Pittsburgh's uneasy spotlight

You don’t have to be Jewish to have deep feelings about last week’s terror attack in Pittsburgh. And there is no shortage of emotions and deeper meanings to take away from this horror. Here are a few of my own early thoughts.

Of course for many of us, the Pittsburgh attack is close to home. I’ve been in the Tree of Life for a wedding long ago, and Jews are all connected. And as a security volunteer in another synagogue hundreds of miles away, I was actively dealing with safeguarding and with liaison to our local police. But somehow it’s more, and I’m choosing here to leave out the very compelling political and security ramifications because I think there’s something innate that also merits exploration. 

Perhaps we (somewhat like Israelis) have tried to put the shame of victimhood behind us. We watch the massacres and violence around the United States and we sympathize, empathize, pledge solidarity, and step up to help. But now we Jews are in the spotlight, we are the ones receiving sympathy and assistance. Cable news is focused on US. Not Israel, not a multi-ethnic public school, not a military base. 

We have the spotlight right now, and we may not all agree on how to use it. But it feels very strange to be noticed for what was done to us, and not for what we have done -- whether good deeds or bad. Almost unavoidably, we are objectified. Our rabbis are elevated to the national stage, “Shabbat” is a term mentioned by CNN, and the Jewish experience and current trauma have been universalized to a national and international audience.
Maybe this just takes some getting used to. And maybe the pain and sorrow are still too overwhelming.

Today we mourn, tomorrow we vote

September 11, 2001, was a Tuesday. Though our leaders seemed to be asleep at the wheel in the months preceding, and in the first minutes of the horror, these attacks were essentially a physical assault from the outside. 

That fateful Tuesday was a primary election day in New York, and it was appropriately postponed. In the years that have followed, and right up to recent days, we have seen our democratic way of life both tested and diminished -- that is on us, not on the terrorists. 

Tomorrow is another such primary day, giving us a new opportunity to honor and reaffirm our democratic institutions in real time. If you are registered as anything other than "independent", then please come out and vote to determine who will be the nominee for your party in the November general election. 

We cannot bring back those we lost on that beautiful sunny day, nor the thousands more we sacrificed in pyrrhic pursuit of vindication in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we can do this little act of faith and commitment to the values for which we have always struggled.

Today we mourn, tomorrow we vote.

Trump plays with fire, and we get burned

Even if the federal courts overrule him, President Trump's immigration ban on Muslims -- and on refugees who survive the very crimes he claims to defend us against -- has already inflicted permanent damage on our strength and our spirit. Now, his words may add injury to the insult.

The stated and implicit goal of Islamic State and Al-Qaeda is to force a civilizational conflict between the West and Islam, to demonstrate to 1.6 billion Muslims that there is no place for them in the modern world or among non-believers. The vast majority will probably not accept Trump's contrived declarations, or they will take them on face value without acting on that hostility. But the promise and momentum of the post-War decades, stalled at the threshold of globalization and common cause, are now traumatically inundated with doubt and distrust. Thanks, Donald.

I need not elaborate here on the consequent undermining of our security, boosting recruitment by terrorist groups, alienating of military and economic partners, further stigmatizing Muslim Americans, reducing U.S. standing as a global leader, betraying our basic Constitutional principles. 

Death in Ankara, and beyond

There was horrible news out of Ankara today, with the brazen assassination of Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov. Here are a few immediate thoughts:

1. Whatever war crimes are bing committed in Russia's name in Syria and Ukraine, or in cyberspace, the sanctity of diplomatic culture underpins any hope for resolving and preventing such atrocities – now and in the future.

2. Having worked closely with Russian diplomats over the past 25 years, this also hits close to home.

3. Russian President Vladimir Putin's alliance with the Orthodox Church is a primary source for his support within Russia and among other lands in the region, including Greece, Serbia, and parts of Ukraine. The ultimate prize for many of those faithful will be the former Constantinople, ancient seat of the Byzantine (Orthodox) Church. Whatever criminal motivation lay behind today's attack, the long-term battle for Turkey and for modern-day Istanbul should not be ignored.

Istanbul remains home to Hagia Sophia, the monumental cathedral converted centuries ago into a mosque and celebrated today as a landmark museum. Turkey's proximity to Syria, where Russian forces have rained death and destruction by order of magnitude since U.S. Election Day, and Turkey's vulnerability to refugee flows and Kurdish insurgents, raise the specter of Russian designs on the Orthodox prize (and of course, strategic access to the Black Sea and beyond). – Conspiratorial, for sure, but nothing is too far-fetched when it involves Kremlin.

