Over 500 U.S. rabbis, cantors, rabbinical students and cantorial students have signed an open letter to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warning against his decision to advance settlement construction in the sensitive E1 area of the West Bank and build 3000 new housing units in East Jerusalem. The decision, which was announced the day after the U.N. voted to upgrade Palestine’s status, constitutes “the final blow to a peaceful solution,” the letter states. “If Israel builds in E1, it will cut East Jerusalem off from its West Bank surroundings and effectively bifurcate the West Bank. In doing so, E1 will literally represent an obstacle to a two-state solution.”

The appeal to Netanyahu, coordinated by Americans for Peace Now, J Street and Rabbis For Human Rights-North America, uses three rhetorical strategies to make its case. While they’re all sure to fall on deaf ears within the Netanyahu administration, they do stand to be heard by the Obama administration and the American Jewish community, suggesting that these two groups are the letter’s real implied audience.

First, the signatories argue that, contra popular belief, you don’t have to live in Israel to have an opinion about it. American Jews’ support for Israel has earned them the right to criticize it:

American Jewish Committee chief David Harris yesterday released an e-mail to that arbiter of fair reporting, the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin. In the e-mail, the AJC came out against Chuck Hagel's potential nomination as Defense Secretary, citing a years-long growing "concern" with Hagel's positions. The missive, which seems to be published in full, began with this trip down memory lane:

The first AJC encounter with Sen. Hagel I recall was when we sought his support, in 1999, for a Senate letter to then Russian President Boris Yeltsin urging action against rising anti-Semitism. We were unsuccessful. On June 20, 1999, we published the letter as a full-page ad in The New York Times with 99 Senate signatories. Only Sen. Hagel’s name was absent.

Harris then took the letter story other outlets. But what we don't get from Rubin or Harris is why exactly Hagel refused to affix his name to the letter. Who doesn't oppose Russian anti-Semitism? The answer, when it comes to the Senate in 1999, is "No one." Though Hagel didn't sign the letter, the reason had nothing to do with his views on anti-Semitism: a spokesperson for his office said at the time, in the words of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, that Hagel had a "policy not to send letters to foreign heads of state regarding their domestic policy." Deb Fiddelke, the spokesperson, explained that Hagel's absence had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the letter: "Anti-Semitism and discrimination in any form should not be tolerated," she told JTA.

How do we know Hagel was really opposed to anti-Semitism? Well, his record of letters, actually. In 2002, three years after the AJC letter the Yeltsin, Hagel signed another letter urging action against anti-Semitism in Europe and the Arab media—only this letter was not to a foreign head of state, but rather to then-President George W. Bush. "Ninety-nine senators expressed concern Friday over anti-Semitism in Europe and in the Arab media and urged President Bush to address the issue," said an Associated Press report about the letter. The letter signed by Hagel (PDF), which was spearheaded by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), read: "We urge you  and your Administration to make every effort possible to raise, at the highest level, our concerns about anti-Semitic acts in Europe and anti-Semitic portrayals in the Arab media." That, apparently, is how Hagel thought it worked: you urge your own President, who is tasked by the constitution to make foreign policy, to raise it with, as Levin's press release had it, the "highest level of those governments."

The United Nations bureaucracy now recognizes—at least in name—two "states" between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea. One, of course, is the long-since established State of Israel. The other, as of three days ago, is the State of Palestine. It happened quietly in an exchange of letters just within the past week. On Dec. 17, the U.N.'s head of official protocol wrote to the Palestinian delegation to Turtle Bay acceding to a request to, henceforth, be referred to as the representatives of the "State of Palestine." 

"It is gratifying, not only for me personally, but for the Palestinian people, to celebrate as a nation," the head of the Palestinian U.N. mission Riyad Mansour told me in an interview today. "It's not only a change of name, it's much more than that: now the United Nations is recognizing us as the State of Palestine." 

