PrimalJEW
1) If you believe saving a Jewish life is our biggest responsibility.
2) If you think there is no moral equivalence between Israel and the terrorists who seek to destroy it
3) If you think “high minded” anti-Israel Jews are the latest in a long line of “use-full” idiots
4) If you take Iran at its word that they want to wipe Israel off the map
5) If you believe the UN has become (as it was anything else before) a sad, but dangerous, joke
6) If you believe those who hate Israel also hate Jews
7) If you recognize the greatest threat to world peace is Islamic terrorism
8) If you are un-easy giving the US State Department the keys to Israel survival
9) If the media coverage of Israel drives you crazy
10) If the current state of affairs vis-à-vis our community wants to make you scream
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Silly (but dangerous) Jews in Academia; Whitewash
Compare UCSB reaction to this story about Nazi professor and recent supreme court opinion on "hostile" academic environments below.......
Prof Who Compared Nazi, Israeli Actions Is Safe
FREE SPEECH -- A faculty committee has notified U.C. Santa Barbara sociology professor William I. Robinson that it has found "no probable cause" to pursue complaints about his invitation to students to compare photos of the Nazi assault on Jews and of the Israeli Defense Force's assault on Gaza.....
The dispute dates to an e-mail message that Robinson sent to the approximately 80 students in January in a course about sociology and globalization. The e-mail contained an article criticizing the Israeli military's actions in Gaza. Part of the e-mail was an assemblage of photos from Nazi Germany's persecution of Jews and from Israel's actions in Gaza. Students were invited to look at the "parallel images." A message from Robinson argued that Gaza would be like "Israel's Warsaw."
Following that letter, two students in the course dropped the class and filed complaints against Robinson. One student wrote that she felt "nauseous" upon reading the e-mail, and felt it was inappropriate. A second student complaint accusing Robinson of being unprofessional -- also from a student who dropped the course after receiving the e-mail -- said that Robinson has "clearly stated his anti-Semitic political views in this e-mail."
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13270
High court turns away professor's free-speech claim
By The Associated Press
Editor's note: The Associated Press reported April 9, 2002, that John Bonnell's lawsuit against Macomb Community College had been dismissed. Bonnell served an unpaid suspension of one semester the fall of 2001 after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene in his case.
LANSING, Mich. — The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear the appeal of an English professor who was suspended from a community college for using obscenities in class.
In a March opinion, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that Macomb Community College's right to protect its students against a "hostile learning environment" outweighed John Bonnell's free-speech rights.
Bonnell appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined without comment Oct. 9 to hear his appeal.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/04/04/nazi
Nazi Loses Teaching Job
April 4, 2005
In an interview, Pluss stressed his academic credentials (a University of Chicago Ph.D. in medieval history) and his commitment to keeping his politics out of his teaching. "I never brought my beliefs into the classroom or shared them with my colleagues," he said. He said it would be "complete nonsense" to say that Nazis shouldn't teach at colleges.
"Many of us have political views. Some are mainstream, some are extreme, some are left and some are right," he said. "I just stick to teaching the material."
Prof Who Compared Nazi, Israeli Actions Is Safe
FREE SPEECH -- A faculty committee has notified U.C. Santa Barbara sociology professor William I. Robinson that it has found "no probable cause" to pursue complaints about his invitation to students to compare photos of the Nazi assault on Jews and of the Israeli Defense Force's assault on Gaza.....
The dispute dates to an e-mail message that Robinson sent to the approximately 80 students in January in a course about sociology and globalization. The e-mail contained an article criticizing the Israeli military's actions in Gaza. Part of the e-mail was an assemblage of photos from Nazi Germany's persecution of Jews and from Israel's actions in Gaza. Students were invited to look at the "parallel images." A message from Robinson argued that Gaza would be like "Israel's Warsaw."
Following that letter, two students in the course dropped the class and filed complaints against Robinson. One student wrote that she felt "nauseous" upon reading the e-mail, and felt it was inappropriate. A second student complaint accusing Robinson of being unprofessional -- also from a student who dropped the course after receiving the e-mail -- said that Robinson has "clearly stated his anti-Semitic political views in this e-mail."
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13270
High court turns away professor's free-speech claim
By The Associated Press
Editor's note: The Associated Press reported April 9, 2002, that John Bonnell's lawsuit against Macomb Community College had been dismissed. Bonnell served an unpaid suspension of one semester the fall of 2001 after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene in his case.
LANSING, Mich. — The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear the appeal of an English professor who was suspended from a community college for using obscenities in class.
In a March opinion, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that Macomb Community College's right to protect its students against a "hostile learning environment" outweighed John Bonnell's free-speech rights.
