Why the ADL opposes Netanyahu's Congressional address
Why is Prime Minister Netanyahu going to Washington two weeks before the Israeli elections? And why is the mainstream Jewish Anti-Defamation League opposed? This is the most logical explanation of both issues I've seen yet, it makes President Hussein Obama, the Anti-Defamation League and the New York Times (which invented a violation of 'protocol' that didn't exist) smell like poop.
In the Calvin and Hobbes comics, Calvin enjoyed playing a very special game called Calvinball,
in which he made up the rules as he went along to make sure he was
always winning. Reading the continuous coverage of Bibi’s visit in the
last few days makes you feel that the White House and its supporters are
now playing their own version of Calvinball; let’s call it “protocol,”
which is the official-sounding scare-word they use to imply that Bibi’s
behavior was thoroughly out-of-bounds.
So, what precise point of “protocol” did Bibi outrageously violate?
Well, went the original version, he accepted an invitation to address
Congress without the White House being informed that he was coming—which
is certainly no way to behave. Once the New York Times
admitted that this story, which it printed, was 100 percent wrong—and
that the White House had in fact been properly informed—the conversation
about protocol miraculously morphed. Keeping the all-important word
“protocol” in play, the discussion now revolves around President Barack
Obama’s statement that he would not meet with Bibi so close to the
Israeli elections in March; that, Obama said, would be a violation of
“protocol.” Which is a fine point, except for the fact that Bibi never
asked for such a meeting. Instead, he was invited to address Congress by
the speaker of the House of Representatives, who is the leader of a
coequal branch of government—just as he had been invited in 2011 by the
very same man to address the very same branch of government without
anyone mentioning the word “protocol.”
Why all the fuss right now? There are two useful ways to approach the question. The first is to try and imagine what would not have
been a violation of the shifting rules of “protocol.” Indulge me here.
Imagine John Boehner coming up with the idea to invite the prime
minister of Israel to speak. Singularly committed to the sanctity of
bipartisanship—the idea, that is, that no decision in Washington
should be made without the benign approval of both parties—Boehner then
calls the White House. “I have this crazy idea,” he says. “How about a
speech from Bibi?” On the other end of the line, crickets. “The thing
is, John,” say the Democrats, “we don’t really like Bibi, and his Iran
policy is not really the one we’re trying to promote. Mind scrapping the
whole thing?” Fighting back a tear, Boehner agrees. “Sure thing, guys,”
he says. “Sorry for bringing it up. See you later at the congressional
gym.”
This scenario, of course, is idiotic—yet it’s precisely the one so
many Obama supporters have been strongly promoting in tones of heavy
outrage this past week. Which leads me to the second, more useful way of
thinking about the conflict, namely asking why Bibi is so intent on
making a speech that was bound to piss off the White House and its
itchy-fingered defenders.
The theory that’s being floated around by custodians of political civility and nonpartisanship like the New York Times, Josh Marshall,
Matt Duss, et al., is that Bibi’s desire to speak to Congress is a
petty bit of electioneering whose real audience is back home in Israel.
If you believe that, you believe that Bibi and his men think that the
best way to get Israelis to vote for him on March 17 is to make
big-picture speeches in America two weeks earlier—while risking a very
public pre-election row with your greatest ally and economic benefactor.
You believe, bluntly put, that Bibi is a political moron in search of a
blatant photo op that will allow him to bellow to a nation of his
fellow troglodytes who will then vote for him. I don’t like Bibi very
much, but I grew up with the man, and guess what: He’s smarter than
that. And so is my toddler, who learned everything she knows about power
dynamics and international politics from watching Frozen.
But there is another, much more serious explanation for Bibi’s
eagerness to come to Washington in the middle of an election campaign
that most polls show him winning handily: March 24 is the deadline for
the framework agreement in the ongoing negotiations with Iran. As
Michael Doran, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense and
senior policy director in charge of the Middle East at the National
Security Council, has shown in his factually grounded analysis
of Obama’s Iran policy, when it comes to negotiating with the Islamic
Republic, the Obama Administration is committed to keeping everyone in
the dark. Unaware that he was being recorded, Benjamin Rhodes, a key
Obama national security adviser, told a gathering of Democratic
activists last year that Obama is hoping to keep Congress out of the
loop as much as possible. “We’re already kind of thinking through, how
do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative
action right away,” Rhodes said.
...
