Quantcast


Advertisement

Bloggish

Email | Print | Text - Text +

March 3, 2010 | 4:32 pm

Harman Declines Jewish Journal Debate Invite

Posted by Rob Eshman

In my column of January 12, I offered to moderate a debate spopnsored by The Jewish Journal on Middle East issues between Rep. Jane Harman and Marcy Winograd, who is challenging Harman for the 36th Congressional seat.  Winograd, the challenger, quickly accepted. It’s taken a while to get a response from Harman, but yesterday her chief of staff e-mailed me a firm but polite no.

Hi Rob—thank you for your message and your invitation.  However, Congresswoman Harman declines the kind offer and believes her views on Israel are very clear.  John H.

Too bad, we even had a venue: Rabbi Dan Shevitz of Temple Mishkon Tephilo had offered his 800-seat sanctuary gratis.

I understand why Harman, who beat Winograd in the last race has little to gain from exposing herself to her opponent.  But my reason for holding the debate had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the state of The State of Israel and the American Left. Both Harman and Winograd are Democrats.  Harman represents a broad concensus view for a two state solution to the Israeli Palestinian issue, and strong American political and financial support for Israel. Winograd made clear in a speech that she supports a one-state solution and a deep reconsideration of America’s stand vis a vis Israel.  This divide is a crucial one among Democrats on the Left, Far Left and Center, and the more open and intelligent debate on it, the better.  That’s my point of view.  Clearly, it’s not Harman’s.

Too bad.

Here’s what I wrote in my column:

One Shabbat morning several years ago, Dan Shevitz, one of my two favorite Venice rabbis, was walking down Abbot Kinney Boulevard toward his synagogue, Mishkon Tephilo. He came to a narrow stretch of sidewalk in front of Abbot’s Habit, and stopped, not wanting to walk over a large dog standing guard beside its owner.

“Pardon me,” he said. “I just want to get by. Do you mind moving your dog?”

The owner looked up at him in a post-pot, pre-caffeine haze. “Hey, it’s Venice man,” he said. “Step around it.”

If the Chicago Rule, per David Mamet, is, “They send one of your guys to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue,” the Venice Rule is, “Step around it.”

Last week, the race for California’s 36th Congressional District seat, which includes that stretch of crippled nirvana called Venice, tested the Venice Rule. Incumbent Congresswoman Jane Harman decided to go after challenger Marcy Winograd — really go after her. The primary isn’t until June, but what brought the candidates swinging out of their corners was Israel.

On Harman’s behalf, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) recently sent a letter attacking Winograd’s stand on Israel to Jewish supporters on a list created by the Harman campaign. Waxman quoted liberally from a speech Winograd delivered in February 2008 at the Friends of Sabeel Conference at All Saints Church in Pasadena. In that speech, Winograd said she not only opposes a two-state solution, she supports the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

“Not only do I think a two-state solution is unrealistic,” Winograd said, “but also fundamentally wrong, because it only reinforces heightened nationalism.  You cannot establish a democracy in a state founded on the institutionalized superiority or exclusivity of one of [sic] religion, ethnicity or culture.  I do not support the notion of an Islamic state or a Christian state any more than I support a Jewish state” (for the full text, visit this column at jewishjournal.com).

Winograd went on to accuse Israel of “crimes against humanity,” “institutional racism” and “extermination.”

Waxman’s response was unequivocal. “Ms. Winograd’s views on Israel I find repugnant in the extreme,” he wrote. “Ms. Winograd is far, far outside the bipartisan mainstream of views that has long insisted that U.S. policy be based upon rock-solid support for our only democratic ally in the Middle East.

“In Marcy Winograd’s foreign policy, Israel would cease to exist. In Marcy Winograd’s vision, Jews would be at the mercy of those who do not respect democracy or human rights.”

Waxman’s fundraising letter exploded on the Internet like those Hamas rockets did in Ashkelon last week.

Winograd’s supporters, among them Huffington Post columnist Linda Milazzo, accused Waxman of picking an issue of little concern to the 36th’s constituents to gloss over Harman’s positions on issues that matter more: health care, civil liberties, jobs.

“It’s high time that [Sen. Joseph] Lieberman, Waxman and Harman, who’ve been elected to serve this nation, direct their passions toward the best interests of America, and not the interests of Israel,” Milazzo wrote — forgetting Waxman was often the lone voice against Bush-era secrecy, and the architect of landmark legislation on issues ranging from clean water to open government.

Judging by Milazzo’s post and the comments of other bloggers, this controversy will be a big issue in a campaign taking place more than 7,500 miles from Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The district is solidly Democratic — it’s Venice, man — so it’s a given that whoever wins the primary will likely go to Congress. What isn’t a given is how Democrats will finally face their differences over Israel.

