My college classmate, Donald Trump's Israel adviser, eviscerates Reform leader Jacobs
A while back, someone told me that 'Dave Friedman' who went to Columbia was Donald Trump's adviser on Israel.
There were (at least) two Dave Friedman's who started Columbia with me who eventually became lawyers. One, with whom I have been in touch over the years through friends, is a partner at a Manhattan law firm. The other, who actually overlapped with me for a year at NYU law (I took two years off between college and law school to study in yeshiva in Israel) was someone I had not seen since he graduated law school in 1981. I googled and found the picture above. Unmistakable. Definitely the wisecracking Dave Friedman who went to college and law school with me.
Dave has come under attack by
rabbi Rick Jacobs, the President of the Union of Reform Judaism, a member of
J Street's rabbinic council, a board member of the
New Israel Fund, and someone who has participated in demonstrations against Jerusalem's Jews in Israel. Why? Because of
remarks Dave made to CNN last week.
"It ought to be time to at least take a
fresh look at this," Friedman said, adding that he believes even many
Arabs in the West Bank may prefer Israeli rule to a Palestinian state.
"The two-state solution might be one answer, but I don't think it's the
only answer anymore."
Friedman was the Trump adviser who told the Israeli newspaper
Haaretz two weeks ago that Trump may be open to Israel annexing part of the West Bank, which is counter to stated U.S. policy.
Friedman told CNN this week that he was
responding to a hypothetical situation and saying there may be
circumstances where that is true, rather than putting it forward as a
policy position.
But he also
indicated to CNN that Trump could be amenable to the changes the Iron
Dome Alliance is seeking, though he didn't comment on specific language.
He
said the mogul would support a policy of not "imposing" U.S. will on
Israel. Other policy positions would include an undivided Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel, regional military and technological superiority
for the nation and showing "no daylight" between the U.S. and Israel in
public.
For the record, the Iron Dome Alliance is a group started by Jeff Ballaboon, who follows me on Twitter and likely reads this blog from time to time.
On Wednesday, Jacobs wrote an 'open letter' to the Trump campaign
attacking Dave's remarks.
These reports raise a number of significant concerns and more than a few questions, such as:
- Under what circumstances can you imagine another “answer” would be preferable?
- What would another “answer” look like? How would it be developed? Implemented?
- How would any other “answer” provide peace and security for Israel?
- How would any other “answer” provide peace and security for the Palestinians?
- Do you believe Israel can have peace and security without the Palestinians having the same?
I ask these questions because it seems axiomatic that the
alternative to two states is one state. Such a state would either be a
Jewish state that would cease to be a democracy and disenfranchise
millions of Palestinian souls, or it would be a democracy and cease to
be Jewish. It would put the fate of the Jewish State of Israel in the
hands of extremists on all sides, exposing the region to an endless
cycle of violence. Are either of these alternatives acceptable to you?
They are not acceptable to us, and that is why the Reform Movement has a
longstanding position in support of a two-state solution.
I write with a sense of deep concern. As I hope and trust you know, a
two-state solution has been a bedrock of American foreign policy for
decades, supported by every American President – Democratic and
Republican alike – since at least President George W. Bush in 2002. It
is also the policy of the Israeli government, and has been the policy of
every Israeli government since Prime Minister Rabin signed the Oslo
Accords at the White House in 1993.
Only two states for two people can end the conflict and offer hope and
security to a part of the world that needs and deserves them, a region
that is of vital interest to the United States in all of our nation’s
foreign policy concerns.
No one familiar with the current reality can doubt that there remain
significant obstacles to achieving a two-state solution, but that
doesn’t mean it is no longer the preferred solution. Any comments
suggesting otherwise undermine responsible Middle East policy.
For all these reasons and more, I was taken aback to read Mr. Friedman’s
suggestion that another “answer” might make more sense, especially
because he did not offer any ideas about what such an alternative might
be. To talk about discarding such a fundamental tenet of both U.S. and
Israeli policy, without offering any alternative, suggests either a lack
of understanding or a lack of seriousness. Either way, the statement
calls for your urgent clarification.