My heart goes out to Russian friends and colleagues, even as it bleeds for the innocents being starved and slaughtered in Aleppo and other lesser known cities across Syria. Social media can often lead us astray, and my prayer today is that cooler heads will prevail on all sides.

Note: I know I've missed many items the past few months, but events were frenetic and distractions abundant. Since the U.S. election, I again have the distance and perspective to share some more developed thoughts and – hopefully – to generate some constructive discussion.

9-11...and every day since

Whether we realize it or not, each of us has at least one point in our lives where it all could have ended. For me, it was an unmarked oil barrel sitting in the middle of I-95 in the unlit Larchmont overpass, late one night circa 1989... instinctive swerve and good suspension, or maybe something more powerful at work. Every day since that point is an extra gift. For us, collectively, 9/11/01, is such a point. We mourn, we avenge, and we treasure and add meaning to every single moment going forward. And then, we mourn again.

Adding intellectual insult to physical carnage

There are no new debates and no new lessons to be learned from yesterday's wrenching, horrific, disgusting and barbaric attack in Jerusalem. I stopped being surprised a long time ago. The problems and the solutions are neither easy nor mysterious, and suggesting otherwise adds to the difficulty. May the families and the entire community find the comfort and courage to move forward in every way.

In the car yesterday morning, I listened to BBC's coverage of the synagogue attack, via our much-maligned public radio network, including an extensive chillingly vivid account by an Israeli first responder who literally jumped right into the unfolding carnage. I found his account, and the entire BBC report, to be deeply meaningful and illuminating, and couldn't have imagined a more appropriate or objectively sympathetic frame for the immediate aftermath of such an unthinkable tragedy. 

Right or left, the wasted time and effort pillorying the news media (and trumpeting every graveyard-shift breaking-news error) for supposedly biased coverage is a distraction from the real tragedy and from the real dilemmas facing Israel and the region, and the Jewish people. "All hands on deck" is a call for discipline, ingenuity and clarity of purpose, not recitations of talking points and easy answers, running around in circles, or blaming each other as our ship nears the reef.

The persistent effort to discredit open discussion and dissent within the Jewish community is beyond wasteful -- it's destructive to the very mission and purpose of the sacred enterprise. It advances the very goal of such awful but strategically irrelevant attacks, which -- beyond provoking the sort of retaliation which further alienates Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza as well as in Israel proper -- is to break the Jewish spirit and open discourse. Those who respond to external attacks by attacking other Jews are no less "self-hating" than those whose Judaism they impugn.

As I mentioned above, this is all a play that's been repeated too many times, and despite a few heroic attempts we have yet to see either progress or a dramatic shift from the same thinking. 

You say 'Chamas' and I say 'Hamas'...why it matters

Language and politics have always been linked, and today there remain many examples, no less in the Middle East and the War on Terror.

Peter Beinart recently asked why Israelis insist on pronouncing Hamas using the Hebrew "chet" sound, approximated by the Spanish "J", as in Guadalajara, or the "ch" in bleccchhhh. In Arabic, "Hamas" is spelled and pronounced with the more challenging throatiness of the letter 'Haa. The Hebrew Chet is still pronounced that way by some Jews of Mideastern origin, but standardization of modern Hebrew has largely eliminated that. So, there's one easy explanation. 

On a more complicated level, though, this also fits an Israeli and Western optic, where "we" get to define others on our terms. Hence, some of my colleagues in the pro-Israel community still use the antiquated "Moslem" to refer to Muslims, akin to calling Beijing by its erstwhile, anglicized form of Peking. Like the duck. 

When I see someone of this century referring to "Moslems", I immediately sense a lack of understanding or sympathy for a religion and culture of one billion souls, spanning dozens of countries. It's almost as quaint as Thomas Jefferson's vintage reference to "Mussulmans". Unlike "Hamas", the Arabic "Muslim" easily lends itself to correct pronunciation by English-speakers. At least, for those who care.

Saying "Hamas" with a simple English-style hard "H" sounds more accurate, since it leaves out the guttural -- and completely wrong -- "kh" as in Guadalajara. Knowingly or not, pronouncing "Hamas" as a modern Hebrew term, rather than the Arabic of its origin, takes ownership of that group's narrative. It really displaces the broader Palestinian narrative, as well. In fact, most Israelis still refer to Palestinians who are Israeli citizens as "Israeli Arabs".

When pro-Israel activists in the States hear an Israeli expert refer to "Chamas" (or "Khamas"), they may assign more authority to the analysis and arguments, since few Americans can pronounce that sound, either. Of course, that same word in Hebrew, with the Chet, translates as criminal violence, so there's also that.

