You may recall that a month ago, I reported that Gutman had been accused of soliciting sex from minors - that he is what is called a pedophile in plain English.
Now, it turns out that Hillary Clinton may have been involved in a coverup of those accusations. And Barack Hussein Obama may have known and approved. After all, Gutman gotbought his position by being a high roller for the Obama campaign.
Report: US Ambassador who blamed Israel for Muslim anti-Semitism solicited minor prostitutes
I am sure that many of you remember Howard Gutman, the US Ambassador to Belgium who blamed Israel for Muslim anti-Semitism (video here).We now discover that Ambassador Gutman has problems controlling other parts of his body aside from his mouth. He's allegedly been soliciting prostitutes, including minors (Hat Tip: Weasel Zippers via Bad Blue).
A State Department whistleblower has accused high-ranking staff of a
massive coverup — including keeping a lid on findings that members of
then-Secretary Hillary Clinton’s security detail and the Belgian
ambassador solicited prostitutes.
...
Among the bombshell findings:
* A DS agent was called off a
case against US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman over claims that he
solicited prostitutes, including minors.
“The agent began his
investigation and had determined that the ambassador routinely ditched
his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from
both prostitutes and minor children,” says the memo.
“The ambassador’s protective detail and the embassy’s surveillance detection team . . . were well aware of the behavior.”
Undersecretary
of State for Management Patrick Kennedy ordered the investigation
ceased, and the ambassador remains in place, according to the memo.
Gutman was a big Democratic donor before taking the post, having raised
$500,000 for President Obama’s 2008 campaign and helping finance his
inaugural.
Maybe Gutman thought that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a soft spot for out-of-control men....
In this 2009 video, Ron Paul accuses Israel of creating Hamas (Hat Tip: Yid with Lid).
Let's go to the videotape.
At the beginning of this month, US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman, an Obama bundler, accused Israel of creating anti-Semitism. George Soros said the same thing in 1999 and in 2003. And now Ron Paul.
Last week, US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman said that anti-Semitism is caused by Israeli policies toward the 'Palestinians.' Omri Ceren writes that Gutman may want to check that claim with the State Department.
Now it could be the textbooks’ Muslim authors just don’t understand Islam as deeply as does Gutman, and so they misunderstand the nature and sources of religiously-grounded Muslim anti-Semitism. Still, just on the off-chance they know something about Islamist ideology that Gutman has overlooked, he might do well to get a couple of copies from the State Department. Hannah Rosenthal, State’s envoy for combating anti-Semitism, has been complaining fruitlessly about them, so Foggy Bottom probably has some spares lying around.
Interestingly, Rosenthal has expressed herself particularly frustrated by Arab leaders who tried to move discussions over anti-Semitism toward the Israeli-Arab conflict.
The National Jewish Democratic Council's reaction to US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman's blaming Israel for anti-Semitism is... no comment!?!
I called up the National Jewish Democratic Council to find out whether it would condemn Gutman’s comments. The response from NJDC spokesperson David Streeter: “We have no comment on it.”
That’s it? ....
A pro-Israel Democrat, appalled at the NJDC’s silence, emails me: “Democrats should speak out and remind Ambassador Gutman that anti-Semitism existed long before the modern State of Israel. There is no room in our party for anyone — including ambassadors — who seek to find excuses for anti-Semitism and the deep hatred among some Muslims for the Jewish people and our country. Supposedly intellectual descriptions and justifications for root causes of bigotry and anti-Semitic violence is neither intellectual nor intelligent.”
The Republican candidates have been clear on this. And yet, not a single Democratic member of Congress has spoken out against Gutman’s comments. Not only does this indicate that President Obama has no plans to recall the ambassador, it’s also a depressing testimonial about the current state of the Democratic Party. If pro-Israel Democrats can’t stand up to Obama on an issue as unambiguous as this, then one wonders what else they would be willing to stay silent on.
After telling Commentary Magazine earlier today that it had "no comment" about the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium's remarks about anti-Semitism, the National Jewish Democratic Council has decided to declare the remarks "wrong and unfortunate."
