tikkundaily
Log in to comment or register to create your own blog
Crossposted on Tikkun Daily
Britain and France are coordinating unprecedented diplomatic protests of Israel's planned settlement expansion in the wake of the Palestinians' U.N. statehood bid.
In retaliation for Palestine attaining non-member state observer status at the U.N. on Thursday, Israel announced that it would retaliate by building 3,000 new units in a West Bank area, E-1, long considered a red line by Europe and the U.S.
As German and Dutch officials warned that they may pull diplomatic support for Israel over the settlement expansion plans, Britain and France prepared to potentially recall their ambassadors:
Britain and France are poised to take action − possibly including the unprecedented step of recalling their ambassadors, according to senior European diplomats − in protest at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to move settlement construction ahead in the area known as E1, between Ma'aleh Adumim and Jerusalem.
"This time it won't just be a condemnation, there will be real action taken against Israel," a senior European diplomat said.
Netanyahu's decision Friday to move ahead on construction in E1 and to build 3,000 housing units in the settlement blocs east of Jerusalem, has apparently shocked the foreign ministries and the leaders in London and Paris. Not only do Britain and France view construction in E1 as a "red line," they are reportedly angry because they view Israel as having responded ungratefully to the support the two countries gave it during the recent Gaza operation.
Israeli officials on Thursday admitted they had "lost Europe" after the Czech Republic was the only E.U. country to vote no on Palestine becoming a non-member state at the U.N. Now, Israel is testing Washington's resolve by building in a sensitive West Bank area it had explicitly promised the U.S. it would not touch.
Today, an Israeli official called that agreement with the U.S. "no longer relevant." However, prominent (past) U.S. officials disagreed:
"Building in E-1 has been a red line for the United States, and for a reason-it would lead to the bifurcation of the West Bank and render territorial contiguity there nearly impossible," former senior State Department official Robert Danin told Al-Monitor Sunday, noting that he spent over 20 years working Middle East issues for the State Department under both Republican and Democratic administrations. "I don't see any administration acquiescing to building there."
"If the announcement is real and not simply a PR move for internal politics reasons, it should spur the Administration into action, as the United States has been adamant for many years, including in the Bush Administration, that Israel not build in E-1," former US Ambassador to Israel Kurtzer told Al-Monitor Friday.
While the Obama administration has sharply condemned Israel's announcement, no further diplomatic steps have been taken.
However, as diplomatic pressure from Europe mounts in unprecedented ways, making the U.S. increasingly isolated in its approach, the Obama administration may be compelled to consider a shift, particularly given that Israel is responding to such pressure from the West with increased stubbornness:
Despite the protests from Europe, a source in the Prime Minister's Office said that Israel is planning to take more steps against the Palestinian Authority. "The Palestinians will soon come to understand that they made a mistake when they took unilateral action and breached their treaties with Israel.
As Israel continues to back itself into a corner, losing the "quality minority" of Western nations it once had, many wonder how far Europe will go in a last-ditch attempt to diplomatically save the chance for two, self-determining states.
The U.S., spurned and disrespected by Israel after being one of only nine nations to vote against Palestinian statehood at the U.N., must decide whether it can afford to perpetuate the status quo - alone.
To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Daily’s free newsletter , sign up for Tikkun Magazine emails or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Crossposted on Tikkun Daily / By Matt Sienkiewicz
For years residents of southern Israel have lived in the fear of rockets falling on their homes and schools. It is a terrifying reality and one that no ethically minded person should accept or attempt to justify. Any show of support for people living in such circumstances is laudable, particularly if it draws attention to the broader military and political circumstances in which such terror flourishes.
It was not, however, low-tech but lethal rockets falling on Sderot that prompted thousands of people to participate in “Stand with Israel” events last week. It was, paradoxically, a full-fledged military assault on the Gaza Strip that provoked such action.
Though I disagree, I understand that for some Israel’s attack appeared to be a necessary action in the context of a long-running war. What I cannot accept, however, is the insinuation that “Pillar of Cloud” in any way illustrated Israel’s vulnerability or its need for further external support. “Standing”with Israel during last week’s assault did not denote support for people, Israeli or otherwise. It was support for a status quo in which cyclical mass violence has become accepted and even valorized.
Take, for example, the online I Stand With Israel Day movement. Yes, it’s only a Facebook event, but it is nonetheless over 18,000 people deep and still growing; and it’s indicative of some of the most troubling elements of the “pro-Israel” world. Employing a logic distorted by the lens of war, the event asked members to “stand with Israel” and thereby “stand for peace” as the IDF brought death upon both combatants and the civilians caught in the crossfire. The rhetoric of “I Stand With Israel Day” demands that we ignore the horrible reality of war in order to engage in a parable in which Israel is the White Knight to Gaza’s black-hearted villain. Acts of extreme violence may be necessary in the worst of circumstances. By definition, however, they are not acts of peace. To position them as such is dishonest assumes that Jewish victimhood can explain even the most aggressive actions.
Even more disturbing, however, is that the rhetoric of Standing with Israel only seems to emerge in instances in which it is Israeli policies, and not people, that are under distress. “I Stand With Israel Day” did not ask for blankets or blood donations or letters of caring support to the citizens of Ashkelon, Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. It instead asked for advocacy- imploring Facebook members to counter any critic who opposes Israeli military action. The movement attempts to twist reality, taking the real life strength of Israel’s army and conflating it with a perceived weakness in terms of international political support. The powerful Israeli Defence Forces were thus positioned as underdogs. Concern for the disempowered people of Gaza somehow became, by implication, an act of oppression.
