A reminder once again that I am in Boston where the local time as I begin this post is 4:29 pm. It is still more than two hours before the Sabbath starts, although it started in Israel quite some time ago.
I'm sure that many of you heard Prime Minister Netanyahu's 'ethnic cleansing' remarks last week. For those who did not, let's go to the videotape.
But as Northwestern University Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich points out, Netanyahu is right. The demand that 'settlers' (in this case another way of saying 'Jews') be removed from a territory as part of ending an 'occupation' is unprecedented.
When pressed, defenders of the Palestinian position characterize the demand as no settlers rather than the uglier-sounding no Jews. The
claim is hard to take at face value, as the Palestinians have never
objected to Israeli Arabs settling across the Green Line, as they have
in significant numbers. But, granting its sincerity, what does
international law say about the demand to remove settlers as part of a
solution to a territorial conflict? To answer this question, as part of a
larger research study on settlements, I examined the fate of settlers in every occupation since the adoption of the Geneva Conventions—eight major situations in total. The results highlight how extraordinary the Palestinian demand is.
There is simply no support in international practice for the
expulsion of settlers from occupied territories. In the many situations
involving settlers around the world, the international community has
never supported expulsion, and consistently backed plans allowing the
settlers to remain in a new state.
Settlement activity is the rule rather than the exception in
situations of belligerent occupation around the world. In places like
Western Sahara and northern Cyprus, the settlers now make up a majority
of the population. In most other places, they account for a much higher
percentage of the territory’s population than Jews would in a potential
Palestinian state. In all these cases, the arrival of the settlers was
accompanied with the familiar claims of seizure of land and property,
and serious human rights abuses. Unlike the Israeli situation, it was
also accompanied with a large-scale expulsion of the prior inhabitants
from the territory.
In internationally-brokered efforts to resolve these conflicts, the
question of the fate of the settlers naturally arose. The answer, across
all these very different situations, has always been the same: the
settlers stay. Indeed, the only point of dispute has typically been what
proportion of settlers receive automatic citizenship in any
newly-created state and what proportion merely gets residence
status. Thus, when East Timor, for example, received independence in an
internationally-approved process, none of the Indonesian settlers were
required to leave. The current U.N.-mediated peace plan for Western
Sahara and Cyprus not only presupposes the demographically dominant
settler population can remain, it also gives it a right to vote in
referenda on potential deal.
This is not because these settlers are beloved by the surrounding
population. The opposite is true. In the Paris peace talks to end the
Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, representatives of the latter tried
to raise the possibility of expelling the nearly million Vietnamese
settlers. Their arguments were familiar: the settlers remind them of the
occupation, rekindle ancient hatreds, and destabilize the peace. Yet
the Cambodian demand for the mass removal of ethnic Vietnamese was
rejected outright by diplomats: One simply cannot ask for such things.
Indeed, uniform international practice shows that the removal
of settlers is an obstacle to peace. In those occupations that have
been resolved—East Timor, Cambodia, Lebanon—such demands would have been
a complete deal-breaker. And those still subject to international
diplomacy, however slim the chances of resolution, there would not even
be a pretense of negotiation had demands similar to the Palestinians
been made.
In short, the Palestinians couching their objection as one about
removing “settlers” rather than Jews does not change the harsh reality.
There is simply no precedent in international practice for the demand.
Whatever term one uses for such a demand, Netanyahu was clearly right to
call attention to the extraordinary nature of the demand. It is also
disappointing that, instead of exercising moral leadership on this
issue, the ADL went against its mission by seemingly excusing singular
treatment for Jews.
Perhaps, instead of referring to a 'Palestinian' demand for 'ethnic cleansing,' Netanyahu should have spoken about a 'Palestinian' demand for a Judenrein state. That would have put the 'Palestinian' demand into its proper context.
Jewish Voice for 'peace' seeks to free accessory to murder
Israel Radio reported this morning that a Jew and a 'Palestinian' - both 'peace activists' - are being held for meeting with an enemy foreign agent.
While the radio did not disclose who they are, the uber-Leftist Jew-haters at Jewish Voice for 'peace' are petitioning for his release (if you think my description of JVP is an overstatement, go here).
If you're wondering why this Jewish-born drek is being held, go here.
The National Jewish Democratic Council immediately called on members of the Republican Party to denounce Huckabee’s comments, saying it is “not
only disgustingly offensive to the President and the White House, but
shows utter, callous disregard for the millions of lives lost in the
Shoah and to the pain still felt by their descendants today.”
“It may be the most inexcusable we’ve encountered in recent memory,” the organization added in a statement.