In an interview this evening, David Harris, the NJDC's top official, told me that "Ambassador Gutman's comments were wrong and unfortunate, and the White House was right to issue their immediate, tough statement on Saturday."
Harris, however, declined to say whether or not he believed Gutman should resign or be fired from his post.
Which 'immediate tough statement' would that be?
Their reaction shows that the NJDC is completely incapable of any independent thought. They just take their marching orders from Obama. And most American Jews apparently accept this? Where is the outrage?
Caroline Glick's JPost column this morning is simply a must read. I will give you some excerpts but you must read the whole thing.
Speaking at the annual policy conclave in Washington sponsored by the leftist Brookings Institute's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hammered Israel, the only real ally the US has left in the Middle East after Mubarak's fall. Clinton felt it necessary - in the name of democracy - to embrace the positions of Israel's radical Left against the majority of Israelis.
The same Secretary of State that has heralded negotiations with the violent, fanatical misogynists of the Taliban; who has extolled Saudi Arabia where women are given ten lashes for driving, and whose State Department trained female-hating Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the lead-up to the current elections in Egypt accused Israel of repressing women's rights. The only state in the region where women are given full rights and legal protections became the focus of Clinton's righteous feminist wrath.
In the IDF, as in the rest of the country, religious coercion is forbidden. Jewish law prohibits men from listening to women's voices in song. And recently, when a group of religious soldiers were presented with an IDF band that featured female vocalists, keeping faith with their Orthodox observance, they walked out of the auditorium. The vocalists were not barred from singing. They were not mistreated. They were simply not listened to.
And as far as Clinton is concerned, this is proof that women in Israel are under attack. Barred by law from forcing their soldiers to spurn their religious obligations, IDF commanders were guilty of crimes against democracy for allowing the troops to exit the hall.
Clinton didn't end her diatribe with the IDF's supposed war against women. She continued her onslaught by proclaiming that Israel is taking a knife to democracy by permitting its legislators to legislate laws that she doesn't like. The legislative initiatives that provoked the ire of the US Secretary of State are the bills now under discussion which seek to curtail the ability of foreign governments to subvert Israel's elected government by funding non-representative, anti-Israel political NGOs like B'Tselem and Peace Now.
In attacking Israel in the way she did, Clinton showed that she holds Israel to a unique standard of behavior. Whereas fellow Western democracies are within their rights when they undertake initiatives like banning Islamic headdresses from the public square, Israel is a criminal state for affording Jewish soldiers freedom of religion. Whereas the Taliban, who enslave women and girls in the most unspeakable fashion are worthy interlocutors, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which supports universal female genital mutilation is moderate, Israel is an enemy of democracy for seeking to preserve the government's ability to adopt policies that advance the country's interests.
The unique standard to which Clinton holds the Jewish state is the standard of human perfection.
And as far as she is concerned, if Israel is not perfect, then it is unworthy of support. And since Israel, as a nation of mere mortals can never be perfect, it is necessarily always guilty.
Dershowitz goes through a lengthy list of misstatements, deceptions and out-and-out lies contained in Carter's book. None of which are all that surprising - they are consistent with the way Yasser Arafat would want the story told. Given this story at the end, it's not surprising either that Carter tells the story the way Arafat would want it told:
And it's not just the facts; it's the tone as well. It's obvious that Mr. Carter just doesn't like Israel or Israelis. He lectured Golda Meir on Israeli's "secular" nature, warning her that " Israel was punished whenever its leaders turned away from devout worship of God." He admits that he did not like Menachem Begin. He has little good to say about any Israelis — except those few who agree with him. But he apparently got along swimmingly with the very secular Syrian mass-murderer Hafez al-Assad. Mr. Carter and his wife Rosalynn also had a fine time with the equally secular Arafat — a man who has the blood of hundreds of Americans and Israelis on his hands:
Rosalynn and I met with Yasir Arafat in Gaza City, where he was staying with his wife, Suha, and their little daughter. The baby, dressed in a beautiful pink suit, came readily to sit on my lap, where I practiced the same wiles that had been successful with our children and grandchildren. A lot of photographs were taken, and then the photographers asked that Arafat hold his daughter for a while. When he took her, the child screamed loudly and reached out her hands to me, bringing jovial admonitions to the presidential candidate to stay at home enough to become acquainted with is own child.
