Extended Interview

The Maccabiah Games every 4 years in Israel – “the Jewish Olympics”, as they are often called – are Maccabi World Union’s largest and most famous enterprise. These spectacular sports & cultural extravaganzas uniting many thousands of Jews from all over the world in Israel have a tremendous Zionist history, stretching back to the vivid imagination of a Jewish youngster in 1912.

Yosef Yekutieli was 15 years old, a teenager so fired up by news of the 1912 Olympic Games held in Stockholm (Sweden) that he conceived the fantastic notion of a worldwide Olympics for Jewish sportspeople in the Land of Israel. For 10 years he mulled this great idea in his head, working out all kinds of details, plans and formulae as to how his wild dream might become actual reality. Maybe it had something to with his name – Joseph of the Bible, dreaming dreams in Egypt of the Pharoahs.

By 1928, Yekutieli – in the admiring backhand-compliment of modern Hebrew, a real “meshuggah la’inyan” (“Crazy for an Idea”) — presented his proposal to the very powerful then-Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Jewish National Fund, Menachem Ussishkin, along with the grand notion that the First Maccabiah should take place in time for the 1800th anniversary of the Bar Kochba Rebellion. Maccabi at that time was trying to set up an umbrella body to represent all sports in Eretz Israel, the idea being to open a route for participation by people living in the new British Mandate of Palestine to compete in important international events; that would also act as a form of international recognition of Palestine as the Jewish National Home. To this day, every nation wants to see its athletes competing on the world stage with those from other countries as part of the universal and natural acceptance of its independence.

A Maccabiah could only be organized with the approval of international sports associations, which even now accept only recognized countries into their ranks. [Even today, many territories whose status is in dispute are denied membership in international sports associations: for example, soccer teams representing Gibraltar, a self-governing British territory claimed by Spain, are refused membership not only in FIFA (Federation of International Football Associations) but also in UEFA (Union of European Football Associations)]. Only in 1928, after the Eretz Israel Soccer Association was founded and recognized by most other international bodies, was the way paved to organize the First Maccabiah in Eretz Israel.

It was decided that the “Maccabiada”, as the Games were originally called, would be for members of the World Maccabi Federation at designated 4-yearly intervals patterned along the Olympic Games. Their official purpose: to give the various participating national associations an opportunity to test their strength, and prepare their athletes for international and Olympic competitions. Their actual purpose: to show off the physical and sporting prowess of Jews in the modern age, not only to a world which thought of the People of the Book as weak and timid, but also to show to the Jews themselves that they were, and are, descendants worthy of our great freedom-loving ancestors, the Maccabees.

Rice is the first US secretary of state to visit Libya since John Foster Dulles in 1953 and the highest-ranking US official to visit since then-Vice President Richard Nixon in 1957. Gadhafi has sought the visit to culminate five years of halting progress in relations that began when Libya abandoned weapons of mass destruction and renounced terrorism in 2003. Libya has since agreed to pay compensation to the families of victims of the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, and those of the 1986 Berlin disco bombing. The money is not yet all there, but US officials say they are confident it will be paid soon.

US officials had hoped that Libya would have deposited hundreds of millions of dollars into the compensation fund by the time Rice arrived. But the US State Department said Thursday that the account remained empty. Some of the families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing have raised vehement objections to Rice meeting with Gadhafi, whom they consider to be unrepentant for the deaths of the 280 people, including 180 Americans.

“The relationship has been moving in a good direction for a number of years now and I think tonight does mark a new phase,” US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Friday after meeting Moammar Gadhafi, Libya’s mercurial strongman.

The United States and Libya sealed a historic turnaround after decades of terrorist killings, American retaliation, suspicions and insults with Rice’s peacemaking visit in Libya.

“We’re off to a good start,” Rice said with Libya’s foreign minister at her side. “It is only a start, but I think, after many, many years, I think it’s a very good thing that the United States and Libya are establishing a way forward.”

“Libya has changed, America has changed, the world has changed,” Libyan Foreign Minister Abdel-Rahman Shalgam said after meeting with Rice. “Forget the past.”

Earlier on Friday, Rice said that her historic visit to former pariah state Libya proves that the US never writes off another nation forever.

Rice is the highest-ranking American official to visit the North African country in more than a half-century. She met over dinner with mercurial leader Moammar Gadhafi, whom former US President Ronald Reagan once called a “mad dog” and other US leaders have called a terrorist.