This perversion of reality prevents us from asking the most fundamental question of all: how did this war, with all of its death and destruction, ultimately provide security for the people of Israel? How will it be any more effective than Operation Cast Lead which, quite obviously, did not provide long-term protection for Israelis or Palestinians? The truth is that “Pillar of Cloud”was not the act of an overpowered nation desperately trying to protect its citizens. Justified or not, it was a well-planned attack by a world-class military. World-class militaries do not need people to stand with them. People, whether Israeli, Palestinian or anything else, need people to stand with them. If standing with Israel means demanding that the Israeli government do everything it can to secure the long-term peace and security of its people, then I will be first in line. If it means playing at public relations for one of the world’s most powerful defense forces, I’ll keep sitting out.
Matt Sienkiewicz is a Modern Orthodox Jewish American who researches and teaches global media at Boston College. His documentary Live From Bethlehem is available from the Media Education Foundation and he can be followed on Twitter.
To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Daily’s free newsletter , sign up for Tikkun Magazine emails or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Crossposted on Tikkun Daily / By David Harris-Gershon
Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai, in a moment of disturbing candor, revealed what is for many in Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government the ultimate goal of its escalating military campaign on Gaza:
“The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years.”
Now, part of Yishai’s bombast comes from the fact that, as a known racist and head of the ultra-orthodox Shas party, he’d feel much more comfortable in the Middle Ages himself.
However, his statement reveals an essential truth few Israeli leaders dare to articulate. And that truth is this: the current military throttling of Gaza has less to do with security and more to do with destabilizing Gaza as much as possible.
Put another way, the military campaign is less about destroying Hamas’s weaponry and more about creating a situation in which Hamas remains both militant and strong.
Why?
As I explained in a previous piece:
Israel has engaged in its current, escalating military campaign not to protect Israelis from a militant Hamas, but in order to ensure that Hamas in Gaza remains militant.
Why? The answer is simple and twofold: a) Netanyahu’s government wants a militant Hamas in Gaza; it wants a situation in which Gaza becomes isolated from the West Bank, hoping eventually Greater Israel will be obtained with Gaza becoming a separate entity, and b) with Israeli elections set for January, electoral motivations are undeniably in play with regard to this sudden military barrage.
Now, nobody is questioning whether Israel should be able to defend itself from rocket attacks on its citizens. But the tactics of bombing hundreds of Hamas strongholds and assassinating Hamas leaders is part of a larger strategy meant to maintain the status quo, not make Israelis safer in the long run.
As Janine Zacharia wisely wrote in Slate:
To be sure, Israel will once again achieve many of its short-term tactical goals, assassinating a handful of Hamas leaders, leveling militant safe houses, and eliminating scores of Hamas military installations or weapon depots. And, in the end, Israel will be no safer, although it will surely be more alone in the world and living in a neighborhood that is less tolerant of its aggressive countermeasures.
It’s time to declare Israel’s policy toward Gaza and Hamas a failure.
This is not an anti-Israel statement. Rather, it is an honest acknowledgment of the facts, which are simply too numerous to avoid.
Which brings us back to Yishai: The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages.
Translated? The goal is not to protect Israelis from rocket fire, but to make Gaza as archaic and poor a place as possible to live. A place where extremism can continue to thrive.
Follow David Harris-Gershon on Twitter @David_EHG
To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Daily’s free newsletter , sign up for Tikkun Magazine emails or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Crossposted on Tikkun Daily
By Nicholas Saidel
Due to a breakdown in budget negotiations within the governing Likud-led coalition, Israel is now scheduled to hold elections on January 22, 2013. What a perfect opportunity for liberal Zionists in America who support U.S. President Barack Obama to pull a “Bibi,” that is to say, to be actively engaged — dare I say meddlesome — in the upcoming Israeli elections in order to help oust current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu from power. For those unfamiliar, during a critical period of the U.S. presidential campaign, Bibi went public with his disagreements with Obama over the Iranian nuclear issue, leaked a story about being snubbed by Obama after requesting a meeting, and lavishly courted republican presidential candidate and former colleague Mitt Romney during his trip to Israel earlier this year.
These tactics were intended to bind Obama to Israeli red lines for military action against Iran by exploiting his vulnerability to attacks from the right during the campaign season. But they were also a not-so-subtle endorsement of Romney. This unprecedented candidate support from a foreign leader has made liberal American Zionists who support Obama both angry and distraught. Luckily, there is now a chance to reciprocate the gesture. Considering what’s at stake, it is not simply a matter of payback, but rather a moral imperative for liberal American Zionists to abandon the traditional “wait and see” approach and instead speak up during the forthcoming electoral season in Israel.