The protocol division's letter followed on the Nov. 29 vote to recognize Palestine as a "non-member observer state" at the U.N. Mansour said requests for changes in the official language were made following the vote. The reply came on Monday: "I refer to your letter of 12 December 2012 and have the honour to inform you that pursuant to your request, the designation of 'State of Palestine' shall be used by the Secretariat in all official United Nations documents," wrote the Chief of Protocol Yeocheol Yoon in a letter to Mansour obtained by Open Zion. The designation is on all the nameplates at the U.N. and will appear in activities related to the U.N., such as international conferences. That includes the Palestinian mission to Turtle Bay: Yoon's letter was addressed to "H.E. Mr. Riyad Mansour / Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations."

When it comes to winning elections, Team Obama does it better than anyone. When it comes to winning nomination fights, not so much.

Act One: Obama wins reelection, thus earning the presumptive right to name to high office pretty much whomever he wants.

Act Two: The media report that Susan Rice is his likely choice for Secretary of State, but Obama waits while the Republican flash mob on Benghazi gains strength. Then disaffected Africa wonks begin to gripe. Some off-message liberals chime in. And before you know it, our cool, it’s-just-business president has abandoned the woman everyone thought he really believed in.

Act Three: Late last week, the administration leaks its new team: John Kerry for State, Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. The early stories don’t even mention criticism of Hagel’s views on Israel or Iran. In the Senate, conservative Republicans and Jewish Democrats both responded with praise.

Act Four: The “pro-Israel” right begins to object. AIPAC is said to dislike the choice. Former AIPAC spokesman Josh Block calls Hagel “well outside the mainstream Democratic and Republican consensus” on Iran. (Block neglects to note that Hagel was also outside that consensus on Iraq, and prophetically so). In the Weekly Standard, an unnamed Senate aide bravely calls Hagel “an anti-Semite.

Act Five: The Obama administration, having just watched a potential nomination die because it allowed right-wing opposition to swell, watches right-wing opposition swell and…does nothing. American Jewish “leaders” (in quotes because the vast majority of American Jews have no idea who said “leaders” are) attend the White House Chanukah party and then boast on background about how they spent it lobbying against Hagel. But the White House declines to defend Hagel’s Middle East record, either publicly, or best as I can tell, privately. Five separate people, each plugged into beltway Jewish Democratic politics, each told me that as far as they knew, the White House has done nothing to marshal a response to the Hagel attacks. “It’s a very closed circle,” notes one. “They don’t reach out.” A second is blunter. “He’s out there his own. It’s ugly.”

"I represent a generation. Disqualifying me is disqualifying an entire generation of Palestinians."
--Arab-Israeli MK Hanin Zoabi responds after being disqualified to run in the upcoming Israeli elections.

• IDF to reduce time Palestinian minors may be held without seeing a judge - The state informed the High Court of Justice of the reduction this week, however the initial incarceration period for Palestinians remains at least twice as long as for Israeli youths. (Haaretz+)
  
• Uniformed rightists urge IDF disobedience - New videos by right-wing group call on soldiers, teens to actively hinder any military operation involving settlement eviction. (Ynet)
  
• Likud touts (far-right-wing) Feiglin to lure in religious voters - New campaign featuring far-Right candidate is meant to appeal to national-religious sector. (Ynet and Israel Hayom)
  
• Comptroller to probe Israel gun laws - Special inquiry to look into gun control regulations following recent incidents involving security guards who murdered their wives, as well as Newtown massacre. (Ynet)
  
• Israeli court indicts alleged Tel Aviv bus bomber - Security forces arrested suspects shortly after No. 142 bus was attacked during Operation Pillar of Defense in November; suspect is Palestinian residing in Israel as part of family reunification plan. (Haaretz+ and Ynet)t)
  
• Israel approves Qatar emir's visit to West Bank, in nod to Abbas - Israel approved the visit under assumption that the emir will offer financial aid to the struggling Palestinian Authority, and give Palestinian Authority diplomatic strengthening over Hamas rival. (Haaretz+)
  
• West Bank Palestinians strike in protest of Israeli sanctions - Following Palestinian success at the U.N. General Assembly, government employees in the West Bank strike in protest of Israeli sanctions withholding some $100 million in monthly customs and delay in payment of wages. (Agencies, Haaretz)
  

For the full News from Israel.