Bonnell appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined without comment Oct. 9 to hear his appeal.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/04/04/nazi
Nazi Loses Teaching Job
April 4, 2005
In an interview, Pluss stressed his academic credentials (a University of Chicago Ph.D. in medieval history) and his commitment to keeping his politics out of his teaching. "I never brought my beliefs into the classroom or shared them with my colleagues," he said. He said it would be "complete nonsense" to say that Nazis shouldn't teach at colleges.
"Many of us have political views. Some are mainstream, some are extreme, some are left and some are right," he said. "I just stick to teaching the material."
96% of Israeli Jews think Obama anti-Israel; Not Rabbi Moline
While Obama couldn't find a bad word to say about Iran (who was crushing peace demonstrators) while slamming Israel, the Rabbi found time to sign on a petition calling for unilateral pressure on Israel.
http://ga3.org/campaign/weve_got_your_back_pledge
7. Why is the pledge targeted to Jews?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been at the center of American Jewish discourse. Many American politicians have assumed that if they express anything but complete support for official Israeli positions, we would turn against them. As such, our input has far more weight than our numbers would indicate – and American Jewish peace advocates have got to make it clear the majority of our community actually supports a two-state solution, including the possibility of pressure on Israel to achieve such a solution http://www.jstreet.org/files/images/J_Street_Survey_Analysis_032309.doc]
Moreover, the vast majority of American Jewish voters cast their votes for President Obama. We are a central part of the success of his campaign, and we must act to make our voices heard to the man we helped place in office.
4. Signer Disclaimer
By signing this open letter, you agree to allow Brit Tzedek v’Shalom to publicize your name publicly and in any paid advertising. Your signature on this pledge indicates support for the contents of the pledge and does not constitute your agreement with all of the positions of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom. If you wish to sign the pledge anonymously, please email jeff@btvshalom.org. You may give us your general endorsement for our work by joining our Brit Tzedek’s Email list at http://ga3.org/btvshalom/join.tcl?source=home_2009.
96% of Israeli Jews: Obama anti-Israel
The Jerusalem Post ^
Posted on Friday, August 28, 2009
The number of Israelis who see US President Barack Obama's policies as pro-Israel has fallen to four percent, according to a Smith Research poll taken this week on behalf of The Jerusalem Post.
Fifty-one percent of Jewish Israelis consider Obama's administration more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel, according to the survey, while 35% consider it neutral and 10% declined to express an opinion. The poll of 500 people representing a statistical model of the Jewish Israeli population had a margin of error of 4.5%.
A much-cited Post poll published on June 19 that put the first figure at 6% had been cited by top officials in both the White House and the Prime Minister's Office as the catalyst for recent American efforts to improve the American-Israeli relationship. But the new poll proves that those efforts have not improved Obama's reputation among Israelis.
http://ga3.org/campaign/weve_got_your_back_pledge
7. Why is the pledge targeted to Jews?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been at the center of American Jewish discourse. Many American politicians have assumed that if they express anything but complete support for official Israeli positions, we would turn against them. As such, our input has far more weight than our numbers would indicate – and American Jewish peace advocates have got to make it clear the majority of our community actually supports a two-state solution, including the possibility of pressure on Israel to achieve such a solution http://www.jstreet.org/files/images/J_Street_Survey_Analysis_032309.doc]
Moreover, the vast majority of American Jewish voters cast their votes for President Obama. We are a central part of the success of his campaign, and we must act to make our voices heard to the man we helped place in office.
4. Signer Disclaimer
By signing this open letter, you agree to allow Brit Tzedek v’Shalom to publicize your name publicly and in any paid advertising. Your signature on this pledge indicates support for the contents of the pledge and does not constitute your agreement with all of the positions of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom. If you wish to sign the pledge anonymously, please email jeff@btvshalom.org. You may give us your general endorsement for our work by joining our Brit Tzedek’s Email list at http://ga3.org/btvshalom/join.tcl?source=home_2009.
96% of Israeli Jews: Obama anti-Israel
The Jerusalem Post ^
Posted on Friday, August 28, 2009
The number of Israelis who see US President Barack Obama's policies as pro-Israel has fallen to four percent, according to a Smith Research poll taken this week on behalf of The Jerusalem Post.
Fifty-one percent of Jewish Israelis consider Obama's administration more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel, according to the survey, while 35% consider it neutral and 10% declined to express an opinion. The poll of 500 people representing a statistical model of the Jewish Israeli population had a margin of error of 4.5%.
A much-cited Post poll published on June 19 that put the first figure at 6% had been cited by top officials in both the White House and the Prime Minister's Office as the catalyst for recent American efforts to improve the American-Israeli relationship. But the new poll proves that those efforts have not improved Obama's reputation among Israelis.