Let us be clear: Bibi’s policies, if left unchecked, may mean the end of Israel as we know it, i.e. as a Jewish and democratic state. The prolonged occupation of the Palestinian people, the “Judaization” of East Jerusalem and the continued settlement expansion in the West Bank has basically destroyed the possibility of a two-state solution (perhaps what Likud wants but won’t yet admit). And though you wouldn’t know it from the American presidential debates, these policies have made Israel a pariah on the world stage, and have led to increased isolation and vulnerability to delegitimization campaigns such as the BDS movement. Making a grim future even bleaker is Bibi’s fixation on waging war with Iran, a decision most Israeli intelligence and military experts agree would be calamitous for Israel.
With this in mind, concerned Jews, individually but more importantly through the policy-influencing Jewish organizations whose purse strings they control, should start endorsing those parties and candidates within Israel whose policies are consistent with the traditional Zionist vision and Jewish values such as those concerning human rights. Israel advocacy organizations in America, for the most part, do not endorse candidates running for office in Israel out of respect for the Israeli electorate and its sovereignty over domestic matters. However, the present crisis of leadership in Israel necessitates a revisiting of this principle, especially considering the alarming trend toward nationalist and religious extremism among the Israeli electorate.
Many American Jews have little faith left in the Israeli electorate to choose what is right for Israel. It is an electorate that has become disturbingly hard to recognize. A recent poll conducted by Dialog shows that, among other unsettling figures, a majority of Israelis oppose granting Palestinians voting rights even if Israel formally annexed the West Bank — arguably an acceptance of the institutionalization of Israeli apartheid. With respect to the impending election, polls show the Likud party and its right wing bloc, consisting of nationalist and religious parties, are expected to actually gain seats. As for Bibi personally, his approval rating is above 50%, more than twice as high as his nearest competitor. This simply cannot stand.
Another ominous sign for the left-wing and centrist parties within Israel, and for the prospect of peace with the Palestinians, is the recently announced electoral alliance between Likud and the more hawkish Yisrael Beiteinu, led by the polarizing ultra-nationalist Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. The wisdom of Bibi’s decision to unify these two powerful right-wing parties, now jointly known as Halikud Beiteinu, is questionable as it may alienate voters from both factions. Some Likud voters oppose Yisrael Beiteinu’s staunch secularism and some Yisrael Beiteinu voters oppose Likud’s professed interest in the creation of a Palestinian state based on the Oslo principles of land-for-peace. In response to the merger, Labor Party leader Shelly Yachimovich, a candidate whose focus is on social and economic issues, called upon Tzipi Livni and the center-left parties within Israel such as Kadima and Yesh Atid to join Labor under a unity ticket.
Not withstanding a possible center-left merger, it is conceivable that Bibi’s gambit could increase the collective power of Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu in the next government. Some internal polls by both parties predict a gain of up to five seats for the new alliance, from 42 to 47 out of the 120-member Knesset. Perhaps more dangerously, the merger could pave the way for long term right-wing dominance of Israeli politics and the grooming of Lieberman, who is seen by many within Israel as an anti-Arab racist, as the next head of Likud and the successor to Bibi as the Prime Minister of Israel.
At the risk of sounding elitist or patronizing, to influence the Israeli electorate back to the moderation of decades past is in the best interests of Israel as it will protect the path toward a negotiated two-state solution. And at the risk of sounding self-interested, it is in the interests of American Jews as well — most of whom count on Israel to be the permanent national homeland and safe haven for the Jewish people. It is for this reason so many Jews here in America so tirelessly advocate on behalf of Israel to our elected leaders. Israel has a vested interest in maintaining its somewhat symbiotic relationship with American Jews. American Jews are the conduit through which Israel’s “special relationship” with America is preserved, a relationship particularly special now that Israel’s list of allies has grown so thin. Considering anti-Zionism is on the rise for young American Jews due to Israeli illiberalism, it behooves Israel to repair the broken relationship with what’s left of the liberal Zionist camp. Repairing this relationship will increase the degree of leverage this camp can exert both in the domestic Israel-lobbying scene as well as in Israel itself.
Lobbying the lobbyists in Washington, D.C. to endorse specific parties and candidates in Israel presents profound challenges and may prove impossible. It will require mobilizing support for transformational change on the part of organizations like AIPAC, which as of now works mostly to ensure aid to Israel and American backing of policies set in place by the sitting Israeli government. It also raises serious questions such as how these lobbying groups will work with elected Israeli leaders whom they didn’t support during the campaign. More uncomfortably, the question also becomes whether aid procurement efforts should be, to some extent, contingent upon the election of Israeli leaders with whom American Jews agree on some baseline level.
While effectuating large-scale structural change poses many obstacles, individual liberal American Zionists should nonetheless be proactively engaged in the concededly complex Israeli electoral landscape. This could entail writing letters to the editor or guest op-eds in prominent Israeli media outlets or, even better, making campaign contributions to candidates. Aside from the old guard candidates, like Shaul Mofaz, Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni, who seem to shuffle in and out of the political scene and whose politics closely mirror that of each other, there are some new faces with good ideas. For example, Peace Now Executive-Director Yariv Oppenheimer announced he is running in the Labor primary. He declared just last week: “In addition to the social agenda, the Labor Party must raise the diplomatic flag and fight against the expansion of settlement construction and waves of anti-democratic legislation that the Israeli Right is leading.” This statement, in and of itself, is a brave and encouraging stance worthy of vociferous praise.
Even if the effort to save Israel from itself is largely symbolic at the start, it is a worthwhile pursuit nonetheless. It will demonstrate to Israel and its electorate that efforts are underway in America to stem the tide within Israel towards illiberalism and the death of the state as we know it.
