Arrange for Gidon D. Remba to speak on Israeli-Arab Peace

Gidon D. Remba is available to speak on "President Obama, Israel & Middle East Peace" at synagogues, churches, universities and other communal institutions.

Mr. Remba, who served as Executive Director of the Jewish Alliance for Change, Ameinu (the US affiliate of the World Labor Zionist Movement), and Americans for Peace Now Chicago, is a veteran Middle East political analyst and pro-Israel peace advocate. He was Senior Foreign Press Editor and Translator in the Israel Prime Minister's Office from 1977-1978 during the Egyptian-Israeli Camp David peace process.

His commentaries on Israel and the Middle East have appeared widely in the Jewish and general press, including the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, the Chicago Sun Times, the Nation, Ha’aretz, the Forward, the Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), Jerusalem Report, Tikkun, and many other publications. He blogs at http://tough-dove-israel.blogspot.com/ and at http://mideastmythsfacts.blogspot.com/

To arrange for Mr. Remba to speak at your event, contact him at dremba@comcast.net

Recent reviews:

Temple Har Zion, a reform synagogue in a Toronto suburb:

"You deliver a fast, hard punch of facts and history." Members felt that "we needed to have you longer, during the day, instead of Friday night. People wanted to learn more and discuss more with you. I will look at things differently now, trying always to determine what is really in Israel's interest." - Natalie Cremer, Adult Education Chair, Temple Har Zion

"Members are still talking about your visit, and the debate it stirred. We were impressed by your insider knowledge of Israeli and American political workings."- Rabbi Cory Weiss, Temple Har Zion

Selected Recent and Upcoming Appearances:

Upcoming: Fall, 2009 (date to be announced): Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana

May 20, 2009, 7:30 PM: Special guest at political comedian Scott Blakeman's political humor talk show "The End Of The Week As We Know It," at the 45th St. Theater, 354 W. 45 St., New York City.

April 26, 2009: Institute for Living Judaism, Brooklyn, NY, "The Settlements," in a dialogue with Stuart Ain, columnist for the Jewish Week

February 2009: Panelist, The Joey Reynolds Show, WOR News Talk Radio

January 2009: Erev Shabbat talk, "President Obama, Israel & the Mideast," Temple Har Zion, a reform synagogue in a Toronto suburb

October 2008: Speaker on Obama’s Chicago career as a progressive pragmatist, in "Broadway for Obama," State Theater, in the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania electoral battleground before an audience of 1,000 people.

September 2008, Speaker on Obama's Chicago career and Chicago Jewish community support, George Street Playhouse, New Brunswick, N.J. (NJ Jews rally for Obama-Biden ticket: Speakers defend Democrats’ record on Israel, int’l issues, New Jersey Jewish News, Sept. 11, 2009)

Recent Publications:
Obama's Grand Plan for the Middle East (PDF version), Jerusalem Report, May 18, 2009, reprinted online in Jewcy

An Open Letter to Abe Foxman: A Response to Obama's Critics on Arab-Israeli Peace, Jewcy, August 1, 2009

Removing West Bank Israeli settlements is ethnic cleansing? Nonsense. http://www.obamasmearbusters.com/, August, 2009

Obama’s policy on Jerusalem and the US Consulate is anti-Jewish and anti-Israel? That’s outrageous, http://www.obamasmearbusters.com/, September 2009

Obama Planned "Ambush" of Israel at U.N.? Fat Chance. http://www.obamasmearbusters.com/, September 2009

For Selected Publication List visit here.

Click here for Mr. Remba's full bio

Obama's Middle East: Good for the Jews?, Gidon D. Remba

Obama’s Middle East: Good for the Jews

By Gidon D. Remba

Published in
The Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, February 14, 2007

The Ohio Jewish Chronicle, February 28, 2007

To win the affection of the American Jewish community, a candidate for President of the United States must, at minimum, demonstrate that he or she is a trusted friend of Israel who will ardently stand up for its rights and needs. Barack Obama, who has served for the last three years as my U.S. Senator, and before that for eight years as a state senator, has long enjoyed the enthusiastic support of the Chicago Jewish community.

Even the neoconservative New York Sun newspaper recently confessed: “We're no shills for Mr. Obama, but these Republicans [who are “preparing to attack Senator Obama for his supposed lack of support for Israel”] haven't checked their facts. At least by our lights, Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America.” (Obama’s two-fisted defense of the Jewish state is summed up well on his website, http://www.barackobama.com/, under Foreign Policy: Israel, in “Barack Obama: A Strong Record of Supporting the Security, Peace, and Prosperity of Israel”).