J street supporters admits the truth
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/2118/changing_the_jewish_state_and_the_state_of_jews:_j_street_and_the_future_of_israel
So many things wrong with this Article but very interesting reading. Please remember the following as you read.
1) Israel has recognized and accepted a seperation of historic "Palestine" into Arab and Jewish in 1948 (partition)and has recognized a two state solution since 1991-- the arabs repeatedly refused to accept this
2) Palestinian Arabs refuse to acknowlege ANY jewish attachement or history to Israel.
3) Israeli Arabs have more rights in Israel than Palestinian arabs have under Palestinian rule (any arab in any arab country for that matter)
Changing the Jewish State and the State of Jews: J Street and the Future of Israel
Ambassador Oren clearly shares this view, which is why he recently described J Street as a “unique problem” and “out of the mainstream” of organized Jewish life. Oren argues that the organization “not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments.”
And so Oren and other critics of J Street on the right are correct—at least partly—in arguing that J Street’s positions put the very “survival of the Jewish state” into question. ....... J Street would never say this, of course, but it’s hard to imagine a different outcome (indeed, some of the most militant leaders of the settlement movement in the 1970s and 1980s argued that ultimately Palestinians would have to be given full civil and political rights).
Anti-Israel, to Some Degree
J Street cannot and will not change these dynamics on its own. And indeed, many on the more openly progressive Jewish left, who exist on the borderlines between Zionism and some form of post- or even anti-Zionist philosophy, are critical of many of J Street’s positions and discourse. Some argue that J Street is not being honest enough about Israeli policies and the need, not merely to support the Obama Administration’s peace efforts, but to be willing to put teeth behind them by threatening to cut off military aid to Israel if it doesn’t stop and withdraw most settlements and end the occupation.
Israelis of course know this full well. This is one reason why they distrust President Obama so much. While he hasn’t pushed them yet, they understand that to cross the precipice to peace will require Israel to radically change its basic political, economic, and ideological structure, which means changing their identity, and that of most of the world’s Jews as well
So many things wrong with this Article but very interesting reading. Please remember the following as you read.
1) Israel has recognized and accepted a seperation of historic "Palestine" into Arab and Jewish in 1948 (partition)and has recognized a two state solution since 1991-- the arabs repeatedly refused to accept this
2) Palestinian Arabs refuse to acknowlege ANY jewish attachement or history to Israel.
3) Israeli Arabs have more rights in Israel than Palestinian arabs have under Palestinian rule (any arab in any arab country for that matter)
Changing the Jewish State and the State of Jews: J Street and the Future of Israel
Ambassador Oren clearly shares this view, which is why he recently described J Street as a “unique problem” and “out of the mainstream” of organized Jewish life. Oren argues that the organization “not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments.”
And so Oren and other critics of J Street on the right are correct—at least partly—in arguing that J Street’s positions put the very “survival of the Jewish state” into question. ....... J Street would never say this, of course, but it’s hard to imagine a different outcome (indeed, some of the most militant leaders of the settlement movement in the 1970s and 1980s argued that ultimately Palestinians would have to be given full civil and political rights).
Anti-Israel, to Some Degree
J Street cannot and will not change these dynamics on its own. And indeed, many on the more openly progressive Jewish left, who exist on the borderlines between Zionism and some form of post- or even anti-Zionist philosophy, are critical of many of J Street’s positions and discourse. Some argue that J Street is not being honest enough about Israeli policies and the need, not merely to support the Obama Administration’s peace efforts, but to be willing to put teeth behind them by threatening to cut off military aid to Israel if it doesn’t stop and withdraw most settlements and end the occupation.
Israelis of course know this full well. This is one reason why they distrust President Obama so much. While he hasn’t pushed them yet, they understand that to cross the precipice to peace will require Israel to radically change its basic political, economic, and ideological structure, which means changing their identity, and that of most of the world’s Jews as well
Why did Obama send $950 million to Hamas but only $100 million to Haiti
US aid by crisis
Hamas: 1400 (mostly terrorists) dead= $67, 857 per fatality
Haiti: 140k civilians dead= $71 per fatality
Does this mean Obama has stronger personal affinity for muslim terrorists on the other side of the world than hatian civilians in his own hemisphere?
Still think Obama is good for Jews???
When good deeds are worse than doing nothing
Jan. 24, 2010
OLIVER WORTH , THE JERUSALEM POST
When sending two jumb-jets of aid, and setting up a field hospital with hundreds of doctors, nurses and other medical personnel is met with scorn, you know something isn't right.
While most of the mainstream American and British news networks reported extensively on Israel's reaction to Haiti's devastating earthquake, unfortunately we were also reminded just how entrenched some of the world's hatred for the Jewish state really is.