There is something quite disturbing about these pictures.
Panetta excoriated Israel for not being involved in negotiations with the Palestinians. Israel, he said must make new concessions to the Palestinians in order to convince them of its good faith. If Israel makes such gestures, and the Palestinians and the larger Islamic world spurn them, then Panetta and his friends will side with Israel, he said.
Panetta failed to notice that Israel has already made repeated, unprecedented concessions to the Palestinians and that the Palestinians have pocketed those concessions and refused to negotiate. And he failed to notice that in response to the repeated spurning of its concessions by the Palestinians and the Arab world writ large, rather than stand with Israel, the US and Europe expanded their demands for further Israeli concessions.
Panetta demanded that Israel make renewed gestures as well to appease the Egyptians, Turks and Jordanians. He failed to notice that it was Turkey's Islamist government, not Israel, that took a knife to the Turkish-Israeli strategic alliance.
As for Egypt, rather than recognize the strategic implications for the US and Israel alike of Egypt's transformation into an Islamic state, the US Defense Secretary demanded that Israel ingratiate itself with Egypt's military junta. Thanks in large part to the Obama administration, that junta is now completely beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood.
As for Jordan, again thanks to the US's support for the Muslim Brotherhood and its aligned groups in Libya and Tunisia, the Hashemite regime is seeking to cut a deal with the Jordanian branch of the movement in a bid to save itself from Mubarak's fate. Under these circumstances, there is no gesture that Israel can make to its neighbor to the east that would empower King Abdullah to extol the virtues of peace with the Jewish state.
Then there is Iran, and its nuclear weapons program.
...
In the administration's fantasy universe, Israel is the only actor on the world stage. Its detractors, whether in the Islamic world or Europe, are mere objects. They are bereft of judgment or responsibility for their actions.
There are two possible explanations for this state of affairs - and they are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that the Obama administration is an ideological echo chamber in which only certain positions are permitted. This prospect is likely given the White House's repeated directives prohibiting government officials from using terms like "jihad," "Islamic terrorism," "Islamist," and "jihadist," to describe jihad, Islamic terrorism, Islamists and jihadists.
Restrained by ideological thought police that outlaw critical thought about the dominant forces in the Islamic world today, US officials have little choice but to place all the blame for everything that goes wrong on the one society they are free to criticize - Israel.
The second possible explanation for the administration's treatment of Israel is that it is permeated by anti-Semitism. The outsized responsibility and culpability placed on Israel by the likes of Obama, Clinton, Panetta and Gutman is certainly of a piece with classical anti-Semitic behavior.
Like I said, read the whole thing. Sadly, it is an accurate portrayal of the current reality and it will only get worse if - God forbid - Hussein Obama is reelected.
I've been waiting for this to go up. Here is a report that includes the original remarks of US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman.
Let's go to the videotape.
No, Ambassador Gutman, being the son of a Holocaust survivor is not a license to say whatever you want, nor does it make you an expert on anti-Semitism.
Panetta’s speech on Friday at the Brooking Institution in Washington and Gutman’s comments to a conference held by the European Jewish Union were obviously not coordinated, but they combine to give us a clear view of the distorted mindset of administration officials. This is an administration that sees Israel as a source of trouble, not an ally. Combined with the sorry history of three years of Obama’s picking fights with Jerusalem, the positions of both Panetta and Gutman give the lie to the notion this is an administration friends of Israel can trust.
That the secretary of defense would choose to blast Israel in this manner just as Obama is starting to crank up his re-election campaign speaks to the cognitive dissonance many Jewish Democrats are experiencing. For Panetta to claim Israel is responsible for its own isolation just as Obama boasted of his friendship for the Jewish state shows either a lack of coordination between the Pentagon and the White House or a desire on the president’s part to signal the Arab world he is prepared to put the screws to the Israelis as soon as the election is concluded.
