force of authority.”

Wolpe went beyond criticism of Olmert. He claimed that if justice were done, Israeli Vice Premier Haim Ramon, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak would hang, as well as Olmert. In an interview with the Forward last Tuesday, Wolpe stood by his comments, adding that they were an acceptable way to “show how far [Olmert] has gone.”

The determination of Wolpe and other messianists to make political statements is integrally connected to their belief that the rebbe is the messiah. Working from statements that Schneerson made, opposing land for peace and calling for expansionist policies for Israel, the messianists have tended to promote hard-line right-wing positions.

As to the heat he is feeling from other Chabad leaders, Wolpe said: “What is embarrassing Chabad is that we don’t do anything to stop the Holocaust Olmert is bringing to Israel. What are they doing?”

Statements of condemnation have come from American Jewish organizations, including the Orthodox Union, which has been critical of the Olmert government but said the comments were “beyond the pale of legitimate democratic protest and have no basis in Jewish law or hashkafa (philosophy).”

---

APRPEH in an earlier post stated that ChaBaD had at the time of the post not officially distanced itself from the comments of Rabbi Wolpe. According to the Forward article reprinted by Shturem, an effort may be under way to do that. Whether or not it can be considered official is another matter. It seems that Rabbi Wolpe has moved away from suggesting the death of Olmert to suggesting that the time for martyrdom on behalf of the land of Israel may have come. Most recently his rhetoric has lent an opinion that Bush and Olmert are "bringing another Holocaust".

Now clearly I am against concessions to barbarians whether political or territorial. But to suggest that Bush and Olmert want or are proposing actions that will lead to "another Holocaust" is merely outlandish. The end result of an ill-advised deal with the arabs will likely result in bloodshed but a "holocaust"? Is such imagery really productive?

Yes, it is important that a strong opposition be mounted against any arrangements with the arabians, especially with Olmert in charge and even more so as it impacts Jerusalem. But in order for that opposition to be effective, such leaps to the ridiculous must be shunned. Rabbi Wolpe has his right to an opinion. His opinion however, must never be considered the voice of the opposition to deals with barbarians.

The Bush Burned And Olmert Was Consumed

The following is a press release from Americans for a Safe Israel I received by email today. Judging by the headline in today's Jpost, Olmert and Abbas to start negotiations on core issues the long awaited crash of the Olmert regime may finally come to fruition. Bye bye Shas and Yisrael Beitenu. Pres. Bush may leave Israel wondering if he caused his friend Ehud his job.

Click to enlarge

Press Release:

U.S. Evangelical Leaders Reject Palestinian State in Judea and Samaria
in Jerusalem Post Ad Keyed to President Bush’s Arrival in Israel

Jerusalem, 1/8/08 – Proclaiming “an ineradicable bond between the geographical integrity of the land…and God’s promise of the land as “an everlasting possession” to the people of Israel, 26 American Evangelical pastors and lay leaders from 11 states and the District Colombia (plus a Canadian entry from British Columbia), affixed their signatures to a full-page Jerusalem Post ad flatly rejecting President Bush’s Annapolis-launched campaign to shoehorn a “Palestinian State” between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River (see attachment {the above ad, APRPEH}).

Headlined “President Bush: There will be No Legacy” and timed for the President’s January 9-10th visit to Israel, the ad declares the creation of such an entity “detrimental to the stability or both Israel and Jordan, the peace of the Middle East and the security interests of the United States.

The signatories mirror a cross section of some of the most influential voices on the U,S.Evangelical and Pentacostal scene, including, inter alia, national media personality Dr. Michael Evans, chairman of Churches United With Israel in Mr. Bush’s home state of Texas; Tennessee Pastor Robert Upton, a major figure in the powerful Pentacostal Congress; Pastor Jim Vineyard, whose press and internet opposition to Israeli territorial concessions has attracted national attention, and White House backyard neighbors the Rev. James Hutchens of the Jerusalem Connection and Richard Hellman, head of Christians’Israel Public Action Campaign, Capitol Hill’s best known pro-Israel Christian advocacy group.

Herbert Zweibon, chairman of New York-based Americans For A Safe Israel, sponsor of the ad, characterized it as a “reflection of the rising concern among Bible-oriented Christians at the negation of the Covenant, the marginalization of four millennia of Judeo-Christian civilization and the existential and geostrategic peril implicit in any decision to dismember Jerusalem and deliver Judea and Samaria into the hands of a radical Islamic nexus.”

Zweibon said he was awed by the moral courage exhibited by the signatories. “Taking issue with a president they admired and supported was no easy matter for these pastors and their congregants,” he noted, “but as Christians, addressing a professed born-again Christian, they felt obligated to tell the president that pressuring a weak and extremely unpopular Olmert government to place Israel in the direst jeopardy it has ever known was morally, religiously and geopolitically indefensible. We all hope he gets the message.”