When past Israeli Chief of Staff and cabinet minister Amnon Lipkin-Shahak’s wife and five children say their final goodbyes at his funeral on Thursday, they might take a bit of symbolic comfort from seeing the coffin carried by eight IDF major-generals. It will be an official military funeral for a man who helped lead their country through war and towards peace.

When I interviewed Lipkin-Shahak in Jerusalem in March 2000, the second Intifada was not yet in view and the peace process was being kept afloat by the elbow grease of rounds of negotiations against the backdrop of decades of Arab-Israeli wars.

Though he had fought as a company commander in the 1967 War and as a deputy brigade commander in the 1973 War, that afternoon we spoke mostly about the 1982 Lebanon War. It was a war that, in Lipkin-Shahak’s words, “led to a national debate; it was a war of yesh breira.” Unlike the traditional wars of ayn breyra (“no choice”) that Israel prided itself on fighting, the Lebanon War was widely seen as having been chosen by the politicians.

Bret Stephens is upset that, in the course of claiming that he’s quicker to accuse public figures of anti-Semitism than of other forms of bigotry, I wrote that “When it comes to identifying prejudice against African Americans, Hispanics, Arabs, Muslims and gays, Bret Stephens is remarkably restrained.” He responds with examples of himself supporting the right of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, supporting gay marriage, opposing “demonizing Latin American immigrants” and claiming that many Muslims yearn for freedom.

Stephens deserves credit for those positions, and it’s gratifying to see that support for gay marriage and immigrant rights is growing among conservative pundits. But by taking my quote out of context, Stephens suggests that the columns he cites contradict my argument when they actually don’t.

What Stephens doesn’t quote are the sentences immediately after the one he cites. Let me do it for him:

If, during the 2012 campaign, the Wall Street Journal columnist detected any bigotry in Donald Trump’s obsession with Barack Obama’s birthplace or Newt Gingrich’s declaration that Obama is the “food stamp president,” or Herman Cain’s vow not to appoint a Muslim to his cabinet, he didn’t share it with his readers. When Mitt Romney blamed Palestinian “culture” for the discrepancy between Palestinian and Jewish living standards in the West Bank, Stephens ridiculed claims that Romney’s comments were racist and instead enthused that “I’m beginning to warm to Mitt.”

These sentences define what I meant by “remarkably restrained.” My point in that paragraph, and in my entire piece, is that while Stephens called Hagel an anti-Semite on the flimsiest of grounds, he gave leading Republicans a pass for anti-Muslim and anti-black comments that were far more egregious. And when Mitt Romney basically accused Palestinians of having an inferior culture, Stephens applauded. Somehow I doubt he would have responded the same way had Romney made similar comments about the culture of Jews.

I don’t think Bret Stephens supports bigotry. I do think that, like many conservatives, he is far more willing to accuse American politicians—at least those he considers too dovish on Israel—of anti-Semitism than of other forms of prejudice. That’s my point, in this season or any other.

Hi Peter,

I noticed this morning that you wrote something about my latest column on your Daily Beast blog. There’s no point in getting into an argument over the substance of my column or your rebuttal to it. But I am nonetheless struck by the remarkably gratuitous and demonstrably false claim you make in your first sentence, when you write: “When it comes to identifying prejudice against African Americans, Hispanics, Arabs, Muslims and gays, Bret Stephens is remarkably restrained.”

Let’s see. Here’s E.J. Dionne writing about a column I wrote some time ago on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

But there are at least some profiles in courage on this issue, and I want to salute Bret Stephens, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, for trying to persuade Republicans to join the equal rights cause. He made a strong political case to the GOP -- but also the central substantive case:

… it's worth noting that there are an estimated 48,000 homosexuals on active duty or [in] the reserves, many of them in critical occupations, many with distinguished service records. If they pose any risk at all to America's security, it is, paradoxically, because DADT institutionalizes dishonesty, puts them at risk of blackmail, and forces fellow warfighters who may know about their orientation to make an invidious choice between comradeship and the law. That's no way to run a military.