Alas, the nonsense keeps on coming. The most recent storyline, also promoted heavily by the Times,
that Bibi’s speech has met with opposition from a wide coalition
including everyone from some Democrats to the ADL and the leader of the
Reform movement somehow suggests he is empirically in the wrong.
Reporters who cite the ADL’s opposition to Bibi’s speech might have
noted that the man who will step in as the ADL’s head this summer,
Jonathan Greenblatt, is currently employed as one of Obama’s
advisers—which would make opposing Obama kind of sticky. Bibi surely has
his detractors, and some of them have valid reasons for opposing his
speech, even for loathing him, but the condemnation—in response to phone
calls from reporters—is far from uniform. If it was, the story would
not have generated so much attention for so long.
The White House has issued a cautious criticism of the anonymous
Obama administration official who called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu a “chickenshit” in an interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, but stopped well short of an outright apology.
“Certainly, that’s not the administration’s view, and we think such comments are inappropriate and counter-productive,” National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey told The Hill.
“Prime Minister Netanyahu and the president have forged an effective
partnership, and consult closely and frequently, including earlier this
month when the president hosted the prime minister in the Oval
Office.”
There was no indication that the White House would either name the
official who made the remark, nor issue a full apology to Netanyahu for
insulting him with various epithets, including the word “coward.”
Unfortunately, much of the mainstream American Jewish 'leadership' thinks this ought to be enough to bring the controversy to an end. It's not. And they're cowards for saying that it is or ought to be. I'm sure they're laughing all the way to the bank about this in Tehran.
Thousands expected to protest 'Death of Klinghoffer'
In a bit more than an hour, thousands of people are expected outside New York's Lincoln Center to protest the premiere of 'Death of Klinghoffer' by the Metropolitan Opera.
The Lincoln Square Business Improvement District sent an email last
Friday, alerting area businesses and residents about the protests:
We
have been informed by the New York City Police Department that there
will be a protest on Monday, October 20, 2014, between the hours of
4:00pm and 8:00pm in and around Dante Park (across from Lincoln Center
between 63rd and 64th Street), in connection with The Metropolitan
Opera's Opening Night Performance of The Death of Klinghoffer. It is our
understanding that the NYPD expects 3,000-4,000 people to attend, with
protesters gathering at approximately 2:00pm. The parking lane alongside
Dante Park on Columbus Avenue between 63rd and 64th Street will be
cordoned off with police barricades, which may be moved further west to
close traffic lanes if necessary. It is also our understanding that
there will be a platform set up in the parking lane near West 63rd
Street.
The majority of the demonstrators will be in Dante Park; however, there
will be approximately 40-50 additional demonstrators in front of Lincoln
Center's Josie Robertson Plaza. Expect to see "No Parking" signs
around the perimeter of Dante Park on Monday, October 20 and, depending
on the turnout, there may be temporary lane/crosswalk closures in and
around the Dante Park area. The NYPD will maintain a presence
throughout the event. We will also have our public safety officers
present.
On Monday, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement by Lisa and Ilsa Klinghoffer, the daughters of Leon Klinghoffer HY"D (May God Avenge his blood). The statement also appears in the Metropolitan Opera's Playbill program that is being distributed at the Opera, a measure of how much impact the protests have had.
Twenty nine years
ago, our 69 year old, wheel chair-bound father, Leon Klinghoffer, was
shot in the head by Palestinian hijackers on the Achille Lauro cruise
ship. The terrorists threw his body, along with his wheelchair,
overboard into the Mediterranean. A few days later, his body washed up
on the Syrian shore.
Tonight, as you watch The Death of Klinghoffer, a baritone will play the role of Leon Klinghoffer, and sing The Aria of the Falling Body
as he artfully falls into the sea. Competing choruses will highlight
Jewish and Palestinian narratives of suffering and oppression,
selectively presenting the complexities of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The terrorists, portrayed by four distinguished opera singers, will be
given a back story, an "explanation" for their brutal act of terror and
violence.
We are strong
supporters of the arts, and believe that theater and music can play a
critical role in examining and understanding significant world events. The Death of Klinghoffer
does no such thing. It presents false moral equivalencies without
context, and offers no real insight into the historical reality and the
senseless murder of an American Jew. It rationalizes, romanticizes and
legitimizes the terrorist murder of our father. Our family was not
consulted by the composer and librettist and had no role in the
development of the opera.
