Prescription for an AWOL Community? / James Besser in Washington
Critics have accused Jewish groups of ducking and running every time the issue of the treatment of foreign detainees in the war against terrorism comes up.
That's one reason Rabbis for Human Rights- North America is broadening its own campaign against torture and other forms of abuse. On December 10 the group will officially launch "K'vod Habriot: A Jewish Human Rights Network."
The new project is intended to bring together rabbis, synagogues, community groups and individuals. Rabbi Brian Walt, the group's executive director, said Amnesty International provides a kind of model.
"The intention is to create an activist network across the country," he said. "Action alerts and information on a specific issue will be distributed each month, with suggestions for activism."
Temple Isaiah of Lafayette, CA is the first synagogue to officially join the K'vod Habriot network.
The initial focus will be on torture, he said, but he expects the group to quickly delve into other human rights controversies.
One area will NOT be on the group's agenda for the foreseeable future, he said: the Middle East.
The Strangest Bedfellows: Kucinich and Paul? / Jame Besser in Washington
The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) doesn't mind criticizing some fellow Democrats - especially when they can do that and take a hit at an increasingly popular Republican candidate with the same swipe.
This week the partisan group lashed out at Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), whose fierce anti-war campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination might sell well with Jewish voters - if not for his views on Israel.
Kucinich's latest sin: his suggestion that if he is nominated, he would consider selecting as his running mate Rep. Ron Paul - the libertarian/isolationist/antiwar Republican who remains low in the polls but is doing extraordinarily well on the Internet and in fundraising.
At a New Hampshire meeting, he suggested a Kucinich-Paul ticket could "balance the energies" of the country.
"Despite his views on the Iraq war, Rep. Paul no more belongs on a Democratic ticket than Dennis Kucinich on a Republican one," said NJDC executive director Ira Forman. "Any Jewish Democrats or independents that are tempted toward Rep. Paul because of his stance on the war should be reminded that this Republican Representative has a terrible record on Middle East politics, is anti-choice, and opposes stem cell research. Rep. Paul has even gone so far as to call the Israel government evil."
What Forman neglected to mention is that Kucinich, too, has a long record of statements and actions that infuriate pro-Israel leaders, including his speech at a conference sponsored by the anti-Israel Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center.
Paul has attracted some far-left wingers who admire his anti-war stance, but a Kucinich-Paul ticket would be the strangest of marriages. Kucinich is the most vocal advocate of a government-sponsored single-payer health care system; Paul wants to virtually dismantle the federal government.
Jewish Democrats can afford to do some bipartisan criticism in his case. Kucinich is going nowhere in the polls or in the fundraising sweepstakes; Paul, on the other hand, is gaining more national attention by the day.
This week's groundbreaking Annapolis declaration, which will in theory result in the immediate start of "final status" negotiations for creation of a Palestinian state, has revived a familiar problem: monitoring and ensuring implementation.
This time around, Israel and the Palestinians have decided to trust the Americans with the job of determining whether both sides are complying with their obligations under the Mideast Road Map, the outline for the resumed negotiations.
The State Department's choice for the job: retired Gen. James Jones, a onetime NATO commander, who will serve as special U.S. envoy for Middle East security.
Jones is a former Marine Corps Commandant with more than 40 years of active duty service.
"I believe that we need an experienced leader who can address the regional security challenge comprehensively and at the highest levels and who can provide the full support of our government to the partners, as they work to meet their responsibilities," Rice said in making the announcement on Wednesday. "General Jones is the person we need to take up this vital mission."
(Watch Secretary Rice's post-summit wrap up here)
The question is, what KIND of experience; some Jewish leaders quickly questioned whether a military man is the right choice for a job that involves security but also delicate questions of diplomacy and Mideast politics.
"He's an excellent marine, but this is not a job for a soldier," said Shoshana Bryen, special projects director for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). "The mandate is political, by nature."
Other observers wonder how Jones will perform the first time his views about Palestinian security efforts clash with Israeli intelligence and military assessments.
An Annapolis Reading Guide / James Besser in Washington
This week’s Annapolis peace conference has produced a veritable avalanche of words as Mideast think tanks churn out analyses and political groups on both sides of the Mideast peace debate produce position papers and op-eds. And let's not leave out legions of journalists and bloggers.
Here is a modest sample of opinions and perspectives on the conference. (Note for Internet newbies: click on the underlined link to go to the story).
David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who is right more than almost another Mideast talking head, writes a cogent analysis of the meaning of Annapolis – and the “confidence building” measures necessary as followup.
Ha’aretz blogger and chief U.S. correspondent Shmuel Rosner has one of the best characterizations of the downsized expectations and upsized guest list for the conference. In a story that also appeared in Slate, he suggests readers think of Annapolis as “a big party.”
The Orthodox Union has decided that the battle for Jerusalem is on whether or not there are any breakthroughs at Annapolis. The group’s political director, Nathan Diament, published an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun that called Jerusalem the “unbridgeable divide in the followup negotiations” after Annapolis.
The conventional wisdom is that Annapolis is just a fancy photo-op, but Americans for Peace Now spokesman Ori Nir, writing in the Jewish Week’s Machers Blog,makes the case that this week's conference is “a beginning of a new, somewhat different Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process.” The set-piece conference in the Maryland capital, he writes, was intended to “generate drama” to launch that process.
American Jewish groups have been mostly mute in the run-up to the conference, but JTA has an interesting report on some of the behind-the-scenes drama in Jewish communal boardrooms.
Writing in last week's Forward, Leonard Fein writes about the stakes of Annapolis; failure, he argues, could lead to a resumption of large-scale violence and a "terminal collapse of the 'two-state solution.'"
The Council on Foreign Relations offers a somewhat gloomy analysis of the talks, saying that “the conflict is not even close to being ripe for resolution,” and suggesting that the best goal now is simply to avoid making matters worse.
Several weeks ago the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) presented a paper to U.S. officials listing recommendations by their diplomatic experts for a successful conference. It’s not new, but it’s still informative.
Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and now head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, worries that the Annapolis conference signals a shift away from the new U.S. approach to the region laid out in April, 2004, which included a statement that Israel is not expected to return to its pro-1967 borders. Read it here.
Meretz USA offers a “Guide to the Perplexed” on the conference listing the key players and major issues.
An interesting political item in Monday's Washington Post speculates about President Bush's absence from Israeli-Palestinian mediation efforts and the fact he has never traveled to Israel as president. "For Bush, It's Not About Being There" is the headline.
The Post also has a long excerpt from a new book about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that describes her evolution from "passive participant to activist diplomat" on Israeli-Palestinian talks.
Shades of Shepherdstown/ James Besser in Washington
In Mideast capitals and in American Jewish boardrooms, optimism about Tuesday’s Mideast summit in Annapolis, Md. is hard to come by.
But local leaders in Annapolis – with its trendy waterfront district, old state capitol building and the sprawling U.S. Naval Academy, where the talks will take place – are hoping the city’s name will enter the political lexicon as a positive landmark in the quest for Mideast peace.
This week Mayor Ellen Moyer issued a proclamation welcoming the upcoming talks.
The city is “honored” to be the venue for “these important talks,” she said.
The city, she said, “offers attendees…its best wishes and urges them to find the courage, strength, commitment, determination and humility necessary to achieve success in this important endeavor.” She proclaimed Tuesday “Annapolis Conference Day” in the city.
The statement won praise from Americans for Peace Now (APN).