“There is a long way to go but I do believe that this demonstrates that the United States doesn’t have permanent enemies,” Rice said as she flew to the capital. She said she had not expected she would ever go to Libya.

Rice was welcomed with a modest ceremony at the airport and was meeting with Libya’s foreign minister before the highlight of the brief visit – dinner with Gadhafi at his sprawling Tripoli compound, the same place the US bombed in 1986 on Reagan’s orders in retaliation for a Berlin disco bombing that killed two US soldiers. Tipped that warplanes were flying toward Tripoli, Gadhafi and most of his family tried to flee. Gadhafi escaped injury but his 15-month-old daughter was killed, and two of his sons were injured.

Gadhafi invited Rice for the evening meal that breaks the day’s fast observed during the holy month of Ramadan, and although details were sketchy ahead of time, US officials said they expected Rice would dine in a traditional, desert-style tent, under guard from Gadhafi’s all-women bodyguard corps.

“I look forward to hearing the leader’s world view,” Rice told reporters.

Rice is the first US secretary of state to visit Libya since John Foster Dulles in 1953 and the highest-ranking US official to visit since then-Vice President Richard Nixon in 1957.

Gadhafi has sought the visit to culminate five years of halting progress in relations that began when Libya abandoned weapons of mass destruction and renounced terrorism in 2003.

Libya has since agreed to pay compensation to the families of victims of the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, and those of the 1986 Berlin disco bombing. The money is not yet all there, but US officials say they are confident it will be paid soon.

“It demonstrates that when countries are prepared to make strategic changes in direction the United States is prepared to respond,” Rice said. “It’s a beginning, it’s an opening. It’s not, I think, the end of the story.”

Rice was spending only a few hours in Tripoli, an ancient city fronting the Mediterranean sea and backing to the North African desert. There were few signs in the capital that Libyans or their government saw the day as particularly significant. Unlike in some capitals, there were no banners along her motorcade route or crowds lined up to gawk.

Rice was visiting the offices that serve as the US Embassy in Libya. Plans to send a full-fledged ambassador are hung up in Congress over concern that Libya has not fulfilled all its promises to compensate terror victims.

“No one can ever salve the wounds of the families” victimized by terror attacks, Rice said. “That is why we have looked so hard for justice to be brought and a means of compensation.”

US officials had hoped that Libya would have deposited hundreds of millions of dollars into the compensation fund by the time Rice arrived. But the US State Department said Thursday that the account remained empty.

Some of the families of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing have raised vehement objections to Rice meeting with Gadhafi, whom they consider to be unrepentant for the deaths of the 280 people, including 180 Americans.

The Bush administration has expressed sympathy with the families but said it is time to move ahead with Libya, which is the first, and thus far only, country designated by the State Department to be a “state sponsor of terrorism” to be removed from that list through its own actions.

Rice’s visit comes amid a surge in interest from US companies, particularly in the energy sector, to do business in Libya, where European companies have had much greater access in recent years. Libya’s proven oil reserves are the ninth largest in the world, close to 39 billion barrels, and vast areas remain unexplored for new deposits.

“Reliable sources of energy supply, multiple sources of energy, diversification of energy supply is an important element of economic development for the entire international economy,” Rice said, but not the focus of the US opening to Libya. “The relationship has much broader potential than just energy.”

White House press secretary Dana Perino said Friday in Washington that the Bush administration hopes to be able to announce a new ambassador there soon.

“We have had a long and bad history with Libya,” she said. “That began to turn around when they turned away from nuclear weapons and terrorism. That country has radically changed its behavior and Secretary Rice’s trip signifies a new chapter in US-Libya bilateral relations.”

Relations between the countries are still strained on a number of fronts, ranging from human rights issues to the final resolution of legal claims from the terror bombings.

A leading Libyan reformer, Fathi al-Jhami, whose case has been championed by the Bush administration and by Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, remained in detention, where he has been near continuously since 2002. Rights groups say hundreds of other political prisoners are still being held.

Sitting Down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

What he said: Asked if he’d be “willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea,” Obama replied: “I would.” —Democratic primary debate, Charleston, S.C., July 23, 2007

Why it’s a bad idea: Engaging rogue states can be a savvy move, and even the Bush administration has negotiated with Pyongyang and sent envoys to meetings with Iran. But sitting down with heads of state without precondition? That’s another thing entirely, especially when it comes to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As Carnegie Endowment expert Karim Sadjadpour told the Wall Street Journal, “Only two things can rehabilitate Ahmadinejad politically: bombing Iran or major efforts to engage.” No wonder Obama’s foreign-policy team has walked back its candidate’s off-the-cuff remarks.

Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement

What he said: “I will make sure that we renegotiate. … I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced.” —Democratic primary debate in Cleveland, Feb. 26, 2008

Why it’s a bad idea: Trade agreements take years to negotiate, and Mexico and Canada would almost certainly seek new concessions of their own in a new round. Obama is right to argue that more economic development in Mexico will lower illegal immigration; he’s wrong to think that bashing NAFTA is the right way to address the Rust Belt’s economic woes. Happily, since the Ohio primary, Obama has backed off his harshest criticisms of the agreement.

Why it’s a bad idea: Although Obama citied antilabor violence, the murder rate for union members in Colombia last year was 4 per 100,000, well below the rate for the general population. The deal carries little to no cost for the United States; economists actually predict modest increases in U.S. exports. The upshot for an important ally in the war on drugs, however, is high, and consolidating Colombia’s commitment to open trade with the United States is a worthy goal.

Talking Openly About Bombing Pakistan

What he said: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” —Speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2007 Why it’s a bad idea: Engaging in military strikes in Pakistan happens to be established policy. But, as none other than Joe Biden pointed out last August, “It’s not something you talk about. … The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty.”

Pushing the Patriot Employer Act

What he said: “When I am president … I’ll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I’ve been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate—we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America.” —Speech in Janesville, Wis., Feb. 13, 2008

Why it’s a bad idea: British economists Willem Buiter and Anne Sibert slam the bill as, “reactionary, populist, xenophobic and just plain silly.” That’s a bit much. A little populist pandering is hardly a threat to the global economic order—the bill offers employers a small tax credit if they meet six conditions, including the probably unworkable provision that they keep their headquarters in the United States. It’s never smart economic policy to reward companies for placing limitations on their own profitable activities, but as The Economist put it, “Obama deserves a slap on the wrist” for this one, not a full-throated indictment.

Promoting Coal-to-Liquid Fuels

What he said: “The people I meet in town hall meetings back home would rather fill their cars with fuel made from coal reserves in Southern Illinois than with fuel made from crude reserves in Saudi Arabia. We already have the technology to do this in a way that’s both clean and efficient. What we’ve been lacking is the political will.” —Statement introducing the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2006, June 7, 2006

Why it’s a bad idea: Obama’s energy policy has much to commend it. But borrowing an idea from World War II Germany and apartheid South Africa? Bad move. Coal-to-liquid fuels produce nearly twice the greenhouse gases of ordinary petroleum, experts say, and it’s foolish to subsidize an industry that easily could go under if oil prices fall. Under withering fire from environmentalists, the Obama camp clarified his position in June 2007 as, “[U]nless and until this technology is perfected, Senator Obama will not support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels.” It’s since been dropped from campaign materials.

Eliminating Income Taxes for Seniors Making Under $50,000

What he said: “I’ll make retirement more secure for America’s seniors by eliminating income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year.” —Speech on Nov. 7, 2007, in Bettendorf, Iowa

Why it’s a bad idea: Most seniors already pay no income taxes. That’s because they already get preferential treatment in the tax code. Plus, why are seniors more deserving of tax relief than struggling young families? The Tax Policy Center—run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute—criticized the idea in a recent report, saying that because government spending on seniors is already set to balloon due to retiring baby boomers, “it seems inappropriate to target special income tax breaks to this group.”

Boosting Ethanol Subsidies

What he said: “[Ethanol] ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” —Statement at the opening of a VeraSun Energy ethanol processing plant in Charles City, Iowa, August 2007

Why it’s a bad idea: As economist Paul Krugman has written, corn-based ethanol is “bad for the economy, bad for consumers, bad for the planet—what’s not to love?” World Bank economist Daniel Mitchell blames biofuels, including ethanol, for a 75 percent increase in global food prices since 2002 that has led to economic distress and rioting in such countries as Haiti, Egypt, and Somalia. There’s also little evidence that they do much to prevent global warming. A recent study published in Science demonstrated that the farmland needed to grow corn for ethanol results in deforestation on a massive scale, negating any benefit the reduction in carbon emissions might have. So why does the senator support such a wasteful and damaging subsidy, even voting for the recent farm bill’s billions in pork for ethanol producers? “[B]ecause Illinois … is a major corn producer,” he said in April. At least he’s honest.