This post is an updated version of an article that originally appeared at The Times of Israel. It can be viewed here.
To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Daily’s free newsletter , sign up for Tikkun Magazine emails or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Crossposted on Tikkun Magazine
By James Vrettos
There are a series of relatively unpublicized trials presently going on this month in New York City that seem to represent attempts to settle civil disobedience efforts and nonviolent protests that challenged the New York Police Department’s increasingly unpopular stop-and-frisk policies and the way a whole generation of young people of color is being condemned to lives of criminalization, marginalization, brutality and the spirit-crushing, human-wasting confinement of the largest prison system in the world.
These trials involve Carl Dix who, along with Union Theological Seminary professor Cornel West, was the co-initiator of the “Stop Stop-and-Frisk” protests. He and several other activists in the movement are facing charges of disorderly conduct and obstruction of governmental administration which could result in two to four-plus years of jail time for them.
Stop and frisk practices have been increasingly put on the defensive by academic research which has shown the racist nature of the policy—85 percent of those stopped and frisked are Black and Hispanic and police are significantly more likely to use force when they stop them than when they stop whites. Most academic scholars concerned with the issue have conclusively argued that the proportion of gun seizures to stops has fallen sharply and the policy has not been a major factor behind lowered crime rates.
Furthermore, the policy has been stymied by various lawsuits including the granting of a federal class-action status by a federal judge, discussion of the creation of an Inspector General’s Office to monitor various police policies and practices—including stop and frisk, and the Bronx district attorney’s office decision to no longer prosecute people who were stopped at public housing projects and arrested for trespassing unless the arresting officer is interviewed.
Equally damaging has been the exposing of “policing by the numbers” management policy—a code for quotas in which crimes are being downgraded and police commanders are pitted against one another to match or exceed previous figures. Religious leaders, cultural figures, and politicians have been vigorously speaking out against the political and spiritual immorality of the practice as well.
The mayor and police commissioner seem to be fighting back and using these trials as an opportunity to punish these activists for questioning and challenging the policy. On the other hand, these trials potentially have the power to raise public consciousness about the New York City criminal justice system, which is increasingly based on a fear-based, surveillance-directed policing system. There is also the possibility that these trials could help formulate an alternative narrative which communicates the linkages of that system to the larger political, economic, and spiritual ethos of the culture in what West has warned are the “giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism” identified by Martin Luther King Jr. a year before his death.
For this alternative narrative to become viable and the links understood it should be recognized first that the American criminal justice system has generally not seen itself as an ideologically driven, politically class-based vehicle through which collective justice and punishment is meted out. Nor are attempts to change or resist the “system” by individuals or groups alike seen as part of a larger, justified “political or cultural social movement” designed to redress economic, political, racial, and/or moral grievances.
Instead our criminal justice system has been largely rooted in a tri-part philosophical base of science and the scientific method, classical criminology and deterrence, and a Judaic/Christian religious historical tradition. This has largely led to seeing the “problem” of crime as an individual or group “failing” and the solution as rooted in a trust of scientific, technocratic expertise, and policy manifested by established authority and the police.
Struggles to politically transform or question the system by ordinary individuals or protesting groups are seen as an invitation to chaos, unjustified questioning of legitimate and expert authority. Indeed, these struggles are seen as attempts to recklessly change a finely tuned mechanism that is allegedly working well and soundly rooted in tradition, scientific research, and moral fairness agreed to by general consensus in a free and open democracy.
It has become clear that we need a dialogue that is true to our democratic roots. We need more community participation to solve our common fears and needs for justice and security. It is this common humanity that should unite us, and the realization from those in power that they gain their mandate from ordinary people in those communities. When that is understood and that conversation begins, the hurt and violence of the system can begin to decrease on all sides.
This alternative narrative from the Judaic/Christian and secular American prophetic and progressive tradition of Martin Luther King Jr., Eugene Debs, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, Dorothy Day, George McGovern, Pete Seeger, Rosa Parks, Fannie Lou Hamer and countless other Americans—one that speaks truth to power—would focus on our common humanity and is capable of understanding the hurt in those communities as well as the abuse and exploitation of the police.
To deny that race and class do not matter in contemporary America and its criminal justice system is to deny the most obvious political, scientific, and moral reality of our society. To say that you are the president of the country (or the mayor, or the police chief of all the people of New York City) and then to carry out the political and economic policies that fundamentally benefit the interests of the 1 percent of the city or to promote criminal justice policies that overwhelmingly impact the city’s poorest communities of color is to deny the “political” nature of crime and the possible response to it—including political resistance to those policies and attempts to change them through broad-based nonviolent political and social movements.
The activists now on trial in New York have educated us to the class and racial nature of policies like stop-and-frisk—policies which are now hotly contested in the city and in the courts. In that sense, they have helped us understand a system that has taken our common humanity away from us all. They have furthered the sort of Judaic/Christian/secular narrative we need to have to help bring about the common healing and public safety we all desperately need and want. These freedom fighters need to be supported. Their charges need to be dropped. And the policy of stop-and-frisk needs to end (not be reformed) so that this more honest “political and spiritual” conversation can go forward.
