Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Elliot Abrams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elliot Abrams. Show all posts

Monday, July 17, 2017

American Zionists Are Making A Mistake By Not Supporting Israel

  • "We shall . . . prevent any theocratic tendencies from coming to the fore on the part of our priesthood. We shall keep our priests [by which is meant Rabbis] within the confines of their temples." – Theodor Herzl, Der Judenstaat
  • Tough love may be an appropriate response in family matters, but boycotting a troubled nation which has become a pariah among the hard-left is not the appropriate response to the Israeli government's recent decisions regarding religion. The answer is not disengagement, but rather greater engagement....
  • To do otherwise is to engage in a form of BDS – the tactic currently employed by Israel's enemies to delegitimate the Nation state of the Jewish people. Supporters of BDS will point to these benign boycotts as a way of justifying their malignant ones.... The role of American Jews is limited to persuasion, not coercion.

Western Wall In Israel. (Photo from PublicDomainPictures.net)

Several prominent American Zionists – including long-time supporters of Israel – are so outraged at the Israeli government's recent decision regarding the Western Wall and non-orthodox conversion, that they are urging American Jews to reduce or even eliminate their support for Israel. According to an article by Elliott Abrams in Mosaic, Ike Fisher a prominent member of the AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] board, threatened to "suspend" all further financial support for Israel. Daniel Gordis, a leading voice for Conservative Judaism, urged American Jews to cancel their El Al tickets and fly Delta or United. He also proposed "withholding donations to Israeli hospitals, so that 'They start running out of money' and 'begin to falter.'" This sort of emotional response is reminiscent of the temper tantrum outgoing President Barak Obama engaged in when he refused to veto the UN's recent anti-Israel resolution.
I strongly disagree both with the Israeli government's capitulation to the minority of ultra-Orthodox Jews, who wield far too much influence in Israeli politics, and with the proposals to cut back on support for Israel by some of my fellow critics of the Israeli government's recent decisions with regard to religion.
I strongly support greater separation between religion and state in Israel, as Theodor Herzl outlined in his plan for the nation-state of the Jewish People in Der Judenstaat 120 years ago: "We shall . . . prevent any theocratic tendencies from coming to the fore on the part of our priesthood. We shall keep our priests [by which is meant Rabbis] within the confines of their temples." It was David Ben Gurion, Israel's founding Prime Minister, who made the deal with the Orthodox Rabbinate that violated Herzl's mandate and knocked down the wall of separation between religion and state. He allocated to the Chief Rabbinate authority over many secular matters, such as marriage, divorce and child custody. He also laid the groundwork for the creation of religious parties that have been a necessary part of most Israeli coalitions for many years.
So, do not blame Israel's current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for the recent capitulation. His government's survival depends on his unholy alliance with allegedly holy parties that threaten to leave the coalition and bring down his government unless he capitulated. The alternative to a Netanyahu government might well be far to the right of the current government, both on religious matters and on prospects for peace. Reasonable people may disagree as to whether Netanyahu did the right thing, but I believe that given the choice between the current government and what may well replace it, PM Netanyahu acted on acceptable priorities.
This is not to say that I am happy with the end result. As a post-denominational Jew, I want to see a part of the Western Wall opened to conservative and reform prayer. I also want to see conservative and reform and modern orthodox rabbis deemed fully competent to perform rituals including marriage and divorce. I will continue to fight for these outcomes, and I think we will ultimately be successful. But in the meantime, I will also continue to fly El Al, contribute to Israeli hospitals, attend AIPAC events, and encourage Americans to support Israel, both politically and financially. To do otherwise is to engage in a form of BDS – the tactic currently employed by Israel's enemies to delegitimate the Nation state of the Jewish people. Supporters of BDS will point to these benign boycotts as a way of justifying their malignant ones. If BDS is an immoral tactic, as it surely is, so too is punishing the people of Israel for the failure of its government to be fully inclusive of Jews who do not align themselves with the ultra-Orthodox.
Tough love may be an appropriate response in family matters, but boycotting a troubled nation which has become a pariah among the hard-left is not the appropriate response to the Israeli government's recent decisions regarding religion. The answer is not disengagement, but rather greater engagement with Israel on matters that involve world Jewry. I, too, am furious about the arrogant and destructive threats of the ultra-Orthodox parties in the current government. I, too, would prefer to see a coalition that excluded the ultra-Orthodox parties. I, too, would like to see a high wall of separation that kept the Rabbis out of politics. But I do not live in Israel, and Israel is a democracy. Ultimately it is up to the citizens of Israel to change the current system. The role of American Jews is limited to persuasion, not coercion. In the end, we will be successful in persuading the Israeli people to take the power of religious, coercion out of the hands of the ultra-Orthodox minority because that would not only be good for secular Israelis – who are a majority – but also for religious Israelis. History has proven that separation of state from religion is better not only for the state, but also for religion.
Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law and Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.
© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Mideast Talks Will Be Failure

Kerry's mission to bring together the Palestinians and Israelis will not end well.  Without Abbas being able to make concessions, can we expect anything else. He is unable to meet even the most minor agreement as his people will not allow it.  


