Last Summer, Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, invited former National Security Advisor, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak in its National Speaker Series on Nov. 8. Starting last July, Phil Freshman, a synagogue member, tried to raise internally through synagogue channels his concerns about the invitation and was rebuffed at every turn. He submitted a letter to the congregation in the synagogue’s newsletter — not allowed. He tried to distribute his letter by leaving copies around the synagogue — not permitted. He asked for ten minutes to discuss the issue at the synagogue’s annual meeting — forget it. So he went public in a local weekly, the American Jewish World. The synagogue now is justifying its invitation of the Secretary on the ground that it seeks dialogue on difficult issues. Some of that dialogue appeared here earlier. And the dialogue continues. A synagogue officer responded to Phil in the American Jewish World on Sept. 30:
Open minds should listen to Condoleezza Rice at Beth El
By TOM SANDERS
In the Sept. 18 edition of the American Jewish World, a fellow Beth El congregant explained why he is “appalled and saddened” that Condoleezza Rice will be speaking at our synagogue on Nov. 8.
I am appalled and saddened at the polarization and demonization that has infected our public discourse. I am a liberal, but I will listen to Rice with interest, if for no other reason than because, as a Jew and as an American, I believe in listening across the divide.
The previous article passionately argues, and some no doubt agree, that Condoleezza Rice is “a warmonger and abuser of numerous legal values and core Jewish principles.” She committed “deeply immoral actions” and “shares direct culpability for many thousands of American and Iraqi deaths, for the grief and ruin the war has brought….”
Yet there are many in our community who are interested in hearing Rice, and others who have respect or even admiration for her, and they too have good reasons for their views. She was, after all, central to U.S. foreign policy-making for the entire eight years of the Bush Administration and an accomplished foreign policy scholar and policy maker before that.
Considered one of the more moderate members of the administration, she was an opponent of former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and is entitled to some credit for Cheney’s declining influence and Bush’s belated second-term efforts at a more multilateral foreign policy. She is at least as vilified by the far right as she is by the left.
Rice deserves credit for the AIDS initiative in Africa, a very substantial humanitarian effort to combat what is one of the great human tragedies of our time. And it’s a fact that Bush was reelected even after much of what outrages many Americans was common knowledge. If there’s culpability here, we, the American people, have our share of it.
The point is that it’s a much more complicated picture than the prior article suggests; and, more importantly, that there is a diversity of views among our community members and legitimate arguments to support many of those views. It’s much less about Condoleezza Rice than it is about being open to hearing differing viewpoints.
She’s not the speaker some of us would have chosen; but she is a person of intellect, import, experience and insight. Many of us were thrilled when Bill Clinton came to speak, even though many others have a well-justified moral objection to him. We cannot complain if, this year, the speaker is someone with whom we have issues.
More generally, I am deeply saddened at the descent of our public discourse into mutually exclusive exercises in vitriolic name-calling. Each side gets its “facts” from its own sources, hearing nothing but the echo of its own anger, and shouts epithets where reasoned dialogue is so badly needed: socialist, fascist, Nazi, warmonger. Hopefully, the Beth El community has not become so polarized that the only speakers to whom we will willingly listen are those who share our views.
Our body politic would be far healthier if we were to remember the dispute between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel, which was resolved when a divine voice decreed that the law is according to the School of Hillel. Why? “Because they were kindly and humble; they taught their own rulings as well as those of the School of Shammai. And even more, they taught the rulings of the School of Shammai before their own” (Talmud Eruvin 13b).
In hosting Bill Clinton, Condoleezza Rice and others, the Beth El Speakers Series stands with the School of Hillel in opposition to polarization and demonization.
And here is Phil’s reply, which in an abridged version also appeared in the American Jewish World:
It’s her immoral actions, not her ‘views’
By PHIL FRESHMAN
Tom Sanders’s response in the Sept. 30 issue of American Jewish World to my commentary in the Sept. 18 issue was an understandable attempt by Beth El Synagogue to save face regarding its upcoming hosting of Condoleezza Rice for dinner and a speech. However, it was also disingenuous and misleading.
Sanders implies that objections to Rice appearing on the bima stem solely from political bias and a desire to stifle dislikeable “views.” He suggests that assertions about her role in planning the Iraq war and agitating for it using false evidence—i.e., warmongering—are merely “vitriolic name-calling.” Each side, he writes, “gets its ‘facts’ from its own sources.”
It isn’t Rice’s “views” that make the Beth El event so disturbing but her immoral actions—involving both the war and Bush Administration torture policy. One “source” Sanders might consult is the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, which in 2004 investigated her war role and found her sworn testimony dubious.
Her actions have been widely documented, in books by former L.A. district attorney Vincent Bugliosi and former national security advisor Richard Clarke (who worked with her) and in New York Times and New Yorker reportage—to name just several “sources.” Her Wikipedia page contains abundant links to the public record (i.e., factual evidence, not blogs).
Contrary to Sanders’s claim that Beth El welcomes “a diversity of views,” its last two speakers were Bush press flack Ari Fleischer and Colin Powell. It hasn’t hosted any speaker who questioned official Israel policies.