Yet a prominent Israeli official recently wrote an American friend, voicing a protest often heard in Israel and recycled by Obama’s swaggering stateside Jewish critics, that “We need an American president who will be tough on Iran, who will use effective sanctions, not one who will schmooze with the ayatollahs.” Such sentiments, while understandable, offer a cartoonish caricature of smart diplomacy, a mega-weapon in Israel’s and America’s arsenals whose use most Democrats and moderate Republicans have endorsed with regard to Iran.

The ranks of the diplo-warriors include US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA), the only Holocaust survivor in the U.S. Congress and the dean of Israel’s Capitol Hill champions. Lantos, who passed away as this column went to press, remarked recently: “I continue to favor dialogue between our two countries, in contrast to the Administration's belligerent and stiff-necked refusal to talk with Tehran. And I believe we need to use every means at our disposal - economic, political and diplomatic - to persuade Iranians that peaceful development of energy options, free of any hint of military use, is well within reach."

Obama’s tough-guy critics on Iran are victims of a double irony. Obama rightly notes that our failure under Bush to bargain unconditionally with Iran has helped empower extremists like Ahmadinejad, weakening pragmatists in the clerical government who seek détente with the U.S. and the West, including Israel. Obama’s approach gives the U.S. far more leverage against Iranian bad acts against us and Israel. He will deploy a fuller range of carrots and sticks in dealing with the regime, making him the leader of choice for those who want the United States to exercise the breadth of its power when facing down the ayatollahs.

Obama has also been at the forefront of the U.S. Senate in fashioning more aggressive economic measures against Iran, co-sponsoring key sanctions legislation, and in May 2007 authoring and introducing as the primary sponsor the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act. Obama will engage antagonists with a combination of economic pressures and hard bargaining the way no-nonsense Republican and Democratic administrations did during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the “evil empire” of earlier time.

While the American Jewish Committee has disavowed an internal memo expressing concern over Obama’s calls for engagement with Iran, “and for negotiating with other rogue states, notably Syria,” its rogue author ignored the fact that Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert, backed by the Israeli defense establishment, has been seeking to resume peace talks with Syrian President Bashar Assad, despite heat from the Bush Administration. Obama told the National Jewish Democratic Council that “We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli Prime Minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States,” a dig at the Bush Administration’s arm-twisting Israel against exploring peace prospects with Syria.

Since when did the neoconservative nostrum “wage only sanctions and war on the axis of evil” become the touchstone for defining "pro-Israel”? Apparently the Bush Administration has itself strayed from this failed doctrine—see Iraq—by hashing out a deal with North Korea to trade denuclearization steps for economic aid and other incentives.

Similarly, the debate between fans and dissenters from the Bush Administration’s Iraq strategy comes down to one side’s blind faith that more military force will bring order to Iraq and the broader Middle East, while the other holds that we have failed to wield the full array of power at America’s disposal, and what instruments we have used, we have played artlessly. Obama’s Jewish critics bluster, with Philadelphia Jewish Exponent Editor Jonathan Tobin, that “a precipitous skedaddle from Iraq would leave both the United States and Israel seriously weakened.” That might be so if it were truly reckless, uncoordinated and unaccompanied by a muscular diplomatic surge. If, following Obama’s Republican rivals, we practice more faith-based military surges, American prestige and Israeli security will be battered even more than they already have by this war of folly. Their gambit has empowered Iran, emboldened Al Qaeda, and threatened regional stability with millions of Iraqi refugees and a bloody Sunni-Shia civil conflict which could set aflame the entire Middle East.

With the Bush surge failing to set the stage for Iraqi reconciliation, Obama advocates the more sober and realistic view, endowing the U.S. with a stronger hand to play with the Iraqi government. The reach of that hand is broadened by hard-nosed diplomacy to encourage Iraq’s neighbors to cooperate in a new regional stabilization effort:

“Removing our troops is part of applying real pressure on Iraq's leaders to end their civil war. There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was… We must get out strategically and carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more volatile areas until later….My plan also allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain and prevent Iraq from becoming a haven for international terrorism and reduce the risk of all-out chaos. In addition, we will redeploy our troops to other locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East.”

“If - but only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces…The future of our military, our foreign policy, and our national purpose cannot be hostage to the inaction of the Iraqi government.”

Obama’s critics rely on scare tactics, innuendo and guilt by association. They distort his positions, attacking only straw men, because they are afraid to debate his real proposals on their merits. Obama is the preferred candidate for those who want to turbo-charge American strength and unity at home and abroad. And that’s truly good for Israel—and for the Jews.