While the fact that most of the Arab world donated mere pennies, or nothing at all, has escaped mention, Israel's attempt to save lives has been labeled by many as nothing but a PR exercise. The sad truth is that the the anti-Israel hard left has done such a great job of dehumanizing Israelis, that the idea they could be doing good deeds is totally incomprehensible. It's true - Israel's actions in Haiti are creating good press, but that's what happens when you do good things.
The assertion that Israel should somehow have to apologize for coming across positively is absurd, and grounded in anti-Semitism. As Kevin Myers writes for the Belfast Telegraph, "They are perhaps the only people in the world for whom extenuating circumstances are routinely cited in explanation of their charitable deeds".
WHILE IT'S no surprise that the Islamist, anti-semitic Iranian mouth-piece Press TV accuses Israeli doctors of using the Haiti emergency to harvest organs, one should not expect to read the headline "Israel's double standards over Haiti," in Britain's Guardian newspaper, except, of course, in the comparison between Israel's efforts in Haiti and the efforts of any of Israel's neighbours. Unfortunately it comes as no surprise to those regularly inflicted with the Guardian's bias that the piece is, of course, in reference to Israel's treatment of Haitans and those it is at war with.
Israel's commitment to saving lives in disaster zones has nothing to do with Gaza. Israel has shown its amazing commitment to the preservation of life in India, Indonesia, Kenya and many other nations, Gaza war or no Gaza war. There is simply no comparison between the response shown to a people at the mercy of horrific natural events, and a people who have effectively been at war with Israel since its birth.
It's truly astonishing that part of the mainstream British press has found itself unable to differentiate between a helpless Haitian people in desperate need of aid, and the Palestinian people who elected a terrorist organization into power.
While no one in their right mind would deny the widespread suffering of the Gazan people, drawing any moral equivalence between Israel's relationship with them and those trapped under rubble in Haiti is truly perverse. When the attitude toward Israel is so widely based on anti-Semitism and hate, what evidence is there to believe things would change with an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement? For peace to be possible, Israel rightly has to believe that its concessions and sacrifices would be met by more than continued hatred, that peace with the Palestinians is also peace with the world.
As things stand, Israel is the only country in the world - bar none - that has to justify giving aid and saving lives. As long as Israelis (or perhaps simply Jews) are viewed as incapable of doing anything good, in a sentiment propagated by so much of the world media, then Israel will be in no position to make concessions for peace.
No one is asking for the world to kiss Israel's feet for acts which are in line with its own moral code, but when Israel provides more per capita than any other nation in the world and is met with scorn, and the world's worst and wealthiest human rights abusers give nothing and are met with silence, well, something isn't right.
The writer has been a frequent observer of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and is now based in the United Kingdom.
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/for_bigots_israel_can_do
For bigots, Israel can do no right
Posted by Alan M. Dershowitz
Comments: 74
BOOKMARK or SHARE: What's this?
Print | E-mail
As most objective observers throughout the world marvel at Israel's efficiency and generosity in leading the medical aid efforts in Haiti, some bigots insist on using these efforts as an occasion to continue their attack on the Jewish state.....
The hard left, even in a Israel, complains that Israel should not be sending medical assistance to such a faraway place. Instead it should be sending it to nearby Gaza.
Even The New York Times, in an otherwise thoughtful analysis of the controversiality of the aid among some Israelis, failed to note the difference between Israel sending its limited resources to faraway Haiti and to nearby Gaza. Haiti is not at war with Israel. Haiti has not pledged itself to Israel's destruction. Haiti has not fired 8,000 rockets at Israeli civilians. Gaza, on the other hand, has a popularly elected government that has done and continues to do all of the above. Moreover, there is no comparison between the tens of thousands of Haitians who have died from a natural disaster, and the people of Gaza who suffer far less from what is, essentially, a self-inflicted wound.
Nor do the perennial enemies of Israel emphasize the comparison between tiny and resource-poor Israel, on the one hand, and the enormous and resource-rich Arab and Muslim nations, on the other hand. While Israel digs deeply into its treasury and manpower to send medical assistance a quarter of the way around the world, Arab and Muslim nations are generally missing in action when it comes to relief efforts. This is true not only in Haiti, which is a Catholic nation, but it was equally true when tsunamis and other natural disasters have devastated Muslim nations.
..... Has any other country in the history of the world ever provided medical and other assistance to a people with whom it is at war - to people who continue to support rocket attacks and other forms of terrorism against its own civilians? Again, a double standard. The reality is that Israel will be extremely generous to the people of Gaza if and when they stop supporting attacks on Israeli civilians, stop making martyrs of their suicide murders, and stop encouraging their children to don suicide vests. .......