In response,
Dave eviscerates rabbi Rick.
July 6, 2016
Dear Rabbi Jacobs,
In your letter earlier today to Donald J. Trump and me, you
state that you were “taken aback” by my comment that a “two state
solution was an answer, but not the only answer,” to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am happy to engage in a discussion with
you on the subject, which I believe is more detailed and complex than
either your letter, or my response below, can do justice. Nonetheless, I
am happy to offer some brief summaries of my views.
That a two-state solution has been a part of American foreign
policy for some length of time – something you place great weight upon
-- is, to me, entirely irrelevant. The wars in Vietnam and Iraq were
also part of American foreign policy and I have no doubt that these were
policies you opposed. As I’m sure you recognize, and as we witnessed
this past week with the brutal murder of Hallel Ariel as she lay
sleeping in her bed, followed the next day by the murder of Rabbi
Michael Mark, a father of 10, the numerous proposals and initiatives for
a two-state solution over the years have brought neither peace nor
security to the State of Israel.
The issue confronting both the Israelis and the Palestinians is
fundamentally humanitarian in nature. It is not political and it is not
geographic. Both peoples are entitled to live in peace and dignity, and
both peoples are being deprived of those fundamental rights because of
one thing and one thing only – radical Islamic jihadism, a cancer that
infects Israel and much of the rest of the world. No re-allocation of
land will cure this scourge, and, indeed, Israel knew no peace from 1948
to 1967 when it did not even control Judea and Samaria.
So what should we do? Should we continue to force a square peg
into a round hole and demand that Israel cede land to Palestinians in
exchange for a naked promise that the Palestinians will change their
behavior? Are you not concerned that Mahmoud Abbas has no electoral
mandate (his term expired six years ago), and that his justification for
not calling for new elections is that he will be replaced by an even
more violent jihadist? Are you not concerned that Mr. Abbas presides
over ceremonies honoring Palestinian terrorists or that he has been
accused of massive fiscal corruption? Are you not concerned that
Palestinians teach their children to hate and murder Jews, even putting
on school plays enacting such despicable behavior? Are you not concerned
that the Palestinian Authority has no ability to control the Hamas
factions in Hebron, Jenin and Nablus, which continuously assault and
kill Jewish people? Are you not concerned that the Palestinian Authority
pays generous stipends to the families of terrorists who are jailed or
killed after murdering Jews? Are you not concerned, after seeing the
disastrous results of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, that a Palestinian
state on the West Bank will bring missile attacks to the entire
population of Israel?
I know that you have no doubt that the People of Israel want
peace and that they are overwhelmingly well-intentioned, well-informed,
and non-hateful. Given that, are you not concerned that your desire to
divide Israel in two, leaving it without defensible borders, is solidly
rejected by a super-majority of Israelis? Indeed, even many Palestinians
now sensibly prefer Israeli rule to a nascent Palestinian state. Where
but in Israel do Arabs have educational opportunity, first class
healthcare, social and religious freedom and civil rights for women?
There are – and there must be -- other “answers” to a two-state
solution, some short term, some longer. I would begin by making
appropriate demands upon the Palestinians to end terror, incitement and
hateful indoctrination. I would condition further US funding on
meaningful progress in this regard. I would also encourage significant
economic investment in Palestinian communities – a challenge given the
difficulty of identifying non-corrupt leaders but still worth pursuing –
to strengthen the Palestinian middle class. I would improve
infrastructure and commit resources to enhance the quality of life for
every inhabitant of the region. Simply put, I would focus on what most
Palestinians and Israelis care the most about – better living conditions
and better opportunities. If and when those initiatives bear fruit and
tensions are reduced, talks could continue about long term solutions.