As for Panetta’s assertions, while sandwiched between some of the usual boilerplate rhetoric about supporting the alliance, they made it clear that Washington views the hardening of anti-Israel positions on the part of Turkey, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority as Israel’s fault. Even more, he made it plain that the administration’s belief is this rising tide of anti-Israel hate can only be dealt with by a new round of concessions on Israel’s part to the Palestinians.
Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt is now endangered by the victory of Islamists. Their former ally Turkey is now aligning itself with Hamas terrorists. The Palestinian Authority is about to conclude a unity pact with Hamas that will end its experiment with good government and expand the reach of the Gaza-based terrorists. These events are not the fault of Israel, but are the result of the embrace of Islamism and extremism by a Muslim world that seems to be sinking into the abyss of extremism.
But the administration looks at this and says it is the fault of the Israelis who have spent the last 18 years trying to make peace, to no avail. Rather than drawing conclusions from the Palestinians’ rejection of peace and the bloodthirsty hatred for Jews at the heart of the siege of the Jewish state, Panetta believes the time is ripe for Israel to weaken its defenses and hand over more territory that may become another safe haven for terrorists, as Gaza has proved to be.
The secretary’s remarks were a not-so-subtle hint that pressuring Israel is still Obama’s priority. That key officials of this administration could hold onto a belief in a peace process even the so-called moderates of the Palestinian Authority have rejected speaks volumes not so much about their naïveté as it does the grip of ideology on their thinking.
As for Gutman’s remarks, they speak not so much to policy as to the thinking behind it. Contrary to his poorly reasoned formulation, hatred for Israel and Zionism is just a modern variant of traditional Jew-hatred, and not a different belief system that can be rationalized. Anyone who would deny Israel the same right to existence and self-defense they would grant any other country is a bigot. Palestinian suffering is real, but the hatred for the Jews and Israel in the Arab and Islamic world has little to do with policy and everything to do with prejudice.
That an American diplomat would stoop so low as to rationalize that hatred is a disgrace.
Read the whole thing. I got a plane to catch (actually, by the time this has posted, I should be landed at my destination and at least on the way to where I am staying).
Mark Regev, a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said Israel remains ready for the resumption of peace talks without preconditions. The Palestinians, he said, are “playing diplomatic games to try to cover their position, which is to boycott Israel and to refuse to enter negotiations.”
While Regev's statements certainly can be described as "blame," he's hardly the only source. What about Mahmoud Abbas himself?
As far as boycotting Israel, this is what Abbas wrote in an op-ed in the New York Time back in May:
Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.
Yet on Wednesday afternoon, as he prepared for the White House meeting in a suite at the Ritz-Carlton in Pentagon City, Abbas insisted that his only role was to wait. He will wait for Hamas to capitulate to his demand that any Palestinian unity government recognize Israel and swear off violence. And he will wait for the Obama administration to force a recalcitrant Netanyahu to freeze Israeli settlement construction and publicly accept the two-state formula. Until Israel meets his demands, the Palestinian president says, he will refuse to begin negotiations. He won't even agree to help Obama's envoy, George J. Mitchell, persuade Arab states to take small confidence-building measures. "We can't talk to the Arabs until Israel agrees to freeze settlements and recognize the two-state solution," he insisted in an interview. "Until then we can't talk to anyone."
It's Abbas himself who acknowledged that he wished to make the conflict with Israel a legal one (of which a boycott is a component) and who has refused to negotiate. There is support for the Israeli claims. Not that I'd expect a regular reporter to do the basic research to prove such a claim.
2) What's delegitimization and what's criticism?
Last week "pro-Israel activist" Steve Sheffey wrote a column for the Jerusalem Post,The campaign to delegitimize President Obama. The sub-head read: "Opponents of territorial compromise are terrified Obama is serious about helping Israel realize dream of 2 states living side by side."