The Anti-Defamation League, a group that fights antisemitism,
said that while they are wary of the deal, Huckabee’s comments are “completely out of line and unacceptable.”
“To hear Mr. Huckabee invoke the Holocaust when
America is Israel’s greatest ally and when Israel is a strong nation
capable of defending itself is disheartening,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, in a statement.
The NJDC is an organization of the Democratic party that has come out in favor of the Iranian nuclear sellout. It exists to promote the Democratic party (and Jewish donations to it) and is definitely not Jewish. The ADL is a group of paranoid liberals that is too busy finding anti-Semitism on every street corner to think about what it means to be Jewish. In fact, I am surprised that they did not accuse Huckabee of being an anti-Semite.
I have never heard of any of the other organizations cited, although I do 'know' one of the people cited from his online persona.
And in true Leftist fashion not a single comment supporting Huckabee has been cited.
"Look, we have a very serious disagreement with the administration on
a very serious issue," Ambassador Ron Dermer told Capital Download.
"But what I don't doubt is the sincerity of the president or his team
when they say they believe this deal not only makes America safe but
makes Israel safe. Where we disagree is the judgment of actually what
this deal is going to do."
On Huckabee's comments, he said: "These are not words that I would use or that I think are appropriate."
But what did you expect him to saywhile he's the Ambassador? That Obama is at best indifferent and at worst hostile to Israel's existence as a state? Consider what Dermer's predecessor wrote once he was out of office (from a review by John Podhoretz):
It’s not that there’s lots of breaking news in “Ally” that will
startle people. Rather, it makes news on almost every page with its
incredibly detailed account of the root hostility of the Obama
administration toward the Jewish state.
What makes the details especially credible is that Oren is no
flame-breathing Israeli right-winger but very much (and at times
distressingly) an Establishment creature and one, moreover, who makes it
clear he drank the Obama hope-and-change Kool-Aid in 2008. (Indeed, he
now serves in Israel’s Knesset not as a member of Bibi Netanyahu’s Likud
but of the new centrist Kulanu party.)
On major matters, the administration seemed to hold Israel accountable for problems it had nothing to do with.
Example: The Palestinian Authority made moves toward seeking a
declaration of statehood at the United Nations in 2011, which would’ve
triggered a law shutting down their US mission and suspending all aid to
the PA and to UN agencies that recognized Palestine.
In response, Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides called Oren into his
fancy Foggy Bottom office and screamed at him: “You don’t want the
f - - - ing UN to collapse because of your f - - - - ing conflict with
the Palestinians, and you don’t want the f - - - king Palestinian
Authority to fall apart either.”
To which Oren replied that Israel didn’t want the United Nations to
collapse “but there are plenty of Tea Party types who would, and no
shortage of Congress members who are wondering why they have to keep
paying Palestinians who spit in the president’s eye.” He reports that
Nides “slumped into his Louis XVth chair.”
Oren also writes about bizarrely petty offenses. In 2010, Obama left
Israel off a list of countries he mentioned as having helped in the wake
of the Haiti earthquake when it was the first nation in the world to
dispatch relief teams and get them to the disaster sites — because the
president was angry about something having to do with the peace process.
Even when the administration is acting friendly, Oren senses it is
doing so not out of genuine fellow feeling but to keep Israel close —
hugging it to prevent it from acting, especially when it came to Iran’s
nuclear program.
I'd bet that Dermer is a lot closer to Huckabee and Oren on this than he is to the ADL or the NJDC - he just can't say so.
My own view is that while I'm averse to Holocaust analogies (they make me cringe because I think they're overused), there is something to the notion that 'ovens' reflects Obama's deepest wishes for the people of Israel, if not for (non-liberal) Jews generally. And it certainly reflects what Iran wants to do with its nuclear program.
Poritz (in Yiddish )was the ruler back in old eastern Europe who could
make or break the lives of the Jews living in his shmate kingdom.
The Jews developed a behavior that was all about pleasing the Poritz.
They did not know it but they were dhimmis just like their brothers in the Arab countries.
Sadly , this behavior was not fool proof and when the need for money or property or blood came up - the Jews got their pogrom.
The
CZAR USED TO SEND THE KASAKS to burn houses and rape Jewish women so
that their terrible poverty and anger over it will not make them do this
to him.
Some Jews seem to suffer from the Poritz syndrome even though they really should not.
There have been some voices in Israel this week - like the Dry Bones cartoon above - that hint at ulterior motives of US Secretary of State John FN Kerry in pursuing a 'two-state solution' between Israel and the 'Palestinians.'