This is not a question of “He said/She said/She said.” Waxman’s, Harman’s and Winograd’s positions on Israel each could not be clearer. Waxman and Harman represent the Jewish, Israeli, American and Palestinian consensus for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That’s right: An April 2009 poll commissioned by the Israeli-Palestinian peace group OneVoice found that 74 percent of Palestinians and 78 percent of Israelis were willing to accept a two-state solution.

Meanwhile, many on the left-of-left see America’s support for Israel, and the struggle for a negotiated solution, as part of some colonialist policy that props up a “racist” Israel at the behest of a juggernaut lobby. The danger of such a worldview — beyond the threat it poses to Israel — is that it blinds its believers to the real causes of Islamic extremism and the real reasons much of the Muslim world is blanketed in political oppression and economic backwardness. That blindness endangers all Americans, even Venetians.

Progressives who like Winograd’s stands on many other issues — and there are many to like — will be forced to choose how far they’ll follow her into Blame-Israel-First Land.

“On most issues, we agree with Marcy, who has been a stalwart in the Westside Progessive Democratic Party,” Venice residents Tom Laichas and Donna Malamud e-mailed me after finding Winograd’s Sabeel speech. “And we have since the Iraq War found Jane Harman on what, for us, is the wrong side of a lot of issues. But over the past several years, we’ve seen the idea of a binational unitary state gain even more ground on the left. We can’t vote for someone who will give the idea greater legitimacy.”

I invite Winograd and Harman to discuss this issue in a public forum hosted by The Jewish Journal at a mutually convenient date. Israel, it seems, is a fight the left can no longer just step around.

10 Comments — Leave your comment

Share this post: del.icio.us Favicondel.icio.us Digg FaviconDigg Facebook FaviconFacebook Google FaviconGoogle Reddit FaviconReddit StumbleUpon FaviconStumbleUpon Technorati FaviconTechnorati YahooMyWeb FaviconYahooMyWeb

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

I commend Editor Rob Eshman when he calls for open and intelligent debate on middle east peace and thank Rabbi Dan Shevitz of Temple Mishkon Tephilo for
offering to host a critically-needed conversation.
I hope my opponent reconsiders her rejection of Rabbi Shevitz’s offer.

In the meantime, I would like Jewish Journal readers
to know that I will support a peace agreement, be it two states or one state, which both sides - Israelis and Palestinians - acknowledge will respect equality,
dignity, and human rights for all.

Sincerely,
Marcy Winograd
Congressional Candidate, 36th District

Comment by Marcy Winograd on 3/04/10 at 11:13 am

It’s too bad Rep. Harman is unwilling to defend her views on the Middle East in front of the local Jewish community.  Perhaps she’s afraid that Winograd will also ask her why she (Harman) has consistently opposed resolutions condemning the 1915 genocide of Armenians by Turkey.  If there’s one thing we Jews can get behind, it’s that genocide is a bad thing.  Peter L. Reich, Professor of Law, Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa.

Comment by Peter Reich on 3/04/10 at 4:29 pm

BRAVO, Jane Harmon!  you don’t have to “debate” extremists (from either right or left) who don’t want your opinion on anything—just a platform to spew their lies, half-truths and venom.

Comment by mara kochba on 3/04/10 at 6:52 pm

Harmon is correct. Neither Harmon nor anyone else should dignify Winograd’s hateful, venomous lies by providing her a platform. Winograd has plenty of anti-Israel forums to spew her anti-Israel nonsense.If, however, Harmon changes her mind, she certainly should insist on a disinterested party, not Eshman, to make arrangements and serve as moderator.

Comment by Davidka on 3/04/10 at 7:38 pm

The eagerness of Ms. Winograd and reluctance of Congresswoman Harman is classic politics.  An incumbent is advised by their campaign staff to steer clear of any forum which legitimizes their opponents and I feel this standing advice is correct in this case.  Debates are great—for those who attend—but very risky for the incumbent.  I assume Ms. Winograd is Jewish (based upon her name) but she can hardly call herself a California democrat with such radical views on Israel, contrary to 60 years of American and current foreign policy.  Israel remains the only democracy in that volatile region—that really should be the end of the debate for any rational person.

Comment by Alan Thaler, Esq. on 3/04/10 at 10:47 pm

Why does Harman want to censor open debate? Does Harman support the brutal Israeli blockade of Gaza, denying clean water and medicine to 1.5 million people, 40% of whom are under the age of 15?  Does Harman support ever-expanding Israeli settlements making a two-state solution all but impossible?

Harman asks Waxman to do her dirty work and then retreats after the criticism is lobbed at Winograd.  This is cowardly behavior, no matter how you choose to frame it.

If Harman won’t even discuss the issue with Winograd, how can we believe she is serious about promoting peace and security?