Gidon D. Remba is a veteran Israel activist and commentator. He blogs at http://tough-dove-israel.blogspot.com/ and can be reached at dremba@comcast.net This article represents his personal views and not those of any organization.

Mr. Remba's commentaries on Israel, the Middle East and Jewish affairs have appeared widely in the Jewish and general press, including the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, the Chicago Sun Times, the Nation, Ha’aretz, the Forward, the Jerusalem Post, the Jerusalem Report, Tikkun, and the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, where he writes a monthly column on Israel.

Mr. Remba served as Senior Foreign Press Editor and Translator in the Israel Prime Minister's Office from 1977-1978 during the Egyptian-Israeli Camp David peace process. He translated the Knesset speeches of Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan, and Defense Minister Ezer Weizman, as well as Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin and other Israeli leaders for the foreign press during the period from Egyptian President Sadat's visit to Jerusalem until the Camp David Peace Accords. He co-translated Sadat's Knesset speech into English for the world press.

Facts About Barack Obama and Israel, by Obama Middle East Advisor Eric Lynn (Response to right wing blogger Ed Lasky’s misinformation about Obama)

Dear Friends,

Various attacks on Barack Obama, his personal background, and his positions on Israel have circulated recently in the Jewish Community. As Senator Obama has said, “Fortunately, the American people are, I think, smarter than people give them credit for.”

In addition to the facts below rebutting the ‘Obama and Israel’ false attack piece by right wing blogger Ed Lasky, we have attached Senator Obama’s positions on Israel, recent speeches on the subject, and other information to allow you to make the informed judgment for yourself. Barack Obama’s policies and his strong support of Israel speak for themselves and we ask that you forward this information on to all who have received the attack emails.

Please let us know if you have any further questions and thank you for taking the time to review the facts.

Regards,
Eric

Eric Lynn
Middle East Policy Advisor
Obama for America


FACTS ABOUT BARACK OBAMA AND ISRAEL

Right wing Bush-supporting Lasky written piece is so riddled with errors, it has no credibility.
Please share the facts with those who have received this email.


RHETORIC: “Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. is the long-time Pastor of Obama's church, and Obama has credited him as being an inspiration and guiding light for him…He also has, in the words of the Chicago Tribune, a militant past…Pastor Wright is also a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, and in 1984 traveled with him to visit Col. Muammar al-Gadaffi, an archenemy of Israel's and America and a firm supporter of terror groups.” [American Thinker, 3/22/07]

REALITY: ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ANTI-SEMITISM BY REVEREND WRIGHT; WRIGHT DID NOT ENDORSE FARRAKHAN’S VIEWS

Anti-Defamation League Had “No Evidence Of Any Anti-Semitism By Mr. Wright.” The New York Times reported, “For its part, the Anti-Defamation League says it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Mr. Wright.” [New York Times, 4/30/07]

Wright Did Not Endorse Farrakhan’s Views. Wright’s involvement with Farrakhan “implied no endorsement of their views.” [New York Times, 4/30/07]
**

RHETORIC: “Wright has also been a severe critic of Israel.” [American Thinker, 3/22/07]

REALITY: OBAMA DOES NOT AGREE WITH WRIGHT ABOUT ALL ASPECTS OF POLITICS, AND SPECIFICALLY DISAGREES WITH WRIGHT ON ISRAEL

Obama Said He And Reverend Wright “Don’t Agree On Everything.” The New York Times reported, “But ‘we don’t agree on everything,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘I’ve never had a thorough conversation with him about all aspects of politics.’” [New York Times, 4/30/07]

Old News: Critics Have Recycled The Same Charges Against Wright And The Church. The Christian Science Monitor reported, “And conservatives have pummeled Wright for his Afrocentric beliefs, his equation of Zionism with racism, and his remarks on the 9/11 attacks.” [Christian Science Monitor, 7/16/07]

Obama “Strongly Disagrees” With Wright Position On Israel. “Wright remains Obama's pastor and friend, [Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki] said, but they do not see eye to eye on every issue. Obama, she said, ‘strongly disagrees with any portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that advocates divestment from Israel or expresses anything less than strong support for Israel's security.’” [Christian Science Monitor, 7/16/07]

**

RHETORIC: Ali Abunimah wrote that Obama said, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!" [American Thinker, 3/22/07]