Even Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League - about as mainstream as you can get among the American secular Jewish leadership, but someone who sees anti-Semitism in every corner - blasted Kerry earlier this week.
Describing
the potential for expanded boycotts of Israel makes it more, not less,
likely that the talks will not succeed; makes it more, not less, likely
that Israel will be blamed if the talks fail; and more, not less, likely
that boycotts will ensue. Your comments, irrespective of your
intentions, will inevitably be seen by Palestinians and anti-Israel
activists as an incentive not to reach an agreement; as an indicator
that if things fall apart, Israel will be blamed; and as legitimizing
boycott activity.
...
But the core of the conflict was and
remains Palestinian unwillingness to accept Israel's legitimacy and
permanence as a Jewish state. That is why the Palestinians rejected the
1947 partition, that is why they rejected recognizing Israel after the
1967 war, and that is why Israeli offers at Camp David in 2000 and
Annapolis in 2008 were rejected or allowed to go unanswered. It is
Palestinians who must hear the message that not only has their
rejectionism been the major obstacle to peace, but it has also been the
main source of their suffering and misery over the years. It is time for
them to make the qualitative leap toward peace and acceptance of the
legitimacy of the Jewish state.
On Thursday, a group of Israeli rabbis calling themselves the Committee to Save the Land and People of Israel, published a letter that accused Kerry of declaring war against God.
“Your incessant efforts to expropriate integral parts of our Holy Land
and hand them over to Abbas’s terrorist gang, amount to a declaration of
war against the Creator and Ruler of the universe! For G-d awarded the
entire Land of Israel to our ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in
order that they bequeath it, as an everlasting inheritance, to their
descendants, the Jewish people, until the end of all time,” the Rabbis
wrote.
“If you continue on this destructive path, you will ensure your
everlasting disgrace in Jewish history for bringing calamity upon the
Jewish people,” the letter continued, invoking the specter “heavenly
punishment for everyone involved.”
On Thursday afternoon, the Rabbinical Council of America and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the two most prominent voices of modern Orthodox Jewry in the United States, blasted the aforementioned committee.
In a joint release, the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council of
America, which together represent a large plurality of modern orthodox
Jews in the United States, repudiated the nationalist Rabbis’ words,
which they defined as “extreme and offensive rhetoric.”
The Committee to Save the Land and People of Israel seemed to “arrogate
to themselves unusual insight into the desires of the Almighty,” the
American Jewish groups noted mockingly.
While world Jewry and especially those living in Israel have “ serious
concerns” regarding Kerry’s proposals, “such concerns must only be
expressed with civility and on the substance of the issues, not
degenerating into personal venom and threats,” the organizations
asserted.
While OU and RCA have aired their own objections with the Obama
administration, they stated, “we have found no reason to question their
intentions in pursuing this effort.”
"The letter of the Committee to Save the Land and People of Israel may
represent the views of its signators; it does not represent ours."
I'm not a big fan of people deciding for themselves that they know God's desires. Still, I have to wonder: Why did the OU and the RCA get involved? Are they afraid of what the Obama administration might do to the American (Orthodox) Jewish community if they remain silent? Is this another manifestation of the poritz syndrome?
Abe Foxman, the Chairman of the Anti-Defamation League and a symbol of mainstream American Jewish leadership has blasted US Secretary of State John FN Kerry for his threats against Israel.
The full text reads: Dear Mr. Secretary:
We are writing to
you at this moment with great respect for the exemplary and devoted
efforts you are putting in to try to move peace forward between the
Israelis and the Palestinians.
We have all witnessed
the suffering and loss on all sides as the conflict continues year
after year, decade after decade. We welcome your perseverance and
optimism in trying to accomplish something that has eluded others time
and again.
It is with this perspective in mind that
we regretfully read of your comments this past weekend in Munich. In
speaking about the price Israel will pay if the peace talks break down
and Israel is blamed, you may have thought you were merely describing
reality. But as the key player in the process, the impact of your
comments was to create a reality of its own.
Describing
the potential for expanded boycotts of Israel makes it more, not less,
likely that the talks will not succeed; makes it more, not less, likely
that Israel will be blamed if the talks fail; and more, not less, likely
that boycotts will ensue. Your comments, irrespective of your
intentions, will inevitably be seen by Palestinians and anti-Israel
activists as an incentive not to reach an agreement; as an indicator
that if things fall apart, Israel will be blamed; and as legitimizing
boycott activity.