But, even then, I must reject categorically your statement that
Israel must either be a democratic state or a Jewish state. The numbers
simply do not support that conclusion. The Jewish population of
pre-1967 Israel is now about 6.3 million out of 8.4 million people –
about 75%. The Jewish population of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem is
another 700,000 people out of about 2.4 million people (it may be lower
as many think the Arab population is overstated). Thus, the Jewish
population of the entire region is about 7.0 million out of 10.8 million
– still a solid 65% majority. (By the way, many people quote all kinds
of numbers for the West Bank population – these are, I believe, the most
accurate)
I’m not saying, one way or the other, that a “one state
solution” is the correct path. That is a decision for the Israeli people
to make in consultation with the Palestinians. But it is simply not
true that Jews will become a minority in their own land if a two-state
solution is not implemented. Indeed, given the demands of the
Palestinians for a return of so-called “refugees,” even the two-state
solution they envision would provide no demographic certainty to Israeli
Jews.
Let’s not grandstand this issue any more with “open letters”
that I can’t help but feel have more to do with American politics than
doing what’s best for Israel. Let’s have a cup of coffee (or some
Israeli wine) and continue the dialogue.
Respectfully,
David Friedman
Sounds like Dave has been reading
Caroline Glick and
Yoram Ettinger, while Jacobs is still living under the two-state delusion. Zeir gut gezogt (very well said).
Labels: Caroline Glick, demography, Donald Trump, one-state solution, rabbi Rick Jacobs, two-state solution, US presidential campaign 2016, Yoram Ettinger
When liberalism replaces Judaism
Jonathan Tobin takes the Union of Reform Judaism to task for
refusing to take a position on President Obama's sellout to a nuclear-armed Iran.
From the point of view of those opposed to the Iran nuclear deal, the decision of the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ) to sit out the battle
is not the worst possible outcome. To expect a religious denomination
whose very identity is inextricably tied with liberal politics to take a
stand against President Obama — a man that the majority of their
adherents likes and admires — was a stretch. That was especially true
since the president is treating this debate as a litmus test of loyalty
to the Democratic Party. Equally unlikely was the possibility that the
Reform movement would align itself with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu — a man that most of their members dislike and distrust — on
any issue. Indeed, the unwillingness of the URJ to join the ad hoc group
of liberal rabbis that have endorsed the pact with Iran reflects the
unease among even liberal Jews who care about Israel over what President
Obama has done. Yet the eagerness of Reform leader Rabbi Rick Jacobs to
pat himself on the back for staying out of the fray merits criticism.
Contrary to Jacobs’s formulation, the real problem with the debate about
Iran is not the nature of the rhetoric being used by both sides but the
way in which the administration is downgrading the U.S.-Israel
alliance. As difficult as it may be for Reform Jews to admit it, Obama
is forcing his Jewish admirers to choose between him and Israel and that
is not a choice any American, let alone a Jewish supporter of the
Jewish state, should be asked to make.
That's true. But count this non-admirer of Obama's as someone who could have predicted that the one thing the official arm of Reform Judaism could not do would be to oppose what President Obama has in effect turned into a 'no confidence' vote on his Iran policy. For most Reform Jews, loyalty to the Democratic party - and particularly to its Left wing - trumps any identification with Judaism or Israel.
When President George H.W. Bush spoke of fighting a lobby when he
opposed loan guarantees to Israel in 1991, a united Jewish community
slammed him for using language that was redolent of anti-Semitic slurs.
When conservative commentator Pat Buchanan also spoke of Jews not
fighting in a war they wanted America to fight for Israel, he was
labeled an anti-Semite. Yet liberals aren’t being as tough on Obama with
many of them looking for ways to rationalize or excuse his rhetoric.
Yes, yours truly slammed Bush Senior for his behavior toward Israel. For that matter, if you look back in this blog, I slammed Bush Junior many times too, even though he might have been the most pro-Israel President the US ever had this side of
Lyndon Johnson. I am more loyal to the Jewish people and to Israel than to any American political party (I moved to Israel in 1991). But you won't find a whole lot of liberals slamming Obama on Iran (Tobin mentions Leon Wieseltier; I could have added
Alan Dershowitz).
