FOLLOW US ON...

CANDLELIGHTING

THE JEWISH VIEW

HOLIDAYS

JUDAISM 101

FEATURED JOBS
Post Your Resume

A quick comment on Newt Gingrich’s rise in GOP presidential sweepstakes: I interviewed him several times while editor of the Atlanta Jewish Times in the 90s and in early 1995 wrote a 4,000 word cover story on him.

He is deeply paradoxical: He has a truly flawed ethical past regarding his marriages, had a number of close Jewish supporters, a highly respected intellect, fantastic speaking skills, a remarkable grasp of complicated issues and a strong Likud orientation on Israel. He also is a ruthless politician with remarkable focus.

In short, it was hard to argue with Newt because he knew so much. Rather, it was best to listen then go home and think about it—a luxury of time that politics does not often allow.

On Israel he was a center-right and not hard right. In other words, he was willing to engage in the possible. He would not think of tolerating anti-Semitism. He spoke in front of several Jewish groups—including a Conservative synagogue (Etz Chaim—across the street from his district office) and to the Haredi Orthodox Torah Day School.

I once asked him, “You describe yourself as a man of faith. How would you describe your faith?”

His response: “Total.”

Me: “Can you explain that a little?

Him: “Total.”

In other words, that’s my answer and that’s all you’re going to get. Sharp indeed. 

A huge question is whether Newt could work with Democrats on anything. The architect of the 1994 Contract With America (jokingly referred to by Democrats as Contract On America) is not one known for compromise from stated positions.

Personally, I do not think Newt will overcome his personal past and become the nominee (but who knows?). I do know that when it comes to intellect, he is hands down the brightest GOPer in the race.

Among the frightening scenarios facing Israel these days as the Arab Spring sputters and spurts along is the uncertainty of the Israel-Egyptian relationship, which some fear could ultimately result in Cairo tearing up its famed 1979 peace treaty with Jerusalem.

Only yesterday (Thursday) the important natural gas pipeline from Egypt to Israel was purposely exploded by anti-Israel radicals for the seventh time since February (when Egypt’s revolution was in its initial days. See more at: http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-10/egypt-s-natural-gas-pipeline-to-israel-jordan-struck-by-double-explosion?category=%2F
).

This all raises fears that the Cold Peace between the neighbors will become a Cold War.

In truth, it’s been that way for a while. Yet holding the formal ties together – prompted by the U.S. “buying the peace” in 1979 with billions in military aid each year to both countries – have been long-time Egyptian leaders Hosni Mubarak and intelligence boss Omar Suleiman. The first is now arrested and on trial, the second out of favor (although I imagine he’s being protected from prosecution by Egypt’s new army bosses).

So what will happen? On Wednesday I met Lt. Col. (Res.) Ronnie Porat for coffee. He’s currently the Jewish National Fund Israel Emissary for Southern and Florida zones. Prior to that he served for a number of years in the Israel Defense Forces intelligence and operations branch. As his bio says, he was “conducting research on Egyptian-Israeli military history.” At various points, he worked in Israel’s embassy in Amman, Jordan and in Israel’s embassy in Cairo.

He stressed that he was not speaking on behalf of JNF, but as a private individual. And he sees a much brighter picture than many. I think it’s too early to tell, and told him that.

“The Arab Spring will be bringing, in the long run, positive things to Israel and Egypt,” he said without equivocation, noting Israeli Jewish society still suffers from the “Holocaust syndrome” of fear, which as a son of Holocaust survivors he understands but thinks has created far too much angst.

With Egypt, for example, he correctly noted that it’s not in the interest of that country’s next rulers—likely after the scheduled March 2012 presidential elections to form a coalition with former army/intelligence folks, Moslem Brotherhood representatives and secular democrats – to have tensions with Israel.

In addition to the 1979 peace treaty limiting Egyptian military forces in the Sinai Desert into three zones, he noted that tankers passing through the Suez Canal (whose closure prompted wars with Israel in 1956 and 1967) bring Egypt $5 billion a year.

With a once $12 billion a year and now tottering tourist industry (for obvious reasons), that Suez revenue is even more important.

“The main problem that should be addressed immediately by the Egyptian—current and future—regime is the internal economic one,” he said. “If the current peaceful situation will be changed into a sort of a tension between the two countries, it will badly affect the tourism, as well as the naval traffic through the Suez Canal. So it’s definitely in Egypt’s interest to maintain the peaceful—even if it described as cold peace—status quo.”

Then he added, “It looks like that even if the Moslem Brotherhood will be an influential component in the future Egyptian local politics, they will definitely need to consider the facts above.”

I noted that while I agreed with much of what he said, his is the rosiest scenario.

I’m concerned that Egypt’s rulers will let off popular steam by allowing a loser patrolling of the border with Gaza, allowing in even more weapons. He disagreed saying, “That’s already happening.”