“This proclamation demonstrates the depth of American support for negotiations to achieve Arab-Israeli peace and the widespread recognition of the importance of this issue to American interests,” said Debra DeLee, the group’s president. “We join Mayor Ellen Moyer and the City of Annapolis in rolling out the red carpet to the delegates.”
The proclamation might also reflect plain old boosterism.
In 2000, the mountain hamlet of Shepherdstown, West Virginia hosted Syrian-Israeli peace talks. Stores along the city’s main street posted signs welcoming delegates; pictures of doves appeared everywhere. Local church ladies set up money-making concession stands for the army of reporters who descended on the small town; entrepreneurs produced T-shirts and other souvenirs.
But ultimately Shepherdstown, like Camp David, Wye River, Taba and Oslo, became just another name associated with missed opportunities.
Groups on both sides of the Mideast debate won’t miss the opportunity afforded by next week’s talks.
APN and other pro-peace process groups are awaiting permits for a Monday afternoon rally supporting the talks. Other participants include Ameinu, Meretz USA, the Union of Progressive Zionists and Brit Tzedek v’Shalom.
Americans for a Safe Israel and other Jewish and Christian Zionist groups that oppose Palestinian statehood and Israeli concessions are planning rallies on Monday and Tuesday at the Naval Academy; some groups also plan a Sunday demonstration at the White House and march to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Golan Negotiations at Annapolis? / James Besser in Washington
With only days left before participants start streaming onto the grounds of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., some elements of the Bush administration’s latest Mideast peace venture are starting to jell while others remain as murky as ever.
The onetime international peace conference, downgraded to a short Israeli-Palestinian meeting with a huge cast of international onlookers, may now also delve into the core issue in long-stalled Israel-Syrian negotiations: the Golan Heights.
That’s what the Syrians are demanding, and there are signs the Bush administration, desperate to get Damascus to attend, is willing to pay that price.
Washington sources say private diplomacy over the weekend will seek a formula that allows some reference to Golan without shifting the focus away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the reason the meeting was called in the first place.
Is that good or bad? The debate will rage for a long time, but a few things are clear.
The government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been flirting with the idea of negotiations over Golan for a while now, apparently believing there’s a better chance of dealing with strongman Bashar Assad than the weak, vacillating Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.
Washington has opposed talking to Syria because of its sponsorship of terrorism and its lack of cooperation in Iraq, but officials here are under growing international pressure to ease that policy because of the widespread perception it just isn’t working.
For Olmert, selling any new land-for-peace deal to an Israeli public disillusioned by the Gaza and Lebanon pullouts won’t be easy, but a deal with Assad may go down better because at least the dictator looks like someone who can deliver on his promises - assuming, of course, that he wants to.
In contrast, any movement toward a deal with Abbas will be regarded with skepticism by the Israeli public, especially since Hamas tossed him out of Gaza and may soon threaten his control of the West Bank, as well.
But from the perspective of the U.S. State Department, settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the key to dealing with a wide range of regional problems, starting with Iran. A Syrian –Israeli deal may be nice, but there’s concern that wouldn’t boost other U.S. foreign policy priorities.
The administration got one bit of good news over the Thanksgiving holiday: the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia said he would attend. That fulfills a key goal of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who hopes Saudi participation will stiffen Abbas’ backbone.
But according to an Associated Press report, Saud al-Faisal's participation is grudging; he said he isn’t interested in diplomatic niceties like handshakes and photo-ops, at least with Israeli leaders.
Religion in Campaigns, Again / James Besser in Washington
Responding to the rise of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in the Republican presidential sweepstakes, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen had a provocative column yesterday on the growing focus on religion in American politics in general and the 2008 presidential race in particular.
Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, has talked more openly about the connection between his faith and his politics than any other current candidate. Cohen writes that if he wants to keep doing that, he should “tell us how your religious beliefs, your rejection of accepted scientific knowledge, will not impinge on your presidency.”
Cohen offers a backhanded defense of former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney, whose Mormon faith continues to be a problem in his effort to win over the GOP’s important religious right faction.
Romney’s turnabouts on issues like gay rights and abortion are a kind of virtue in today’s political world, Cohen writes.
“If anything, Romney is the anti-Huckabee. There is not the slightest hint that his religion has constrained his politics in any way. You name the issue and he's been for it and against it -- gun control, abortion, gay rights. Call this what you may, it is proof that Romney is not enslaved by any dogma.”
Romney’s Mormonism is also the subject of alleged “push polls” in Iowa and other early primary and caucus states.
Push polls are bogus public opinion surveys commissioned by one candidate that ask a lot of questions about a particularly controversial aspect of an opposing candidate. The goal isn’t to get statistics but to remind voters of something the sponsoring candidate doesn’t dare to raise publicly.
Push polls have been used against Jewish candidates in the past, including Jill Docking, a Democrat who ran against Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) in 1996. Calls from pollsters in that race reminded voters that Docking was Jewish.
In Romney’s case, pollsters asked voters if they knew he was a Mormon and that he had served as a Mormon missionary.
In the past two presidential elections, the Anti-Defamation League has campaigned against the growing emphasis on personal questions of faith and religious practice in campaigns; looks like the group has its work cut out for it in 2008.
Lax Reporting in Hate Crimes Report / James Besser in Washington
Once again, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has reported an increase in hate crimes – those crimes based on the race, ethnicity, religious, sexual orientation or disability of the victims.
And once again, Jewish groups say the numbers may significantly understate the problem, thanks to lax reporting by many states.
According to the latest FBI statistics, collected under the 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act, there were 7,722 hate crimes committed last year – an 8 percent increase from 2005.
There were 1462 hate crimes based on the religion of the victims – and 66 percent of those were against Jews and Jewish institutions.
Among hate crime perpetrators, 59 percent were white, 21 percent black. California, New Jersey and Michigan led the nation in hate crimes; Northern states reported significantly more hate crimes than those in the South.
But that, according to hate crime monitoring groups, mostly reflects big differences in reporting.
According to the Anti-Defamation League, only 17 percent of the local law enforcement agencies that contributed data reported even a single hate crime. 5000 police departments didn’t bother to participate at all.
Other groups say reporting has been particularly lax in southern states.
ADL officials say the results show the need for more comprehensive anti-bias education, better cooperation by local enforcement agencies – and passage of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act, an expanded hate crimes statute now pending in Congress.
Reacting to the Iran Story / James Besser in Washington
Recently the Jewish Week ran a story describing a Zogby International poll showing growing support in America for military action against Iran – and an even sharper increase in the Jewish community.
Now, according to Zogby, more than 60 percent of Jews favor military action to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program, 48 percent “strongly” supporting it. That contrasts with an American Jewish Committee poll a year ago showing 60-plus percent opposed.
Do you believe it? A lot of Jewish leaders around the country don’t, as calls from several suggested after the story ran.
“Attention? Yes, it’s on peoples’ radar screens now,” said a Jewish Federation leader in response to the Jewish Week story. “But I don’t see the support for military action. Zogby didn’t poll my community.”
Overall, the Zogby numbers differ from other key polls, which show smaller and in some cases declining proportions of Americans favoring the military option. If Zogby is wrong about the nation as a whole, couldn’t he be wrong about the Jews, as well?
The Jewish Week story was picked up by numerous blogs as “proof” that Professors Walt and Mearsheimer are right: that the Jewish groups that “caused” the war in Iraq are trying to do the same with Iran.
The fear such notions could get a lot of additional traction if there is a military confrontation with Iran – and if it goes as badly as the war in Iraq – has made many Jewish leaders fearful of talking about trends in the community.
In private, they say that relentless warnings about Iran from groups ranging from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs to AIPAC are having an impact on Jewish public opinion.
