Sistani, and US Jews
These are two separate, but very important, news items that I picked up from JWN linkees.
First this, from Juan Cole yesterday. He reports on an item from AFP/ ash-Sharq al-Awsat about Ayatollah Sistani's spokesman Hamid al-Khaffaf, who said at a gathering at the Sadr Center in Najaf on Monday that:
- -- Sistani will be forming his own nationwide list of candidates to "contest" the election (against, presumably, the single list that Allawi has been proposing). Khaffaf said, ""A committee of independents has been formed, the mission of which is to help everyone be represented on a unified list that would gain the confidence of the supreme Shiite leadership." Note the significance of announcing this at the "Sadr Center".
-- No "ideal" parliament can, Khaffaf said, be elected under the election system currently ordained for next January's election system... (We've heard that criticism from Sistani/Khaffaf before).
-- But Khaffaf also warned that "the grand ayatollahs would not hesitate to bring people into the streets for the sake of a good result in the elections such that the righteous win their rights." (The direct quote there is from Juan, and maybe AFSP, though not necessarily from Khaffaf.)
Another headlining piece of news... This from Matt, filling in for Yankeedoodle at Today in Iraq:
- U.S. Jews turning against war — because of its impact on Israel: “The only nation that seems to have benefited by our invasion of Iraq is Iran, which is a far greater threat to Israel than Iraq was,” said U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, (D-Nev.), a Jew and an outspoken pre-war proponent of invasion who feels President Bush deceived her.
Anyway, the piece that Matt linked to there, in virtualjeruslaem.com, is by the JTA's Ron Kampeas. It is definitely worth reading more of...
- [R]eliable polls demonstrate a profound turning away from the war among the general Jewish community...
Jewish opposition to the war is pronounced — 10 percentage points more than among the general population, according to some national polls — and likely plays a role in continued, solid Jewish support for Democrats, despite the unprecedented backing for Israel that President Bush has shown.
“I was considering voting for Bush when I thought being in Iraq was best for us and best for Israel,” said John Drill, 47, a building contractor in West Caldwell, N.J. “Then I thought it wasn’t best for us, but it was good for Israel. Now I’m convinced it’s not good for Israel.”
At the end of 2002, just months before the war, an American Jewish Committee poll found that 59 percent of U.S. Jews approved U.S. action against Iraq, while 36 percent disapproved. A year later, those numbers had flipped to 54 percent against and 43 in favor.
In the most recent AJCommittee poll, posted last month, 66 percent of American Jews surveyed disapproved, and 30 percent approved. General polling of Americans shows opposition to the war in the mid-50s.
“There are more people who are conflicted now, who want to remove themselves from support of the war,” Rabbi Amy Schwartzman of Temple Rodef Shalom in Falls Church, Va., said of her congregation.
That’s a striking shift, she noted, given the number of military families at her temple. Schwartzman estimates that between six and ten congregants have been in active military service throughout the Iraq war...
[B]oth before and after the war, the danger facing Israel was a particularly strong factor driving Jewish opinion.
“Most people spoke as Americans first, although many people saw it through the lens of Israel,” Schwartzman said of discussions among her temple members. “The question of whether we’re creating a more secure Middle East was important to them as it relates to Israel.”
- “It’s not over yet. The war will go on for many decades... This Iraq war is everything the president said it was: It’s a war against terrorism. It’s not some guy in a foxhole, it’s seven or eight countries supporting terrorism.”
That’s a view that apparently continues to prevail among national Jewish groups, despite growing grassroots opposition. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been unstinting in supporting the war; in his speech to the AIPAC policy conference in May, Bush earned his biggest cheers when he mentioned Iraq.
In June, the American Jewish Committee awarded Australian Prime Minister John Howard its “Liberties Medallion,” in large part for his role in defying his own public’s opinion and allying with the United States in Iraq.
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations never formally endorsed the war, but its daily e-mail bulletin to constituents often links to articles supporting the war.
Such expressions of support derive from a tradition of American Jewish deference to two governments: Jewish leaders reflexively heed the sitting Israeli government, and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is glad to have the United States on board as an ally against Arab recalcitrance; and the Bush administration’s “with-us-or-against-us” posture on Iraq has cowed Jewish groups that value White House access.
Still, there are signs that Jewish organizational leaders are beginning to edge toward a degree of criticism. The Anti-Defamation League, which expressed its support for Bush administration policy before the war, said in May that it was “deeply troubled” by allegations of prisoner abuse by U.S. troops. So did the Reform movement and the National Council of Jewish Women.
Berkley, the Nevada representative, suggested that a sense of betrayal underlies the growing anger.
A former AIPAC board member, Berkley recalls asking Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney before the war how Israel would factor into any invasion plan.
“The vice president explained in great detail at that meeting in the White House that they knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were located in Iraq that were aimed at Israel, and he assured me that when we went in, those missiles would be the first that the United States takes out,” she said. “In retrospect, this administration had absolutely no idea what we were getting into.”
“They deceived themselves, and in doing so they deceived the rest of us,” she said.
Al hamdu lillah, indeed Helena, for the blogosphere. A very interesting article from Ron Kampeas - thank you for bringing it to our attention!
HC: "Poor baby! Don't you just gotta feel sorry for her??"