Sanders fails to concede that Beth El needs money and that that’s the main reason for hosting Rice, rather than to learn from her “experience.” After all, didn’t we just finish eight years of learning from her?
Altogether, Sanders’s comments recall the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where Michael Palin as the rich landowner is hypocritically trying to calm down wedding guests who’ve watched a berserk Sir Lancelot indiscriminately laughter guests and guards in his misguided attempt to rescue Palin’s wispy son from a forced marriage: “Let’s not go into who killed whom but welcome a very famous and influential knight.”
I am part of a group, Tackling Torture at the Top, which will be peacefully demonstrating its opposition to the appearance of Sec. Rice in a rally outside Beth El Synagogue at 5:15 p.m. on Nov. 8.
We oppose both the illegal and immoral policies that Sec. Rice was instrumental in pursuing, and Beth El Synagogue’s giving the Secretary a platform to justify those policies.





13 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
If She was in jail nobody would have to worry about listening to her.
She stuck by, ” her husband,” as she quickly corrected Her self the President.
She stuck it to us by sticking by Him. When is she going to get Her medal.
Condoleezza Rice should be in prison.
She is a war criminal.
Good for Phil Freshmen for standing up to Tom Sanders over Temple Beth El’s hosting of Condoleezza Rice on November 8 in St. Louis Park, a suburb of Minneapolis. Ms. Rice specializes in extremely skilled and smudgy rhetoric which is very difficult to counter. Still, there are several specific actions which come to mind such as the way she instilled fear in the American public about the probability of “mushroom clouds” being a consequence if we did not pre-emptively attack Iraq. It turned out to be utterly untrue that Iraq had nuclear weapons but Bush ordered the inspectors out before they were finished searching. It is unlikely that she told the truth when she denied knowing about Richard Clarke’s extensive report on Al Qaeda which he left for her to read when she came into the White House in January 2001, long before the 9/11 attacks. She was responsible for advising the vacationing George W. Bush about the famous bin Laden memo which warned of his intent to attack America yet there is no evidence that she actually warned the president. She maintained in congressional testimony that she “could not recall” which was hardly credible.
Over the 8 years of the Bush era there were numerous instances when Rice shaded the truth; twisted the truth; insinuated facts not in evidence over and over again. Mr. Freshman is absolutely correct that these were not “views” but rather specific and well-honed propaganda points that she injected into the mainstream media, often with the effect of scaring the hell out of the American people.
She spoke repeatedly of the “war on terror” and used that propaganda angle to help the Bush administration justify a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq and huge increases in military spending, yet she failed educate herself and the American public about effective anti-terrorist policy. This was an action (or inaction), not a “view.”
Rice has never been held accountable for her role in some of the worst, some would say criminal, actions of the Bush administration. When she came into office as national security adviser and later as Secretary of State, two key positions in which she could have advised Bush and Cheney on the moral turpitude — and operational stupidity — of their torture policy about which she likely knew most of the inside details because of her position, so far as we know she never confronted Bush and Cheney, and if she did she had little effect and thus she was acting as a stooge for the Bush administration, a front, a cover, a shill — and she let this happen and knew it was happening. “We did not torture anyone,” said Ms. Rice as recently as April 27, 2009. This was an action, some would say a lie, not a “view.”
All of this is against Hebrew moral ethics (Hillel, whom Mr. Sanders quotes, would be aghast) and thus it is a slap in the face and a kick in the shins that a bunch of sentimental Beth El congregants who happen to be goofy fans of George W. Bush for reasons beyond our ken see fit to honor Ms. Rice by inviting her to speak within their temple as though her actions as a propagandist, war-monger and keeper of torture secrets could be swept under the rug. They will smile and smile and see a villain.
Ms. Rice will speak as part of the grand project to rehabilitate George Bush and Richard Cheney, hardly a proud moral achievement for self-respecting Jews. Just because they supported Israel doesn’t mean that moral cretins at best and criminals at worst should get a free pass.
So I would add to Mr. Freshman’s excellent argument the notion that mere political sentimentality of a few conservative Jewish fans of George Bush (as a Jew myself I am mystified by their devotion) should not take precedent over Ms. Rice’s accountability for sharing in crimes against humanity for the unwarranted invasion of Iraq and for torture during the Bush administration. At the very least, her accountability can be registered by Beth El’s refusal to allow her to speak in their temple anywhere near the Torah. This at least would make a statement that the people of Beth El Temple refuse to associate themselves with Ms. Rice’s immoral actions.
Coleen Rowley, the FBI whistleblower, plans to help lead a protest rally against “Terror at the Top” on the day Ms Rice appears at 5 pm MN time on Sunday November 8 (Beth El Synagogue, 5224 W. 26 St, St Louis Park, MN). If you live nearby, try to bring friends and join Coleen and her brave colleagues in St. Louis Park that day.