But that doesn’t necessarily translate into support for military action, although some concede the focus on Iran by major Jewish groups and the apocalyptic rhetoric of some (which, many observers say, seems to be getting toned down of late) creates that impression.
Increasing awareness of the menace of Iran is coexisting with growing fears that the Bush administration could be following the path it blazed in Iraq right into Iran, many say.
Even for the segment of the Jewish community that puts Israel at the top of its list of political priorities, there is ambivalence – concern that the warnings about Iran’s nuclear effort are more accurate than those about Iraq’s, but also fear Israel could pay the price for any attack and uncertainty over this administration’s ability to conduct yet another war.
Jewish public opinion is in flux on Iran, many say – but for it to jump to support for another military action by this administration would be a political stretch few see happening.
In 2000, then-Gov. George W. Bush went before Jewish groups and promised to start moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as soon as he was elected, and attacked his opponent – former Vice President Al Gore – for the Clinton administration’s position that the issue should be decided only after final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
But once in office, Bush did exactly what his Democratic predecessor did: he used the waiver provisions of the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act to put off the move, and has repeated that waiver every six months since then.
Now, according to a Jewish Week Political Insider item this week, surrogates for three of the top Republican 2008 presidential contenders -- Sen. John McCain, former Gov. Mitt Romney and former mayor Rudy Giuliani - say their champions will move the embassy as soon as they are elected.
Pardon us while we yawn.
Even many vocal supporters of moving the embassy admit the issue is more about politics than policy; the realities of Mideast diplomacy are strangely impervious to casual campaign promises.
The original embassy statute was sponsored by then-Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kans.), who was planning to run for president in 1996 – and needed a good issue to help him quickly establish pro-Israel credentials. Dole announced the legislation to great fanfare at the 1995 AIPAC policy conference as his campaign was gearing up.
The issue was trotted out again in 2000, when Bush forces lashed out at President Bill Clinton for invoking the law’s waiver provisions. That effort was particularly energetic in Florida, where the Republicans ran ads touting the GOP nominee’s Jerusalem stand.
And what was the reaction of Jewish Republicans when Bush started his own string of waivers? Not a peep, suggesting the issue has utility only in election years, and only when it can be used to bash an opponent.
Now, with Bush getting ready to ride off into the sunset, the issue is back.
The Democrats are taking a faith based approach to the Jerusalem embassy question; mostly they are praying it doesn’t get asked. Politically, they have nothing to gain from wading into the fray, since the Jewish voters most likely to care about forcing the embassy move are those already inclined to vote Republican.
Republicans are assuming Jewish voters have no memory; most Democrats don’t have the nerve to admit they support the Republican president because they’re scared of getting bashed by … the Republicans.
Isn’t politics a hoot?
Mainstream Jewish and pro-Israel groups face a similar problem.
Most believe either that forcing the embassy move now would complicate U.S. peace efforts, or that fighting the waivers is a losing proposition, so why squander resources?
But no Jewish leader wants to get on the wrong side of the Jerusalem-as-eternal-and-undivided-capital-of-Israel doctrine. So they equivocate, saying the embassy should be moved, but getting all vague when asked about when.
That curious dance is likely to continue after next year’s election no matter who is elected.
A front page story in this week’s Jewish Week looks at the upcoming Annapolis summit, the Bush administration’s downsized expectations for the meeting and the general murkiness surrounding who will be there and what will be discussed.
In numerous interviews, several things stood out that reinforce the conclusion that in the Jewish world, skepticism and doubt are the order of the day
Mainstream Jewish leaders, almost to a person, say they don’t expect much from the conference. Some are publicly praising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for her determination to make Annapolis work but privately scratching their heads over the whole idea of holding a high-profile, high-risk conference at this juncture.
And there is a palpable fear that the conference will fail – and Israel will be blamed, or new Palestinian violence will break out, or both.
Maybe Bush administration strategists know something they they’re not telling that might point to a better likelihood of success, some Jewish leaders say – but they doubt it.
The Jewish right may be the only segment of the Jewish community truly galvanized by Annapolis. Groups like the Orthodox Union (see their special Jerusalem Web site here ) and the National Council of Young Israel have been sounding the alarms about a possible compromise on Jerusalem, but talking to some of the leaders of the new “Our Jerusalem” coalition, it’s hard to believe they really think the talks will advance enough to get negotiators anywhere near critical final status issues such as Jerusalem.
So why the intense focus on Annapolis by the right? Is it because they think the conference will succeed – or because they want to lay down markers for future peace efforts, and especially to establish the precedent that American Jews should have a say in what Israel does with Jerusalem?
And is it just about Jerusalem, or about generating opposition to any new territorial concessions?
The left is harder to read as the conference approaches.
Few believe President Bush is really interested in committing the kind of resources it will take to make Annapolis a turning point in Israel-Palestinian relations, or that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas are ready to take the huge political risks any real progress will require.
At the same time, the doves can’t afford to be seen as cool to the only peace game in town. And they fear the consequences of a failed conference – which could include renewed violence and even deeper divisions over negotiating with the Palestinians.
There are whiffs of hope that the administration might have some tricks up its sleeve – and deep unease that maybe it doesn’t, and that a failed Annapolis summit may just make matters worse.
Promises, Promises At RJC Debate / Adam Dickter in New York
Three of the Republican contenders for president would immediately move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, their representatives said at a debate Tuesday night.
Surrogates for Sen. John McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani told members of the Republican Jewish Coalition their candidate would not seek a waiver of the 1995 embassy relocation act, as Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have done.
“Sen. McCain was a cosponsor of the relocation act and would implement it rather than waive it,” said Randy Scheunemann, director of foreign policy for McCain, in response to a Jewish Week question. “The idea that we don’t want to move an embassy to the capital because someone in the State Department thinks it will predetermine the peace process is, frankly, ridiculous.”
Ken Kurson, chief operating officer of Giulani’s campaign said: “I believe he will do it. This is a guy who has a proven record of doing things people said were impossible.”
The surrogates were in agreement on most other issues, including the state of the Mideast peace process and the upcoming Annapolis summit.
“We are falling into the trap of believing that all problems are somehow stemming from the Israel-Palestinian issue,” said Scheunemann . “We need to have long-lasting resolution of the process but we must never pressure Israel into making a deal. It’s fine to reinforce Abbas, but the real question is whether he can deliver anything.”
Steven Schrage, representing Romney, said the former Massachusetts governor had “raised very serious concerns [that the conference must] address issues of security and not looking toward some kind of legacy-type program [for President Bush].”
Kurson said the State Department was perpetually looking at the Mideast “through rose-colored glasses. Anyone who has seen Rudy Giuliani in action understands that he is a realist when it comes to dealing with real life threats and issues.
“Pressure on Israel is wrong and we should never do it again.”
All three campaigns favored cracking down on illegal immigrants, rejecting proposed measures to incorporate them into society. In a jab at Giuliani, Schrage noted that “the most famous city in the world,” New York, had become a so-called sanctuary city, passing legislation barring officials from inquiring about anyone’s immigration status. Kurson retorted that Romney’s state had four sanctuary cities.
The surrogates also agreed on strong action against Iran, including military options, if necessary.
“As senator [McCain] has been very clear about the nature of the threat,” said Scheunemann. “He said the only thing worse than military force is the danger of a nuclear Iran.” He said McCain had raised the possibility that Iran’s dependence on imported refined gasoline could be a weakness, and suggested that the United States, Britain and other allies use it as leverage against its nuclear program.
