And when we get behind closed doors
I'm in Vegas, returning from the Republican Jewish Coalition conference.
Only one session was open press -- much of it took place behind closed doors.
But intimations of the late, great Charlie Rich were not the only thing that made this affair country:
Here's a tweet, from Ilya Shapiro:
Romney: "I'm a country music fan." Also hits Obama hard on Israel. "We have interests with people who seek and love freedom." #rjc11
Mitt Romney did indeed make both statements, I can attest, but I hadn't seen the country in his second statement until Shapiro pointed it out. Until now, I had seen it only as Romney's deferential reference to the man he called the foremost Middle East scholar, Bernard Lewis.
The country is there, though. I sense the beginnings of a Nashville anthem:
"We have interests with people who seek and love freedom,"
Bernie told Barack, but Barack wouldn't heed 'im.
I'll have a more analytical take later in the week.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Senators want more juice than Belarus
The State Dept. announced yesterday that it was imposing sanctions on a Belarus company for its massive contract with Iran's energy sector.
At Foreign Policy, Josh Rogin reports that three senators -- among those who want to see more action against Russian and Chinese companies doing business with Iran -- were not impressed, particularly because the company in question was already subject to a prior sanctions notice for human rights violations in Belarus.
Sens Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) wrote to Secretaries Hillary Rodham Clinton (State) and Timothy Geithner (Treasury) demanding more comprehensive action, according to the letter obtained by Rogin:
We do not believe this represents full compliance with the sanctions regime put in place by Congress. We are deeply concerned with what appears to be sanctionable activities by other entities involving energy investments in Iran, financial relationships with Iran, as well as the regime's proliferation activities.
Note that of the three senators, only one caucuses with the Democrats, Lieberman -- and leans more GOP when it comes to Iran.
Note also that "full compliance" is code for the differences between Congress and the White House over Russia and China that have dogged the enhanced Iran sanctions act (which is what they're referring to) up to and beyond its passage and enactment last year.
Prior to passage -- and even afterwards, before enactment -- the White House had sought exemptions for Russia and China, in exchange for having secured their support for separate U.N. Security Council sanctions passed around the same time.
The White House thinking was that the new UNSC sanctions would lay the legal groundwork for other nations to enhance their sanctions against Iran. If a U.N. resolution was in place encouraging financial sanctions, for instance, these nations would be less likely to fear lawsuits for imposing same. The White House saw the quid pro quo -- allowing Russia and China to continue business with Iran -- as worth the resultant sanctions rush. That rush did eventuate, with Europe, Japan, South Korea, Canada and Australia imposing additional sanctions..
The Iran hawks' counter argument was that this was a sweet deal for Russia and China: All those countries pulling out of Iran meant more business for the Russians and the Chinese. That new business also meant that the sanctions effectively had little long-lasting impact on the Iranian regime.
The White House did not get its exemptions. It did get the traditional national security waiver, which it has made clear it would use as a substitute for the outright exemptions on Russia and China.
Belarus clearly was a bone the White House was throwing the tough-on-Iran crowd.
No one's biting, it seems.
1 Comment |
Share This
|
Does this make Hillary the Goodbye Girl?
Hillary Rodham Clinton, blessed with two Jewish deputy secretaries of state, goes all Neil Simon in bidding farewell to one of them, Jim Steinberg.
From Foreign Policy, which nabs the internal letter:
For me, Jim has been a friend and invaluable counselor. For two years he played Oscar to Jack Lew's Felix, and forged a new and effective partnership with Deputy Secretary Tom Nides. This building really won't be the same without him.
What does this mean? Jack Lew cooks? Jim Steinberg is a Mets fan? They lunched on park benches, a jazz combo lurking nearby?
Steinberg, incidentally, is to be replaced by Bill Burns. Who is not Jewish. Is he a Mets fan?
2 Comments |
Share This
|
Cory Booker’s parsha reading: Embrace “in your face” Judaism
Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark, speaks to Chabad of Greenwich about how he was identified by the movement as a promising young politico when he was at Oxford and then at Yale, in the 1990s.
He couldn't get away from the Chabad "posse," he said.
Before making his point about the mitzvah of muscular, "in your face" Judaism, he warns:
"A tall black man from New Jersey" is about to talk about the week's parsha, he says, and advises the crowd to "get over it."
Some highlights:
"We were born to stand out."
"Any Jew that wants to shrink from who they are is not being Jewish."
"This is the Jewish people -- you don't hide your light behind doors."
"Judaism is about courage, it is about the strength of your conviction."
Enjoy:
A Message from Mayor Booker from Chabad of Greenwich on Vimeo.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Jonathan Pollard: Sick or allergic to Israeli Cabinet Ministers?