Taxing Oil Companies Extra

What he said: “I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills.” —Speech in Raleigh, N.C., June 9, 2008

Why it’s a bad idea: He’s attacking the symptom, not the disease. It’s certainly hard to defend oil companies making record profits while consumers are struggling to fill their tanks, but Big Oil has very little control over day-to-day gas prices, which are set by global supply and demand and, of course, OPEC. By discouraging oil companies from making big profits, such a tax could potentially discourage them from making investments in new refineries and finding new oil sources, resulting in fewer jobs and even higher prices at the pump. Jimmy Carter tried this in 1980, and it only increased U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Singling out one particular industry for punishment because it is politically unpopular doesn’t make much economic sense, either.

Opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

What he said: “We should sell 70 million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less-expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks.” —Speech in Lansing, Mich., Aug. 4, 2008

Why it’s a bad idea: Obama was right in July when he said that the strategic oil reserve “has to be reserved for a genuine emergency.” Selling oil from the 700 million barrel reserve would increase domestic supply and could drive down prices in the short term, but encouraging consumers to use more oil isn’t going to fix anything. And depleting the reserve would leave the United States vulnerable to a supply disruption caused by a natural disaster or further unrest in the Middle East. Obama swapped common sense for this dangerous boondoggle in August after McCain started to hammer him on offshore drilling. So much for tough truths.

Read Entire Article

Full Story

Full Story

Ido Haar’s film documents the lives of a group of young Palestinian men working illegally as construction laborers in the Israeli city of Modi’in. Caught between Israeli security laws and a Palestinian Authority they see as having failed them, they work for Israeli contractors by day while hiding from police by night.

A surprise hit in Israel and named best documentary winner at the 2006 Jerusalem International Film Festival, 9 Star Hotel is an essentially nonpolitical film. Israeli director Ido Haar resolutely directed his cameras in raw vérité style at a group of young Palestinians who live and hide in the hills around the community they are helping to build in Israel. Illegal workers, they hide from police at night while working on construction during the day. Since 9 Star Hotel takes place on the border between Israel and the West Bank, politics cannot be far outside that frame, but they are experienced, discussed, felt from the point of view of the Palestinian workers.

The men are neither militants nor activists, but ordinary youths placed by history in extraordinary circumstances, you men who emerge as fully human — flawed and sympathetic. Caught in a strange and dangerous no-man’s land between an Israel that must enforce laws to protect its citizens and a Palestinian Authority that can’t, or won’t, help them, they must risk capture and live in makeshift shelters simply to survive. They have youthful dreams, an uncertain future and family responsibilities. The brilliance in Haar’s achievement is to have touched a stubbornly human chord in such a politically fractious region.

9 Star Hotel is the facetious name the men give to the pile of rocks that marks their nightly abode — a group of cardboard enclosures and tin-covered huts hidden in the brush-covered hills above the construction sites in the new town of Modi’in. But they have made a home for themselves, complete with pillows and even power generated by batteries they have scraped together. These dwellings form the film’s essential location, where the men talk, sleep, read, try to relax, and where boredom alternates with alarms and chases when the police approach.

Having gained their trust to an exceptional degree, Haar captures the young Palestinians in unguarded moments in their camp, during dangerous border crossings, at their work sites — where they periodically have to disappear when inspectors show up — and on breathless runs from the police. In some ways, the situation is reminiscent of other borders dividing poverty from wealth, where “illegals” take great risks simply to work. But because this is the border that divides Israelis and Palestinians, the risks for both parties are even greater.

For Muhammad and Ahmed, who are the central characters in Haar’s group portrait, hopelessness and despair are the greatest threat. Yet the two men demonstrate astonishing buoyancy and good humor in the face of daunting obstacles. Ahmed, nicknamed “the merchant” by his friends for his industriousness in salvaging discarded objects, from computers to toy trucks, especially enjoys making light of their situation. He once worked legally with his father as a guard in Israel, but upon his father’s death Ahmed lost his job and also became the sole breadwinner for his family. He now must sacrifice to support the ambitions of his younger siblings.

Muhammad is something of a philosopher, and is the little encampment’s natural leader. He comments on the wider conflict, saying of Israeli policy toward Palestinians, “If you shut a cat in a room, won’t it jump at you?” But he also criticizes Palestinian culture: “We think backward; we never look forward.”