Asked about the three Israeli soldiers held by Hamas and Hezbollah, Scheunemann said McCain, a former POW during the Vietnam war, had met with the soldiers’ families and believes their release must be tied to pressure on Syria. “We have to make clear to Syria that as long as they support Hezbollah they will have to pay a price.
“His own experience as a POW is that can’t easily negotiate with a totalitarian regime. You have to address the underlying conflict.”
Kurson said Giuliani understands that “Hamas is actively involved in some of those kidnappings and they are not a negotiating partner. Rudy understands that you don’t negotiate with people from a position of weakness.”
None of the campaigns directly opposed arms sales to Saudi Arabia, but each said such deals must come with restrictions.
“The privilege of buying arms should come with responsibility,” said Kurson. “We have to ensure that they stay where they are intended and in stable hands.”
Schrage said Romney has raised “some serious questions [about the arms sales] but has also talked about building security guarantees and making sure, instead of writing blank checks.”
All the surrogates expressed their candidates support for the Bush administration’s embattled faith-based initiatives program , addressing the larger issue of religion and government.
“Gov. Romney believes in complete equality of opportunity,” said Schrage. “He believes very strongly in the power of faith and doesn’t believe there should be any indication that one religion [is favored] over the other.”
Kurson said “there is a rush to condemn any involvement in religion. It is a force for good in our society and in our country. The few voucher programs Rudy Giuliani was able to get through in New York City showed that when you give people more choices … they will choose the right thing for themselves.”
Scheunemann said McCain “doesn’t believe you can artificially keep faith out of public life.”
On the issue of appealing to Jewish voters, the majority of whom are not Republican, Kurson predicted Giuliani would break Ronald Reagan’s record of Jewish votes.
“There is a real opportunity for the Republican party this year,” he said. “Jews aren’t having that FDR reaction. They get that we face enormous danger from [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and other extremists who blame Israel for just about everything wrong with the world.”
Scheunemann said “you don’t have to be from New York to win a lot of Jewish votes,” while Schrage said Romney has “a huge history of involvement in the Jewish community and as people get to know him he will do very well.”
The crowd at the event showed a decidedly conservative streak. When Scheunemann said McCain believed “you can’t take 12 to 15 million illegal immigrants and put them on cattle cars,” several in the crowd shouted“ why not?”
Also in the crowd were people who hissed at the mention of Democrat Nancy Pelosi and at least one defender of Ann Coulter.
Kurson demonstrated that Giuliani’s penchant for putting 9-11 at the center of his campaign also extends to his aides by mentioning it in the first sentence of the answer to the first question. Asked about his candidate’s domestic priorities, Kurson said it was “securing the homeland and protecting the American people” from terrorism, noting that he “understands it, I believe, in a unique way, having experienced it personally and witnessed it personally.”
Is There A Rabbi in the House? / James Besser in Washington
Is Congress ready for its first blind rabbi? Dennis Shulman, a rabbi and clinical psychologist hopes New Jersey voters will give him a chance to find out after next November's congressional election.
Shulman, who has been a pulpit rabbi, practicing psychologist and author, is hoping to unseat Rep. Scott Garrett, a three-term Republican, in a GOP-leaning district that the Democrats hope will turn blue next year.
The Fifth District includes parts of Bergen, Passaic, Sussex and Warren Counties. Shulman campaign officials say the district is about 10 percent Jewish.
Shulman hopes his personal story – he grew up poor in Massachusetts, lost his sight as a child and earned degrees from Brandeis and Harvard, where he received his PhD j-- will get the attention of voters. He currently serves as rabbinical associate at Chavurah Beth Shalom, which describes itself as a “progressive reform congregation.”
He is also the author of several books, including “The Genius of Genesis: A Psychoanalyst and Rabbi Examines the First Book of the Bible.”
“The trajectory of my life compels this decision,” he said before announcing his candidacy on Wednesday. “Now it is time to apply my experiences serving individuals and my congregants to serving my district and my country.”
He promised to stay in touch with the folks at home.
“Too often, the relationship between Congressmen and lobbyists is closer than the relationship between Congressmen and constituents,” he said.
And he said he would “apply common sense solutions to issues like Iraq, energy independence, and the incompetence and corruption of our government .”
Political observers say he has his work cut out for him.
“He’s an interesting personality, but the seat is an extraordinarily difficult one for a Democratic,” said Gilbert Kahn, a Kean University political scientist who closely follows New Jersey politics.
But if the national Democratic avalanche is as big as some polls suggest, Shulman might have a chance, Kahn said. “A good campaign and a Democratic landslide could change things dramatically."
Picture Imperfect in Indiana / James Besser in Washington
Some political issues are like heartburn; they just keep coming back.
This week the American Jewish Committee filed a Supreme Court brief dealing with one of them: a law requiring photo IDs in order to vote.
In this case, the controversy involves an Indiana law, but the AJC and other Jewish “defense agencies” have long opposed any photo ID requirement because of the potential impact on certain populations of voters.
“The Indiana law places an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote by unfairly discriminating against particular groups such as the elderly, the poor, the handicapped, students and minorities, who are less likely to possess government issued photo ID,” said Jeff Sinensky, the group’s general counsel.
The Indiana statute, according to the brief, imposes “the most restrictive voter ID provisions in the nation. Millions of otherwise eligible voters, particularly in certain segments of the electorate, fail to possess a government-issued photo ID.
Twenty four states now require some form of identification to vote. The Supreme Court will take up the issue in the current term; a decision could affect numerous other state statutes.
Jewish Right Losing Key Congressional Advocate / James Besser in Washington
Opponents of land-for-peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians are losing one of their best friends in Congress.
But in fact, Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ), a 24-year House who announced last week that he will retire at the end of his current term for health reasons, had already pulled back as the most visible congressional supporters of groups like the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA).
The reason, according to several pro-Israel activists: a reluctance to criticize the policies of the current Republican administration.
Still, Morton Klein, the ZOA president, lamented Saxton’s impending departure.
“He understood that the Palestinians weren’t serious about peace, and said so with conviction and aplomb,” Klein said. “His presence will be sorely missed.”
But not to worry; ZOA has found another strong advocate in Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV.) a former AIPAC activist who has of late taken a much harder line on Mideast negotiations.
Former AIPAC Leader Goes to Pro-Peace Process Group / James Besser in Washington
Tom Dine, who helped turn the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) into a lobbying powerhouse, may be set to try the same thing with a pro-peace process group that wants to expand its Capitol Hill presence.
Dine has signed on as a consultant with the Israel Policy Forum (IPF), a group that promotes a more robust, U.S.-led peace process.
Beginning in 1980, Dine played a major role in creating AIPAC’s sprawling regional network that includes “key contacts” in every congressional district, a major factor in its legendary Capitol Hill clout.
“He went deeper into the grass roots than anybody else had gone before,” said Douglas Bloomfield, the former legislative director of the lobby group.
But it’s Washington that will be Dine’s primary responsibility with IPF, said the group’s president, Seymour Reich.
“Tom has a great deal of talent; he’s a dynamo,” Reich said. “Washington will be a big part of his focus, as well as strategic planning, management, and political action issues.”
Dine was the loser in a 1993 power struggle with AIPAC’s lay leadership; the conflict centered on the lay board’s day-to-day involvement in AIPAC management and Dine’s support for nascent Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.
Robertson Picks Rudy, Jewish Dems Thrilled / James Besser in Washington
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the surprise frontrunner in the race for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, may have improved his chances with the conservative Christian wing of the party when he scored an endorsement from TV evangelist and Christian media magnate Pat Robertson this week.