REALITY: LASKY HIMSELF SAID THAT THE SOURCE WAS NOT RELIABLE

Lasky Said It Himself, Abunimah Was Not “The Most Reliable Source;” Rashid Khalidi: Obama Was Never Supportive Of The Palestinian Cause. Lasky wrote, “True, Abunimah may not be the most reliable source…” The New York Daily News reported, “Obama got help from an unlikely source yesterday when pro-Palestinian Prof. Rashid Khalidi denied a report that Obama used to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and had recently shifted his stance to pro-Israel. Khalidi spoke to the Daily News to rebut a report on a pro-Palestinian blog that was circulated by Clinton supporters. The blog, the Electronic Intifada, offered no evidence that Obama used to be supportive of the Palestinian cause, but cited private conversations, including one at a 2000 Obama fund-raiser hosted by Khalidi. Khalidi, now head of Columbia University's Middle East Institute, said he hosted the fund-raiser because he was friends with Obama while the two lived in Chicago.” [New York Daily News, 3/6/07]

**

RHETORIC: Lasky wrote, “Most Congressmen have a solid legislative record on bills considered important to the American-Israel relationship-after all, most Americans have a very favorable view towards Israel. Most legislative acts regarding the American-Israel relationship are uncontroversial-which is the reason one often sees such votes as being supportive of the alliance between the two nations. He has, to repeat, been a member of the Senate for all of two years and his record is thus very thin in this regard.” [American Thinker, 3/22/07]

REALITY: OBAMA CO-SPONSORED THE PALESTINIAN ANTI-TERRORISM AND A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE AND CONDEMNING HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH, BOTH OF WHICH PASSED

Obama Cosponsored The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act Which Would Discourage International Aid To Hamas Unless It Recognizes Israel, Disarms And Renounces Violence. In 2006, Obama cosponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which: (1) States that it shall be U.S. policy to support a peaceful, two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in accordance with the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Roadmap), and oppose those organizations, individuals, and countries that support terrorism and violently reject such two-state solution; (2) provides assistance to the Hamas-controlled PA only during a period for which a presidential certification has determined that no PA ministry, agency, or instrumentality is controlled by Hamas unless the Hamas-controlled PA has publicly acknowledged the Jewish state of Israel's right to exist and the Hamas-controlled PA has made demonstrable progress toward purging from its security services individuals with ties to terrorism. [S. 2370, Became Public Law No: 109-446, 12/21/06]

Obama Cosponsored A Resolution Endorsing Israel’s Right To Self-Defense And Condemning Hamas And Hezbollah. In 2006, Obama cosponsored a resolution condemning Hezbollah and Hamas and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense. The resolution (1) reaffirmed steadfast support for Israel, (2) supports Israel's right of self-defense and its right to take appropriate action to deter aggression by terrorist groups and their state sponsors, (3) urges the President to continue to fully support Israel in exercising its right of self-defense in Lebanon and Gaza, (4) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hezbollah or Hamas, (5) condemns the governments of Iran and Syria for their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas and holds these governments responsible for the acts of aggression carried out by Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel. [S. Res 534, Passed/agreed to in Senate, 7/18/06]

**

RHETORIC: “He recently gave a speech before a group of supporters of Israel, at an AIPAC meeting in Chicago, that left many nonplussed. This speech was, in part, prompted by his knowledge that a panel of experts in Israel considers him to be the candidate that would support the state of Israel the least. While his supporters naturally heaped praise, when a more careful analysis of the speech is made, there is very little of substance regarding his support for our ally, Israel.” [American Thinker, 3/22/07]

REALITY: OBAMA’S SPEECH WAS WELL-RECEIVED AND CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS “PRO-ISRAEL. PERIOD.”

Rosner On Obama’s AIPAC Speech: “Obama Passed Any Test Anyone Might Have Wanted Him To Pass. So, He Is Pro-Israel. Period.” Schmuel Rosner wrote, “Barack Obama's big speech on Israel is now over, and as expected, the candidate made no secret of his support and dedication to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. "My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Haaretz last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.” [Haaretz, 3/07]

Ø Debby Oshri: “I was impressed…He has good thoughts and good intentions.” [Chicago Jewish Star, 3/9/07]

Ø Roslyn Grodzin: “He said everything we wanted to hear.” [Chicago Jewish Star, 3/9/07]

Ø Sam Grodzin: “said he was ‘very impressed.’” [Chicago Jewish Star, 3/9/07]

Ø Mike Lieberman: “He said what he had to say.” [Chicago Jewish Star, 3/9/07]

Ø Sara Rafel: “I was very glad to see that he was here and that he expressed support for Israel and the U.S.” [Chicago Jewish Star, 3/9/07]