James S. Vrettos has taught sociology, criminology, and criminal justice at John Jay College–City University of New York for twenty years. He coauthored the critically acclaimed text The Elementary Forms of Statistical Reason and has facilitated New York City's Tikkun Community organizing group. Professor James Vrettos was involved in an Oct. 21, 2011, Harlem civil disobedience action and subsequent trial protesting stop-and-frisk polices. To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Magazine emails or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.Crossposted on Tikkun Daily
When Binyamin Netanyahu began meddling in the U.S. election on Mitt Romney’s behalf, he began an unprecedented and brazen gambit that, this morning, has disastrously backfired.
And Israelis know it.
With Netanyahu’s own election only months away (set for January 22), pundits this morning in Israel recognize the clear damage Netanyahu has done to himself by disrespecting President Obama and betting on the wrong man.
Larry Derfner of +972 Magazine thinks last night may soon lead to Netanyahu’s demise:
If there is one loser in the U.S. election outside the U.S., it is Benjamin Netanyahu – and all of Israel knows it. No one is fooled by his denials that he backed Romney and opposed Obama as demonstratively as he possibly could. The widespread conviction, now that Obama has won four more years in the White House, is that Bibi has endangered Israel’s relationship with America in a way that is unprecedented in its recklessness. No Israeli prime minister ever took sides in a U.S. presidential election like Netanyahu just did, and his side lost.
If Romney had won, people here would be hailing Bibi right now as a genius, a prophet. But Obama won, which makes Bibi, in Israeli eyes, a screw-up of historic magnitude. He went and tracked mud on the Oval Office carpet right in front of the president’s eyes. The president couldn’t say anything during the campaign because of American domestic politics, but the campaign’s over and now Israelis are wondering when and how this newly-liberated president is going to take revenge on them for their prime minister’s spectacular arrogance. Conclusion: The only way to get America back on our side is to get rid of Bibi.
While Derfner may not be right that Netanyahu’s reckless and disrespectful treatment of President Obama will cost him his job, he is correct in noting how damaging this may be for Netanyahu.
In more measured tones, Haaretz’s Barak Ravid agrees:
The prime minister and his advisers followed Tuesday night’s developments on a split screen – on the left side, the U.S. elections, on the right side, the primaries in the Bayit Hayehudi party. The prime minister is fighting against both Obama and Naftali Bennett, and openly helped both of their opponents. In both cases, his gamble turned out to be wrong. Netanyahu woke up to a morning in which Obama is celebrating in Chicago and new Habayait Hayehudi leader Bennett is celebrating in Tel Aviv. For his miscalculations, Netanyahu will pay twice over – in the mandates that the Likud will lose.
Bottom line?
If you’re going to spectacularly and shockingly meddle in an election of your most critical ally, you’d better place your bets carefully.
Netanyahu didn’t.
As Matt Duss Tweeted through a grin:
Dear Bibi: Remember that time you lectured President Obama in the Oval Office? Because President Obama does.
- Matt Duss (@mattduss) November 7, 2012
You know who else remembers when Netanyahu lectured Obama in the Oval Office and in front of the U.S. electorate?
The Israeli electorate.
Follow David Harris-Gershon on Twitter @David_EHG
To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Daily’s free newsletter , sign up for Tikkun Magazine emails or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Crossposted on Tikkun Daily
Mitt Romney’s end-times theological beliefs have largely remained in the shadows during this election. However, a secretly-recorded video has resurfaced from Romney’s first presidential run, bringing renewed attention to Romney’s apocalyptic beliefs.
The video, recorded in 2007, shows Romney arguing off-air with conservative radio host Jan Mickelson, who prods Romney about his Mormon beliefs and attempts to get Romney to admit how different Mormonism is from evangelicalism.
Angrily and somewhat haltingly, Romney explains the LDS Church’s end-times theology, and how parts of its apocalyptic Second Coming theology aligns with evangelical teachings. While all of the video is worth viewing, the part in question begins at the 1:30 mark, in which Romney says:
Christ appears – it’s throughout the Bible – Christ appears in Jerusalem, splits the Mount of Olives to stop the war that’s coming in to kill all the Jews. Our church believes that. That’s where the coming and glory of Christ occurs. We also believe that over the 1000 years that follows, the millenium, he will reign from two places, that the law will come forward from one place (from Missouri), and the other will be in Jerusalem.
Now, Romney doesn’t explicitly say that he believes such apocalyptic beliefs – just that his church does. However, he begins the surreptitiously recorded session by claiming that as a leader and bishop of his church, he understands its teachings better than Mickelson.
And as Sarah Posner points out, what he’s said about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict does not line up with contemporary Mormon thinking, which could be described as non-apocalyptic.
Posner eloquently and rightly explains:
The question that’s being raised now, as this video resurfaces and generates discussion, is: does Romney himself really believe this? Does he somehow revel in a “war that’s coming in to kill all the Jews,” or see it as inevitable?[...]
Apocalyptic beliefs are a Republican problem, though, not just a Romney problem; for example, George W. Bush, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee are all evangelicals who forged relationships with apocalyptic preacher John Hagee. I would very much like to know whether they co-sign Hagee’s apocalyptic visions.