Robertson cited Giuliani’s promise to promote “a conservative judiciary” and his ability to protect the nation “from the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists.” (See Robertson’s announcement here)
But while Robertson’s blessing may smooth relations with one important GOP constituency, it could prove a big liability in the general election with other voter groups --starting with the Jews.
“Rudy’s first, looming task is to win the nomination, and this endorsement helps,” said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. “Rudy will never get a majority of the evangelicals but he has to get a decent slice to win the party nod, and he has to be acceptable enough to them so that they don't defect to a third party in November.”
Robertson’s endorsement, he said, “helps with both goals.”
But the TV preacher’s anti-gay rights, anti-feminist and apocalyptic views and controversial pronouncements like his 2006 claim that Ariel Sharon may have been felled by a stroke as divine retribution for ceding land to the Palestinians could prove toxic with many swing voters who might otherwise be attracted to the former mayor.
“Rudy’s challenge is to cut down on the cross-currents – the potential cost of Robertson’s blessing with moderates, Jewish voters and other groups not attuned to the evangelicals,” Sabato said. “He’ll worry about that later.”
He added that the potential long-term costs of the endorsement may be outweighed by the short-term political benefits for Giuliani, whose personal history and past support for gay and abortion rights continues to be a problem for many evangelical Republicans.
Meanwhile, Jewish Democrats were trying hard to contain their glee.
“This proves once and for all that Giuliani is selling out to the party’s right wing,” said Steve Rabin, assistant director of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC). “It’s been disappointing to see the Republican candidates catering to the far right, whether it be Romney flip-flopping on every position he’s held, McCain claiming this is a Christian nation – or Giuliani gleefully accepting Robertson’s endorsement.”
Making Nice on Jerusalem/James Besser in Washington
While Orthodox and right-of-center Jewish groups expand their efforts to block new territorial compromises at this month’s Annapolis peace talks, a prominent group of Jerusalem clerics was in Washington on Tuesday with a different message.
The Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land, which includes leading Christian, Moslem and Jewish clergy, met under the auspices of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA).
Attending were representatives of a number of Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai B’rith, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, Hadassah and the Orthodox Union – which has been leading efforts to block any compromise involving Jerusalem.
One of the hosts said there were two major themes at the meeting.
“The first was the question of creating greater sensitivity to each others’ holy places,” said Rabbi Steve Gutow, the JCPA executive director. “A second goal was to try to have an impact on Annapolis and the pursuit of peace.”
At first, “it was somewhat stilted, but it turned into a very open conversation,” Gutow said.
Was the Washington meeting about “dialog?”
Gutow scoffed. “It wasn’t just dialog; it was about doing things.”
Among those things: marshalling broad religious support in this country for the upcoming peace talks, creating a phone hotline so the religious leaders can keep in touch with other during crisis situations in Jerusalem and getting Israel to ease restrictions that bar some members from attending meetings in the city.
The group is also proposing mechanisms to monitor the media for “derogatory representations” of any religion.
One of the Palestinian religious leader at the session told the group that Palestinian leader Abu Mazen ordered him to participate.
The coalition, created in 2002, includes the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, the Supreme Judge of the Sharia Courts in the Palestine Department and the Meeting of Heads of Local Churches in Jerusalem.
The Washington visit was facilitated by Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, and Ambassador Tony Hall, a former congressman now working on Middle East peace issues.
AIPAC Case: Stranger and Stranger / James Besser in Washington
Is there anybody in Washington who still believes the bizarre case of former AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman will actually go to trial in January?
Last week’s ruling by Judge T.S. Ellis that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other top administration foreign officials must testify was another setback to a government case that looked like a stretch at the outset and now seems ready to snap.
That may be the reason many Jewish leaders who once saw the case as a dangerous effort to cut the pro-Israel lobby down to size now seem mostly indifferent.
The prosecution, many now believe, has less to do with official antipathy to groups like AIPAC than with this administration’s overarching focus on stopping leaks about how it conducts its foreign policy – not exactly a surprising goal, given the controversy raging around issues such as how we got into the Iraq war.
And a prosecution that once seemed threatening to many Jewish leaders now sees more bumbling than malevolent.
Want to worry about attacks on the pro-Israel lobby? In recent interviews, several top Jewish leaders said they now see Walt, Mearsheimer and Carter as much bigger problems than a Justice Department that seems intent on putting Weissman and Rosen in jail for just hearing secret information and talking about it, but can’t seem to get its act together in court.
Once, Jewish leaders worried that a trial could reveal AIPAC secrets – something no lobby group relishes. Now, it’s the Bush administration that worries a trial could open up its inner workings to outside scrutiny.
“It’s an embarrassment to the Justice Department,” one longtime pro-Israel lobbyist said this week.
All of this, of course, doesn’t make things easier for the defendants, whose lives have been on hold for more than two years and whose futures are clouded no matter what the legal outcome.
Weissman, an Iran expert who was not part of the rough-and-tumble of AIPAC lobbying, has become a sympathetic figure as the legal wrangling drags on.
Rosen, a mercurial personality known for both his brilliance and the enemies he has made over the years, is seen as a tough-hided survivor, but even some longtime adversaries say it can’t be easy for him, either.
The other interesting aspect of the case is how it has affected AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby giant. Detractors – including some in the Jewish world – predicted the repeated headlines about the “AIPAC spy case” would cut into its influence on Capitol Hill.
Not so; two years into a “spy” case that doesn’t really involve spying, AIPAC’s Capitol clout seems undiminished. Indeed, the controversy has been a fundraising boon for the group.
Not One Inch on Jerusalem / James Besser in Washington
With reports in today’s newspapers suggesting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is ready to discuss all key Israeli-Palestinian issues at this month’s Annapolis peace conference, the coalition of mostly Orthodox groups that wants to thwart any negotiations about Jerusalem is taking to the Web.
This week the Orthodox Union posted a special page on its Web site devoted to the issue. The goal: to provide information about Jerusalem and encourage activism to block any compromise on the city.
“The Orthodox Union has long supported the Israeli government's position,” the group writes on the site. “Yet recently, some inside both the U.S. and Israeli governments have suggested that ‘some’ of Jerusalem could be split off from the rest of the city. We oppose any such redivision of Jerusalem, our holy and eternal capital. It's time to take action, and here's how.”
Groups that are hoping for significant progress at Annapolis are getting more active on the Web, as well. Americans for Peace Now (APN) has a page on its Web site highlighting its “Push for Peace Now” campaign.
But groups on the left are generally steering clear of the emotional Jerusalem issue, even though some pro-peace process leaders argue that it is being raised as a “wedge” to make it harder for Israel to make any territorial concessions.
Update: Schumer, Feinstein Supporting Mukasey / James Besser in Washington
On Friday, we reported that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was expected to be the key when the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General.
All that suspense didn’t last very long; on Friday Schumer announced he will vote for Mukasey, despite growing Democratic opposition because of the nominee’s refusal to talk about his position on waterboarding and other forms of interrogation critics say amount to torture.
In a statement, Schumer said “This is an extremely difficult decision. When an administration, so political, so out of touch with the realities of governing and so contemptuous of the rule of law, is in charge, we are never left with an ideal choice. Judge Mukasey is not my ideal choice.”
But the former judge, Schumer said, “is far better than anyone could expect from this administration.”
Also promising a “yes” vote: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), another Judiciary Committee member.
The decision by Schumer and Feinstein helps offset Friday’s announcement by Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-vt.) that he will vote “no” on Tuesday.
Most Jewish senators remain undecided; only Vermont independent Bernie Sanders has announced opposition.
