although the summary offers a sobering view of multiple levels of failure in last summer’s war in lebanon, let us celebrate its characterization of itself, its genesis and function, and its understanding of the essential role of self-examination and learning in israel

from the Commission report:
“The Commission was appointed due to a strong sense of a crisis and deep disappointment with the consequences of the campaign and the way it was conducted. We regarded accepted this difficult task both as a duty and a privilege. It is our belief that the larger the event and the deeper the feeling of crisis - the greater the opportunity to change and improve matters which are essential for the security and the flourishing of state and society in Israel. We believe Israeli society has great strength and resilience, with a robust sense of the justice of its being and of its achievements. These, too, were expressed during the war in Lebanon and after it. At the same time, we must not underrate deep failures among us…

This conception of our role affected the way we operated. No-one underestimates the need to study what happened in the past, including the imposition of personal responsibility. The past is the key for learning lessons for the future…

This emphasis on learning lessons does not only follow from our conception of the role of a public Commission. It also follows from our belief that one of Israeli society’s greatest sources of strength is its being free, open, and creative. Together with great achievements, the challenges facing it are existential. To cope with them, Israel must be a learning society - a society which examines its achievements and, in particular, its failures, in order to improve its ability to face the future…”

read full article here

dr lerman’s weekly briefing concludes with the following:

“While important forces, in the region beyond our borders, and within our own society, do their work, it may be better (at least for the time being), painful as it is, to (recall) the words of T.S. Eliot:

I said to my soul, be still, and wait without hope,
For hope would be hope for the wrong thing; wait without love,
For love would be love of the wrong thing; there is yet faith
But the faith and the love and the hope are all in the waiting.”

full article here

brief excerpt from eran lerman’s weekly briefing on israeli and middle eastern affairs

… Rice did announce that regular consultations will be held from now on between the two leaders. Given current realities - the present nature of the Palestinian government; the continued captivity of Shalit; the steady “drizzle” of Qassam rockets on the northern Negev (luckily, in recent weeks, with no loss of life or limb and little damage); and above all, the Hamas military build-up in Gaza, which some Israeli commanders would like to preempt forcefully and soon - it is no trivial matter for any Israeli leader, let alone a highly unpopular prime minister, besieged by stories of scandal and presiding over a large but unwieldy coalition, to agree to hold biweekly meetings with Abbas and to commit to an extensive effort to solve the problems of daily life for the Palestinian population. It is, after all, at this basic level that relations between the two peoples are molded …

read entire article here

excerpt from an article in the foward by lee alderstein: “alvin rosenfeld is right about liberals and the jewish state”

“This is an especially tough time to be both liberal and vitally concerned about the future of Israel and Jewish communities. Liberalism, far from being a detracting word, has been great for Jews in placing highest priority on individual expression and activity, respecting diversity and shunning use of force, except to the minimum extent necessary for protecting innocents.

Recent history, however, has confirmed that the liberal approach often falls down in the area of security. Brutal and hate-filled predators are using open societies to commit outrages in many places against innocent people, including Jews. Many in the community, including some of the most generous progressives, are refusing to view the world through rose-colored glasses when they witness bombings and beatings on the streets of Jerusalem and in the Western cities.”

read entire article here

from the associated press
march 6, 2007

Israel, Iran and the United States are the countries with the most negative image in a globe-spanning survey of attitudes toward 12 major nations. Canada and Japan came out best in the poll, released on Monday.

The survey for the British Broadcasting Corp.’s World Service asked more than 28,000 people to rate 12 countries - Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the United States and Venezuela  as having a positive or negative influence on the world.

Israel was viewed negatively by 56 percent of respondents and positively by 17 percent; for Iran, the figures were 54 percent and 18 percent. The United States had the third-highest negative ranking, with 51 percent citing it as a bad influence and 30 percent as a good one. Next was North Korea, which was viewed negatively by 48 percent and positively by 19 percent.

Canada had the most positive rating in the survey of 28,389 people in 27 countries, with 54 percent viewing it positively and 14 percent negatively. It was followed by Japan and France.

Respondents were also asked their views of the 25-member European Union; 53 percent saw it as positive and 19 percent as negative.

Britain, China and India were viewed more positively than negatively, while Russia had more negative than positive responses. Opinion on Venezuela was evenly split.

It appears that people around the world tend to look negatively on countries whose profile is marked by the pursuit of military power, said Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland’s Program onInternational Policy Attitudes, which conducted the research along with pollster GlobeScan.