What is particularly troubling
about your comments is the absence of similar tough talk about the
consequences for Palestinians should the talks fail. We make this
comment not in search of some theoretical balance. Rather, its absence
suggests a historical amnesia about why there has been no peace and no
solution all these years. Israel always must be willing to compromise
for peace and at different times it is not unreasonable to ask Israel to
do more.
But the core of the conflict was and
remains Palestinian unwillingness to accept Israel's legitimacy and
permanence as a Jewish state. That is why the Palestinians rejected the
1947 partition, that is why they rejected recognizing Israel after the
1967 war, and that is why Israeli offers at Camp David in 2000 and
Annapolis in 2008 were rejected or allowed to go unanswered. It is
Palestinians who must hear the message that not only has their
rejectionism been the major obstacle to peace, but it has also been the
main source of their suffering and misery over the years. It is time for
them to make the qualitative leap toward peace and acceptance of the
legitimacy of the Jewish state.
It is encouraging
that reportedly in the talks you are raising these matters with the
Palestinians. Your comments in Munich, however, threaten to undo all
this by ignoring the historic compulsion of the Palestinians to look for
ever new reasons and incentives to reject the Jewish state. Concerns of
the kind you expressed therefore would have been better left unsaid or
at most discussed in private conversations with Israeli representatives.
We
wish you continued success in moving this process forward. We urge you
to understand, however, that those who are most against peace are the
ones who will benefit the most from the unintended encouragement in the
comments you expressed in Munich. Abraham D. Foxman, ADL National Director.
By the way, there is only one Israeli politician who is defending Kerry. Can you guess who she is?
Read the whole thing. This is a serious setback for the Obama administration. It's likely to make even the Democratic party suck-ups among American Jewry wonder what's going on.
The Economist published the anti-Semitic pictured above in its January 18 edition. What's the problem with it? Look closely, and if you still can't figure it out, here's the Commentator.
You don't have to be (clue) eagle eyed to spot it do you? At the
centre-top of the Congressional emblem, above that eagle, is a Jewish
Star of David. Now, this obviously plays to the theme, common among
anti-Semites around the world, that the U.S. Congress is essentially a
puppet of the Jewish people.
Obama is literally and figuratively chained back from properly reaching out to Iran by the Jews.
The Israeli flag has a Star of David in it, of course. But if the cartoonist, and the editorial team of The Economist
that approved it, had wanted to emphasise Israel rather than the the
broader global Jewish community, they could have easily had the
cartoonist put in the image of the Israeli flag. No problem at all from a
technical point of view.
That would still have been bigotry -- the notion that Israel runs American politics is an obvious form of neo-anti-Semitism.
But this is the old fashioned stuff. It's the kind of thing that
appeared in The Protocols of Zion. It's the kind of thing the Nazis
used. It's the kind of thing bigots -- including in the Western-funded
Palestinian authority -- use all the time.
The Jews run the world: or at least its most powerful nation. That's the message The Economist
conveys. Sometimes the term anti-Semitism is over-used. Sometimes it is
under-used. This time there's no doubt at all what is going on.
The Commentator calls this 'shocking bigotry.' Bigotry, yes. Shocking, no. This has practically become standard fare for the Economist. And that's why the ADL's demand for an apology is meaningless. What's needed isn't an apology. It's a lobotomy.
ADL director Abe Foxman slammed President Hussein ObamaCongress on Thursday, claiming that the United States under Obama is seen as 'weak and retreating' and that perception could (could?!?) harm US efforts (such as they are) to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
“Make no mistake about it. If what we are seeing now is the beginning of
a deep change in American foreign policy, it will be bad for the Jews,”
said Foxman, the ADL’s national director, at a conference Thursday
marking the group’s 100th anniversary in New York.
“The combination of America’s unsatisfactory involvement in the wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq, together with the financial crisis at home,
have generated a broader opposition to American military involvement
overseas,” he said.
Citing among other things the recent
congressional resistance to authorizing a strike on Syria, Foxman said:
“America is being seen as weak and retreating.”
“The world looks
at our choices, looks at our public opinion polls, looks at
congressional reactions, looks at the paralysis in Washington on
budgeting matters and wonders,” he said.
The perception of weakness could harm US efforts to get Iran to end its nuclear push, Foxman warned.
“I
hope that we get our act together,” he said. “I hope Congress starts to
think of the bigger picture. I hope we are truly able to keep all
options on the table, whether vis-à-vis Iran or Syria, without rushing
to military action.”
Hey Abe - who's behind that? Who took authorization for a strike on Syria to Congress in the first place? Who has weakened America's military capabilities like no previous President? Who has destroyed America's economy and denied its exceptionalism? Who would be happy to 'contain' a nuclear Iran? Congress? Really?