Hamas: 1400 (mostly terrorists) dead= $67, 857 per fatality
Haiti: 140k civilians dead= $71 per fatality
Does this mean Obama has stronger personal affinity for muslim terrorists on the other side of the world than hatian civilians in his own hemisphere?
Still think Obama is good for Jews???
When good deeds are worse than doing nothing
Jan. 24, 2010
OLIVER WORTH , THE JERUSALEM POST
When sending two jumb-jets of aid, and setting up a field hospital with hundreds of doctors, nurses and other medical personnel is met with scorn, you know something isn't right.
While most of the mainstream American and British news networks reported extensively on Israel's reaction to Haiti's devastating earthquake, unfortunately we were also reminded just how entrenched some of the world's hatred for the Jewish state really is.
While the fact that most of the Arab world donated mere pennies, or nothing at all, has escaped mention, Israel's attempt to save lives has been labeled by many as nothing but a PR exercise. The sad truth is that the the anti-Israel hard left has done such a great job of dehumanizing Israelis, that the idea they could be doing good deeds is totally incomprehensible. It's true - Israel's actions in Haiti are creating good press, but that's what happens when you do good things.
The assertion that Israel should somehow have to apologize for coming across positively is absurd, and grounded in anti-Semitism. As Kevin Myers writes for the Belfast Telegraph, "They are perhaps the only people in the world for whom extenuating circumstances are routinely cited in explanation of their charitable deeds".
WHILE IT'S no surprise that the Islamist, anti-semitic Iranian mouth-piece Press TV accuses Israeli doctors of using the Haiti emergency to harvest organs, one should not expect to read the headline "Israel's double standards over Haiti," in Britain's Guardian newspaper, except, of course, in the comparison between Israel's efforts in Haiti and the efforts of any of Israel's neighbours. Unfortunately it comes as no surprise to those regularly inflicted with the Guardian's bias that the piece is, of course, in reference to Israel's treatment of Haitans and those it is at war with.
Israel's commitment to saving lives in disaster zones has nothing to do with Gaza. Israel has shown its amazing commitment to the preservation of life in India, Indonesia, Kenya and many other nations, Gaza war or no Gaza war. There is simply no comparison between the response shown to a people at the mercy of horrific natural events, and a people who have effectively been at war with Israel since its birth.
It's truly astonishing that part of the mainstream British press has found itself unable to differentiate between a helpless Haitian people in desperate need of aid, and the Palestinian people who elected a terrorist organization into power.
While no one in their right mind would deny the widespread suffering of the Gazan people, drawing any moral equivalence between Israel's relationship with them and those trapped under rubble in Haiti is truly perverse. When the attitude toward Israel is so widely based on anti-Semitism and hate, what evidence is there to believe things would change with an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement? For peace to be possible, Israel rightly has to believe that its concessions and sacrifices would be met by more than continued hatred, that peace with the Palestinians is also peace with the world.
As things stand, Israel is the only country in the world - bar none - that has to justify giving aid and saving lives. As long as Israelis (or perhaps simply Jews) are viewed as incapable of doing anything good, in a sentiment propagated by so much of the world media, then Israel will be in no position to make concessions for peace.
No one is asking for the world to kiss Israel's feet for acts which are in line with its own moral code, but when Israel provides more per capita than any other nation in the world and is met with scorn, and the world's worst and wealthiest human rights abusers give nothing and are met with silence, well, something isn't right.
The writer has been a frequent observer of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and is now based in the United Kingdom.
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/for_bigots_israel_can_do
For bigots, Israel can do no right
Posted by Alan M. Dershowitz
Comments: 74
BOOKMARK or SHARE: What's this?
Print | E-mail
As most objective observers throughout the world marvel at Israel's efficiency and generosity in leading the medical aid efforts in Haiti, some bigots insist on using these efforts as an occasion to continue their attack on the Jewish state.....
The hard left, even in a Israel, complains that Israel should not be sending medical assistance to such a faraway place. Instead it should be sending it to nearby Gaza.
Even The New York Times, in an otherwise thoughtful analysis of the controversiality of the aid among some Israelis, failed to note the difference between Israel sending its limited resources to faraway Haiti and to nearby Gaza. Haiti is not at war with Israel. Haiti has not pledged itself to Israel's destruction. Haiti has not fired 8,000 rockets at Israeli civilians. Gaza, on the other hand, has a popularly elected government that has done and continues to do all of the above. Moreover, there is no comparison between the tens of thousands of Haitians who have died from a natural disaster, and the people of Gaza who suffer far less from what is, essentially, a self-inflicted wound.