Meanwhile, Washington Post writer Paul Kane speculates in his Capitol Briefing blog that Feinstein could become the "next Joe Lieberman" -- a onetime Democrat reviled by the progressive wing of the Party for siding with the Republicans on key issues.
In a debate at the Manhattan campus, NJDC’s national director, Ira Forman, faced off in a debate against RJC’s Greg Menken, director of the group’s New York chapter.
Fully aware that GOP president George W. Bush is widely perceived to be the most pro-Israel president ever, Forman didn’t try to weaken the Republicans’ bona fides. In fact, as he did in the 2004 election, Forman argued that both Republicans and Democrats are pro-Israel, and therefore Israel shouldn’t be an issue in the national debates. “We should be proud of bipartisan support for Israel,” he said.
There was no such magnanimity in Menken’s comments as he assailed House Democrats for voting against Israel’s security barrier and blasted presidential contender Barack Obama for saying the barrier “divided two nations” when Palestine is not yet a nation. And then there was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “shocking trip to Syria” and the Democrats’ scuttling of pro-Israel John Bolten’s nomination as UN envoy. For good measure, Menken also reached back to 2000 and then-Senate candidate Hillary Clinton’s infamous Suha Arafat kiss.
“There are real differences between the two parties” on Israel, Menken insisted.
With the gloves now off, Forman retaliated that ten Republican senators had voted against a measure condemning Hezbollah, that California Republican Rep. Darrel Isa had called Israel an “apartheid state,” that Bush Middle East envoy Karen Hughes had compared Israel to Arab governments, and that GOP White House hopeful Ron Paul once said “the goal of Zionism is to intimidate us on Capitol Hill.”
But Forman then added, “this does not prove the Republicans are anti-Israel. It only proves they make mistakes, just like the Democrats do. The difference s that Jewish Democrats criticize their own. Jewish Republicans almost never criticizetheir own.”
Menken repeatedly referred to “Islamofascists” who want to overrun Iraq, “set up a Muslim caliphate and use it to influence the rest of the world” in justifying the war on Iraq.
Forman said he credited Bush with good intentions, but asked “is Israel’s security better? Is Iran weaker? What has come about has been drastically bad for Israel and drastically bad for the United States of America.”
And so it went, with Menken and Forman trading barbs over everything from senators’ voting records to the growth of Orthodox Jews in America. As the exchange became more heated, many of the students laughed as if watching a traveling comedy team.
“I didn’t hear anything new,” said Debra Birnbaum, a second-year law student from Long Island. “They chose to speak about the strengths of the parties, but they didn’t speak about the weaknesses adequately.”
Birnbaum said she is “definitely voting Democrat” in next year’s election.
Jewish Senators Key to Mukasey Confirmation?/James Besser in Washington
It’s a minor irony; as Jewish groups stay well clear of the intensifying Senate battle over the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, a handful of Jewish senators may hold the key to Justice Department headquarters for the Jewish jurist.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who initially welcomed President Bush’s nomination of Mukasey, is widely seen as the pivotal vote. Schumer now says he is “wrestling” with the nomination, according to a story in Friday’s Washington Post .
Schumer’s dilemma: he believes Mukasey is the “best we can get” from the Bush administration, according to the Post. But a growing number of Democrats have signaled opposition to Mukasey based on his refusal to say the interrogation technique of “waterboarding” is tantamount to torture.
In the full Senate, most Jewish members say they’re still undecided; only Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has formally announced opposition, while Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) say they’ll vote for the embattled Mukasey.
And six Jewish members of the critical Judiciary Committee remain undecided, according to a tabulation by Talking Points Memo. That includes five Democrats and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).
The Committee will vote on Mukasey on Tuesday; if Mukasey loses, the nomination could die there.
On Thursday President Bush warned that if that happens, the top Justice Department slot could stay vacant for the rest of his administration.
Foxman Breaks Anti-Sharpton Taboo / Adam Dickter in New York
For the first time, a mainstream Jewish leader has issued a joint statement with the Rev. Al Sharpton, breaking an unwritten taboo among Jewish organizations.
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and Sharpton on Thursday called for tougher penalties against anyone who displays a noose with the intent to threaten or harass.
Many Jewish leaders feel Sharpton played a divisive role during the 1991 Crown Heights riots in Brooklyn and later during protests against a Jewish merchant in Harlem in 1995 that turned deadly, and have demanded that he apologize.
Leaders of major Jewish organizations have refused to deal with Sharpton until he does so, despite the fact that Sharpton has taken a much softer tone toward Jews in recent years and has sought to cooperate on such issues as fighting slavery in Sudan.
On Thursday, in response to a rash of incidents involving nooses and swastikas directed against Jews and blacks, Sharpton and Foxman called on “all people of good will of all races, religions and ethnicities to stand up and say such acts will not be tolerated.”
The statement further called on New York legislators to amend existing laws making the painting of a swastika on another person’s property a felony to include nooses.
In an interview, Foxman said “if we can find opportunities for our communities to stand together against hatred and bigotry we should, without preconditions, and urge others to do likewise.”
Foxman said Sharpton, who ran for president in 2004, is “a savvy activist and he’s toned down some of his rhetoric. I think he’s trying to be more acceptable to the mainstream.”
What Communal Crisis Over Jerusalem? / James Besser in Washington
So what do we know?
Several weeks ago, the Jewish Week published a story about the looming confrontation over Jerusalem as Orthodox groups rally to oppose any Israeli concessions on the city at the upcoming Annapolis peace summit.
With polls showing that a strong majority of American Jews favoring compromise on Jerusalem, that seemed to point to a looming communal crisis.
But not so fast; in a serious of subsequent interviews, few observers now see a coming crunch.
The reason: surging doubts that the upcoming talks – if they are, in fact, held at the end of November, which nobody is betting on – will produce enough progress to get Israel and the Palestinians anywhere near sensitive final status issues such as Jerusalem.
“To even start talking about Jerusalem, they have to go through a lot of steps, and it’s hard to see how they’re going to get past even the easy ones,” said an official with a Jewish group that supports new land-for-peace negotiations. “The gap is huge, and nobody expects Annapolis is going to produce a miraculous way of bridging it.”
“I talked to a lot of Israelis this week, and almost nobody believes (serious talks about Jerusalem) are going to come to fruition,” said Dr. Mendy Ganchrow, a former Orthodox Union president and pro-Israel blogger. “I don’t see the sense of going to war with the government of Israel over something that isn’t likely to occur.”
If the Annapolis talks do produce progress and Jerusalem neighborhoods are put on the table at some future negotiating sessions, Orthodox opposition will be widespread, Ganchrow said.
But others say even if that happens, in the end most American Jews will go along with the Israeli government’s wishes.
“Since the Gaza disengagement, more Orthodox voices have been more openly critical of Israeli policy,” said Dr. Steven Bayme, Director of the Contemporary Jewish Life Department of the American Jewish Committee. “You’ll probably see more of that. But the overall principle that the American Jewish community stands with the government of Israel will hold.”
And that will hold in the Orthodox, as well as non-Orthodox communities, he said.
Jews Still Mostly Mum on Mukasey / James Besser in Washington
At first, it looked like his nomination would pass muster with many Democrats who expected an appointee with a more strident ideological past.
But opposition to the confirmation of retired Judge Michael Mukasey as Attorney General is surging in the Democratic ranks. This week three Democratic presidential hopefuls – Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.), Sen. Joe Biden (Del.) and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) – signaled opposition to the Mukasey nomination because of his positions on presidential authority and his refusal to say that “waterboarding,” a controversial interrogation technique, is a form of torture.