The ADL gets one right, blasts new EU sanctions on Israel
The Anti-Defamation League gets a lot wrong on Israel, particularly when it comes to the threat that Islam represents to us. But they have gotten the Europeans' new sanctions right.
In a letter to Catherine Ashton, the High
Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice
President of the European Commission, Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National
Director, stated: "President [Mahmoud] Abbas has blocked the process
with his pre-conditions, so who does the EU pressure? Israel. Who gets
a free pass? The Palestinians."
Foxman called on the EU to end
its "long-standing habit of not holding the Palestinian Authority
responsible for its actions and inactions that are unequivocally
obstacles to peace."
Commenting on the directives target, ADL stated settlements should not be considered an obstacle to peace.
"Successive
Israeli governments from the start of the peace process, including the
current one, have maintained that construction beyond the 'Green
Line'does not contradict the Israeli commitment to a negotiated
resolution of all the core issues," ADL stated in the letter to the EU
foreign policy chief.
Unfortunately, they waited until the 7th day of Passover to do it, so Elder of Ziyon, who broke the story, will likely not even have seen the story yet when the holiday ends in the US after sundown on Tuesday, but Hanan Ashrawi's Miftah, which receives massive western funding, has finally apologized for the blood libel against Jews that was published on the group's website (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
This is from the third link.
Miftah at first defended its right to post the article in a statement titled, “MIFTAH denounces smear campaign against it.”
“The obscure pro-Israeli website ‘The Elder of Ziyon’ has wrongly
accused MIFTAH and Dr. Ashrawi of promoting Jewish blood libel during
Passover through its publication of an Arabic-language article that
briefly addressed the subject,” the defense stated.
The article was about promoting dialogue, Miftah maintained.
“The disclaimer at the opening of the ‘News and Analysis’ section
clearly states that, ‘The views represented in [News and Analysis] are
solely those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of MIFTAH but rather fulfill its mandate for open dialogue,’ ” the
statement continued.
...
Miftah on Monday recalibrated its position, issuing a full apology and blaming a low-level staffer for the situation.
“It has become clear to us after investigating this incident that the
article was accidentally and incorrectly published by a junior staff
member,” the apology stated. “The said staffer has been reprimanded and
all our staff has been informed as to the disgusting and repulsive
phenomena of blood libel or accusation, including its use against Jews.”
“Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, as founder, has nothing to do with the day to day
management at MIFTAH and was no way involved in this incident,” the
apology maintained.
I don't buy the 'low-level staffer' nonsense. Name me one 'Palestinian' organization that is not tightly controlled by the people behind it. I can't believe that Hanan Ashrawi didn't know about this article until it was published.
Second, if it was truly 'accidentally and incorrectly published,' why did the apology take so long and require so much condemnation of the article before it was issued?
Third, note the one thing they don't admit: That the article itself was a blood libel.
And by the way, when was the last time you saw a blood libel about anyone other than Jews?
There is no sugar-coating the point. The Senate
has just confirmed the most truculent cabinet officer in respect of
Israel in more than a generation because important institutions and
leaders shrank from making an issue of it.
This is a story that is painful for many people to talk about. It
would be inaccurate to suggest that the only objection to putting Mr.
Hagel in at the war department had to do with Israel. He would be
inadequate, even were Israel not an issue. There is a broad sense within
the Jewish community — as there is among a number of non-Jewish
senators who permitted his nomination to go to the floor — that Mr.
Hagel has proven himself incompetent and disingenuous.
Yet there’s no gainsaying the special concern that his hostility to
Israel has raised among the Jewish leadership. And one of the stories
that is being spoken of in private is how humiliated the leaders of the
Jewish community feel. Nearly all of them — not all, but nearly all —
were opposed to the elevation of Mr. Hagel to the Pentagon. But only one
of the Jewish defense agencies spoke out forcefully against him.
That was the Zionist Organization of America, which is the oldest
pro-Israel organization in America, having been founded in 1897, the
same year in which Theodor Herzl convened at Basel, Switzerland, the
First Zionist Congress. It opposed the Hagel nomination early,
forthrightly, and unapologetically. The result, according to the ZOA’s
president, Morton Klein, is that it received objections from several
leaders worried about the consequences for the Jewish community of such a
public position.
Mr. Klein believes the Hagel nomination would not have been confirmed
had the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Anti-Defamation
League, and the American Jewish Committee taken a formal public position
against Mr. Hagel. All three agencies have had many heroic moments. But
they stood down on Mr. Hagel. Said Mr. Klein: “Several senators — and
important ones — said to me: ‘If Aipac, ADL and AJCommittee — especially
Aipac — had come out and lobbied against Hagel, he would have been
stopped.”