The Washington Post today decried Chuck Hagel as a possible choice to lead the Defense Department, with the editorial board remarking that, "Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term—and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him." That Hagel would be near the fringe of the Senate because of his views on Iran speaks to how close the Senate is to the fringes of reality: the Senate's efforts to limit the President's diplomacy and impose devastating sanctions haven't worked to "prevent" Iran from advancing its nuclear program either. In 2007, Hagel asked, "What confidence should we have in a strategy that, to date, has nothing to show for it? That has achieved no tangible changes to Iran's nuclear program and actually has seen the Middle East become more dangerous, and Iran more defiant?" Five years later, the Post editors—along with perhaps the Obama administration and certainly the Congress—would do well to ask themselves these questions.

There's a lot to debate with regard to Hagel's long record of views on Iran, and one might begin with his sober accounting of what the regime there is like: "[T]hey support terrorists, they support Hezbollah," he told the Israel Policy Forum in 2008. "They’ve got their tentacles wrapped around every problem in the Middle East. They’re anti-Israel, anti-United States. Those are realities. Those are facts." In the speech, he also called for opening a diplomatic interests section in Tehran and resuming commercial flights to the country. Try though the critics may, these can hardly be classified as "fringe" views, or unreasonable ones, and are certainly open to discussion.

What's not up for debate is that the overall Senate tack—to impose yet more sanctions, disallow any future Iranian enrichment at any level, and oppose any confidence-building measures that could relieve pressure, as stated in a recent AIPAC-backed Senate letter—hasn't stopped Iran from continuing to enrich apace (though hedging in various ways). The Congress and an assortment of neoconservatives may consider skepticism about the efficacy of military action a sin, but their view is again divorced from reality: the enthusiasm for keeping the military option on the table hasn't curtailed Iran either. Rather, experts have assessed that attacking would only delay Iran and harden its resolve to build weapons—not to mention risking a years-long "all-out regional war." Hagel's positions may put him on the fringes of the Senate, but he's firmly in the mainstream of expert opinion, from Israel to the Pentagon. The Post wrote that it shares Hagel's skepticism about attacks, but adds that "during the next year or two, Mr. Obama may be forced to contemplate military action" and needs a Defense chief who will support him. Leave aside the notion that Hagel—an enlisted Vietnam vet with two Purple Hearts—might be insubordinate, the Post is telling us they know a strike might not work, but the nation should nonetheless follow Obama into this potential folly. Hagel's May utterance that "we've got to understand great-power limitations" might be apt.

The public opposition to the possible nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense has been dominated by Jewish individuals and groups already partisan when it comes to Barack Obama or long hostile to his Israel policy. This, in turn, has raised a number of questions over what exactly is meant by “pro-Israel Jewish leadership.”

The Daily Beast, BuzzFeed, The New York Times, and the Forward have written on the debate, but they’ve all said the same thing: that the pro-Israel Jewish community opposes Hagel. Yet they all relied on the same people and quotes, primarily from the right or far-right end of the political spectrum. It’s not unexpected that these individuals and groups would oppose Obama’s choices. But what makes this an issue of concern and puzzlement is that in the popular mind these groups have become representative of the pro-Israel Jewish community—when in reality it’s not at all clear this is the case.

The veneer of representation is maintained by referencing (the same) Democrats concerned about Hagel, particularly former Democratic operative Josh Block and a quote from Ira Forman, former executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council; by noting Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman’s email to conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin implying Hagel traffics in anti-Semitic tropes; and by suggesting—given its past positions—that AIPAC would be opposed to Hagel’s ideas.