Comment by J. Kirby on 3/05/10 at 11:31 am

I would encourage the Jewish Journal to go even further with the Harman v Winograd issue as it relates to civil liberties and Winograd attempting to indoctrinate her students.  In 2007 the Daily Breeze wrote about a situation with Winograd and an Iranian Jewish student that was isolated and subsequently removed from the class because of his stance on Israel and the War in Iraq.  And, what about Winograd’s statements that she has gone to school boards to prevent field trips to the Simon Wiesenthal Center because it promotes Israeli nationalism? Winograd is a defender of the Constitution and free speech under the First Amendment? Winograd has given her public support for the Armenian Genocide Resolution and yet information and education on that issue can be found at both the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Holocaust Museum.  Winograd’s classrooom antics should be put in the mix of Jewish Journal’s debate request.

Comment by Jonathan on 3/06/10 at 1:40 pm

I suppose everyone either hasn’t done their homework or research on Winograd.  Consider this fact and Winograd’s refusing to go on CNN:

“In her speech, Winograd also pointedly recounts her refusal to answer a CNN interviewer who had the temerity to ask her whether she believes that Israel has a right to exist. She stonewalled that question. Clearly, she’s a candidate who feels she has something to hide from the general public, even as she touts it to her anti-Israel allies.

The hypocrisy of sometimes claiming not to oppose the existence of Israel and sometimes actively opposing its existence and advocating a “single-state solution” is so obvious that it should require no elucidation. This hypocrisy is entirely consistent with that of Sabeel which has both advocated land-for-peace and opposed it, and supported the second intifada as it opposed violence.

Concluding her speech, Winograd claimed (in poetry no less) to oppose all nationalism. It appears that she would like to put this opposition into action only against the existence of Israel.”
This was in 2006.  Does that mean, with her past record of applauding military personnel that refused to be deployed to the Middle East, she also does not support her own country the United States of America?  How does this woman claim to be for the Constitution when she endorses soldiers that go AWOL?
Harman is correct that her time is better spent not debating Winograd.

Comment by Jacob on 3/06/10 at 2:24 pm

Dear Editor Eshman:


Inasmuch as Jane Harman and her political allies see fit to make Israel an issue against her challenger, Marcy Winograd, I see it as very appropriate for Jane Harman to debate Marcy Winograd on this issue. Peace and stability in Middle East is of grave importance to all of us. I would like to hear how peace and security can result in supporting more Israeli settlements on Palestinian soil. Colonizing more and more of Palestine simply makes a two-state solution less and less possible. Our President clearly stated U.S. concerns about these settlements. Yet the bull-dozing, displacement and building continues unabated. Jane Harman’s silence on this speaks to whether she truly believes in the security of Israel. Israel agitates and aggravates to where retaliation and the right of self-defense is understandable. This breach of international law is just one of the many ways the security of Israel is at stake. Billions of U.S. tax dollars are being showered on Israel to continue policies that offend Israel’s neighbors and the more than one billion Moslems all over the world. A debate on the subject of Israel would help those of us living in congressional district 36 understand how it benefits Israel and the United States to support the building of more and more settlements on Palestinian soil.


Sincerely,


Lillian Laskin

Comment by Lilian Laskin on 3/06/10 at 2:52 pm

In resonse to Laskin’s comment:

What amazes me is that no one is even beginning to speak of Hezbollah or Hamas regarding Gaza and “international laws.”  Taxpayer m oney is also being spent on the Hamas, Hezbollah issue.  You will recall that the UN in 1948 declared Israel a Jewish State.  Israel was more than willing to give up land and give peace a chance.  The facts are that Palestine was the first to reject the offering of land in the 1948 resolution within the UN and starting attacking!

To talk about Middle East peace on solely the Israel/Palestine issue is fantastical at best without speaking of the other bordering countries; Iran, still the number one state-sponsor of terrorism in the world, Syria, Lebanon i.e. Hamas and Hezbollah.
Where does Winograd stand on those issues?  She doesn’t.
Winograd also can’t have a debate just on her terms either.  Bring in Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and the entire issue to the floor for debate.
As a Democrat and not a Blue Dog at that, I predict Winograd will flounder.
It is time for Harman to start fighting back put those other issues on the table regarding Middle East peace.

Comment by jonathan on 3/08/10 at 1:01 pm

Post a Comment

Name:  
Email:  

Type the word you see below:

Comment:


About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

RSS


Blog Archive






Newspaper

Serving a community of 600,000, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is the largest Jewish weekly outside New York City. Our award-winning paper reaches over 150,000 educated, involved and affluent readers each week. Subscribe here.

© Copyright 2012 Tribe Media Corp.
All rights reserved. JewishJournal.com is hosted by Nexcess.net. Homepage design by Koret Communications.
Widgets by Mijits. Site construction by Hop Studios.

counter fake hit page