Trying to justify his decision to support Chuck Hagel's nomination for Secretary of Defense, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) told a breakfast meeting on Tuesday that Hagel 'almost had tears in his eyes' when the two met to discuss the nomination.
“Look, I had doubts about Sen. Hagel when his name was
first floated, and I expressed those publicly on ‘Meet The Press’ and
other places,” Schumer said. “And the president called me and said,
‘Before you come out with any decision, please sit down and talk to
him.’ That was only fair.”
Schumer said he spent 90 minutes asking Hagel questions — including about a “nuclear Iran” — and “he answered them very well.”
“He struck me as sincere, and you know, you have to be sitting there
at the meeting obviously, but I also told him when he used the word
Jewish lobby what it meant to Jewish people,” he added.
“And I told him what a double standard is. That Jewish people
throughout the centuries have suffered a double standard. Everyone could
be a farmer except Jewish people. Everyone could live in Moscow except
Jewish people. I said when everyone else can lobby but all of a sudden
when those of us who are pro-Israel lobby, it’s a negative, that’s a
double standard. And I’m sure you didn’t mean it, but it harkens to the
old days.
“And he really, you know, he almost had tears in his eyes when he understood. So I believe he will be good.”
Schumer noted that there is “not a major Jewish organization against” Hagel.
“The main fight on Hagel is coming from the neocons, who you know
well. And they resent Hagel’s apostasy on Iraq. You may remember — the
neocons helped push Iraq — and Hagel was one of the first Republicans to
say Iraq wasn’t working. And he was right. But that’s where it’s coming
from.
“So I have no qualms about my position,” Schumer added. “And as you
can see now, Sens. McCain and Graham and Alexander have said they may
not vote for him, but they’ll let the vote come forward.”
Really? The ADL and AJC aren't major Jewish organizations and they're 'neocons'? He can't be serious.
But Jonathan Tobin reports that the report on Friday that Hagel had told an audience at Rutgers University in 2007 that Israel controls the State Department has galvanized the American Jewish organizations whose silence has acted as cover for pro-Israel Democratsto support Hagel. Two of them, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee have now issued statements strongly questioning Hagel's fitness to be Secretary of Defense, and the result may be a whole new ballgame - including the withdrawal of Hagel's nomination - by the time the Senate returns to session next Monday.
On Thursday, Contentions called
on some of the major Jewish organizations that have been conspicuous by
their absence from the debate about Hagel to finally break their
silence on the issue and to demand an explanation about the 2007 speech
given at Rutgers University during which Hagel is alleged to have made
the crack about the Israelis and the State Department. Last night, the
Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that both the Anti-Defamation League
and the American Jewish Committee have made such statements. The ADL told JTA Hagel needed to explain the remark but the American Jewish Committee went farther in saying that “further Senate deliberation is called for before any final vote is taken.”
These comments are part of the growing furor over Hagel that is not
going to be defused by the nominee’s assurance to Senator Lindsay Graham
that he “doesn’t recall” making the controversial statements about
Israel and the State Department. The allegations about the Rutgers
speech are credible not just because of the contemporaneous account of
the event but also because of Hagel’s history of saying similar things
about the “Jewish lobby” and disavowals of past stands favoring outreach
to Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. As Hagel “twists in the wind” — a
Watergate allusion made today by Woodward —pressure is growing on
pro-Israel Democrats to abandon him.
With each passing day during the Congressional recess over the next
week, the Hagel deathwatch will become a bigger and bigger story. Though
Democrats closed ranks behind the president’s choice in a partisan
votes on Hagel last week the failure to block a delay of the decision on
him via a filibuster on Thursday will give some of them the time to
change their minds. Some of the pro-Israel senators like Chuck Schumer
who have been using the silence of mainstream Jewish groups about his
nomination as cover for their decision to go along with what they knew
was a questionable choice are now on the spot. As John wrote in the New York Post on Friday,
it’s time for Schumer to live up to his boast that he was the
“guardian” of Israel in the Senate. In light of the latest revelations
about the nominee’s record, that pose is meaningless if he doesn’t jump
off the Hagel bandwagon.
It is true that many of the Republicans who voted to oppose cloture
of Hagel on Thursday were doing so in order to try to force the White
House to give up more information about what the president knew about
the Benghazi terror attack. But the extra time gives members on both
sides of the aisle to reconsider the Hagel fiasco.