And it’s not just Democrats; some key Republicans, including Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC) are unhappy about Mukasey’s vagueness on the subject.
And where are Jewish groups? Mostly silent.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which called Mukasey’s nomination “wise” and predicted strong bipartisan support, has stayed mum as the Mukasey fight heats up. So has the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), which has actively opposed many Bush administration judicial nominees.
Ditto the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress.
“We certainly aren’t going to say anything before all the answers are in,” said AJ Congress legal director Marc Stern.
The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism may be taking a somewhat more skeptical view as the Mukasey controversy heats up.
“We have been following his testimony closely,” said RAC associate director Mark Pelavin. “Although we do not have a position on the nomination, his testimony does raise some significant questions – both concerning his views on what is and what is not torture, and on his analysis of the limits or lack of limits on Executive power.”
Hillary and the ‘P’ Word / James Besser in Washington
Blogger Steve Clemons had an interesting take on this weekend’s national leadership conference of the Arab American Institute in Dearborn, Michigan.
Clemons noted that of the huge pack of Democratic and Republican presidential contenders, only Republican Ron Paul and Democrats Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson “took the time to be at this important assembly of Arab-Americans.”
More interesting was the videotaped message to the group by Sen. Hillary Clinton, the current Democratic frontrunner who has worked hard to take on hard-line pro-Israel positions.
Clinton, Clemons reported, seemed “genuinely interested in the importance of Arab Americans.
But the New York senator “just did not say ‘Palestine’ or ‘Palestinian state’ in her taped message.”
While Clinton officially supports a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, she appears unwilling to utter the “P” word, and in doing so is joining the stampede away from Bush administration policy that has made Palestinian statehood a centerpiece.
Which isn’t to say that if elected, most of these candidates are likely to stand American policy on its ear.
“A two-state solution means Palestinian statehood,” said a longtime pro-Israel lobbyist in Washington. “It may be bad politics to talk about it during a campaign, but it’s hard to imagine the next president will stray very far from the course this administration has charted.”
Jewish Dems, Thinking Ahead, Slam Huckabee / James Besser in Washington
Some political analysts say former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is the man to watch as a slew of contenders for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination fight for support from the important evangelical wing of the party.
Apparently the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) agrees; this week the partisan group leveled a broadside against the former Baptist preacher.
According to NJDC leader Ira Forman, Huckabee is “way out of the mainstream,” which is why he may be emerging as the “new favorite candidate” of the religious right.
Polls show Huckabee running well behind the GOP frontrunners, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
But both have problems with Christian conservatives – Giuliani because of his past support for abortion and gay rights, Romney because of his Mormon faith. The affable Huckabee is expected to do well with that segment, especially if a strong finish in the early Iowa caucuses convinces GOP big givers to shift their giving to his campaign.
Huckabee’s appeal to Jewish Republicans is hard to gauge, especially since he did not attend last week’s presidential forum held by the Republican Jewish Coalition, where Giuliani was the clear favorite.
Despite his dark horse status, NJDC may be worried about Huckabee for another reason: his support for Christian right “values agenda” issues is mixed with what John Fund, writing in Friday’s Wall Street Journal, called his “liberal-populist on some economic issues.”
That, some analysts say, could prove an effective mix if Huckabee manages to overcome the long odds and win the GOP nomination.
New Saudi School Flap in DC Suburb / James Besser in Washington
Some interesting back and forth on a roiling controversy in Fairfax County, Va. involving a school funded by the government of Saudi Arabia.
According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Islamic Saudi Academy is part of a Saudi religious outreach system that teaches intolerance. The group is demanding the school, housed in a former public high school in the Washington, DC suburb, be closed. Read their analysis of the school here.
For a good look at the arguments of those concerned about the school, check out the Micah Report , a blog by terrorism analyst Micah Halpern. In an entry headlined “The School of Extreme Hatred," Halpern describes a “school that has chosen to teach hatred - pure, evil, hatred. And that hatred is directed at you and me.”
But a Washington Post editorial on Friday complained that critics haven’t bothered to actually read the books used in the school and reported that Academy officials have been very open with local officials responding to the controversy.
And while drawing the line at the teaching of violence, the Post raised a church-state argument: “It is worrisome anytime government tries to weigh in on what's appropriate for a religious school. Many such schools teach what outsiders might consider intolerance: that homosexuality is a sin, for example, or that only those who believe in Jesus Christ are destined for heaven.”
Trying Again at COEJL / James Besser in Washington
Ask any major Jewish organization and they’ll be quick to tell you energy independence is a top priority for them, and many will add their concern about environmental issues such as global warming.
But there is little consensus on the best way to deal with those priorities. Conservation or new oil exploration? Jewish groups haven’t agreed on the proper balance. Action on global warming? But what to do?
Coordination and cooperation between groups is rare; the group set up to do that, the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL), has had a hard time dealing with the differing priorities of various Jewish groups and complex problems of turf and leadership politics (big donors, reflecting big business, are often out of synch with the more liberal views of the Jewish rank and file.)
Now COEJL is trying again. The group, under the auspices of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), has hired a new climate and energy director.
The goal, according to JCPA leaders: to move the Jewish community to action on both energy and environment-related issues, and to provide a measure of coordination.
“Many groups have policy on these issues, but it’s hard to know exactly what to do,” said Hadar Susskind, JCPA’s Washington director. “There are a number of Jewish orgs that are active on environmental and energy policy, but there isn’t a clear community consensus on specific policy. The goal of COEJL and the JCPA is to help create consensus.”
The tough assignment is going to Jennifer Kefer, an environmental lawyer and longtime activist. Kefer starts her new job on November 1.
Rudy Spurned by "Values Voters" / James Besser in Washington
Although nobody took a poll, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani seemed the clear favorite at last week’s Republican Jewish Coalition presidential candidates forum.
But even though he has been polling well among evangelical voters, Giuliani got a dose of bad news at the “Values Voter Summit” over the weekend, an event sponsored by the conservative Family Research Council.
In a straw poll among 1500-plus activists at the convention and another 4500 online, Giuliani finished eighth out of nine candidates, despite his into-the-lions-den appearance and his promise to appoint only conservative judges.
“People of good conscience come to different conclusions about whether abortions should be legal in some circumstances,” he told the group. “But you and I…share the same goal: a country without abortion, achieved by changing the minds and hearts of people.”
The official winner was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has been fighting hard to overcome the anti-Mormon views of many evangelical Christians.
But the big winner may have been former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who finished just a few votes behind Romney. Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, told delegates “I come today as one not who comes to you, but as one who comes from you. You are my roots.’’
Huckabee also stands to gain from last week's decision by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) to end his cash-starved quest for the GOP nomination -- despite telling the RJC crowd that he'd stick it out to the Iowa caucuses. Brownback and Huckabee have the strongest connections to the Christian conservative faction of the party of any of the current contenders.
As for Giuliani, University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato said his eighth place finish in the “values voters” straw poll isn’t necessarily terrible news for Giuliani.
“In my view, Rudy actually gained from that appearance,” Sabato said. “He was never going to get their votes in the primaries, but they saw that he doesn’t have horns and he took some positions that will make it easier for most of them to swallow hard and vote for him in November, should he be the GOP nominee.”
Huckabee, he said, still faces two big obstacles: money and organization. But Sabato added this: “I’d add this: there is no real favorite for the GOP nomination. Almost anything can happen.”
SCHIP Veto Plants Seeds for 2009? / James Besser in Washington
As expected, the House on Thursday failed to override President Bush’s veto of a bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Jewish groups were quick to express their disappointment, but the flurry of press releases barely concealed its depths.