I want to know the same answers about Romney, but not because he’s Mormon. Equally as pertinent to what Romney himself believes is what he thinks his base believes, and to what extent, as president, he’d be worrying about placating them. Remember, he was trying to show Mickelson he believes the same things evangelicals do. He’s running for president, for Pete’s sake!
I think we’d all like to know those answers about Romney. After all, he takes this stuff very seriously.
Follow David Harris-Gershon on Twitter @David_EHG
To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Daily’s free newsletter , sign up for Tikkun Magazine emails or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Crossposted on Tikkun Daily
By Cat Zavis
Richard Mourdock, a Republican candidate for Senate in Indiana, recently made the following statement during a debate for the Senate: “Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” Here is my reply:
Richard Mourdock
A Letter to Richard Mourdock
Seriously, Mr. Mourdock, when a woman gets pregnant from rape, “God intended that to happen”? What exactly did God intend to happen, the rape, the pregnancy? Let’s remember that without the rape there would be no pregnancy.
So, let’s talk about RAPE. And I mean, let’s REALLY talk about RAPE.
Rape is typically defined as when one person forcibly engages in sexual intercourse (sexual intercourse includes both vaginal and anal penetration either with a body part or an object) with another person against that person’s will.
What might that look like? Well, it can look like someone taking a stick or other object and putting it inside a woman’s vagina or a person’s anus. It can mean placing one’s finger or tongue inside the woman’s vagina or a person’s anus. It can also mean placing one’s penis inside a woman’s vagina or a woman or man’s anus.
Let’s keep in mind that in any and all of these instances, if it is rape, it means that the person having the object or body part inserted into him or her did NOT want that to happen. In fact, they explicitly said NO.
I’m kind of curious, Mr. Mourdock, is that what God intended? For people to have their bodies violated by another person? Because if that is what God intended, I want NO part of your God. And, I want to understand how you could allege to possibly know what God intended?
Mr. Mourdock, please close your eyes and allow yourself to feel and imagine the following:
You are walking home one night; it is a beautiful warm, balmy evening. You love the feel of the light breeze on your body. The fresh air is lovely to breathe in. You are thinking of how happy you are, how much you love your wife and children and how wonderful your life really is. You do not have a care in the world. Then suddenly out of nowhere, you are jumped from behind and taken down on the sidewalk. You hit the ground rather hard and your head hurts. You are terrified for your life. You imagine the person is going to take your wallet, watch and any other valuables you have on your person when suddenly he undoes your pants and pulls them down to your ankles. You are confused and horrified – what is he going to do. This can’t be happening. You scream and yet there is no one around. And the next thing you know, you are being raped.
Mr. Mourdock, I’m just wondering, at what point during that interaction are you thinking, “this is what God intended.” And please don’t tell me God did not intend this rape, only rapes that result in pregnancy, because without the rape, there is no pregnancy. You do not get to choose while being raped whether God intended it or not. The pregnancy is not an act of God anymore than the rape is.
I do not believe, Mr. Mourdock, that God intends for horrible things to happen, for people to suffer, and out of that suffering for a child to be born. God (regardless of what God you believe in) does not intend for people to suffer.
There is another God – the one who created a world filled with riches, beauty, awe, wonder and abundance. A world where we can all have our basic needs met without any harm to any being or the planet itself. One of my basic needs as a woman, and dare I suggest, one of your basic needs as well Mr. Mourdock, is for every person to be safe and secure in his or her own body. You seem to have no problem valuing this need for a fetus, can you please help me understand how come you do not value this need for my life?
When you say that “Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen”, what I hear is that you do not value or care about women’s lives, safety and well-being. Is that true or are you just playing a political game? If you do not value women, then you do not deserve to go to Washington, D.C. to represent women. And if this is simply a political game you are playing to win, then shame on you. This is not a funny game. This is a matter of life and death.
I am not angry Mr. Mourdock. I am horrified and heartbroken that your thoughts and positions could be so deeply removed from the actual lived experiences of rape victims. I want politicians who are willing to listen to the needs of their constituents, who have compassion, and who care about the well-being of all beings – including living and breathing women. And what this compassion and care would look like to me Mr. Mourdock is not presuming to know what God intended for someone else or how someone else should act in such a circumstance. I want politicians who place the most personal decisions in a woman’s life in the hands of that very woman herself. A politician who trusts that each individual, and only each individual, knows what is best for her and what she needs to heal and move forward after such a traumatic event. A politician who trusts that each individual knows what her God intends for her life rather than presume that he knows better.
In your words, I do not hear one ounce of care or compassion. Mr. Mourdock I do not trust you to make decisions that are grounded in care and compassion for women. Until you can show that you actually care about women, you do not deserve to represent them in the United States Senate.
To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Daily’s free newsletter , sign up for Tikkun Magazine emails or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Crossposted on Tikkun Daily
By Eli Zaretsky
If Obama wins, there will be a collective sigh of relief that Romney has been defeated but probably not much excitement over a meandering and uninspiring campaign’s victory. But if Obama loses there will be a great debate among Democrats as to what went wrong. Some will say that Obama went too far to the left, others to the right. But inevitably, the Left will be blamed for not being sufficiently supportive– not recognizing his achievements, saving us from another Great Depression, achieving health care and banking reform, supporting women’s rights, etc., etc. For me, Obama needed nothing so much as an independent, critical Left, but if he fails to gain reelection the failure will be his. Consider the record:
1-The Budget: Since 1933 the Right has had one mantra: cut government spending; balance the budget. In one way or another Democratic politicians have had to finesse this issue for the simple reason that the government’s budget is not the same as a household, and the government can run a deficit for such ends as wars or to make social advances. As to entitlements, they are called that for a reason. They were instituted to counterbalance the permanent inequities that the market brings.