If this nomination is defeated, the Jewish community owes the Washington Free Beacon a debt of gratitude. WFB has gone out and fought this nomination when everyone else gave up hope.
Like most American Jewish organizations, the Anti-Defamation League is usually in bed with the Jewish Left. Not this time. On Wednesday, the ADL slammed the Democrats for using Holocaust analogies as part of their campaign against Mitt Romney.
"Earlier today, South Carolina State Democratic Chairman Dick Harpootlian reportedly evoked Eva Braun when discussing Gov. Nikki Haley's press briefing from a basement studio at the NASCAR Hall of Fame," the ADL said in a statement Wednesday.
The NASCAR Hall of Fame is in Charlotte, N.C., where the Democrats are having their party convention. The Republican Party has set up an opposition publicity operation in the Hall of Fame.
Harpootlian reportedly said, "She was down in the bunker a la Eva Braun."
"This analogy to Eva Braun only serves to trivialize the Holocaust and is deeply offensive to Jews and other survivors, as well as those Americans who fought valiantly against the Nazis in World War II," the ADL said in its statement.
The ADL noted that this week, the chairman of California Democrats compared Republicans to Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, and a top Kansas Democrat reportedly did so as well.
"Politicians and their supporters and surrogates should stop invoking Hitler and trivializing the memory of the six million and millions of others who perished in the Holocaust," the ADL said.
Iran has held an 'International Wall Street Downfall Cartoon Festival' (referred to in some places as the 'Occupy Wall Street' cartoon festival) and the anti-Semitic cartoon at top left won.
The anti-Semitic cartoon was declared the winner of Iran’s first annual "International Wall Street Downfall Cartoon Festival," co-sponsored by the Iranian media outlet Fars News. According to reports, the contest’s jury consisted of seven judges from Iran, Turkey, Poland and Romania who judged more than 1,600 cartoons. The winning artist, Mohammad Tabrizi, was awarded 5,000 euros for his image of Jews praying in front of "Wall Street."
The ADL's Abe Foxman blasted the contest.
"Once again, Iran takes the prize for promoting anti-Semitism," Anti-Defamation League (ADL) director Abraham H. Foxman said in response to the results of an Iranian cartoon contest, in which the winning entry depicts three religious Jews praying in front of a representation of the Western Wall in Jerusalem labeled "New York Wall Street."
"The winning cartoon takes the most sacred site in Judaism and perverts it into a shrine of greed. It is offensive on so many levels," he said.
...
"Here is a trifecta of anti-Semitic notions – of Jews worshipping money, the canard that Jews ‘control’ Wall Street, and a cynical perversion of the Western Wall, the holiest site in Judaism," Foxman added.
"This contest not only puts virulent anti-Semitism on a pedestal, but in posting the images online and involving judges from other countries, helps promote classical anti-Semitic notions before a global audience of potentially millions," he argued.
So does this mean that the ADL will start spending more of its budget fighting Islamic extremism and Muslim anti-Semitism? We can only hope.
Here's yet another example of how President Hussein Obama has Israel's back and is putting a knife in it. Adam Kredo reports that Obama participated in, and ordered members of his administration to participate in, the annual convention of the anti-Israel Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, a group that most certainly does not promote peace.
The ADC bills itself as a civil rights organization that is focused on protecting Arab Americans from discrimination, yet it has often come under scrutiny for promoting views that are highly critical of Israel.
In addition to filming remarks, Obama also directed two of his top advisers to speak at the confab: Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and Ari Matusiak, executive director of the White House Business Council.
The administration’s endorsement of a conference that featured a Palestinian advocate who has labeled Israel an “apartheid state” and presented an award to the author of an essay titled “Zionism is a Form of Racism” has raised eyebrows among advocates of the Jewish state. They worry that in its race to secure votes in a tough election, the administration is cozying up with those who aim to subvert the U.S.-Israel alliance.
“It just makes me very suspicious of the president’s past statements and platitudes when speaking before Jewish and pro-Israel audiences,” one prominent Jewish official said when informed of the administration’s participation in the ADC event. “For a lot of Jewish opinion leaders, we’re left to wonder, ‘Is this an administration that is genuine in its statements regarding Israel or is this an administration that will say anything and do anything to get reelection—including speaking out of both sides of their mouths?’”
Also in attendance was the Rev. Brenda Girton-Mitchell, director of the White House-backed Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the U.S. Department of Education, as well as NAACP President Ben Jealous.
Let's go to the videotape.
The ADL, which believes that all anti-Semites are Christian, had no comment.