“The failure to renew this bipartisan program will have real-life consequences for millions of children and their families for whom insurance is unaffordable or even simply unavailable,” said Phyllis Snyder, president of the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW).
Groups like NCJW and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism went all out to beat the veto, but leaders of the SCHIP push conceded it was an uphill fight from the start.
Why did SCHIP, which funds state programs that help provide coverage to children whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, too little for private insurance, take on such urgency for Jewish groups?
Part of it was simply the obvious imperative of expanding what even many Republicans agree is a successful program and starting to make a dent in the growing population of the uninsured.
“People really felt that a lot of factors were coming into alignment,” said NCJW’s Sammie Moshenberg. “It had bipartisan support; it involved children’s health. It was a real opportunity.”
But the effort also had a lot to do with the desperate politics of human services in these days of tax cuts, tight budgets and government cutbacks.
Backers of a strong government health and human services safety net have been engaged in a fighting retreat for years. They believe the idea of the SCHIP program is so basic that it was an appropriate place to draw a line in the sand.
With a loss on SCHIP, despite significant Republican support and Democratic control of both Houses of Congress, what chance do they have of expanded programs to cover the 40-million-and-rising population of Americans without any health coverage?
That also explains why some conservatives are so vehemently against it, calling it the foot in the door to socialized medicine. If they can beat the Democrats on basic insurance coverage for kids, you can kiss more ambitious proposals good bye.
Congressional and administration officials are expected to start negotiations over a compromise SCHIP package, but in private many Jewish leaders say the fight for a major expansion is probably over for now.
Still, Mik Moore of the Jewish Funds for Justice said all is not lost in the wake of the veto override failure; the huge commitment to SCHIP by groups across the political spectrum and around the country laid the groundwork for broader efforts in the future – especially if there is a political realignment in Washington after the 2008 elections.
“In a way, it was a win-win situation,” he said. ‘You’re either winning a victory for 4 million children who need health coverage – or you’re building a movement for expanded health care for all Americans.”
For a good analysis of the thinking of Jewish groups supporting the SCHIP expansion, check out this item on JSPOT, the Jewish Funds for Justice blog.
Odd Political Twist in Mideast Debate / James Besser in Washington
In an odd political twist, Democratic contenders for their party’s 2008 presidential nomination are mostly supportive of President Bush’s policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although nobody’s rushing to talk about it, while Republican candidates are running away from the centerpiece of administration policy: Palestinian statehood.
First former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani came out against Palestinian statehood, at least anytime soon; former Arkansas Gov. Mick Huckabee, running hard for support from a Christian right faction that includes many right-of-center Christian Zionists, told the Jewish Week that he might support Palestinian statehood – but not in the lands the Palestinians want.
Now Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) has announced support for major portions of a plan by Knesset member Benny Elon that would effectively foreclose the possibility of a Palestinians state on the West Bank and recognize Jordan as the sole representative of the Palestinians people, effectively eliminating the Palestinian Authority as a diplomatic entity.
In a press video shown in Jerusalem and posted on YouTube, Brownback called the plan “a different way forward…so we don’t go back to old solutions that haven’t been working.”
At Tuesday’s Republican Jewish Coalition candidates forum, nobody had a good word to say about the upcoming Annapolis summit called by President Bush for November, and one – former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- was openly scornful.
"How could you possibly have a peace conference at this stage? Who would you talk to?” he said.
How do Jewish Republicans explain the seeming contradiction between their contention that President Bush is the most pro-Israel president ever and the growing opposition to an idea – Palestinian statehood – that has become the centerpiece of his Middle East policy?
“It’s the State Department,” said an official with one of the GOP presidential campaigns. “President Bush’s support for Israel’s security is unchanged, but the State Department seems to be moving in a different direction.”
The Chicago Tribune this week called her the “Queen of the Drive-by Outrage,” and there’s not much doubt about it: conservative commentator Ann Coulter has outraged Jews across the political spectrum with her televised insistence that Jews need to become Christian to be “perfected” and her view of the Republican Party as a bastion of happy Christians.
And don’t even mention her view of New York City as a Christian Garden of Eden.
Appearing on the CNBC “Big Idea” show, Coulter was asked this question: “If you had your way…what would this country look like?”
Her answer: “It would like a lot like New York City during the (2004) Republican National Convention. In fact that is what I think heaven is going to look like. People were happy. They’re Christian. They’re tolerant. They defend America.”
Host Donny Deutsch, sniffing pay dirt, followed up by asking “It would be better if we were all Christian?"
You can guess Coulter’s answer by the indignant press releases churned out by the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress and some Jewish members of Congress.
Coulter, either unaware of how her comments would be received or eagerly aware that they would keep her in the national spotlight, went on to explain that Jews shouldn’t be insulted by her implication that the nation would be better off without them because Christians just want Jews to be “perfected,” like Christians are, by accepting Jesus.
“While Ann Coulter has freedom of speech, news outlets should exercise their freedom to use better judgment,” said NJDC executive director Ira N. Forman. “Just as media outlets don’t invite those who believe that Martians walk the Earth to frequently comment on science stories; it’s time they stop inviting Ann Coulter to comment on politics.”
The group is also calling on the Republican presidential candidates to repudiate her statements; at Tuesdays' Republican Jewish Coalition presidential forum, none of the five major candidates mentioned her name.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said “Ms. Coulter has shown time and again that she is willing to demonize non-Christians in order to promote herself and her agenda. She should be ashamed of herself for promoting anti-Semitism and intolerance and should apologize."
“I strongly, strongly take issue with her comments,” said Matthew Brooks, the RJC director. “I think she’ absolutely lost her mind and far over the line of what’s acceptable in terms of political discourse. It’s interesting to me that she speaks of tolerance when she herself speaks so intolerantly of others.”
But Brooks said he doesn’t expect real political fallout from her comments.
“People know she’s outrageous and outlandish. I don’t see any political linkage. But I doubt she’ll be asked to speak at any political fundraisers.”
Democratic lawmakers issued indignant press releases -- but so far, the GOP contingent in Congress and the Republican National Committee have been mum on the issue.
Still, Coulter’s comments came only two weeks after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) raised some Jewish hackles up with his agreement that the Constitution created America as a “Christian nation” and a month after a poll showing that a majority of Americans agree with that proposition.
Pastor John Hagee, president of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), has been understandably shy about talking about Bible prophecy at the pro-Israel events he has sponsored around the country.
But in an interview with CNN’s Glen Beck, he laid it all out , but with one exception: he never talked about what happens to the Jews when the “antichrist” allies with Russia to invade and ravage Israel.
Read the transcripts of the interesting interview here.
While you’re at it, check out journalist Max Blumenthal’s video of attendees at this summer’s CUFI convention.
Sixty two years after the end of World War ll, the Holocaust remains a hot topic for legislators, especially ones from districts with lots of Jewish voters and contributors.
This week it was Rep. Carolyn Maloney , a Democrat who represents parts of Manhattan and Queens. Maloney has re-introduced her bill to “hold railroad companies that worked with the Nazis accountable in U.S. courts,” according to the lawmaker’s office.
The specific target: the companies that transported more than 75,000 French Jews to Nazi concentration camps.
According to Maloney, the measure gives plaintiffs the rights to seek damages in Federal Court against the French National Railway. The French government claims immunity from legal action in such matters; the bill is meant to counter that.
Maloney has had lots of practice; she has been introducing the measure since 2003, but it hasn’t grabbed the attention of congressional leaders in either party.