Indeed, today there are reports that Israel will equip its El Al planes with anti-missile systems as rockets are said to be coming into Gaza from Libya (and guess where they have to cross first – yep, Egypt). (Read more at: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-israel-to-equip-airliners-with-anti-missile-system-as-libyan-arms-reach-gaza-1.395057 .)

And, I added, it could get worse. Egypt’s rulers could use tensions in Gaza to keep Israel off balance, which would raise the popularity of those rulers with the infamous “Arab street,” which could distract from economic woes at home.

I certainly hope I’m wrong.

Long-time Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Correspondent Herb Keinon had some interesting words at a lunch meeting today, sponsored by the American Jewish Committee and the Baltimore Jewish Council.

Only days after President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were heard – when they thought the microphone was off—insulting Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Keinon gave a “so what” response. As the product of Denver’s Jewish community and Israeli since the early 1980s said, whose surprised? Sure, it’s news, he added, but it doesn’t really matter because leaders don’t have to like each other; they just need to work together and by all accounts the U.S.-Israeli relationship in the sphere that counts most – the military one – is thriving.

And, I add, if the U.S.-Israel relationship is only as strong as the person in the White House, it’s pretty fickle – which it’s not.

But Keinon’s further analysis of Obama and the Jews was spot on. He noted how the President first did outreach to the Moslem and Arab world by visiting Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the latter venue where he gave an important address to a gathering of Moslem leaders and intellectuals.

That actually was good, Keinon said, because if America is stronger Israel is strong. What was bad was that not only did Obama skip Israel on that trip (and every journey since becoming President), but he linked the creation of Israel to the Holocaust. “The Zionist movement was founded some 70 years before the State of Israel,” he said. “It wasn’t created by the Holocaust.”

He’s right. But Keinon – to the surprise of some – gave Obama a thumbs up for recent actions. Obama came into office, he said, with a very different worldview than Israelis and Netanyahu; the American believed negotiations can work while he did not understand that Israel presented a public battered and untrusting of dialogue with a people whose leaders for decades have said they want to wipe them out. (And he gave a fascinating aside as to how he – with a self-described liberal upbringing and now a resident of the West Bank suburb of Ma’alei Adumin – has strived to educate his four children to understand that not all Palestinians or Arabs are evil.)

Obama’s “good behavior” began with the September U.N. speech in which the president gave full and staunch backing to Israel’s right to exist (absurd that it even had to be mentioned), rejection of the U.N. declaring a Palestinian state (thus mocking negotiations) and strong language that the U.S. would never remove itself from Israel’s side.

“President Obama stood up and gave the most pro-Israel speech of the past three years,” Keinon said. “You can say it doesn’t matter and you don’t put much stock in it. You can say it was about the 2012 elections. You can say it came after what happened in the New York election [where a Democratic, Jewish district went Republican]. Or he didn’t mean it. Certainly some of that may be true, but I say, `So what?’

“It sends an important message to the Egyptians and the world that the President of the United States is not an autocrat, that he has limits on what he can do.”

And that is a product of American Jewish networking, lobbying, politicking and coalition building. That, in fact, is remarkable – particularly when looking at the course of modern Jewish history. Despite the ups and days and the headlines of the day, it shouldn’t be forgotten.

A new Anti-Defamation League national survey finds that 31 percent of Americans still agree that “Jews were responsible for the death of Christ.” (See more on the report here: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/6154_12.htm )

On the one hand – sadly – this is progress. After all, until 1965 the Roman Catholic Church (whose policy still sets the pace for a huge swathe of the Christian world) still technically blamed “the Jews” for the death of Jesus.

Of course, then and now the notion was indefensible by any logic. That is because Jesus and his disciples were all Jews and to them, the world was divided into Jews and non-Jews (albeit on the one side “good Jews” and “bad Jews”). They always saw themselves as Jews. Period—albeit ones who followed the teachings of Yeshu ben-Yosef – a.k.a. Jesus, son of Joseph, whom we call Jesus of Nazareth (Christ deriving from the Greek word for messiah, or anointed one).

Semantics aside, today this is a deep failure not only of American Christians, but of interfaith dialogue groups of which both many Jews and Christians have invested great energy.

If there is a silver lining to the gray cloud, it is this: “only” 15 percent of Americans hold “deeply anti-Semitic views.” And as disturbing as that is, it’s an improvement from past generations (albeit a marginal increase over the past few years, which – again sadly – is not a surprise in these miserable economic times).

Upon learning such information, I reflect on what Rabbi Tarfon said in the Talmud – and what I think is a metaphor for the long march of Jewish life “Yours is not to finish from the process of creation, neither is it to desist from it.” In this case, the task of normalizing Christian-Jewish relations is massive and will not be completed any time soon (if ever), but it cannot be forsaken. Chief among the reasons why is we know that working on it can literally saves lives – particularly our own.