Mostly the young men talk of girls, food, family problems, the pressure to get married just as they are starting to notice the opposite sex, what life is like in other, better places, and the cat-and-mouse game they must play with security forces. (At one point, Ahmed injures his foot while fleeing police; he disappears from the camp for a time; upon his return, he announces that he has become engaged.) They also discuss the security wall being built by Israel that will soon cut them off from work in Modi’in.

The men’s sense of abandonment and the gulf separating them from the Israelis who will occupy the new town are starkly captured in the contrast between the darkness of the hills at night and the bright lights of new homes below. It is poignantly evoked when some of the men come upon Israeli children playing in the hills, building a miniature play camp. While the children wonder whether they are safe around the Palestinians and if they should talk to them, the men, who maintain a real camp, offer good-natured suggestions to the kids.

Another touching moment occurs when Muhammad and Ahmed sit under the stars and hope for a better life. They recount the impossibilities of moving away, of finding work or education in the West Bank, and talk of the barrier that will likely end the only work they have. What then? Ahmed begins dreaming of at least becoming a policeman for the Palestinian Authority, a job that would be steady, if dangerous and low-paid. Then Muhammad reminds him that neither of them have enough education even to be policemen — and the two friends share a rueful laugh.

9 Star Hotel is not about political problems or ideologies. It is about the human suffering caused by unsolved political conflicts. It is a portrait of individual tragedy and resilience in the face of political contention.

This is a reprint from PBS.org

See The Whole Film

Full Story

Full Story

Hagee’s previous comments on the Holocaust and Catholics inflamed some Jewish and Christian groups, and also led presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, whom Lieberman strongly supports, to reject Hagee’s endorsement earlier this year.

Lieberman, a frequent surrogate for McCain, arranged Tuesday’s appearance before Christians United for Israel independently, according to the campaign. But one campaign aide, referring to outreach among evangelicals, said, “Are we happy that he’s there? You bet we are.”

Alluding to an “aggressive campaign” to stop him from speaking at the gathering, Lieberman told the crowd that “the bond that I feel with Pastor Hagee and each and every one of you is much stronger, and I am proud to stand with you tonight.” His words elicited an extended standing ovation from the annual CUFI gathering, in town to lobby Congress to support Israel, complemented by the waving of hundreds of American and Israeli flags.

Lieberman noted that he didn’t agree with everything Hagee has said, some of which had been “hurtful and offensive to some people,” but that they agreed on more important issues.

Hagee was widely criticized when previous statements he made calling the Catholic Church “the great whore” and claiming that God allowed the Holocaust so Israel could be created surfaced this spring.

Lieberman also suggested that Hagee’s objectionable comments had been taken out of context by a media that would, he offered, have given Moses and Miriam a hard time, too.

During his remarks, Hagee lashed out more harshly at the press, with its “dark motives,” and said the organization had come through “a vicious media firestorm.” At the same time, he called for greater sensitivity and welcomed Catholics, to whom he has apologized, into CUFI. He also rejected beliefs he said were often ascribed to him in error, including the idea that his group supports Israel so that it will “usher in the endtimes” by bringing all the Jews to Israel or that he wants to stop peace negotiations. “Israel alone decides,” he said.

Hagee’s address Tuesday night was his second of the conference, which opened Monday. His first speech was closed to the media on the grounds “that the press was intrusive and that their presence inhibited free discussion” at last year’s conference, according to a statement by CUFI spokesman Ronn Torossian, who also said “CUFI wants to create a more intimate and open setting this year.”

The same justification was cited in forbidding interviews with the 4,500 conference attendees, a prohibition they were warned of several times during the conference. Many participants, though, seemed unaware of the injunction or untroubled by the press presence and were only persuaded to stop giving interviews by minders working the event.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, who organized a more than 40,000-signature petition calling on Lieberman not to attend the CUFI event, criticized the Christian Zionist organization for not being open to the press and suggested the group was trying to narrow the spotlight on Hagee’s “embarrassing” past statements.

Ben-Ami, who heads the J Street lobbying group pushing for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, chastised Lieberman for appearing beside a speaker whose hawkish views on Israel don’t correspond with those of the majority of American Jews, according to a J Street poll.

He posed a rhetorical question to Lieberman: “If you believe that John McCain has such astute political judgment, then why don’t you follow his lead on renouncing Pastor Hagee as well?”

Source: The Jerusalem Post – July 23, 2008