The Palestinians will demand that all settlements end, that Israel return to pre-1967 borders, and that Gaza and the West Bank are linked by a road. All of these requests will be rejected by Israel.  

The one requirement by Israel is that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas recognize the right of Israel to exist. That will never occur. Any Palestinian or Hamas leader who agreed to such a statement would be assassinated within weeks of signing such an agreement.  

The only way that an agreement will be made is for Kerry to insist that Israel sign.  He will demand that Netanyahu make concessions. If not, Israel will face an elimination of all military and financial support. In essence, abandoning our only ally in Israel.

Will Israel say "no" to its big brother?

Conservative Tom


Elliott Abrams: Kerry's Mideast Talks 'Will Not Go Anywhere'

Thursday, 25 Jul 2013 02:44 PM
By Jim Meyers and Kathleen Walter
 .


Former presidential adviser Elliott Abrams tells Newsmax that Israeli-Palestinian peace talks being arranged by Secretary of State John Kerry "will not go anywhere" — and predicts Israel could strike Iran in just six months.

Abrams also says he opposes imposing a no-fly zone in Syria, and supports the administration's decision to suspend delivery of fighter jets to Egypt, saying the Egyptians "need bread" more than jets.

Story continues below.



Abrams served in the State Department under President Ronald Reagan and as special assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for global democracy strategy under George W. Bush. He is now a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV, Abrams said of Kerry's getting the Israelis and Palestinians to agree to restart peace talks, "They’ve gone back to the table mostly as a favor to Secretary Kerry and because they don’t want to be blamed.

"Frankly, these talks will not go anywhere. Israel's not going to go back to those '67 [borders]. Talks may start, and I hope they don't break down quickly, but I don't really see the basis for getting to a peace agreement here. I don't know why Secretary Kerry is optimistic about this."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently suggested that time is running out to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. Asked if he foresees an Israeli military action in the near future, Abrams responds: "I wouldn’t say the near future but the Israelis are determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

"We're going to have some negotiations in August with this new Iranian president and the Israelis realize time is running out. So if the United States cannot prevent Iran from moving steadily forward toward a nuclear weapon, the Israelis will strike maybe within the next six or nine months," Abrams says.

Abrams also said suspending delivery of four F-16 jets to Egypt is "the right thing to do. For one thing, our law says when there's a coup, when the military removes an elected president, we should suspend aid. And there was a coup — the military in Egypt threw out a president.

"We may not have liked him. He may have been unpopular. But it was still a coup so we need to follow our law," Abrams says. "And whatever the Egyptians need now, they need bread, they need oil, they need economic reform, they don't need more F-16s."

U.S. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey says the Obama administration is deliberating whether to use military power in Syria and to perhaps impose a no-fly zone.

But Abrams says: "I'm not in favor of a no-fly zone."

"The amount of people and planes and money that it takes, and the risks that we would run, are very great and it doesn't do what you're trying to do," said Abrams. "You're trying to stop this kind of terrorist activity by the Assad regime but a lot of the damage is done by artillery, when they fire shells into neighborhoods and apartment houses and homes. That wouldn't be touched at all by a no-fly zone."

As to whether Dempsey should be reconfirmed for a second term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Abrams says: "I'm really concerned about Gen. Dempsey because the way he's handled Syria has been really unacceptable.

"He suggests we have no options, everything we'll do will get us into an Iraq-type war, will cost billions, there's nothing we can do. Those are policy questions and the things he's been saying have really tied the president's hands and been meant to tie his hands and that's inappropriate for the military. The policy should come from the civilians," Abrams says.

The National Security Agency’s phone records and data gathering program, revealed recently by NSA contractor Edward Snowden, has survived a legislative challenge in the House.

"I'm glad it has," Abrams says of the vote.

"I really side with those that think the invasion of privacy here is minimal because they're not listening to the content of the calls, they're just seeing the numbers. We need it if we want to avoid another 9/11-type tragedy.

"We're all concerned about invasions of privacy but the invasion here would be if some guy in a federal office were listening to your phone calls. That is not happening. This is just computers gathering the numbers and trying to see relationships among the numbers," Abrams says. "I don't think people should be so worried about this and we have really good testimony from former counterterrorism officials that this helps keep us safe."

President Barack Obama was critical of President Bush's policies on terrorism, but some say his record in fighting terrorism reflects the same approach he campaigned against. For example, he’s expanded the drone strikes program as well as the phone records and data program, and he hasn't closed Guantanamo Bay.

"It is accurate to say there is a [Bush-Obama] continuum because the threats did not change on Inauguration Day in 2009, and what President Obama has found out is that a lot of the things he said during the campaign were just wrong," Abrams tells Newsmax.

"What he's finding out is that we need to do many of these things. He has expanded the drone program and kept Guantanamo Bay open. So this is a continuum that shows that some things are above and beyond politics."


© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.