"We have to address the continued bias against Jews, as well as new biases against new immigrants -- Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs," Ibrahim said, speaking of his decision to join the ADL. "It shows that in the U.S., we can collaborate and create new partnerships between peoples."
Ibrahim's election to the ADL board comes six months after he spoke to that body about his first trip to Israel and his behind the scenes efforts to open channels between American Muslims and Israelis.
Marc Kaplin, ADL's regional chair, said Ibrahim's story "speaks for itself. He has reached out across religious and ethnic lines. We are pleased to have him."
Kaplin added, "Our vision is to try and get rid of hate and the way to do that is to have communications with people who are different from what you are."
This all sounds so nice and multi-culti... but is this really a justifiable use of Jewish community resources given that the number of hate crimes against Jews in the United States is totally disproportionate when compared to the number of hate crimes against other ethnic groups? Does ignoring Muslim hate against Jews by pretending that 'Islamophobia' is as common and virulent as anti-Semitism really make anti-Semitism go away?
Charles Jacobs and Ilya Feoktistov of Americans for Peace and Tolerance accuse Anti-Defamation League director Abe Foxman of abandoning the fight against anti-Semitism to fight 'Islamophobia,' and urge Foxman to resign.
The Jewish community's largest "defense" organization, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), has adopted a policy, consistent with the progressive agenda, not to speak up much about the global tsunami of Muslim anti-Semitism, but instead to campaign against "Islamophobia." This while FBI statistics show that hate crimes against Jews in America are five times the number of hate crimes against Muslims. The rationale for this policy, as the ADL's chief, Abe Foxman, told the Boston Jewish Advocate, is that "[y]ou can't fight the fight against anti-Semitism without fighting against bigotry. ... You cannot ask people to stand with you unless you are ready to stand with them."
But in cities across America, Foxman's policy has led the ADL to stand with people and organizations whose mission it is to defame and harm Jews. To defend its policy of "outreach," the Anti-Defamation League vigorously defames as "bigots" citizens who question radical Islamists' true aims.
According to the authors, Foxman is -- with precious sums of Jewish money meant to protect Jews from their foes -- doing the work of Jews' enemies. Read the whole thing.
I might add that the lines promoted by the Islamist organizations in that article sound remarkably like some of the comments on this blog.
Silly me. I thought that the ADL's purpose in life was to fight anti-Semitism.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed "concern and disappointment" at allegations of discriminatory and bigoted conduct by senior officials at the Federal Air Marshal Service, as outlined in a report issued today by the Homeland Security Department's Inspector General's Office.
While making clear that discrimination was not widespread, the inspector general's report nevertheless outlined several incidents of harassment and intimidation at the highest levels of the service, including in the Orlando Field Office, where a mock "Jeopardy" game board was created that designated categories for veterans, Blacks, Hispanics, women and homosexuals with derogatory categories and titles. Federal Air Marshal Service Director Robert Bray has described the "Jeopardy!" board as "egregious and despicable."
I have reported in the past that the ADL is spending money chasing old ideas of anti-Semitism, while systematically ignoring the Islamist threat. This weekend, they did it again, attacking Rick Santorum - one of the most pro-Israel candidates in the race - for mentioning Jesus.
Jewish groups slammed Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Friday for telling listeners of a Boston radio show that “we always need a Jesus guy” in the campaign.
Santorum, formerly a Pennsylvania senator and the second-place winner of the Iowa caucus, made the remark Thursday after being asked about a listener’s comment that “we don’t need a Jesus guy this election. We need an economics guy this election.”
Santorum continued, “Do you stand up and say, ‘God bless America?’ Do you mean it? Are you just saying it? The idea that we don’t need someone with a moral compass, is that what we’ve come to? Is that what the Republican party is? No, it isn’t.”
The candidate, who then went on to campaign in New Hampshire, which will hold its first-in-the-nation primary on Tuesday, reportedly repeated the conversation later in the day, relating that he had said, “We always need a Jesus candidate.”
Anti-Defamation League Abraham Foxman told The Jerusalem Post that Santorum’s remarks were “totally inappropriate. It’s crossing the line.”
“It says to Jews, to Muslims, to Buddhists, to non-believers, you’re not part of this country,” he added.
What Santorum was saying was that we always need candidates who have a moral compass of belief in a God, but I suspect that if Santorum had put it that way, Foxman would have ripped him for that too.
For those of you who still donate money to this neanderthal, aren't you glad that Foxman is defending Muslims and Buddhists? Find me one Muslim or Buddhist organization that defends Jews.... Yes, I know, there isn't one.
No, I'm not bothered by Santorum's statement, and I wouldn't be if I lived in the US either.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