We are admonished to call evil by its name, but if we insist on pronouncing it our own way, how does that help the fight? The world, and sometimes our own neighbors, don't operate according to our fears and expectations.

Negotiating with Hamas, but for the wrong reason?

Whether to advance a peace agreement leading to a Palestinian state or to consolidate the status quo, an Israeli government will probably be talking to Hamas before too long.

Twenty years ago, Israeli law prohibited any Israeli citizen from contact with the Palestine Liberation. As Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir put it, talking to the PLO would lead to the unacceptable establishment of a Palestinian state. And center-left politicians, including Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres agreed. So when Rabin became the PM and Peres his Foreign Minister, they pursued indirect contacts with the PLO precisely because they had realized that a separate Palestinian state was indispensable to Israel's long-term stability.

Today, the idea of "a PLO state bordering Israel" sounds pretty bad, but it remains the official preference of the Government of Israel... even if the actions of Israel's current leadership seem to be making that outcome progressively less likely. When President Ronald Reagan authorized the U.S. Government to talk directly with the PLO 24 years ago, the PLO was still on the State Department's list of Foreign Terror Organizations -- as is Hamas today.

But it was still the Cold War, PLO leader Yasir Arafat had met the specific conditions the United States had pledged to Israel, and Vice-President George H.W. Bush had already won the election to succeed the departing Reagan. There was little Israel or American Jewish organizations could do beyond calling for strict controls. Within five years, partly thanks to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and serious strong-arming by then-Secretary of State James A. Baker III, the Bush administration helped set the stage for the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Today, the memory of Hamas terror is constantly refreshed by new attacks on Israeli civilians, and Hamas leaders speak regularly of destroying Israel. The PLO once acted the same way, and that bitter legacy will never be erased. And yet, the Oslo Accords were signed between Israel and the PLO, and PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas is generally seen as the best chance for a moderate Palestinian leader willing to make a final deal with Israel.

Benghazi worse than Watergate? GOP would know.

A terrible series of events transpired last month in Benghazi, Libya. As we all know, the U.S. Ambassador and three other U.S. personnel were killed in an organized, deliberate attack on the Consulate there.

In the days following the attack,  many questions and allegations were launched against the White House, largely by the increasingly right-wing Republican House of Representatives back in Washington and its media ally, Fox News. Why didn't President Obama immediately label the incident as a terrorist attack? Why did the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations initially suggest the Benghazi attack was connected to an anti-U.S. protest march when -- as we eventually learned -- there was no protest, only the stand-alone attack? Why did the State Department not supply more security forces as had been requested by post? And so on.

While it took days for the GOP's political and media establishment to fully gear up in this very timely cause, Governor Mitt Romney was framing Benghazi as an indictment against the entire foreign policy of President Barack Obama, even as recovery operations were still underway. He was definitely ahead of the curve on using this as a political weapon.

Ironically, the Benghazi attack -- which cost us the lives of four brave Americans -- pales in comparison to unspeakably catastrophic tragedies like the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington (2,800+ dead); the 2005 Hurricane Katrina (1,800+ dead); Operation Iraqi Freedom (nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers dead). Each of these death tolls can be in large or small part attributed to incompetent and/or ideologically forced decision-making by President George W. Bush and his advisers. And, by the way, banging the war drums and beating an apologetic retreat whenever necessary has been none other than Fox News. Yet in the years that have followed, almost no one has faced any official or political consequences for any of these failures (unless receiving a Presidential Medal of Freedom counts).

And now, Fox News' own Brit Hume is feeling righteous enough to point out that "it has fallen to this news organization, Fox News, and a couple of others to do all the heaving lifting" on exposing the as yet unproven allegations of Benghazi wrongdoing and cover-up by the Obama administration.

There are definitely important lessons to be learned and applied going forward, and possibly careers to be ended. And it is never too late to start holding our government leaders accountable on national security. But if Republican politicians and journalists are going to lead the way on this, it would be nice of them to at least acknowledge the novelty, rather than acting like turning four deaths into Obama's Watergate -- or even WORSE than Watergate (and maybe Vietnam, too?) -- is not transparently political and contrived.

Iran already reaps nuclear benefits

Iran already enjoys a degree of nuclear prestige in its confrontation with Israel and around the Middle East.

How is Israel supposed to respond to the ongoing effort to attack Israeli and Jewish targets, including today's car bombs in New Delhi and Tbilisi? Since Israel needs to hold its fire, pending an all-out assault (as advertised) should Iran attain nuclear weapons status, it will be limited to responding in kind, or via proxy by attacking Hezbollah targets in Iran or elsewhere. And the mysterious assassinations of specific Iranian physicists and engineers will continue as needed.