Our father was one
of the first American victims of Middle Eastern terrorism. Nearly three
decades later, after PanAm 103, 9/11, and countless other attacks and
threats, Americans live under the deadly threat of terrorism each and
every day.
For our family,
the impact of terrorism is obviously deeply personal. We lost our father
because of the violent political agenda of these terrorists. The trauma
of his murder never goes away. Our father was caring, creative,
thoughtful and smart. As a young man, he invented the rotisserie oven,
the first of its kind. After his stroke, our father continued to use his
one good arm to repair anything that needed fixing. With the help of
our mother, he never allowed his disability to limit his enjoyment of
good times with his family and friends, who meant everything to him. He
loved life and lived it to the fullest. He was an inspiration to us. It
is particularly sad that the life of such a vibrant and gentle man could
end suddenly in such a hate-filled and violent manner.
Our father is also
a universal symbol of the threat terrorism poses to our societies, our
values and our lives. Indeed, we have dedicated our lives since this
tragedy to educating about terrorism, and putting a personal face on the
victims and their families.
Terrorism cannot
be rationalized. It cannot be understood. It can never be tolerated as a
vehicle for political expression or grievance. Unfortunately, The Death of Klinghoffer does all this, and sullies the memory of a fine, principled, sweet man in the process.
In June, following
series of conversations between Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National
Director, representing the wishes of the Klinghoffer family, and Peter
Gelb, General Manager of the Metropolitan Opera, the Met announced that
it would cancel a global simulcast of the controversial John Adams opera
in response to concerns that the opera’s biased portrayal of events
surrounding the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro could foment
anti-Semitism globally or legitimize terrorism. At that time, Mr.
Foxman said: "Obviously from our point of view and from that of the
Klinghoffer sisters, we would have hoped that the Metropolitan Opera
would have stayed away from mounting such a problematic opera," Mr.
Foxman said. "We certainly did not want to see the Met production
simulcast into theaters around the world. The Met was very open to
hearing our concerns. After listening to our views, they have agreed to
cancel the simulcasts and to take steps to ensure that the Klinghoffer
family’s perspective is clearly heard by opera patrons."
Even Metropolitan Opera director Peter Gelb understands that the public is furious over the eight performances that are to begin tonight in Lincoln Center.
In anticipation of the rally, there will be a
“heavy police presence” at Monday night’s opening, the New York Post
reported, citing police sources.
“It’s been a steady diet of e-mails, phone
calls and letters for a couple of months now,” Met director Peter Gelb
told the Sunday Times. “The people who don’t want this opera to be
performed are not silly; they are very angry.”
The Jewish organizations will host a press
conference at 5 p.m. ahead of the protest. Rabbi Avi Weiss and other
rabbinical leaders are set to host a vigil outside Lincoln Center in
memory of Klinghoffer ahead of the protest.
The rally is organized by some 50 Jewish and
Catholic groups, including the Zionist Organization of America, One
Israel Fund, One Family Fund, Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Catholic
League. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani reportedly will be the
keynote speaker at the event.
I hope that Gelb has trouble sleeping at night, and that the Met loses enough money on this fiasco to force it to close. Arrogant _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s.
Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds... unless it's going to Israel
I'm sure that any of you who have ever spent time in New York City have seen the famous inscription on the post office near Penn Station in midtown Manhattan. But it's not true anymore. There's mail the US Postal Service won't take.... It's mail that's going to Israel.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has written to complain to the US
Postmaster General, after receiving widespread reports that US post
offices around America have been refusing to accept mail to Israel.
In the last several days ADL reports that it has received complaints
from Massachusetts, Michigan and New Jersey, revealing postal customers
were incorrectly told that the US Postal Service is not accepting mail
for Israel due to Operation Protective Edge in Gaza.
"The postal employees have told these individuals that current USPS
policy says that mail to Israel cannot be accepted because of the current crisis,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.
Foxman added that "only once employees sought clarification
from supervisors in Washington did these post offices accept packages
and letters to Israel."
Writing to US Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe, ADL stated
that the phenomenon presumably stems from a misunderstanding by postal
workers, who apparently thought the temporary suspension of service to
Israel during a 36-hour period in July was a permanent policy change.
Or that there are anti-Semites in the Postal Service.
I know two postal workers in New Jersey (okay, one lives in New Jersey and works in New York), and one in Massachusetts. Hmmm.
Yet another illustration of what's wrong with America's Jewish leadership. The Anti-Defamation League - supported by your charitable contributions - helped to kill a bill banning Sharia law in the Florida State Senate.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Jack W via Bare Naked Islam).