In examining the choices that the URJ and other liberal Jewish groups
face, it is fair to ask how they would react if a Republican president
had embraced détente with Iran and feuded with Israel. The answer is
pretty obvious. In spite of the growing alienation of many of their
members from Israel, even the Reform movement would have acted as
American Jews did a generation earlier when the elder Bush aligned
himself against a Jewish state that had yet to take the sort of risks
for peace that were made in the following two decades.
Polls have showed that the majority of Americans oppose the deal with
Iran. But if the deal is going to survive, it will be because
partisanship is a far more potent factor in our political life than many
of us are prepared to admit. If Reform Jews are incapable of choosing a
side in a battle where the interests of the Jewish people and the U.S.
is at stake, it is because they reflect the demographic reality of an
American Jewry that sees liberal politics as being equal to if not more
important than their support for Zionism. Throw in their affection for
Obama and antipathy for Netanyahu and the Reform decision not to back the president must be seen as a victory of sorts for the deal’s opponents.
Read it all.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, liberalism, National Democratic Party, rabbi Rick Jacobs, Union for Reform Judaism
American Jewish 'leaders' circle the wagons for Kerry
Greetings from... Chicago.
152 American Jewish 'leaders' are circling the wagons for US Secretary of State John FN Kerry's 'peace efforts' writing a letter of support for the '
peace efforts' to Prime Minister Netanyahu.
“As American advocates for a strong, Jewish and democratic Israel, we
have been heartened by Secretary of State John Kerry’s extraordinary
resolve to advance this process consistent with America’s unwavering
commitment to Israel’s security,” said the letter sent Wednesday and
initiated by the Israel Policy Forum.
“We believe Secretary Kerry’s determined diplomatic effort offers an
unprecedented opportunity to ensure Israel’s security, to enhance its
prosperity, and to avoid the existential threat to the Jewish state
posed by bi-nationalism.”
There's that demographic demon again. It's a lie.
Among the letter’s signatories are Jewish leaders who are noted for
their outspoken defense of Israel and at times of Netanyahu’s
government, among them Alan Dershowitz, the legal expert and author;
Deborah Lipstadt, the Holocaust scholar; Mel Levine, a former Democratic
congressman; Michael and Susie Gelman, major philanthropists and
leaders in the Washington community; Rabbi Steve Gutow, the president of
the Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president
of the Union for Reform Judaism; and major fundraisers for Democratic
political campaigns, including Marvin Lender, Alan Solow and Alan
Solomont.
I'm not going there....
But could someone please explain to me why for American Jewish 'leaders' it seems to be the Democratic party uber alles? Or perhaps this is just another manifestation of the
poritz syndrome. Funny, I don't see
Abe Foxman on the list. Perhaps that's why he
announced his retirement this week (or why he felt free to
speak out last week).
Labels: Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, Alan Solomont, Binyamin Netanyahu, demography, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, rabbi Rick Jacobs
rabbi Rick becomes an Iranian tool
I trust that many of you remember rabbi Rick Jacobs, a board member of the New Israel Fund, and a member of J Street's 'rabbinic
cabinet,' who has participated in demonstrations in Israel against
Jewish residents of Jerusalem. He
favors BDS - but '
only against the settlements.' He's also the
President of the Union for Reform Judaism. And he's also become
a tool for Iran's Press TV.
“Conversations about Israel often get
polarized, so we’ve stopped having them. And that’s the worst kind of
disengagement there is,” Jacobs said.
Jacobs, who is the ‘scholar in residence’ at this year’s General
Assembly in Baltimore, also noted that “the ever-diminishing circle of
who is included in the word ‘we’ has gotten so small that it’s a shame.
There is a wider community that cares a great deal about Israel, but
they don’t care within the narrow parameters that the organized Jewish
world has framed.”
Yeah. Like
these guys.
Better militant Islamist than Haredi Orthodox, eh?
Labels: Iran, rabbi Rick Jacobs, Union for Reform Judaism
Guess who funded the Coalition of Women for Peace
On Monday, I reported that Deutche Bahn, the German national railway, was
withdrawing from its supportive role in a project to construct a high speed rail line between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. I also reported that the withdrawal was brought about through the efforts of an organization called Who Profits, which I described as
an on-going grassroots investigation effort by activists in The Coalition of Women for Peace, a leading Israeli feminist peace organization, dedicated to exposing companies and corporations involved in the occupation so as to promote a change in public opinion and corporate policies and eventually lead to an end to the occupation.