Nor do the perennial enemies of Israel emphasize the comparison between tiny and resource-poor Israel, on the one hand, and the enormous and resource-rich Arab and Muslim nations, on the other hand. While Israel digs deeply into its treasury and manpower to send medical assistance a quarter of the way around the world, Arab and Muslim nations are generally missing in action when it comes to relief efforts. This is true not only in Haiti, which is a Catholic nation, but it was equally true when tsunamis and other natural disasters have devastated Muslim nations.
..... Has any other country in the history of the world ever provided medical and other assistance to a people with whom it is at war - to people who continue to support rocket attacks and other forms of terrorism against its own civilians? Again, a double standard. The reality is that Israel will be extremely generous to the people of Gaza if and when they stop supporting attacks on Israeli civilians, stop making martyrs of their suicide murders, and stop encouraging their children to don suicide vests. .......
Where's our leadership?
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=165992
We are a small people. We have multiple and powerful external enemies. Striving for Jewish political unity is our natural and rational impulse. Criticizing other Jewish leaders and mainstream Jewish organizations is usually just not done. But these are extraordinary times. We face daunting challenges for which there are no known answers. Chief among them are Islamic anti-Semitism and the global jihad that pose enormous, unanticipated threats to Jews around the world.
The premier Jewish defense agency, the Anti-Defamation League and its head, Abraham Foxman, have failed to respond to these threats. In truth, it is not only the ADL that is failing: Few Jewish leaders and almost no mainstream organizations have decided to stop doing business as usual, and to explain to the community that we now face a radically new and potentially existential threat.
It should be clear to anyone who can see beyond The New York Times that the Jews now live in a new time. World Jewry is caught up in a perfect storm: In Western societies, real danger to Jews no longer comes from Christian hatred of Judaism or from Nazi-like animus against our "race"; it comes instead from a hatred of the Jewish state and its Jewish supporters. That this animus comes mostly from the ideological left, with which a majority of Jews identify, is painful and confusing to many.
At the same time, blowing in from the Muslim world is a different sort of anti-Semitism, one which combines modern anti-Zionist themes with primordial Islamic theological hatred. Jew-hatred now drives countless masses around the globe. Imbibing this poison, Muslim radicals have attacked and murdered Jewish people from Israel to Europe, from India to Seattle.
Islamic hatred has indeed come to America.
In 1999, Sufi Sheikh Hisham Kabanni, head of the Supreme Islamic Council, testified to the State Department that 80 percent of American mosques are in the hands of radicals. A study by Freedom House, a Washington policy center, found Saudi-produced anti-Semitic literature in Islamic centers around the country. "Close Guantanamo, reopen Auschwitz" has been shouted by Muslims at anti-Israel demonstrations in Fort Lauderdale and posted on Boston-based Muslim Web sites.
JEWISH LEADERS, at least at the national level, are not blind to these threats. Two years ago at an international conference on global anti-Semitism in Jerusalem, the heads of many major American Jewish organizations heard speakers like Robert Wistrich, the director of Hebrew University's Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism, who described Muslim Judeophobia as an existential threat. Last March, Wistrich wrote in Haaretz that "the scale and extremism of the literature and commentary available in Arab or Muslim newspapers, journals, magazines, caricatures, on Islamist Web sites, on the Middle Eastern radio and TV news, in documentaries, films, and educational materials, is comparable only to that of Nazi Germany at its worst." Through the Internet, this material is available to Muslims living among us here.
Because the mainstream media for various reasons downplays these threats, Jews who depend on The New York Times, The Boston Globe or CNN mostly don't see how our situation has been radically altered. And so the question remains: If our leaders know, why haven't they told us?
I suggest three reasons. First is a fear of being attacked as racists, bigots and Islamophobes - a line of attack that has been particularly effective against Jewish organizations. Second is a fear of being targeted for "defamation" suits like the one launched against activists and media outlets in Boston who reported on, or asked questions about the radical connections of leaders of the Saudi-funded Roxbury mosque. "Lawfare" works: Legal defense costs can be crippling. But I think the real reason that our leaders are silent is that they simply don't know what to do. Rather than admit this, they stay mum and mostly limit their public efforts to issuing reports, posting articles on their Web sites and speaking about the matter in private or to small groups.
Recently ADL officials have protested this criticism, claiming I am "unaware of ADL's activism" against radical Islam, then pointing to articles about Islamic extremists and Arab anti-Jewish cartoons on ADL's Web site, along with instances of congressional testimony and consultations with world leaders. Surely this is not a serious effort for an operation with a $50 million annual budget that claims to be our chief defender. These are tactics. Where is the big-picture strategy?
In response to the arrest of an Arab on an airplane who raged that he wanted to kill Jews, an ADL official recently told the press that this shows "anti-Semitism and hatred of Jews is still very much a part of society." Society??!! Yes, on the ADL Web site there was a press release which appended a few sentences about "Islamist extremism," but which seemed an afterthought. To continue to be politically correct in the face of a real threat that needs to be named is to mislead the Jewish community and the public at large.