Israel and the West may have little choice in the matter, given the very real implications of a nuclear Persia, and the difficulties of holding together a rough coalition of Europeans, Russia, and China. But it may be noted that, as part of our strategy against that nuclear contingency, we must limit our responses to threats or attacks that fall below the nuclear threshold.

In this sense, and only in this sense, the fact that Israel is deterred from responding in full force is analogous to the Cold War-era constraints of limited response. To avoid introducing all-out Soviet and/or Chinese intervention, the United States had to limit its own intervention in Korea and Vietnam, as well as Czechoslovakia and East Berlin.

Sanctions definitely bite, but -- by virtue of "almost" having nuclear weapons -- Iran today already has a freer hand to pursue its terrorist and other adventures, fairly secure in the knowledge that the punishment will never exceed what it can bear. The regime in Tehran can definitely taste the regional supremacy and impunity that await its full nuclear membership.

Good for Gilad and Israel, perfect for Netanyahu

Personally, I am very moved by the tribulations of Gilad Shalit, and I was moved to tears when I learned of the deal for his release. If he actually walks free after five years in a Hamas dungeon in Gaza, I shall genuinely rejoice. But the backstory to this is both obvious and complex. Here's a slice:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs the Shalit deal both as a duty to the family of every Israeli soldier (true at any time), and for his own political goals. But it comes at a cost, and not only in releasing Palestinian terrorists and other prisoners -- Netanyahu's political ATM is settlement construction, and the value has increased as President Obama has made it more of a sticking point.

Immediately following last spring's Itamar massacre came the announcement of new housing for Israelis over the Green Line. Now, as Israel prepares to release 1,000-plus prisoners in exchange for five-year hostage Gilad Shalit, Netanyahu's government just happens to announce plans for yet another entirely new "Jerusalem" (West Bank) neighborhood overshadowing Bethlehem. I've blogged previously about the magical expansion of Jerusalem's borders.

My 9/11

A beautiful Tuesday morning, so I took my time walking to the office, in the old B'nai B'rith Building on Rhode Island Avenue, barely a ten-minute walk from the White House. As I approached the entrance, a mid-level colleague was rushing out of the building, talking like the world was ending. Planes had hit the World Trade Center, and other wild tales, and she was fleeing back to the Maryland suburbs.

I went upstairs to my office, got online and turned on the TV. Wow. When I saw that TWO planes had crashed into the World Trade Center, I instinctively listened for the sound of fighter jets over Washington, DC, since clearly the nation's capital would be a target. But nothing outside.

I called a few of our partners in Russia and Ukraine, to make sure those Jewish communities were not affected, and to let them know we were still available to them.

After some minutes, the wife of another colleague called looking for him, and she wanted to know why I was still even in the building. She said Jewish buildings were obvious targets. I replied, "I wouldn't worry. The Jewish buildings are the soft targets. They got the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon, they may be after the Capitol and the State Department for all I know. And NOW you think they're going to hit the B'nai B'rith Building..?"

Berlin might give Washington some hope

Fifty years ago, the Berlin Wall went up, blocking East and West Germans from crossing the dividing line left from the end of World War II (which Germany lost). By the time my parents drove us across Europe ten summers later, East German guards were sticking mirror-ended spars under our car to make sure we weren't smuggling anyone out to the West. (Of course, as I grew up, I would learn exhaustively about the Holocaust, but that's for a separate post.)

The next time I'd see anything like that was on Capitol Hill following 9/11, in Washington, DC, of all places (we had won WWII). The deserted expanse of public spaces, where cars once roamed freely, may be of necessity, but it's still jarring. Our architecture, after all, follows the dual American ethos of automobile access and public participation.

I used to aspire to work in government, because it seemed like a worthwhile experience (despite the constant complaints by federal workers who are free to join the private sector at any time). Since 9/11, the added incentive is just to be able to enter buildings without waiting for clearance and being escorted around like a tourist (even when I am a tourist).

Whether as cause or effect, Islamophobia kills.

A few years ago, a prominent philanthropist and right-wing Republican objected to my work reaching out to Muslim leaders at home and abroad: "The Muslims are our enemy," he stated with complete certitude. Within a few months, after witnessing some of our actual results, he became an avid supporter.

Various observers and experts -- and even some of my favorite bloggers -- were quick to accept the notion that Muslim extremists were behind the shocking, well-coordinated attacks on downtown Oslo and the Utoya youth camp. In fact, as we now know, the carnage was conducted as a protest AGAINST Muslims and Marxists (though no word if any victims were of either persuasion). 