Among the litany of offenses that some hawkish pro-Israel advocates are accusing former Senator Chuck Hagel—the Obama Administration’s presumed choice for Secretary of Defense—of is his support for U.S. engagement with Hamas. This opinion, it is alleged, betrays a lack of commitment to Israel, which is sufficient grounds for opposing his nomination in the eyes of some members of the pro-Israel lobby. Setting aside the question of whether support for Israel should be the sole criterion to run the Pentagon, favoring a different approach to Hamas should not simply be deemed anti-Israel. On the contrary, recognizing that current American policy towards Hamas has failed and needs to be changed is in Israel’s best interests.

Yes, Hamas engages in terrorism and its public rhetoric is deeply disturbing (Hamas leader Khaled Meshal’s recent speech on his ‘homecoming’ to Gaza made President Abbas’s U.N. speech sound like an address to AIPAC). Hamas’s founding Charter, issued in 1988, is replete with anti-Semitic themes, and its alliance with Iran is problematic to say the least. Hamas is certainly not a nice organization, whatever essential benefits its social welfare arm has provided to desperately poor Palestinians. It is Israel’s sworn enemy and it is unlikely to ever become its partner for peace. But none of this means that the United States shouldn’t talk to Hamas or encourage it to reconcile with its rival Fatah to form a unified Palestinian government. In fact, we are already negotiating indirectly with Hamas through the Egyptians.

Talking to Hamas certainly has its drawbacks. It will enhance its international legitimacy and probably boost its popularity among Palestinians, and it will further undermine the power of President Abbas. Nor will these talks likely result in Hamas’ sudden transformation into a moderate, responsible actor. At best, they might strengthen the less radical individuals and factions within the movement and encourage its slow, halting, on-again, off-again transition from being a resistance movement aimed at Israel’s destruction to becoming a political movement concerned with ruling a Palestinian state that exists alongside Israel.

Writing in these pages recently, Sigal Samuel suggested that academic boycotts of Israel often have the counterproductive effect of shutting out those who seek to change the status quo. Yes, there are academics in Israel who seek to challenge various aspects of their government’s policies, and Professor Dan Avnon, whose request to spend his fellowship at my Centre I declined, may be one of them. His involvement with the Metzilah Centre suggests this aspect of the case may not be as clear-cut as Samuel suggests, which warrants further investigation, but that is a secondary point.

The main point is this: Palestinians have all the arguments on their side. Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian territory contravenes the universally accepted principle of the inadmissibility of land seized by force. The settlements breach the obligation on occupying powers not to bring about transfers of population in the territory they control. The World Court declared Israel’s so-called Separation Barrier illegal in an advisory opinion in 2004. Israel’s military checkpoints violate the Palestinian human right of free movement in their own homeland. The indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on Gaza constitute a war crime. The siege on the Strip is justified in public as essential for Israel’s own security, but officials at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv were told its true purpose: “to keep the economy of Gaza on the brink of collapse,” according to a cable disclosed by Wikileaks. That’s a collective punishment, proscribed by the Fourth Geneva Convention and therefore another war crime.

The shadow-boxing over the Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense trial balloon has turned ugly—and misleading. Some opponents have accused the former Nebraska Senator of being anti-Semitic, leading Hagel’s defenders to pitch their support for him on the equally simplistic and reductionist grounds that he is not. I think there are many good reasons for opposing Hagel, as I detailed in my recent post. However, I have not seen evidence that he is an anti-Semite.       

I reserve the term “anti-Semite,” like the term “anti-Israel,” for those bigots who deserve it. There are too many blatant anti-Semites and anti-Zionists in the world today—and I will not function as their recruitment agent by adding to their ranks. I also refuse to dilute the power of the accusation through inaccurate overuse. Just as calling the nationalist clash between Israelis and Palestinians “racism” and “apartheid” drains those words of their meaning, calling Chuck Hagel anti-Semitic based on two indelicate Jewish-lobby-oriented quotations is rhetorical overkill.