Should Jews not expect Abe Foxman - and our other leaders - to level with us? To tell us what they know about the penetration of the Muslim Brotherhood into our communities and about the proliferation of radical mosques across America, and the intimidation, sometimes physical, of Jewish students on campus by radical Muslim students?
There needs to be a serious new effort. We can start with public conferences around the country on Islamic anti-Semitism and Islamist penetration of American society. We need to fund research in universities about these threats. We need to focus on the Saudi lobby and its impact on silencing scrutiny and criticism of anything Islamic. We need to reach out to congressmen to address these issues. Why not press for sensitivity training for foreign students who come from lands seething in anti-Semitism? Help us, Abe Foxman. We cannot continue with PC-denial and with timidity. Silence is potentially deadly. Let us face this challenge forthrightly, and together.
The writer is president of Americans for Peace and Tolerance. A version of the article was first published in the Boston Jewish Advocate.
We are a small people. We have multiple and powerful external enemies. Striving for Jewish political unity is our natural and rational impulse. Criticizing other Jewish leaders and mainstream Jewish organizations is usually just not done. But these are extraordinary times. We face daunting challenges for which there are no known answers. Chief among them are Islamic anti-Semitism and the global jihad that pose enormous, unanticipated threats to Jews around the world.
The premier Jewish defense agency, the Anti-Defamation League and its head, Abraham Foxman, have failed to respond to these threats. In truth, it is not only the ADL that is failing: Few Jewish leaders and almost no mainstream organizations have decided to stop doing business as usual, and to explain to the community that we now face a radically new and potentially existential threat.
It should be clear to anyone who can see beyond The New York Times that the Jews now live in a new time. World Jewry is caught up in a perfect storm: In Western societies, real danger to Jews no longer comes from Christian hatred of Judaism or from Nazi-like animus against our "race"; it comes instead from a hatred of the Jewish state and its Jewish supporters. That this animus comes mostly from the ideological left, with which a majority of Jews identify, is painful and confusing to many.
At the same time, blowing in from the Muslim world is a different sort of anti-Semitism, one which combines modern anti-Zionist themes with primordial Islamic theological hatred. Jew-hatred now drives countless masses around the globe. Imbibing this poison, Muslim radicals have attacked and murdered Jewish people from Israel to Europe, from India to Seattle.
Islamic hatred has indeed come to America.
In 1999, Sufi Sheikh Hisham Kabanni, head of the Supreme Islamic Council, testified to the State Department that 80 percent of American mosques are in the hands of radicals. A study by Freedom House, a Washington policy center, found Saudi-produced anti-Semitic literature in Islamic centers around the country. "Close Guantanamo, reopen Auschwitz" has been shouted by Muslims at anti-Israel demonstrations in Fort Lauderdale and posted on Boston-based Muslim Web sites.
JEWISH LEADERS, at least at the national level, are not blind to these threats. Two years ago at an international conference on global anti-Semitism in Jerusalem, the heads of many major American Jewish organizations heard speakers like Robert Wistrich, the director of Hebrew University's Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism, who described Muslim Judeophobia as an existential threat. Last March, Wistrich wrote in Haaretz that "the scale and extremism of the literature and commentary available in Arab or Muslim newspapers, journals, magazines, caricatures, on Islamist Web sites, on the Middle Eastern radio and TV news, in documentaries, films, and educational materials, is comparable only to that of Nazi Germany at its worst." Through the Internet, this material is available to Muslims living among us here.
Because the mainstream media for various reasons downplays these threats, Jews who depend on The New York Times, The Boston Globe or CNN mostly don't see how our situation has been radically altered. And so the question remains: If our leaders know, why haven't they told us?
I suggest three reasons. First is a fear of being attacked as racists, bigots and Islamophobes - a line of attack that has been particularly effective against Jewish organizations. Second is a fear of being targeted for "defamation" suits like the one launched against activists and media outlets in Boston who reported on, or asked questions about the radical connections of leaders of the Saudi-funded Roxbury mosque. "Lawfare" works: Legal defense costs can be crippling. But I think the real reason that our leaders are silent is that they simply don't know what to do. Rather than admit this, they stay mum and mostly limit their public efforts to issuing reports, posting articles on their Web sites and speaking about the matter in private or to small groups.
Recently ADL officials have protested this criticism, claiming I am "unaware of ADL's activism" against radical Islam, then pointing to articles about Islamic extremists and Arab anti-Jewish cartoons on ADL's Web site, along with instances of congressional testimony and consultations with world leaders. Surely this is not a serious effort for an operation with a $50 million annual budget that claims to be our chief defender. These are tactics. Where is the big-picture strategy?