Islamophobia is proving to be a fatal disease, not only to innocent Muslims but to anyone and everyone. That the killer masqueraded as a police officer in order to lure more victims out of hiding is all the more compelling, since such vigilantes often see themselves as the true enforcers and protectors. As long as the real police are allowed to do their jobs without prejudice, the rest of us should be able to move along without prejudice, too.

Of course, like any form of racism, Islamophobia is not by itself the same as murder. But in too many of its forms, it frames a rationale for pre-emptive violence. It can be a gateway drug, or perhaps in this case it simply provided a catalyst for a demented right-wing agenda.

Either way, it is past time for the reckless vilification of Muslims to cease, but sadly that is unlikely. The rush to judgment reflects the sheer convenience of it. 

Pakistan's decline is not India's rise

India must be breathing easier since the United States got Osama bin Laden right in the middle of Pakistan.

India and Pakistan cannot find enough proxies for their decades-old rivalry. Afghanistan is only the latest battleground. As has been obvious for many months, Pakistan was an active player behind the 2008 Mumbai terror spree, even though bilateral reconciliation talks have continued to sputter along. If not for the headline-grabbing nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, the arms race between India and Pakistan would be at the top of the list. And so on...

India looks better when Pakistan looks bad, whether it's for harboring the planet's number-one terrorist (who also happened to be what many Indians would call a "bloodymuslim"). Pakistan will continue to receive U.S. support because Washington needs Pakistan's help in Afghanistan and around the region, and because -- even if the Pakistanis did know for five years that Osama was living a few blocks from their elite military academy -- Pakistan is in a tight spot and probably had little choice. Or they just totally missed it, which is also believable. But like anyone else, the Indians enjoy being more popular than Pakistan, even if the decline of U.S.-Pakistan intelligence cooperation adds nothing to the U.S.-India relationship. 

Can't the media let Bush be modest? (No.)

Once again, the "news" media seem to have no patience for real news to come their way, as if the operation to get Osama Bin Laden and its aftermath are not pressing enough. Since Tuesday, the hot subplot has been former President George W. Bush reportedly declining President Obama's invitation to join him when he visits Ground Zero on Thursday in New York.

President Bush is trying to be a gentleman and defer to the current sitting President, and the press pervert that gesture and use it to upstage President Obama's military success and his effort to provide some closure for thousands of 9/11 survivors and millions of Americans. Bravo!!

Shortly after President Obama announced the killing of Osama, George W. Bush issued a brief, magnanimous and patriotic statement praising the operation, U.S. forces, and the President. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader and former Speaker -- and one of Bush's prime adversaries on Capitol Hill -- called the former President to thank him for his leadership in the cause that culminated in Sunday's dramatic operation. Since he left the White House, Bush has avoided politics and public roles, which is why he decided against accompanying the President to Ground Zero. He did partner with Bill Clinton to help the victims of last year's devastating earthquake in Haiti, because President Obama asked him and because a million or more lives were hanging in the balance.

Do the press really expect Bush to take a victory lap around Ground Zero? Do they really think Bush is being petulant by not joining Obama on a solemn occasion?

Mission Accomplished.

Any American, and anyone who believes in civilization, should be relieved and even pleased that Osama Bin Laden no longer walks this Earth. CNN and other news media have so redundantly explained the obvious reasons, I have no interest in repeating them here. He was evil. The legitimate concern about revenge attacks following his death should be balanced by the reality that most Al Qaeda supporters were already out to get "us" even before Sunday evening. The only reasons they haven't attacked more are a lack of capability or the success of anti-terrorism policies and practices worldwide.

The fact that Bin Laden had been living for years without phone or internet service, relying upon couriers who evidently conveyed only verbal commands based on personal visits to the compound, all confirms that he was not in operational command for some time. He had never really been the operational commander of Al Qaeda anyway, but the point is: Al Qaeda's tactical capabilities have not been significantly impacted, other than the disruptive value of documents and data acquired during the raid.

More than the direct relevance of Osama Bin Laden was the sidelining of the whole Al Qaeda ethos during the "Arab Spring". Despite murmurs of openings for Al Qaeda in Libya and Yemen, none of the uprisings or popular movements sweeping the Middle East has demonstrated any effective allegiance to Al Qaeda or Bin Laden, nor any functional collaboration. Al Qaeda has tried to catch up to history, but it's been a tough year. The Yemen-based cells remain a potent threat, but that has little or nothing to do with the public resistance to President Saleh.

Even the posthumous tears for Osama being shed by Hamas (and that's no revolution) are really tears of relief, for Osama and Al Qaeda would have gladly destroyed Hamas had they the opportunity. No one needed Osama out of the way more than Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.