Two weeks ago, Jonathan Pollard's family nixed a visit with Moshe Kahlon, the Israeli communications minister, after Kahlon had already arrived in Washington and was ready to head to the prison in Butner, N.C.
The ostensible reason: Pollard was too sick to have visitors.
In today's news, the first member of the House GOP caucus to endorse clemency for Pollard explains his decision in a YouTube video.
Getting GOP sitting lawmakers on board has been an uphill battle for Pollard supporters, so this is in of itself news.
But listen closely: Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) says he came to his decision after visiting Pollard in prison ... two weeks ago.
1 Comment |
Share This
|
JTA treads where Politico fears to?
Umm, what's missing in this "why they're alike" graf, from today's Politico front-pager on the Twitter wars between Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House majority leader, and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the third ranked Democrat in the Senate?
The Twitter wars between Cantor’s and Schumer’s offices may seem superficial against the backdrop of the dead serious budget showdown, especially outside the Beltway. But the approach of these press operations is an extension of the two politicians themselves — ambitious, brash and obsessed with winning the message war on the most important issue before Congress. And while Cantor and Schumer are on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, they seem to be kindred spirits as political climbers: They’re both second fiddles who aspire to be No. 1 in their chambers, and they’ve both assiduously built two of the most active and aggressive press shops on Capitol Hill to boost their cause.
3 Comments |
Share This
|
Hamas or talks: How is this not a precondition?
Israel is making it crystal clear it will not negotiate with a Palestinian Authority that has anything to do with Hamas.
Two things:
a) This apparently includes an arrangement that lets Mahmoud Abbas take the lead on foreign policy, on a peace deal with Israel. I.e., one that leaves intact a P.A. that abides by the Road Map and other prior agreements.
b) How does this square with no preconditions for peace talks?
Let me make the point I made before (when I predicted that this could happen): It may be a perfectly reasonable precondition.
But then so may be the P.A. precondition -- that Israel re-freeze settlements.
The point is that arguments over process are beside the point. That making the P.A. precondition some kind of sin in of itself was always manifestly silly.
The problem has never been the P.A.'s settlement precondition as a precondition -- it's been the P.A's position on settlements.
That's the argument that needs to stand or fall on its own -- that the P.A.'s position on settlements is unreasonable. That there is a moral and political case for settlement expansion.
The Netanyahu government should make that argument -- not to itself, not to its citizens, not to its followers here, but to the international community.
And see what happens.
2 Comments |
Share This
|
J Street v. Knesset: You’ve read the review, now see the movie
Lots of blog-o-buzz today about Jeffrey Goldberg's elegant defense of J Street over at the Atlantic.
(Elegant because he pulls off making a succinct case for the "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobby while explaining his problems with it):
The Knesset is debating whether or not J Street is Zionist. This is a farce. The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, refuses to meet with J Street. This, too, is a farce. The Prime Minister, in fact, will meet with Sarah Palin (whose politics are favored by a tiny minority of American Jews) but he will not meet with J Street. He should argue with J Street, yell at J Street, grapple with J Street, but most of all meet with J Street. Those Israelis, and those American Jews, who believe that J Street, and the spirit it represents, are fleeting phenemona have absolutely no idea what is happening in the Jewish world.
He's referring to last week's Knesset hearings on J Street, and as we've noted, American Jewish groups are less than happy with same. (Not all of the Knesset, of course, is "against" -- many lawmakers spoke "for" -- so my hed is fun, but a little misleading.)
Here, in any case, for your viewing pleasure -- the whole raucous hearing, subtitled:
Knesset Merged from Isaac Luria on Vimeo.
UPDATE: Bat Ami, a reader, below notes that this is not the entire hearing, but the first 40 minutes of a two-hour hearing (and she provides a link to testimony by Lenny Ben-David.)
My bad: J Street is working on getting the whole thing subtitled, and as soon as it does, I will post the entire video here.
The first 40 minutes is a good snapshot, though, with statements from the Knesset members who convened the hearings, and then from J Street director Jeremy Ben Ami.
2 Comments |
Share This
|
Is Adam Hasner running for Senate on an anti-Sharia platform?
Looks like it, if you watch this video posted by the Shark Tank, a website tracking Sunshine State politics.
Here's the relevant grab:
A judge within the state of Florida in judging on litigation between citizens in a Florida state court announced that the decision was going to be based on Islamic law. That is not suporting the United States constitution or the constitution of the state of Florida. We need to speak out. we need to make sure that these threats do not contiunue to grow, do not continue to infiltrate our state and our country.
Okay: I've known Hasner for a number of years, he's smart, affable and a successful pol, a rising Jewish GOP star. He wants Bill Nelson's job as of Jan. 1 2013, although he's not yet formally running. I look forward to covering the race.
Hasner wants red meat.
The problem is, it ain't kosher.