On Friday, Benny Weinthal reported that the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League and Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz had all attacked the Emergency Committee for Israel for its full page New York Times ad asking why Jewish Federations are funding the anti-Semites at the Center for American Progress and Media Matters for America.
The AJC, which was quoted in the ad talking about perceived bias against Israel in several specific CAP media products, issued a statement saying, “No one from the sponsoring group [ECI], an ideologically-driven organization to judge from its ads and other public activities, sought AJC’s consent to include reference to us in today’s ad.”
CAP officials have “acknowledged the inappropriateness of such bias” and they have implemented personnel and policy changes, the AJC noted.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told JTA that the ADL quote slamming CAP in the ad for anti- Semitism was issued before CAP dealt with prejudices against Israel in its publications.
“After we raised concerns, initially we felt that the Center for American Progress took the matter seriously and understood the anti-Semitic nature of raising dual-loyalty canards and made sure terms like ‘Israel-firster’ were deleted from the Twitter accounts of CAP staffers where they appeared,” Foxman wrote in an email to The Jerusalem Post.
Harvard law Prof. Alan Dershowitz told The Boston Globe that he did not authorize the use of his quote for the ECI ad. “MM is doubling down. MJ [Rosenberg] is seeking support from left. CAP is trying hard to undo damage. Very different responses from them requires different responses from their critics,” Dershowitz said in an email to the Post on Thursday.
Critics accuse MJ Rosenberg of using anti-Semitic language to denigrate supporters of Israel.
So CAP and Media Matters are going to be good boys from now on and they're not going to do anything anti-Semitic. Right? Well, here's Benny an hour later.
A Center for American Progress Mideast writer Matt Duss generated criticism on Wednesday for a tweet that praised an article slamming Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu for "religious incitement" because he gave President Obama the Book on Esther for the Purim Holiday.
Duss later clarified his tweet by issuing a statement saying, "The Iranian regime regularly states as a goal the destruction of the state of Israel, and therefore, Israel clearly has legitimate concerns about Iran and its nuclear ambitions. My tweet only meant to say that biblical analogies may be unhelpful to the current moment if they do not distinguish the Iranian regime from all Iranians. Of course, I did not mean to suggest criticism of the story of Esther."
Rabbi Abraham Cooper from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who had a conference call with CAP officials on Thursday, told The Jerusalem Post that the tweet was discussed. "I explained during the call that what spurred my comment was the fact that last Purim there were demonstrations in front of Esther and Morechai's Mausoleum in Shushan who depicted the book of Esther as the story of a Jewish genocide against Persians. This was followed by online discussions in Farsi pushing this perversion of history."
"The Bottom line is that the young generation of bloggers and tweeters, must be accountable for their words...and in this case the parroting of someone else's words depicting the gift of Megillat Esther as 'religious incitement' is a slur against a religion and the leader of Israel. I am happy to hear that this was not Mr. Duss's intention but it was also clear that in referencing Robert Wright's disgusting article, he knew virtually nothing about Purim."
The ECI ad was published on March 1. When - exactly - did CAP (and for that matter Media Matters) stop being anti-Semitic between March 1 and March 9?
What's more likely is that Rabbi Cooper and the Wiesenthal Center are the only watchdogs against anti-Semitism who aren't in bed with the Democratic party and don't place the interests of the Democratic party and Barack Obama above fighting anti-Semitism.
I know - it's not politically correct to say that, but it's the truth.
A fundraising letter sent out by the ADL's Abe Foxman contained a veiled attack on Congressman Allen West (R-Fl), one of my favorites.
Just this past week, a Member of Congress was quoted referencing Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels when discussing communication techniques of the Democratic Party.
We are truly living in troubled times when politicians feel they can benefit the national discourse with such vitriolic comparisons which insult the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust.
This was not the first time this has happened in this political season and I fear it will not be the last time we hear such ignorant and spiteful discourse between now and next November.
Foxman made the mistake of sending that letter to Rob Miller, and Rob took him down.
I realize that you and the ADL are very much involved in the Obama campaign,but are there no limits?
The fact is that Allen West, the member of Congress you mention is exactly correct when he compares the Soros-funded media machine and its adherents throughout the mainstream media as people Goebbels would be proud of, because they promulgate the Big Lie constantly when it comes to Israel and the Jews. And by the way, he didn't mention the Holocaust, so your accusation that he trivialized it is simply untrue.