Obama’s first great failure is that he has allowed the Republicans to define his agenda for him, by falling into their trap of conceding that the budget was the number one problem facing us. Its Obama that appointed Bowles-Simpson, that agreed to sequestration, that has made cutting government spending THE inevitable issue for the next decade or so. This is one huge reason for his failure, if he fails.
2- Health Care: The health care issue is left over from the New Deal reforms. Health care is a right, an entitlement, just as good public schools and safe streets and roads are rights. Obama’s second great failure was to redefine health care as a cost-cutting issue. Reforms don’t speak for themselves. Of course if the Republicans win, they will gut health care, but even if they lose we are in for a series of fights centered on cutting health care costs. Let us never forget, it was Obama who first raised the issue of how much money we were spending on people in the last six months of their life. In doing so, he let the Republicans pose as the defenders of Medicare, his second disastrous mistake.
3- Unions: Under Obama we have seen union rights rolled back drastically, teachers and policemen fired, services cut in state after state. In all of this Obama NEVER said one word about the need for unions. He stayed out of Wisconsin, for example. This is the third great reason that working people do not see him as their advocate.
4- Afghanistan: Obama’s supporters are few but powerful. In essence, they are apologists and it is from them that the left can expect to be blamed. One of their greatest distortions has been their claim that Obama was forced to expand the war in Afghanistan because of his original campaign statement that it was a “good war.” Many people, both American and Afghan died because Obama did not have the gumption to resist the pressures from the military, who know only one thing: more killing. His decision to launch this wasteful, pointless war was one of the many ways in which he validated Bush’s Iraq war, and the destruction of civil liberties, which he supposedly ran against.
5- China: American’s ignorance of Asia is so vast, that no one has even noticed that Obama referred to China as our adversary in the last debate. The US-China agreement, beginning in the late nineteen sixties to avoid war, is one of the cornerstones of global order. Obama is threatening this, for no reason other than his inability to resist the Generals, and his desire to score politically. Historically, his China policy may turn out to far more consequential than it seems today.
6- Israel: Obama has completely subordinated America’s interests, not to mention social justice, to Netanyahu. The idea that he is preventing Israel from launching a strike against Iran is a ridiculous piece of theatre. Such a strike would be folly and everyone knows this. Obama has empowered the Israeli right, way beyond anything Bush ever dreamt of, just as he has empowered the Japanese right through his Asia policies. The heart of the matter is Israeli racism toward Arabs, and everyone in the Arab world knows this.
Conclusion: Obama’s biggest failure is none of the above. His biggest failure is to have discounted the hopes he raised in 2008. Electing the first African-American President was a fantastic achievement, and because it coincided with the discrediting of Bush’s economic and foreign policies, it opened terrific possibilities for a new path. Obama has not only not moved in a new direction, he has subtly encouraged the idea that those hopes were overstated, and that the obstacles he faced were structural, overwhelming, etc– a series of vacuous excuses. I for one want to reaffirm the hopes I had in 2008– the desire to break with neo-liberalism both domestically and in foreign policy. Obama’s refusal to attempt such a break is the main reason for his weak electoral position today.
Eli Zaretsky is the author of Why America Needs a Left.
To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Daily’s free newsletter , sign up for Tikkun Magazine emails or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Crossposted on Tikkun Daily
Perhaps the most generous teaching of the God or Spiritual Reality of the Universe comes in the second paragraph of the Shma prayer (in Deuteronomy), where it tells us that if we do not create a world based on love, kindness, generosity, ethical and ecological sensitivity, social justice, and peace then the world itself will not work, and there will be an environmental catastrophe and humans and all other animals are in danger of perishing.
These are not the words of an angry patriarch threatening to do this to us, but rather a kind warning that the universe is sending us–a warning that tells us that the ethical and the physical are intrinsically bound together in such a way that when we build a society based on greed, selfishness, materialism, and endless consumption without regard to the consequences for the earth, disaster will follow.
Growing up, I thought this an extravagant and foolish claim tied to an authoritarian, patriarchal, and judgmental god in whom I could not believe; but as an adult I encountered environmental science and learned that it was all true. There are now a host of books that show the concrete steps that lead from ethical irresponsibility toward the earth and toward each other to the resulting environmental crisis (and we regularly review them in Tikkun magazine).
Hurricane Sandy is only the latest manifestation of this truth, and compared with what is coming, a relatively mild reminder. Bill McKibben, who often writes about these issues in Tikkun, recently discussed Hurricane Sandy and climate disaster with Amy Goodman and climate scientist Greg Jones. It’s very well worth your time to listen to it. Here’s an excerpt:
AMY GOODMAN: We’re on the road in Medford, Oregon, broadcasting from Southern Oregon Public Television.
Much of the East Coast is shut down today as residents prepare for Hurricane Sandy, a massive storm that could impact up to 50 million people from the Carolinas to Boston. New York and other cities have shut down schools and transit systems. Hundreds of thousands of people have already been evacuated. Millions could lose power over the next day. The storm has already killed 66 people in the Caribbean, where it battered Haiti and Cuba.