I'm sure you folks will all be shocked to hear
who funds the Coalition of Women for Peace.
Surely they are funded by Iran or Saudi Arabia? But here’s what NGO Monitor tells us: In 2006-2009, the New Israel Fund (NIF) authorized grants worth $294,129 to CWP (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009).
“Major donors” since 2000 include the European Union, Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung (587,189 NIS from the German government), Heinrich Böll Stiftung (from the German government), the Moriah Fund, Aaron Back and the Ford Israel Fund, and SIVMO. (This funding does not include support for individual NGOs in the coalition.)
So in addition to the hostile Europeans, liberal American Jews have unknowingly been supporting this viciously anti-Israel organization!
A prominent member of the NIF, chair of its “Pluralism Grants Committee,” is the Union for Reform Judaism’s nominee for its new President, Rabbi Richard Jacobs, who describes himself as “proudly and strongly pro-Israel.”
And you thought rabbi rick was
opposed to BDS.
Read it all.
Labels: BDS, Coalition of Women for Peace, high-speed rail line, New Israel Fund, rabbi Rick Jacobs, Who Profits
Dissident Reform Jews protest Jacobs selection
You will recall that the reform movement
selected rabbi Rick Jacobs as the President of the Union for Reform Judaism. Jacobs is a board member of the New Israel Fund, a member of J Street's 'rabbinic cabinet,' and has participated in demonstrations in Israel against Jewish residents of Jerusalem. He
favors BDS - but '
only against the settlements.'
A group of sane Reform Jews has placed a full-page ad in many Jewish newspapers this week. I have embedded it below (Hat Tip:
Dan F).
Reform AdI urge you to support the people who placed the ad.
That's a second voice of sanity from Jacobs' constituents.
Here's the first one.
Labels: J Street, New Israel Fund, rabbi Rick Jacobs, Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement, Union for Reform Judaism
Call for reform Jewry to focus on Judaism, not politics
There's an interesting letter in the Forward that calls on new reform leader Rabbi Rick Jacobs to
focus on Judaism rather than on politics.
One change that would be particularly welcome would be to eliminate the URJ’s funding of the movement’s most pernicious component: the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington. The URJ has used our synagogue dues for many years to fund the RAC, which has a specific political (ultra-liberal) bias; it is absolutely wrong to use mandated contributions to our religious organization to promote specific political viewpoints largely without our knowledge or our agreement.
The RAC will exist without the support of URJ; the new and improved URJ must focus on Jewish, not political, concerns and issues.
JOHN FEIBEL
Cincinnati, Ohio
Given what we
already know about Jacobs'
preferences, I'd say that the odds of that change being made are somewhere between slim and none. But it's a nice thought.
Labels: BDS, Israel is a Jewish state, Judea and Samaria, rabbi Rick Jacobs, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Union for Reform Judaism
New head of Reform movement favors BDS against Judea and Samaria
The current issue of the New York Jewish Week includes an interview with the new leader of the Reform movement, Rabbi Rick Jacobs. Among the many issues that ought to bother you is his support for the
boycott, divest, sanction (BDS) movement, at least where the Jewish cities and towns of Judea and Samaria (Hat Tip:
NY Nana).
On the issue of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, he said he strongly opposed global BDS, which seeks to eliminate the Zionist state, but drew a distinction between such efforts and those who boycott products made in Jewish communities in the West Bank.
He said the Reform movement has not taken a position yet on the boycott of West Bank settlements but that “we do take positions on the hardest issues.”
So we can look for the Reform movement to become a boycotter of Judea and Samaria? What's wrong with that? Plenty.
Israel's legitimacy is indivisible.
Labels: BDS, Israel is a Jewish state, Judea and Samaria, rabbi Rick Jacobs, Union for Reform Judaism