**

RHETORIC: “He stated that efforts to achieve peace with its neighbors ‘begin with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel.’ Is this a breakthrough for Senator Obama as it has been so hailed? Israel is the only true ally of America in the region, a fellow democracy and a Western nation. Shouldn't Senator Obama believe that such a commitment to its security be important as opposed to security for Hezbollah, Hamas, or Iran, or any of the anti-American dictatorships that plague the region? This was not a gaffe on his part but seems to reflect a view that the Israelis should bear the burden and take the risky steps for peace.” [American Thinker, 3/22/07]

REALITY: OBAMA SAID THAT ISRAEL’S SECURITY IS THE BASIS FOR PEACE NEGOTIATIONS
Obama Spoke With Prime Minister Olmert As Annapolis Talks Began, Reiterated His Commitment To Israel’s Security As The Basis For Peace Negotiations. Obama said in a release, “Annapolis is a hopeful development because Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in serious discussions again and the countries of the region are involved, and I commend Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas for making the effort. I spoke with Prime Minister Olmert today, and assured him of my strong support for this effort and my unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security as a core principle as negotiations move forward. The Administration deserves credit for finally trying to use presidential diplomacy to bring the parties together. It's a big change from the last six and a half years, when President Bush badly neglected this conflict. Recognizing the complexity of the issues under discussion and the importance of the conflict, it is my hope that this conference is just the start of a sustained push by the United States, the Israelis and the Palestinians to achieve the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security.” [Press Release, 11/27/07]

**

RHETORIC: Lasky said that Obama said that the, “Israel government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart.” [American Thinker, 3/22/07]

REALITY: No He Didn’t. This quote is only referenced in Lasky’s article, does not appear in Nexis, google, or other search engines. [Search, 1/15/08]

**

RHETORIC: “Furthermore, Obama stated that he supports a resumption of aid to the Palestinian government (there has been a non-stop flow of humanitarian aid) provided the government "renounces terrorism." This also ignored the few simple conditions that the international community has laid down for such resumption of aid to continue: not only must the Palestinians renounce terrorism, but they also must stop it (Arafat repeatedly denounced terrorism in English, while praising and planning for it in Arabic); Palestinians also must respect and abide by previous agreements made with Israel and they must accept the right of Israel to exist. These conditions Senator Obama would seemingly waive as long as Palestinians made noises about "renouncing terrorism" - which they certainly have experience doing!” [American Thinker, 3/22/07]

REALITY: Obama Cosponsored The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act Which Would Discourage International Aid To Hamas Unless It Recognizes Israel, Disarms And Renounces Violence. In 2006, Obama cosponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which: (1) States that it shall be U.S. policy to support a peaceful, two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in accordance with the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Roadmap), and oppose those organizations, individuals, and countries that support terrorism and violently reject such two-state solution; (2) provides assistance to the Hamas-controlled PA only during a period for which a presidential certification has determined that no PA ministry, agency, or instrumentality is controlled by Hamas unless the Hamas-controlled PA has publicly acknowledged the Jewish state of Israel's right to exist and the Hamas-controlled PA has made demonstrable progress toward purging from its security services individuals with ties to terrorism. [S. 2370, Became Public Law No: 109-446, 12/21/06]

**

RHETORIC: Senator Obama also stated during his Iowa trip, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people" which not only ignores the Israelis who have been terrorized and killed for years but also ignores refugees from the genocide in Darfur or the daily terror the Iraqis are experience from Muslim on Muslim violence. Instead, by identifying the Palestinians as suffering, he implicitly seems to be blaming the Israelis for their plight (though he did mention their own government failures). [American Thinker, 3/22/07]

REALITY: OBAMA ACTUALLY BLAMED PALESTINIAN LEADERSHIP FOR STALLED PEACE PROCESS

Obama Said He That Cause Of Palestinian Suffering Was Their Own Leadership, “But The Damage Had Been Done.” The Baltimore Jewish Times reported that Obama “went on to say that the cause of that suffering was the Palestinians' own terror-sponsoring leadership. But the damage had been done…Mr. Obama, like so many others, is deemed a threat to Israel despite consistent support for the positions of pro-Israel groups. His sin: advocating other positions that may not be on the current talking points of pro-Israel groups, but which are consistent with official Israeli and U.S. policy.” [Baltimore Jewish Times, 3/23/07]

New York Times Issued A Correction On Obama’s Position On Middle East Peace, Saying That Obama Blamed Hamas, Not Israel. The correction read, “An article yesterday about competition for Jewish support between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama incorrectly described Mr. Obama's views about the culpability for stalled peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis. Mr. Obama blames Hamas, which controls much of the Palestinian government, for the stalled peace talks; he does not blame Israel.” [New York Times, 3/15/07]