Without rehashing the entire debate, as senator, Hagel was more of an Israel skeptic than an enthusiastic Israel friend, no Ted Kennedy, or John McCain, or Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton was he. And for that reason, snarky comments about the “Jewish lobby” and about being a “United States Senator” and “not an Israeli Senator” rankle. Prejudice has a pedigree. Just as we winced when Biden as a candidate called Obama “articulate”—because of the twisted history that had many people questioning black people’s brains and eloquence, respectful American leaders should not stir the hornet’s nest around the Israel lobby question.

Number of the day:
65.8% and 24.2%
--Percentage of Arab Israeli children and percentage of Jewish Israeli children living in poverty.

• Poll: Right-wing Habayit Hayehudi swells to third-biggest Israeli party - The poll, conducted by Dr. Mina Zemach, showed the party under its new leader, Naftali Bennett, winning 12 seats - four times as many as it had in the last Knesset. (Haaretz+)
• Justice Ministry delays indictment against Lieberman over new evidence - Justice Ministry refuses to comment on whether delay has to do with a Ch. 10 report that police did not gather evidence from members of the Finance Ministry's nominating committee that appointed Ze'ev Ben Aryeh as Israel's ambassador to Belarus. (Haaretz+ and Israel Hayom)
• IDF, PA collaboration in West Bank faltering - Long-term cooperation between Israeli, Palestinian security forces in West Bank at critical junction. (Ynet)
• Police arrest 3 'price-tag' suspects - Lengthy investigation in case involving desecration of West Bank mosque leads to suspects' arrest. (Ynet)
• Prospect of Hagel nomination sets off alarm bells for some U.S. Jews - ADL says Republican former senator wouldn't be 'first, second or third choice for friends of Israel', but J Street defends him for stance on Iraq. (JTA, Haaretz)
• Iran's supreme leader 'likes' Facebook - Social network banned in Islamic Republic has unlikely new member: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Experts say use of website appears aimed at countering Western media. (Agencies, Ynet)

For the full News from Israel.

Last week, I wrote a piece here on Open Zion in which I referred to an article that was tweeted by the @londonBDS twitter account. I wrote, “Yet, as far as I’m aware, the BDS crowd has not condemned this.” It was subsequently pointed out by a number of people that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign had in fact issued a statement about the article, which can be read here. I am more than happy to stand corrected on this particular issue—all it needed was for someone to bring to my attention something I had clearly missed.

However, a polite email does not seem to suit the purposes of those who jumped onto the bandwagon and, via twitter and the Electronic Intifada, decided to turn the ‘incident’ into proof of my attempts to brandish the entire BDS movement and in particular @londonBDSgroup (which was never referred to in the piece) as anti-Semitic. Perhaps those who were so quick to write their 140 characters of condemnation should take the time to read what my piece said. To quote directly: “We may not support the tool, or agree with the ends they are trying to achieve, but the notion that it (BDS) is inherently anti-Semitic does not stand up to scrutiny.” Quite the opposite of “smearing Palestine solidarity as anti-Semitic” as a number of people have since accused me of doing.

I realise it may be incredibly frustrating for those who exist in a world where there is a right and wrong, a black and a white, one narrative and one version of history that there are organisations and individuals that could both raise a concern about anti-Semitism within the BDS movement and at the same time not seek to dismiss the entire movement as anti-Semitic. It suits the agenda of those individuals much better to use my oversight as proof that all criticism is just smear tactics. That way there is a clear dividing line and everyone can stay on the right side of the line—whichever one they deem to be correct, of course.

As I said, there was an oversight, and it was corrected. And my position still stands firm: it is wrong to brandish the BDS movement as anti-Semitic in its entirety, but when anti-Semitism rears its head, which it does at times, we all have a responsibility to call it out. And for the record: neither do I have any problem telling people they should open their ears to the tone of the Israel debate that takes place in certain quarters of the Jewish community in the UK. Believe me, it is equally frustrating for those who view the world in wrongs and rights from the other side of the line. Perhaps those who view the world in monotones have more in common than they think?