As noted above, President Obama's promises to pressure Israel had the effect of convincing Abbas he had no reason to negotiate. In fact when PM Netanyahu instituted a freeze on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria, Abbas still refused to negotiate until the final weeks of the freeze and then left negotiations when Netanyahu refused to extend the freeze. In other words, President Obama's stance made a negotiated settlement less, not more likely.
So how President Obama is helping realize a two state solution, hasn't exactly worked out.
This is important as Sheffey's name calling has been a favorite tactic of Forman. To Sheffey or Forman the people who would not support President Obama are, at best, uninformed or, at worst, bigots. Sheffey's alliance with Forman is evident from the similar tactics both employ. This is the sort of outreach - "smackdown" might be a better description - we can expect from the Obama campaign over the next 11 months.
What's ever more frustrating is that Sheffey used the term "delegitimize," when the proper term was criticize. Currently Israel's "peace partners" are engaged in a campaign of delegitimization against Israel, and the Obama administration still insists that Israeli building apartments in Jerusalem is a bigger impediment to peace than the refusal of even Fatah to recognize Israel's right to exist.
3) If great mind thinks alike, do not such great minds also think alike?
I am more worried today about Israel’s future than I have ever been, because I think that at time of great change in this region – and we have just seen the beginnings of it – Israel today has the most out-of-touch, in-bred, unimaginative and cliché-driven cabinet it has ever had. Rather than even listening to what the democracy youth in Tahrir Square were saying and then trying to digest what it meant, this Israeli government took two approaches during the last three weeks: Frantically calling the White House and telling the president he must not abandon Pharaoh – to the point where the White House was thoroughly disgusted with its Israeli interlocutors – and using the opportunity to score propaganda points: “Look at us! Look at us! We told you so! We are the only stable country in the region, because we are the only democracy.’’ Israel’s government seemed oblivious to the irony of its message: “We are your only reliable ally because we are a democracy and whatever you do don’t abandon Mubarak and open the way there for democracy.’’
I have no idea who Friedman's sources were in the administration who were "disgusted" with Israel's approach to the "Arab spring" in Egypt. But apparently they were in agreement with Friedman's dismissal of Israeli concerns.
At night in the family residence, an adviser said, Mr. Obama often surfs the blogs of experts on Arab affairs or regional news sites to get a local flavor for events. He has sounded out prominent journalists like Fareed Zakaria of Time magazine and CNN and Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist at The New York Times, regarding their visits to the region. “He is searching for a way to pull back and weave a larger picture,” Mr. Zakaria said. Mr. Obama has ordered staff members to study transitions in 50 to 60 countries to find precedents for those under way in Tunisia and Egypt. They have found that Egypt is analogous to South Korea, the Philippines and Chile, while a revolution in Syria might end up looking like Romania’s. This deliberate, almost scholarly, approach is in keeping with Mr. Obama’s style, one that has frustrated people who believe he is too slow and dispassionate. But officials said it also reflected his own impatience, two years after he gave a speech in Cairo intended to mend America’s relations with the Muslim world, that many of these countries remained mired in corruption.
Note the way that this is portrayed. The reporter - or hagiographer - tells us that Obama is scholarly, noting that his people have looked for historical precedents - none of which seem to account for the role of Islam - and he seeks out experts like Thomas Friedman and Fareed Zakaria.
But there's nothing scholarly here. Friedman and Zakaria reinforce the President's views, not challenge them. A scholar would be looking for rigor not affirmation.
Ultimately, the dream of a secure, prosperous, Jewish and democratic Israel can only be achieved with two states living side by side in peace and in security with full confidence that the United States is willing and capable of ensuring that Israel can safeguard its security as it takes the risks needed to pursue peace. Now is the time for Israel to take bold action and to move towards a negotiated two-state solution. I recognize that there is a view that this is not the time to pursue peace and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view. I believe Israel will ultimately be safer when other Middle Eastern states adopt governments that respond to their people, promote equal rights, promote free and fair elections, uphold their international commitments, and join the community of free and democratic nations. I believe it is the only real long-term path to security and prosperity and to realize the vision of Yitzhak Rabin for a sustainable peace in the Middle East.