**

RHETORIC: “Furthermore, why does almost every off the cuff remark he makes-remarks that spring from his heart as much as from his brain-have an anti-Israel slant? Anyone see a pattern here? Anyone? Are these actually closer to the nature of the policies he would follow as President?” [American Thinker, 3/22/07]

REALITY: NEW YORK SUN PRAISED OBAMA’S COMMITMENT TO ISRAEL

New York Sun: Obama’s “Commitment To Israel…Is Quite Moving” Which “Israel’s Friends In America…Can Warmly Welcome.” The New York Sun wrote in an editorial, “At least by our lights, Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America…But as a candidate, he has chosen to put himself on the record in terms that Israel's friends in America, at least those not motivated by pure political partisanship, can warmly welcome.” [New York Sun, 1/9/08]

Video 1: Chicago Jewish Leaders Defend Obama on Israel--Lee Rosenberg, 2/15/08

Lee Rosenberg is a prominent AIPAC leader in Chicago; his views about Obama are his own and are not those of AIPAC or any other organization.

Video 2: Chicago Jewish Leaders Defend Obama Against Smear Campaign-Rabbi Sam Gordon, 2/15/08

Rabbi Sam Gordon on Obama's friendship and strong ties with the Jewish community and Israel

Genocide, Morality and American Jews, Gidon D. Remba (Jerusalem Post Op-Ed)

Genocide, Morality and American Jews
Published as Don’t Alienate Ankara

By

Gidon D. Remba

October 29, 2007
The Jerusalem Post
(Unedited version)

Under pressure from the Bush Administration and Turkey, a key US NATO ally, Congressional leadership recently performed an about-face on a resolution condemning as genocide the mass slaughter and wholesale deportation of Armenian men, women and children nearly a century ago by Ottoman Turkey. The Jewish community has been deeply divided over the moral quandaries raised by this resolution. It has brought into play Turkey’s role in supporting U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel’s military alliance with the Turks, the relationship between Israel and American Jews, the Jewish memory of the Shoah—and our anguished moral consciences.

The moral question seems to have a clear-cut answer, one embraced by many thoughtful Jews. Jewish tradition reflects a potent strain of ethical idealism, an absolute commitment to principle, even to the point that it seems to suggest: Do the right thing—and damn the consequences! The preeminent rabbinic sage Maimonides exemplified this when he ruled that “if pagans should tell [the Jews], ‘Give us one of yours and we shall kill him, otherwise we shall kill all of you,’ they should all be killed and not a single Jewish soul should be delivered.”

But there is another major stream in Jewish tradition which emphasizes that the Torah was given so that we may live by it. It implores us to choose life, raising the demand to save lives above all the other commandments (the principle called pikuach nefesh). The Jewish commitment to the absolute inviolability of the individual and to human rights can be summed up by an ancient, non-Jewish aphorism: do justice, urged the Romans, even though the heavens may fall. But we live in a time in which the falling of the heavens is far from a remote possibility. If we gaze at the history of the last century, up to the present moment, we bear witness to a dark panorama of butchery, war, terrorism and genocide. The heavens have fallen time and time again. And justice has, all too often, not been done.

We Jews have been among the greatest victims of such barbarity. But we are hardly its only victims. Before the destruction of six million European Jews in the Holocaust—and six million non-Jews—there was another genocide, of over 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915-17. The Allied governments, Britain, France and Russia, condemned the Turkish government for committing “crimes against humanity and civilization,” the first time such language had ever been invoked (the term genocide had not yet been coined). The U.S., seeking to avoid involvement, refused to join the Allied declaration. Despite our wish to be celebrated as a global beacon of human rights and liberal democracy, the United States has often failed to speak out against genocide, or even to take modest risks to stop it in concert with our allies. Nor have the Europeans done much better, for all their commitment to peace, international law and human rights.

From Turkey’s destruction of the Armenians, the Nazi Holocaust, and Pol Pot’s Cambodian reign of terror; to Saddam’s gassing and execution of the Kurds, the Bosnian Serb mass murder of Muslims, and the Hutu evisceration of the Tutsi, the United States, and often its allies, not only failed to invest real capital into stopping genocide. It sometimes even directly or indirectly aided those committing it. Samantha Power documents this sordid tale in her pathbreaking book, A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.