BTW, pursuant to Mr. Sanders’ letter, I would hardly equate Bill Clinton’s moral failings in his sex life with Condoleezza Rice’s moral failings in ignoring clear warnings of Al Qaeda activities in the United States before 9/11; using her propaganda talents to let the United States be bamboozled into an unwarranted war in Iraq; or acquiescing to the practice of torture contrary to US law. There is no equivalency there whatsoever.
Thanks so much for keeping us updated about this. The twisted justification that Rice deserves a hearing in part because of her marginally less homicidal tendencies versus Cheney and Rumsfeld truly rankles.
The mainstream Jewish community continues to venerate Henry Kissinger, so this episode hardly surprises. As a son of Holocaust escapees, I’ve watched in heightened horror as mainstream Jewry, starting in earnest around 1980, has continually descended into complicity with the worst crimes of American empire and Israeli exceptionalism.
I recently had an opportunity to hear Great Britain’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, describe the kinds of absolutely most horrible tortures that were practiced at the CIA’s “black sites” in that country, all of which was of course condoned by Condi Rice and others in the Bush Administration. The appalling and unfathomable tortures practiced by the Uzbeks included boiling people alive and torturing their children in front of them. See http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/craig-murray-uzbek-terror-and-the-ukusa/
Of course Condi continues to flippantly and flatly deny this all, saying “We did not torture anyone.” Meanwhile the Uzbek torture regime no doubt continues to practice the worst atrocities; having once been supported in their endeavors by the Bush Administration, it’s now difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. or Great Britain to object to any tortures now being practiced.
The cognitive dissonance that keeps us from knowing or appreciating the horrible things that were done in Americans’ names and which continue to be done is being compounded when Americans now pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to Condoleezza, for her to come give her talk on “leadership”. If you think about the comparison with the bystanders in NYC who shut their windows to avoid hearing Kitty Genovese’s screams as she was being stabbed in the alley below their apartments, the paying or rewarding of Rice is more than mere bystanderism. As an ethical matter, I think any hefty payment to Rice by the Synagogue’s leadership makes them complicit themselves in these worst forms of torture that continue to this day.
The Anti-Torture Rally outside Condoleezza’s speech scheduled for November 8th is also endorsed by: Veterans for Peace-Minneapolis Chapter; the Anti-War Committee; and the National Lawyers Guild-Minnesota Chapter
I applaud you for protesting at her speech next month. Best wishes for a peaceful outcome…
recommended
I agree with your appraisal of Rice, but it seems you are unaware of Clinton’s bloody laundry.
With a cursory and objective glance you will see he hasn’t changed a bit. They don’t call him slick willy for nothing. His Administration oversaw the beginning the policy of extraordinary renditions, disseminating propaganda for support to enter the war on Kosovo to facilitate the breakup of Yugoslavia,
support for the KLA terrorist group, hiring bin laden and his group, now known as Al Qaeda.
And now, Clinton is taking money for his foundation from the daughter of Islam Karimov, Uzbek’s president, most famous for boiling his political opponents alive.
(Of course Obama is overlooking the fact he is one of the worlds worst dictators, and trying to woo him as they have decided that the US can no longer keep a base there.)
In fact Clinton has always had a different litmus test for murderous dictators as long as they donate to his foundation.
I could go on and on, but the Clintons and Bushes are two branches of the same TX/AK cowboy dynasty. Study the BCCI, CIA Mena, AK cocaine connection if you want to know more. These 2 families are a blight on the world.
I suppose Temple Beth El welcomes a diverse group of speakers…but the congregants like Mr. Freshman better shut up and not dissent.
youmayberight,
“am part of a group, Tackling Torture at the Top, which will be peacefully demonstrating its opposition to the appearance of Sec. Rice in a rally outside Beth El Synagogue at 5:15 p.m. on Nov. 8.”
You might consider throwing stale bagels at Rice when she shows up, like some of my friends did toward Avigdor Lieberman in London last spring.
I don’t think we’ll be throwing anything; we do intend to demonstrate forcefully but peacefully. And I know we won’t be throwing shoes — it starts to get chilly here in Minnesota in November.
The opposition to Rice’s appearance has nothing to do with stifling open discourse, or being unwilling to hear opposing views. Rather, it’s an attempt to keep characters of dubious ethical and moral background from getting any more undeserved dignity and credibility (and, yes, money–and lots of it!) than they already have. If Beth-El really wants to be a forum for different points of view, why doesn’t it host a debate or roundtable discussion? Phil Freshman is right: this isn’t about Rice’s views, it’s about her behavior. Sadly, it’s not just Rice’s questionable behavior that calls for accountability–it’s Beth-El’s as well.
You are so right. We have suggested the synagogue have a genuine dialogue on this issue. In my earlier post http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/9449, I wrote of a local bioethicist who is an internationally renowned expert on torture issues, Dr. Steven Miles, who would join the dialogue at a fraction of Sec. Rice’s fee. Prior to its publication, that op-ed went to the Rabbi and President of the synagogue.
Lately we have found out that the Q and A portion of the event will be conducted by submitting questions on note cards, which will be screened by a moderator. When the synagogue leaders profess their desire for “dialgoue,” they are using a dictionary that differs from mine.