Israel’s fear of Islamists taking power all around it cannot be dismissed. But it is such a live possibility precisely because of the last 50 years of Arab dictatorship, in which only Islamists were allowed to organize in mosques while no independent, secular, democratic parties were allowed to develop in the political arena. This has given Muslim parties an early leg up. Arab dictators were convenient for Israel and the Islamists — but deadly for Arab development and education. Now that the lid has come off, the transition will be rocky. But, it was inevitable, and the new politics is just beginning: Islamists will now have to compete with legitimate secular parties. ... This is such a delicate moment. It requires wise, farsighted Israeli leadership. The Arab awakening is coinciding with the last hopes for a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli rightists will be tempted to do nothing, to insist the time is not right for risk-taking — and never will be — so Israel needs to occupy the West Bank and its Palestinians forever. That could be the greatest danger of all for Israel: to wake up one day and discover that, in response to the messy and turbulent Arab democratic awakening, the Jewish state sacrificed its own democratic character.
The sentiments expressed are nearly identical. How must Israel deal with turmoil in the Middle East? By pursuing peace. The American Secretary of Defense and the American columnist are on the same page regarding Israel.
(Also, note that now Friedman is agreeing with Israeli concerns - before dismissing them, again. But it also contradicts his tirade from February. Back then, Israel's leadership didn't know what was doing. Now, according to Friedman, Israel's fears weren't unfounded, but it's still wrong.)
These three instances show how closely the administration's views match those of Thomas Friedman. No doubt, the politicians didn't need Friedman to teach them anything about the Middle East; they formed their own opinions independently of him. As Barry Rubin observed, "stupid minds, like great ones, think alike."
Thanks to Tundra Tabloids for the new picture of Howard Gutman - I'm sure a lot of you were getting tired of the other one.
The Washington Jewish Week reports from a source said to be close to the Obama campaign that while the White House is 'distancing' itself verbally from Gutman, much more will need to be done.
We condemn anti-semitism in all its forms, and that there is never any justification for prejudice against the Jewish people or Israel," the White House said in a statement that was sent tonight to Jewish leaders and others. A copy of that statement was forwarded to this blog.
While the White House appears to be making it clear that it will not tolerate Ambassador Howard Gutman's seemingly anti-Semitic comments* chastisement of Israel, at least one source close to the Obama campaign implied that the administration must take concrete action.
"Anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism," said the source. But "if the Obama administration's rebuke of its Belgium ambassador is to be taken seriously, we expect greater action than a statement."
And so, in the interest of not letting the Obama administration off the hook on this one, here are a couple of more condemnations that have come in. This is from the Republican Jewish Coalition.
"The remarks reportedly made by President Obama's Ambassador to Belgium are outrageous," [Executive Director Matthew] Brooks said. "It's no wonder that hearing such a message from this country's representative left an audience of European Jewish leaders 'stunned.'"
Brooks continued, "Unfortunately, this administration's policies of 'daylight' and pressure toward our ally Israel encourage the dangerously misguided tendency to make excuses for anti-Semitic hatred and bigotry.
"The linkage in the ambassador's remarks, blaming Israel for anti-Semitism, is a short step from the linkage that President Obama has expressed several times himself, that Israel is to blame for the unrest and instability in the Middle East. Both forms of linkage are fundamentally wrong.
"Given the importance of the US maintaining its leadership role in the fight against resurgent European anti-Semitism - including in Belgium - it is good that the administration has distanced itself from Ambassador Gutman's remarks. Now, it is essential that the administration address the question of how Gutman can credibly represent our nation in his important post."