Here's a story on the case, from the St. Petersburg Times. It appears to boil down to this: Four ex-trustees of a mosque agreed to arbitration by an Islamic scholar and to drop their lawsuit against sitting trustees. They dropped that lawsuit and the arbitration took place -- but they also sued the mosque.
Judge Richard Nielsen's dilemma: Did the sides abide by the Islamic arbitration? Was the arbiter fair?
The judge said he needs to address these questions before the case comes to trial. He's made crystal clear that if and when it comes to trial, Islamic law will not apply in his courtroom:
In an appeal of the judge's decision, [the mosque's attorney] Thanasides wrote, "The First Amendment restricts courts' authority to review, interpret and apply religious law because these actions interfere with a party's right to choose, free from state involvement, the religious dogma it will follow."
The judge said he would use Islamic law to decide only the legitimacy of arbitration.
"What law would we be applying (at) trial?" Thanasides asked.
"That trial would be civil law," the judge said. "Florida law."
So: The judge wants to assess if actions surrounding an earlier attempt to settle this matter were made in good faith. This means assessing whether the plaintiffs, the defendants and the arbiter acted according to the agreed-upon precepts. Those precepts happen to be the Koran.
Once that's out of the way, no more Koran, at least not in determinative terms.
The mosque is aggressively rejecting this approach on constitutional grounds, which is a little weird considering its sitting trustees had agreed to an arbitration according to Koranic precepts, but okay: Defense lawyers seek the best defense, however inconsistent it may be with their clients' prior actions.
That doesn't mean Hasner is making sense.
What exactly is the constitutional question here? Should a court ignore religious agreements in deciding on cases of civil law?
What does that do to the state laws that condition civil divorces by Jewish couples to the granting and receipt of a "get," a religious divorce?
Are no religious considerations to be considered by a court? If a kosher caterer provides treif meat, do you just grin and bear it? Should there not be redress? But how could there be redress if the court is barred from considering Leviticus?
And what's the "threat?" Who's being "threatened" in this case? And what "infiltration?" This is Nielsen's decison -- is Hasner saying the judge is a secret Muslim?
Two preemptive counterarguments:
"Islam discriminates against women/Jews/Christians/you name it." So, for instance, do the halachic laws of divorce discriminate against women, even under the circumstances that Jewish feminists have endorsed in order to prevent the phenomena of agunot, women who have not receieved gets from recalcitrant husbands. The halacha still stands that on Orthodox batei din, the judges are all men; it still stands that if the women bear children before the process is completed, the children are ostracized as mamzers. No such stigma attaches to the man's children. And really, this one is beside the point: If parties agree to a religious arbitration, they agree to a religious arbitration.
"Judeo-Christian nation." Hasner walks into this one too, later in the video. There's no free pass for us "Judeo-Christians." There is no establishment of religion, or two religions, period. And explain to me how, constitutionally, you keep Islamic divorce law forever banished from the courts, but allow in halachic divorce law.
You can hear from the video that this red meat works, it gets votes, but it also comes back to poison us. Witness the Jews held over on Alaska Airlines for laying tefillin.
We are all strangers in America. It may be what makes this country work.
3 Comments |
Share This
|
Is Hillary Clinton hinting about an Alan Gross development?
Jose Diza Balart of Telemundo presses the secretary of state on what exactly -- besides condemning -- the Obama administration is doing about the 15 year sentence a Cuban court handed Alan Gross, the aid worker that the State Department says is guilty only of connecting Cuban Jews to the Internet.
She avoids the question at first, but he presses harder:
QUESTION: On the issue of Alan Gross, 15 years, other than talk and condemn, what can or should the United States be doing? (Speaking in Spanish.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, I think that the 15-year sentence is deplorable. Alan Gross was in Cuba to help people literally connect with the rest of the world, and as we’re seeing around the world, that’s a tide that is coming. You’re not going to be able to push it back out to sea, even in Cuba. He has served a very long time for doing what was not in any way criminal, in our view. And he should be released, and at the very least, on humanitarian terms. He should be sent home to his family, and I’m hoping that the Cuban Government will do that.
QUESTION: (Speaking in Spanish.) Separate from condemning, is there anything you can or should be doing?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are working closely with Alan Gross’s attorneys, who want to be very supportive of what they’re trying to do on his behalf. We don’t want to take any actions or say anything that will undermine the chances for this man to come home to his family.
"Undermine the chances" sounds like the chances are still very much alive.
1 Comment |
Share This
|
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Recent Comments
- mittahiah jones on Does this make Hillary the Goodbye Girl?
- mittahiah jones on Does this make Hillary the Goodbye Girl?
- mittahiah jones on Senators want more juice than Belarus
- Bat Ami on J Street v. Knesset: You've read the review, now see the movie
- aldo laghi on Hamas or talks: How is this not a precondition?
Blog Roll