More recently, the U.S. has failed to lead the UN Security Council—or given the U.N.’s impotence in the face of Chinese oil investments in Sudan—NATO, the G-8 and the African Union, to take stronger action to halt the continuing atrocities in Darfur. Such steps include targeted sanctions against Sudan for obstructing the deployment of the multinational force, provision of NATO logistical support, equipment and additional funding necessary to provide the force with the capacity to defend itself against attacks by armed groups and to protect civilians. We stopped the horrors in Serbia and Bosnia; we can stop them in Darfur.

Against the backdrop of this sorry chronicle of moral bankruptcy, it behooves the United States to at long last formally recognize the Turkish genocide of the Armenians. We bear a heavy moral obligation to do so. That, it seems clear, is the right thing to do.

And yet—must we do justice now even if the heavens will fall? The Armenian genocide is not unfolding today; it is nearly a century old. Were it happening today, there would be no harm to American interests which could justify our failure to lead or participate in effective international intervention—from potent economic sanctions and the promise of war crimes tribunals and a willingness to arrest and try the perpetrators, to the deployment of a NATO-led or other multinational armed force.

Several hundred thousand American troops are now ensconced deep in Iraq and Afghanistan, heavily dependent on our NATO ally Turkey to permit the transfer of new armored vehicles necessary to prevent even greater loss of life. A loss of Turkish cooperation, a realistic prospect, could also prolong the presence of large numbers of US troops in Iraq. Whatever we believe about the justice of these wars—the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is surely a just war, even if the Iraq war is not—if we hold dear the value of human life, we cannot remain indifferent to the jeopardy into which an untimely public recognition of the Armenian genocide would place American forces, along with Iraqi and Afghani civilians.

But it gets worse. Kurdish separatist guerrillas are attacking Turkish forces in Turkey, which is threatening to invade Iraq, a step which could draw Iran into the breach and further destabilize the Iraqi government. The guerrilla attacks, coupled with Turkish estrangement from the U.S., could strike the match that sets alight a great tinderbox, sparking a regional firestorm into which U.S. forces could be drawn. You thought the Iraq war was already going badly?

It gets worse still. Turkey is Israel’s closest military ally in the Muslim world. Turkish military cooperation, and airspace, is vital to Israel’s self-defense against Iran and Syria. A serious degradation in relations between Turkey and the U.S or Israel would represent a blow to Israeli deterrence, exposing Israel to greater security threats from Iran and Syria, increasing the risk of war with Israel.

We Jews bear a profound moral duty to recognize the genocide of the Armenians. The United States too must right its own historic wrong. But not when there is grave danger that the heavens may fall. The right thing, all things considered, is to act wisely, reducing Israel’s security threat from Syria by negotiating a peace treaty, as Israel’s intelligence services now uniformly recommend, and pursuing a swift and orderly U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. We must minimize harm to human lives here and now, and urge our leaders to take a courageous moral stand on historical truth when the cost to innocent lives, and world peace, is more bearable. This, I believe, the victims of genocide would themselves demand.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380674662&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Gidon D. Remba is National Executive Director of Ameinu: Liberal Values, Progressive Israel. His commentary is available at http://www.ameinu.net/

War or Peace? What Bashar Really Wants, by Gidon D. Remba

This essay, published as “Now May Be the Time to Pry Syria from Terrorist Camp,” is being reprinted in a new anthology titled Should Governments Negotiate with Terrorists?, as part of the “At Issue” educational series, to appear in June 2008. The volume may now be pre-ordered on Amazon here.

War or Peace? What Bashar Really Wants
FINAL REVISED AND EXPANDED VERSION 9/28/07
Originally Published in Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, September 26, 2007

By

Gidon D. Remba

Three weeks ago Israel launched an air strike on “nuclear equipment” in Syria provided secretly by North Korea. So goes the received version of what happened over Syrian skies, suggesting that Israel’s operation was a reprise of its successful preemptive attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.

North Korea and Syria may indeed have been collaborating on a clandestine nuclear weapons development program. Since Israeli government and military officials are virtually mum, everything we hear has come from the Bush Administration, or from “leaks” to the media from anonymous Israeli intelligence sources which are treated breathtakingly as revelatory scoops. The Bush Administration would never spin a story or twist intelligence information to suit its pre-conceived worldview, now would it? Newsweek reports that “current and former U.S. intelligence officials, willing to speak only if they were not named, say they've seen no credible evidence yet of nuclear ties between North Korea and Syria, whether before or since the Israeli operation.” Even former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now at the a conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank, who made a career of claiming, against all CIA assessments, that Syria was developing nuclear weapons, now admits that “whether [it was] a nuclear or missile facility [that the Israelis hit] is not clear.”