How many non-Jews would dare to raise the outrageous charge that it is the fault of the Jewish State, Israel, that Muslims hate Jews? And yet, perhaps if uttered by a Jew the hope is that it might gain some traction. When the US Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, (a Jewish name, a Jewish face...) said at a conference in Brussels this week that "Muslim anti-Semitism ‘stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians," we have to wonder whether that was an official statement of this US administration. Because if it were not, this administration must fire Mr. Gutman for his calumny of the Jewish State. And if Gutman is merely representing the position of his employer, this US administration, then we must ask every voter in America whether that represents their views. Already the Emergency Committee for Israel has, in no uncertain terms, condemned Gutman's remarks and called for his dismissal, as has the Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Z STREET is adding its voice to the call. As any casual student of the Middle East surely knows, Muslim hatred of Jews far precedes the rebirth of the Jewish State in 1948, and in fact dates all the way back to the time of Mohammed, the father of Islam. How Gutman could be so undiplomatic is hard to fathom. Whether this Administration allows Gutman to continue playing diplomat is worth asking. If you don't think it should, as we don't, contact President Barack Obama and let him know.
I don't believe contacting Obama will help, but I suppose it can't hurt. Truthfully, the biggest problem here is that what Gutman said reflects the Obama administration's views (and the views of certain commenters on this blog who are trying to maintain political correctness), but they cannot admit that until after next November.
One of my friends points out: Remember that mainstreaming on this one isn't limited to the US ambassador. Soros has been saying the exact same thing since 1999 and he said it again in 2003. That second time ended up getting posted all over hate sites like Stormfront, the conspiracy sites, the Democratic Underground, etc. That would make it more likely than not that Obama agrees with his ambassador, even if he cannot do so in public right now.
Simon Wiesenthal Center calls on Clinton to fire Gutman
The Simon Wiesenthal Center has issued the following press release calling on Secretary of State Clinton to fire US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to " immediately and unequivocally disassociate herself from comments made by US Amb Howard Gutman who told a Jewish group that "a distinction should be made between traditional anti-semitism which should be condemned and Muslim hatred of Jews which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians".
"The Simon Wieaenthal Center calls on Secy of State Clinton to immediately rebuke Gutman for excusing Muslim hatred of Jews"' said Rabbis Marvin Hier, Dean and Founder and Abraham Cooper, associate Dean in a statement on behalf of its 400,000 constituent families of the leading Jewish Human Rights NGO.
"America has always taken the lead in condemning hate in all its manifestations, not providing a moral free pass to extremists whose hate of Jews besmirches the Muslim religion and has spawned violent hatred against Jews across the Middle East and beyond."
" Following Gutman's twisted logic, Christian anti-semites who insist that their hatred of Jews is based on the fact that the Jewish people failed to acknowledge Jesus as Messsiah should also be excused until such time as the underlying reason for that hate-- the Jewish people's refusal to accept Jesus as messiah is reversed."
"As Ambassador to Belgium, a country where Jews have been attacked by Muslim extremists, Ambassador Gutman's statement is beyond shocking; it will only serve to further embolden hate from Islamist extremists in Europe and beyond. It is critical for Secretary of State to immediately clarify if Gutman's statement reflects or violates US policy vis a v anti-semitism", the Wiesenthal Center officials concluded.
Indeed. The problem is that this statement is very much in line with the sentiments spewed out by Obama in Cairo two and a half years ago.
UPDATE 11:22 AM
Just got a link to this announcement (I first received it as an email). It's here.
Republican front-runner Newt Gingrich called on the White House to fire ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman (pictured) for "being so wrong about anti-Semitism." Newt linked to the same YNet article to which I linked here.
The White House is rumored to have responded, "but... but... he raised so much money for the campaign."
I received the following statement from the Emergency Committee for Israel.
In response to the recent criticism of Israel by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, today the chairman of the Emergency Committee for Israel, William Kristol, issued the following statement:
"Nobody believes President Obama when he claims, as he did last week, that he 'has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration.' That’s because he hasn’t -- and because President Obama and his administration keeps acting to weaken the security of the state of Israel.
"For example: as reported in the Israeli press, the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman -- a top Obama fundraiser in 2008 -- told a conference in Brussels this week that Muslim anti-Semitism 'stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.' Pardon us for retaining our belief that Muslim anti-Semitism in the Middle East predates 1967, and even 1948 -- and in any case is the fault of the anti-Semites, not of the Jews.