Actually, I *AM* somewhat sympathetic with pre-war proponents of invasion who were mislead. Do you think she wasn't deceived? I'm not sure what you're point is.
I'm tired of pre-war opponents of invasion treating others with such derision when they recant and oppose the war. No flip-flops allowed!
Martina, you are quite right that my derisive tone was unnecessary, out of place, and unhelpful. When I wrote that I guess I was thinking more about the pro-Likud groups active in US politics in general, and recalling how strongly they (including JINSA, and many others) had agitated to drag the country into the war. I have no reasdon to believe that Rep. Berkley played any such role.
Yes, many, many people in the US were deceived by the Bush administration into thinking the war was "necessary", and we should all now welcome their second thoughts.
It would however have been much more helpful if those people had exercized all their criticial faculties a little more actively in the lead-up to the war. There was PLENTY of info available even then pointing to the key facts that (1) the war was NOT necessary, since Saddam did not pose any kind of a threat to global stability but was well "contained", and (2) that launching a war could-- and especially if undertaken unilaterally-- lead to all kinds of cascading effects of further violence and instability, such as we have so tragically seen unfold.
You can look back to several of my writings in the pre-war period (especially my CSM columns) to see some such warnings. But I was far, far from the only one!
Sadly, though, my voice and the voices of nearly all of us who know something about the region, and about the nature and effects of warfare, and therefore warned strongly against this one, were drowned out in the national discussion. Some Jewish organizations played a big part in that silencing. Yeah, I've been upset about that...
But the main thing, as I think you're saying, is to be able to put stuff like that behind us so that we can work effectively together with any and all new "recruits" to the anti-war cause and bring the occupation to an end as quickly as possible. The casualties continue to mount, catastrophically, with each day we fail to do that.
The jewish sentiment favoring Democrats is not as surprising as what Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid observes today, in the Saudi press, regarding Palestinian and Saudi preferences for a Bush victory. Abdul writes:
"Everyone has his own concerns and aspirations when it comes to the American presidential election. Palestinians are never satisfied with any American president. In the first month of a president taking over, they start wailing and complaining, declaring that the former occupant of the White House was a lesser evil. Kerry outmatches Bush in his support for Israel. His record as senator speaks of a man who blindly supports that country. The Democratic Party has always been more pro-Israel than the Republican. Kerry hopes to stay for eight years in the White House and this makes him even more obliged to satisfy the Israelis.
In contrast, since Bush cannot be elected for a third term, he does not have to be overly concerned about pressure groups. Further, he is the only American president who has publicly committed himself to the establishment of a Palestinian state. His main problem remains Yasser Arafat. In his second term, he will be less prone to pressure. It is instructive that it was in his second term that Bill Clinton offered the Palestinians the greatest hope in their history — of liberating their land from occupation.
As for the Saudis, no matter how angry they seem to be at Bush, they need to make a realistic evaluation of the situation. The anger may be because they may not have realized the real danger they were exposed to after Sept. 11. Bush acted wisely when he rejected media and political pressure targeting Saudi Arabia as “the source of the new fundamentalist threat.” Had Kerry been president, the course of history could have been different. We would have discovered that Bush’s demands like making some changes in the school curriculum, toughening visa requirements or monitoring the so-called charity organizations were not the worst things that could happen to us."
Palestinians for Bush... If the weirdos you find at the "anti-everything" rallies knew, they might stop being used for Palestinian propaganda.
David
PS: The link is http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=53313&d=23&m=10&y=2004
The jewish sentiment favoring Democrats is not as surprising as what Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid observes today, in the Saudi press, regarding Palestinian and Saudi preferences for a Bush victory. Abdul writes:
"Everyone has his own concerns and aspirations when it comes to the American presidential election. Palestinians are never satisfied with any American president. In the first month of a president taking over, they start wailing and complaining, declaring that the former occupant of the White House was a lesser evil. Kerry outmatches Bush in his support for Israel. His record as senator speaks of a man who blindly supports that country. The Democratic Party has always been more pro-Israel than the Republican. Kerry hopes to stay for eight years in the White House and this makes him even more obliged to satisfy the Israelis.
In contrast, since Bush cannot be elected for a third term, he does not have to be overly concerned about pressure groups. Further, he is the only American president who has publicly committed himself to the establishment of a Palestinian state. His main problem remains Yasser Arafat. In his second term, he will be less prone to pressure. It is instructive that it was in his second term that Bill Clinton offered the Palestinians the greatest hope in their history — of liberating their land from occupation.
As for the Saudis, no matter how angry they seem to be at Bush, they need to make a realistic evaluation of the situation. The anger may be because they may not have realized the real danger they were exposed to after Sept. 11. Bush acted wisely when he rejected media and political pressure targeting Saudi Arabia as “the source of the new fundamentalist threat.” Had Kerry been president, the course of history could have been different. We would have discovered that Bush’s demands like making some changes in the school curriculum, toughening visa requirements or monitoring the so-called charity organizations were not the worst things that could happen to us."
Palestinians for Bush... If the weirdos you find at the "anti-everything" rallies knew, they might stop being used for Palestinian propaganda.
David
PS: The link is http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=53313&d=23&m=10&y=2004