Do you realize that you are engaging in lashon hora, the defamation of a true friend of Israel and the Jews? Are you and your organization so wrapped up in the Democratic party that right and wrong simply have ceased to matter to you? Or did they not teach about lashon hora where you went to yeshiva?
Before he was in Congress, Colonel West stood with Israel and the Jews in Fort Lauderdale, Florida when pro-Hamas mobs attempted to spew their anti-Semitic bile on the streets. Where were you when that battle was being fought, Rabbi? How do you have the chutzpah to try and demonize this brave man? And to ask me for money to help fund it?
Jonathan Tobin reports that ADL Executive Director Abe Foxman is walking back his call for a 'unity pledge' that would take criticism of President Obama's Middle East policies off the Jewish community table for the 2012 election. This is from the first link.
But according to ADL head Abe Foxman, it’s all a big misunderstanding. He now says in a press release that the purpose of the pledge is “to put Israel ahead of politics” while “avoiding harsh and personal rhetoric or tactics in the form of attacks on political opponents’ positions on Israel.” But if that was all it was about, then perhaps that’s what the pledge would have said in the first place. The controversy over the pledge was not the result of what Foxman calls “distortion” by his critics; the fact is, he was caught red-handed in a thinly veiled partisan ploy.
The problem with the “Unity Pledge” is it echoed Jewish Democratic demands we have been hearing for years about shutting down Republican efforts to point out left-wing animus for Israel as well as the Obama administration’s predilection for picking fights with Israel. Obama’s decision to distance the United States from Israel, his stand on Jerusalem and his ambush of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in May were all factors in the Republican victory in the special election in New York’s 9th Congressional District last month. That result and polls showing a decline in Jewish support for Obama have panicked Democrats. The decision of the ADL and the AJC to issue a statement that would serve to legitimize efforts to silence debate about Israel by condemning its use as a “wedge issue” departed from not only their non-partisan status but also undermined their stance as Jewish defense organizations.
ADL’s subsequent statement in which they “strongly encourage measured and thoughtful expressions of different points of view regarding U.S. policy toward Israel” helps undo some of the damage their pledge has done. Foxman’s comments should also serve to chasten Democrats who seek to remove Obama’s record on Israel from public debate next year. As for the pledge, it should be amended to remove the line about “wedge” issues or scrapped entirely.
The fact that Foxman was forced to backtrack speaks volumes about the erosion of Obama's support in the Jewish community. It's actually quite surprising.
Fortunately, the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) and the Republican Jewish Coalition have already said no. The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee have joined together in an effort to encourage other national organizations, elected officials, religious leaders, community groups and individuals to rally around bipartisan support for Israel while preventing the Jewish State from becoming a wedge issue in the upcoming campaign season.
...
The Jewish community has had a strong interest in ensuring that American support for Israel is one of the critical strategic issues that unites rather than divides parties and officials. U.S. – Israel friendship should never be used as a political wedge issue. At a time when Israel is confronting new dangers and challenges in a fast changing Middle East, the United States must continue to project to the world the solid support of the American people and their elected representatives for Israel’s rights and quest for peace and security. U.S. leadership in the efforts to achieve an agreement resolving the conflict that results in two states—the Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peaceful coexistence—is more critical than ever.
Now is the time to reaffirm that Israel’s well-being is best served, as it has always been, by American voices raised together in unshakeable support for our friend and ally.
And the wolf will live with the lamb and the leopard will play with the goat.... But those who know just how bad Obama's record on Israel is are saying no.
The Emergency Committee for Israel will not sign the pledge. ECI’s chairman, William Kristol, issued the following statement:
Here’s the Emergency Committee for Israel’s answer to Directors Abe Foxman and David Harris: You must be kidding.
Indeed, this attempt to silence those of us who have “questioned the current administration’s foreign policy approach vis-a-vis Israel” will re-energize us. Nor, incidentally, should those who support the administration’s approach to Israel be bashful about making their case. Directors Harris and Foxman need a refresher course on the virtues of free speech and robust debate in a democracy. Their effort to stifle discussion and debate is unworthy of the best traditions of America, and of Israel.
The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) responded today to a call from the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, asking Jewish groups to pledge not to use Israel as a "political wedge issue" or, in the words of ADL's Abe Foxman, to "avoid polarizing debates" and refrain from questioning "the current administration's foreign policy approach vis-à-vis Israel".
RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks stated in response:
"An open and vigorous debate on the questions confronting our country is the cornerstone of the American electoral process. Allowing the American people to see where candidates stand, pro and con on critical issues, is the hallmark of our free and democratic political system. For this reason, the RJC will not be a signer to this pledge.
"This effort to stifle debate on U.S. policy toward Israel runs counter to this American tradition. Accordingly, the RJC will not be silenced on this or any issue."
You can all guess which side I am on. But the real issue here is why the American Jewish 'leadership' insists on treating the Democratic party as the sole party of the Jews. One of the reasons the Left and the Democratic rank and file have become so anti-Israel in recent years is that they think we have no place else to go.
In November, the ADL issued a “special report” on the Tea Party and “anti-government conspiracies.” The ADL noted that “extremists were a tiny minority of Tea Party protesters,” but claimed Tea Party members were filled with “rage” and held ideas that “fall outside the mainstream.”
As of this writing, the ADL has said nothing about the “rage” and bigotry on display at several “Occupy” rallies. Instead, it is minimizing the antisemitism on display, effectively helping “Occupy” do damage control.
“We have seen instances of individuals promoting these [antisemitic] views. We do not think that it is or has been institutionalized in the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movements,” she said. “But I think the bigger issue is sort of that when there is a heightened focus economic strife and the financial industry it is not surprising to see these messages. Yet, we will continue to be diligent, looking for them and combating the promotion of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories should they arise.”
Todd Gutnick, ADL’s media relations director, confirmed this morning: “Aside from the story in the Daily Caller in which we were quoted, ADL has made no statements on the Occupy movement.”
That is alarming, given the explicit anti-Jewish hatred on display at Occupy rallies across the country.
So why isn't the ADL speaking out? After all, Foxman often finds anti-Semites where the rest of us can't find them. Could it be that the ADL has joined the Red-Green alliance?
Alana Goodman reports that most of the groups cited in the infamous '400 rabbis' letter criticizing Glenn Beck have felt the need to disavow the letter.
In fact, three out of four groups that Jewish Funds for Justice quoted in its letter have felt the need to point out their objections to the anti-Beck drive. But despite this fact, the Jewish Funds for Justice’s website is continuing to accept signatures for the letter, which still includes the quotes from the ADL, the American Gathering, and COMMENTARY.
I guess they think they know better than the rest of us. I'm sure they could also explain to us why it was worth spending $100,000 of Jewish communal money to publish a letter defending George Soros.
The Jews and the rest of the World are ignoring the source of the new anti-Semitism, argues Barry Rubin. Rubin backs it up with statistics from one supposed fighter against anti-Semitism: The Anti-Defamation League. But he argues that they are not the only ones who are too politically correct to call the animal by its name.
Where, however, is the ADL when it comes to Islamist hatred of Jews? Well, pretty much nowhere. This is made apparent in a new study, “An Analysis of the Anti-Defamation League’s Press Release Archive as a Measure of the Organization’s Priorities,” by Eliyahu ben Avraam. I know the researchers and consider them to be very accurate, conscientious, and—by the way—liberal.
Of 3841 ADL press releases produced over the last 15 years, only `1.4 percent focuses on Islamic extremism and 1.3 percent on Arab antisemitism (or hatred of Jews, if you prefer). Even given this limited scope, most of these were issued in the 1990s (almost half of these in 1996 alone) and less than a dozen have been produced in the nine years since September 11, 2001.
And what proportion of the releases has highlighted traditional, right-wing antisemitism from Nazis and Christian extremists? Answer: 43.5 percent.
About five percent have dealt with terrorism in all of its forms, both domestic and international so some of these also touched on Islamist groups.
Regarding materials on Israel and the Middle East, of 737 press releases issued, a total of three deal with Islamist-based material: Jan ’01: “ADL Calls on PA and Islamic Leaders to Condemn Perversion of Religious Symbols;”Apr ’01: “ADL denounces claim by Muslim leaders that Pokeman game is "Jewish Conspiracy;"” Nov ’01: “ADL Says Anti-Semitic and Anti-American Reports in Arab and Muslim Media "Foment Anger And Hate.")
This is at a time of rampant hatred for Jews being preached in sermons, written about in newspapers, purveyed by several governments, and motivating war and terrorism on Israel. Yet practically none of the ADL releasesdeal with Islamist ideology, according to the study.
Of course, this is not a question of the ADL alone.
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