Meteorologists say Sandy could be the largest ever to hit the U.S. mainland. While not as powerful as Hurricane Katrina, the storm stretches a record 520 miles from its eye. Earlier this morning, the National Hurricane Center said the hurricane’s wind speed increased to 85 miles per hour with additional strengthening possible. Describing it as a rare hybrid “superstorm,” forecasters say Sandy was created by an Arctic jet stream wrapping itself around a tropical storm. The storm could cause up to 12 inches of rain in some areas, as well as up to three feet of snowfall in the Appalachian Mountains. Flooding is also expected to be a major problem. The National Weather Service has warned of record-level flooding and “life-threatening storm surges” in coastal areas. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced it’s taking special precautions for the storm. There are at least 16 nuclear reactors located within the path of the storm. Six oil refineries are also in the storm’s path.
While the news media have been covering Hurricane Sandy around the clock, little attention has been paid to the possible connection between the storm and climate change. Scientists have long warned how global warming would make North Atlantic hurricanes more powerful. Just two weeks ago, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a major study on the connection between warmer sea surface temperatures and increase in stronger Atlantic hurricanes. The report said, quote, “In particular, we estimate that Katrina-magnitude events have been twice as frequent in warm years compared with cold years.”
We begin today’s show with two guests. With me here in Oregon, we’re joined by Greg Jones, climate scientist and professor of environmental studies at Southern Oregon University in Ashland. And joining us by Democracy Now! video stream is Bill McKibben, co-founder and director of 350.org. He’s author of numerous books, including Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet. On November 7th, 350.org is launching a 20-city nationwide tour called “Do the Math” to connect the dots between extreme weather, climate change and the fossil fuel industry.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s start with Bill McKibben. Bill, you’ve just made it back to Vermont, to your home. Can you talk about the significance of what the East Coast is facing right now?
BILL McKIBBEN: Well, I think, Amy, that the first thing is this is a storm of really historic proportion. It’s really like something we haven’t seen before. It’s half, again, the size of Texas. It’s coming across water that’s near record warmth as it makes its way up the East Coast. Apparently we’re seeing lower pressures north of Cape Hatteras than have been ever recorded before. The storm surge, which is going to be the very worst part of this storm, is being driven by that huge size and expanse of the storm, but of course it comes in on water that’s already somewhat higher than it would have been in the past because of sea level rise. It’s—it’s a monster. It’s—Frankenstorm, frankly, is not only a catchy name; in many ways, it’s the right name for it. This thing is stitched together from elements natural and unnatural, and it seems poised to cause real havoc. The governor of Connecticut said yesterday, “The last time we saw anything like this was never.” And I think that’s about right.
AMY GOODMAN: There certainly was a lack of discussion, to put it mildly, in the presidential debates around the issue of climate change.
BILL McKIBBEN: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: I don’t think it was raised at all in the three debates.
BILL McKIBBEN: How do you think Mitt Romney is feeling this morning for having the one mention he’s made the whole time? His big laugh line at the Republican convention was how silly it was for Obama to be talking about slowing the rise of the oceans. I’d say that’s—wins pretty much every prize for ironic right now.
There has been a pervading climate silence. We’re doing our best to break that. Yesterday afternoon, there was a demonstration in Times Square, a sort of giant dot to connect the dots with all the other climate trouble around the world. Overnight, continuing in Boston, there’s a week-long vigil outside Government Center to try and get the Senate candidates there to address the issue of climate change.
It’s incredibly important that we not only—I mean, first priority is obviously people’s safety and assisting relief efforts in every possible way, but it’s also really important that everybody, even those who aren’t in the kind of path of this storm, reflect about what it means that in the warmest year in U.S. history, when we’ve seen the warmest month, July, of any month in a year in U.S. history, in a year when we saw, essentially, summer sea ice in the Arctic just vanish before our eyes, what it means that we’re now seeing storms of this unprecedented magnitude. If there was ever a wake-up call, this is it.
AMY GOODMAN: Let me play the clip you’re referring to of Mitt Romney at the Republican convention in Tampa.
MITT ROMNEY: President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Mitt Romney at the conventions, but—at the Republican convention. But again, when it came to the presidential debate, neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney raised the issue of climate change. I wanted to bring Greg Jones, climate scientist and professor of environmental studies here at Southern Oregon University in Ashland, into the conversation. The connection between the superstorm we’re seeing and climate change?
GREG JONES: Well, this is clearly a very unique event. And I—as a climate scientist, to some degree, I kind of worry that these type of unique events are clearly more frequent in the future. We have the conditions that have produced something that could be very damaging for the East Coast of the United States, and I often wonder why we don’t seem more of them. But, you know, the question is, today is, is that where we are in terms of our climate science understanding of these things, the rarity of this event is what makes it very unique. And I think all of the conditions came together to produce a superstorm. And we’ve had a few that have been close to this, but given the number of people involved and the location where it’s coming onshore, it’s a very problematic event.
The full transcript is posted here.
To read more pieces like this, sign up for Tikkun Daily’s free newsletter , sign up for Tikkun Magazine emails or visit us online. You can also like Tikkun on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