For years, the Bush Administration shunned direct talks with North Korea and reversed U.S. support for South Korea’s “sunshine” policy of using economic, security and political incentives to dissuade the North Koreans from building more nuclear weapons. It created a confrontational atmosphere that led to precisely that outcome, along with the first North Korean nuclear bomb test explosion. Syria had cooperated with the U.S. after 9/11, as did Iran, sharing intelligence information with the U.S. on Al Qaeda, prompting U.S. officials to report that Syria had helped to save American lives. By the time of the Iraq war in 2003, neo-cons in the Bush Administration insisted that Syria should be lumped with Iran, Iraq and North Korea in Bush’s “axis of evil.” They had long advocated sanctions and isolation of Syria, Iran and Iraq to be followed by U.S. and Israeli military strikes and regime change in all three countries.

On the precipice of catastrophic failure not only in Iraq but in North Korea, with the “evil axis” strategy blowing up in its face, the Bush Administration finally did a 180, listened to its moderate, pragmatic faction, once led by Secretary of State Colin Powell, and now by his successor Condoleezza Rice. Under Rice’s direction, the U.S. earlier this year negotiated a deal directly with North Korea to trade aid and other guarantees for first steps in what could become a North Korean arms denuclearization program, an objective it achieved before with Libya.

Vice President Cheney and other hawks in and out of office have been apoplectic, believing that the US has “declared defeat” by “trusting” the North Koreans, hoping to scuttle the agreement. On other fronts, Cheney has personally called leaders in Arab countries and told them not to listen to Secretary of State Rice because “she doesn’t speak for the administration,” leading American Syria scholar David Lesch recently told a Century Foundation luncheon for a small group of diplomats and foreign policy editors which I attended.

Pyongyang has long supplied Damascus with missiles; but nuclear warheads or materials? Would the North Koreans really risk their nuclear bargain with the U.S., imagining that neither the U.S. nor Israel would detect their actions in Syria? Would they play into the hands of the hard-line clique in the White House who want to sabotage their deal? Perhaps they are that reckless. But we should maintain a healthy skepticism until the administration comes clean and shows the public incontrovertible evidence. And if North Korea did export nuclear material to Syria, it points not to the failure of diplomacy per se—any more than a poorly executed war proves the bankruptcy of military force in general—but rather to what many policy analysts see as the Bush Administration’s muddled and half-hearted approach to nuclear disarmament talks with Pyongyang.

As for Syria, Rice has struck a symbolic blow against the hawks, announcing that the U.S. will invite it, along with other Arab states who do not maintain diplomatic relations or peace treaties with Israel, to the Palestinian-Israeli peace parley planned for November. Doubtful that the conference will deliver substantive results, Syria is unlikely to attend. At the same time, A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate last month found that Damascus has been cracking down on Al Qaeda-affiliated foreign terrorists attempting to infiltrate Iraq, significantly reducing the number of incursions.

Syrian President Bashar Assad has been telling visiting scholars and diplomats that Syria’s alliance with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas is essentially tactical, and largely expendable in exchange for the right incentives from the U.S. and Israel. Syria is a weak country, economically distressed and running out of oil; it is always seeking leverage, bargaining chips, and in need of Western and Sunni Arab aid. It will trade away its strategic assets with the Islamists in exchange for dividends of greater value from the West. But it won’t surrender its booty in advance of a negotiation, as the Bush Administration has demanded, before confirming that American and Israeli benefits will truly be forthcoming.

Bashar told Lesch in May 2007: “Whoever works more for our [Syria’s] interests, I will be their friend. It is about interests, not ideology, and if the United States works for my interests, I will be their friend.” When one has few friends, Bashar intimated, one cannot be choosy, implying that “Damascus has had no choice but to draw closer to Iran.” But if “given a legitimate option in another direction, it might loosen its ties to Teheran.”

Bashar has also told Lesch that he would be a “hero” if he could bring about the return of the Golan to Syria through negotiations. If the U.S. continues down the path of isolation and confrontation with Syria, a largely Sunni state, we will push it even more into the arms of Shia Iran and Hezbollah. The U.S. and Israel must now work towards an American-backed Israeli-Syrian peace treaty and arms control pact enabling Syria to join the U.S.-allied coalition of Sunni Arab states and Israel against Shia extremists—before the next, far more devastating war.


Gidon D. Remba is National Executive Director of Ameinu: Liberal Values, Progressive Israel. His commentary is available at http://www.ameinu.net/ and http://tough-dove-israel.blogspot.com/