"At another conference, this one in Washington, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta surveyed the Middle East and discovered that at every turn, the Jewish state is to blame for problems in the Muslim world. Are there Arab uprisings that are bringing Islamists to power and endangering peace with Israel? Israel must placate the radicals. Are there constant provocations and taunts from Turkey’s Islamist government? Israel must beg for better treatment. Do Palestinians refuse to negotiate? 'Get to the damn table,' Panetta thundered twice – as if Israel was refusing to talk, instead of the reverse.
"Just about the only thing in the Middle East that President Obama hasn’t blamed Israel for is the Iranian nuclear program. But when it comes to this, too, instead of supporting crippling sanctions or preparing military strikes, the White House seems to spend more time deterring Israel from acting than deterring Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons in the first place. And the administration’s energy seems more focused on undermining Israel and those members of Congress pushing for a tougher approach to Iran, than in undermining the Iranian regime.
"The Obama message is loud and clear: the world would be a safer, simpler, and more peaceful place if not for the troublesome Jewish state.
"Ambassador Gutman’s comments were not way out of line with Obama’s worldview. Nonetheless, we expect he will be recalled because the Obama administration won’t want to expend political capital defending him. He should be recalled, of course. But what the events of recent days emphasize is that the problem is not with one ambassador or with one cabinet secretary. The problem is President Obama."
For more information please contact ECI executive director Noah Pollak: Noah@CommitteeForIsrael.com.
This statement can be viewed online here: www.committeeforisrael.com/?p=1484 The report on Ambassador Gutman's remarks can be found here: www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4156355,00.html Secretary Panetta's remarks can be found here: www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4937
A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, Gutman said. He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.
The American envoy, a lawyer by training, is Jewish and played a major role in fundraising for the Democratic Party. He was appointed to the post by President Barack Obama.
Gutman was speaking to European Jewish lawyers and the next speaker offered a scathing rebuttal.
“The modern Anti-Semite formally condemns Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust and expresses upmost sympathy with the Jewish people. He simply has created a new species, the “Anti-Zionist” or – even more sophisticated – the so-called ‘Israel critic,’” Germany attorney Nathan Gelbart said.
“The ‘Israel critic’ will never state ‘Jews go home’ but is questioning the legality of the incorporation of the State of Israel and therefore the right for the Jewish people to settle in their homeland. He will not say the Jews are the evil of the world but claim that the State of Israel is a major cause for instability and war in the region,” he said. “There is no other country, no other people on this planet the ‘Israel critic’ would dedicate so much time and devotion as to the case of Israel.”
“For no other country he would criticize or ask to boycott its goods or academics. And this for one simple reason: Because Israel is the state of the Jewish people, not more and not less,” Gelbart said.
But Gutman apparently left as soon as he finished speaking. Read the whole thing.
As if that wasn't enough, on Friday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told a Saban Center forum at the Brookings Institute that Israel and the 'Palestinians' have to get back to the 'damn negotiating table.' Very nice Leon - tell it to the 'Palestinians' who have been refusing to sit at the negotiating table for nearly three years.
"I understand the view that this is not the time to pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view," Panetta said.
He said Israel needed to take risks, including by breathing new life into moribund peace talks with Palestinians. When asked by a moderator what steps Israel needed to take to pursue peace, Panetta said: "Just get to the damn table."
"The problem right now is we can't get them to the damn table, to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences," Panetta said.
This country is a democracy and according to the polls, if elections were held today, the current government would be reelected with a larger majority. Obviously, most Israelis don't see this to be the time to be taking more 'risks for peace.' Unlike Panetta, we have been there and done that.
Panetta also wants us to make more 'gestures.'
Panetta said that while Israel is not solely responsible for its isolation, it could more actively attempt to reverse the trend: "For example, Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability – countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well as Jordan," he said.
"This is not impossible. If the gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are. And that is exactly why Israel should pursue them."
Someone please tell me there's going to be change in Washington in November 2012 and that the nightmare known as the Obama administration will be gone.
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