Countries that relate to the world primarily through soft power, like France and Japan and the EU in general, tend to be viewed positively, he added.

from the jta global news service
by ben harris
new york, feb. 7

An essay that drew scant attention upon its publication is now fueling a growing debate over the contours of Israel advocacy in the United States and a furious backlash against alleged attempts in the Jewish community to stifle criticism of Israel.

“Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,” an essay by Indiana University professor Alvin Rosenfeld, accuses several prominent Jews - among them historian Tony Judt, playwright Tony Kushner and Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen - of fomenting anti-Semitism through excessive criticism of Israel.

The essay was largely ignored when it was released late last year, but a recent New York Times story about it has given new life to accusations that the organized Jewish community has no tolerance for criticism of Israel.

It also has galvanized “progressive” Jewish groups, who believe it is immoral to remain silent in the face of what they see as Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians.

“Things are changing,” said Phil Weiss, a longtime contributor to the New York Observer. “My perception is that the Jewish community, the Jewish progressives, are feeling licensed and rising up.”

Weiss announced on his blog Monday that Jewish progressives have become a “movement,” citing a number of recent developments. They include the launch of Muzzlewatch, a blog chronicling alleged suppression of criticism of Israel, and the Zionist Organization of America’s failure to have a liberal group ousted from a pro-Israel alliance.

Indeed, the essay may be having the opposite of its intended effect. Rather than drawing attention to the threat posed by virulent Jewish critics of Israel, attention has turned to the essay itself and its publisher, the American Jewish Committee, which is fending off accusations that it squashes any dissent from what is depicted as establishment orthodoxy.

read article in its entirety

interview with professor bernard lewis
from the jerusalem post
january 31, 2007
by tovah lazaroff and david horovitz

brief excerpt: 

Seating himself in the center of The Jerusalem Post’s conference room, Prof. Bernard Lewis preferred to eschew any kind of opening remarks, and instead simply invited our questions. Arguably the preeminent Islamic historian and scholar of his age, Lewis, who turned 90 last May, handled the resulting avalanche with absolute equanimity.

His English accent undimmed by recent decades spent living in America, Lewis, who was born in London into a middle-class Jewish family, sketched out a vision of extremist Islamic ambition at chilling odds with his placid, soft-spoken delivery.

read entirety of the jerusalem post article

brief excerpt:
Suffice it to say that the individuals described by Professor Rosenfeld are not “liberals” in the classic sense who have this or that grievance about Israeli policy. Not only does AJC fully respect and defend the right of debate about Israeli policies, but we have been long-time participants in that debate.

Rather, the individuals Rosenfeld mentions are on the political fringes in asserting that Israel has no right to exist and should either be destroyed or morphed into a so-called binational state, which means the end of Israel as we know it. While some are more vitriolic than others in their writings, this is their common denominator (with the exception of columnist Richard Cohen, who was cited by Professor Rosenfeld for disturbing comments expressed this summer that do not reflect the totality of his occasional writings on the Middle East). Their language needs to be read to understand why Professor Rosenfeld felt compelled to write his essay – and why the American Jewish Committee chose to publish it.

Professor Rosenfeld has courageously taken on the threat that arises when a Jewish imprimatur is given to the campaign to challenge Israel’s very legitimacy. He has the right to express his views no less than those whom he challenges. It is important to stress that he has not suggested that those about whom he writes are anti-Semitic. As befits a highly regarded scholar, he has written a well-documented and thought-provoking essay that deserves to be considered on its merits.

No other nation faces the same daunting challenges to its very right to exist, 58 years after its establishment, than Israel. No other nation faces enemies, from Iran to Hamas and Hezbollah, who openly call for its annihilation and seek the military means to achieve that objective. And yet, even under these trying circumstances, Israel is home to a vibrant political debate about the best course of action to secure its future as a democratic and Jewish state living in peace with its neighbors.

The American Jewish Committee was described in yesterday’s New York Times article as an “ardent defender of Israel.” To that badge of honor, we proudly plead guilty.

read in its entirety

the new york times article by patricia cohen published on january 31, 2007 has indeed sparked a furor: here is a copy of the original piece

in a provocative and troubling six part series posted on gather.com, alan deshowitz explores the financial relationship between former president jimmy carter and the middle eastern arab community: hundreds of millions of dollars are in question
access full series here

rachel ehrenfeld in the washington times on december 21, 2006 authored an op-ed in a similar vein, entitled “carter’s arab financiers”
view ehrenfeld’s article here