In response to the arrest of an Arab on an airplane who raged that he wanted to kill Jews, an ADL official recently told the press that this shows "anti-Semitism and hatred of Jews is still very much a part of society." Society??!! Yes, on the ADL Web site there was a press release which appended a few sentences about "Islamist extremism," but which seemed an afterthought. To continue to be politically correct in the face of a real threat that needs to be named is to mislead the Jewish community and the public at large.
Should Jews not expect Abe Foxman - and our other leaders - to level with us? To tell us what they know about the penetration of the Muslim Brotherhood into our communities and about the proliferation of radical mosques across America, and the intimidation, sometimes physical, of Jewish students on campus by radical Muslim students?
There needs to be a serious new effort. We can start with public conferences around the country on Islamic anti-Semitism and Islamist penetration of American society. We need to fund research in universities about these threats. We need to focus on the Saudi lobby and its impact on silencing scrutiny and criticism of anything Islamic. We need to reach out to congressmen to address these issues. Why not press for sensitivity training for foreign students who come from lands seething in anti-Semitism? Help us, Abe Foxman. We cannot continue with PC-denial and with timidity. Silence is potentially deadly. Let us face this challenge forthrightly, and together.
The writer is president of Americans for Peace and Tolerance. A version of the article was first published in the Boston Jewish Advocate.
Friday, January 22, 2010
A RABBI’S “WISDOM” AND RABBI WISE
Metro D.C. Rabbi is Repeating Mistakes Made a Generation Ago
ALEXANDRIA, VA—Once considered a reputable leader, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise failed American and world Jewry when his leadership and action were most desperately needed. Faced with the enormity of the Shoah, Wise concerned himself with sabotaging the efforts of others to save the Jews of occupied Europe, jealously guarding his position as a man who had Franklin Roosevelt’s attention while he waited in vain for the great icon of American reform to act to save the fellows and relatives of a constituency that gave Roosevelt 90% of their vote.
Currently a high-profile figure, Rabbi Jack Moline is a man with the ear of Washington power brokers and an eye on a career beyond his pulpit at Congregation Agudas Achim of Northern Virginia. A staunch Obama supporter, he is known as a politically active go-to man in the Metro Jewish community dedicated to interfaith dialog, as well as Rahm Emanuel’s rabbi. But much like Rabbi Wise before him, Rabbi Moline is on a path to fail his community at a crucial hour.
It is important to consider the overlap of circumstances framing this issue. Rabbi Wise, a maverick of the Reform movement, was eager to recast the image of the American Jewish community within the context of the reform-minded Roosevelt administration as the country and the world struggled through economic and political chaos that fed anti-Semitism. Viewing Roosevelt as a protector of the Jews, Wise—who began the 1930s as one of Nazism’s earliest and most vocal opponents—began to stifle his protests for European Jewry at the request of Roosevelt himself, lest his actions upset the applecart for American Jews and draw “unnecessary” criticism to the administration even as its functionaries worked to prevent any salvation from reaching the Jews of Europe. By 1943, Wise was actively working against efforts by groups not aligned with his own, recommending that the president not meet with the over 400 rabbis who marched to the White House to protest Allied inaction, and going to great lengths to prevent one group’s efforts at raising public awareness of the ongoing massacres.
Nearly 70 years later, and the economic upheaval has been repeated in an age when hate crimes against Jews are on the rise at home and abroad. As the Jewish homeland, Israel, becomes more and more the focus of tangentially relevant (at best) moral questions of “right” and “wrong”, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is allowed to threaten the Middle East and Europe with nuclear attack, it appears that Jack Moline is stepping into the role Rabbi Wise played in jeopardizing the safety of Jews in his efforts to reshape our image at a time when we can least afford it.
Should a man who casts himself as both a Zionist and a champion of the American Jewish voice engage in dialog with avowed opponents of Israel’s very existence and, by extension, the Jews’ validity as a people, even under the banner of “interfaith cooperation”? This is exactly what Rabbi Moline has done with Mahdi Bray and Dr. Esam Omeish. Moline has consistently dismissed Bray’s inflammatory actions and statements on Jews and Israel as the product of his “poorly informed” status while painting Bray as a champion of interfaith dialog. In the case of Omeish, Moline gave his endorsement to Omeish’s 2009 candidacy for Virginia State Assembly several years after Omeish’s fulmination for jihad against Israel and as a tool to make the Muslim voice heard in America, “the land of Allah” became news. Rabbi Moline continues to meet with these individuals and others as he pursues “dialog” with the Islamic Society of North America, Council on American-Islamic Relations and Muslim American Society, all of which have been linked to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood jihadist organization.
Concerning Moline’s relationship with President Obama, he has replicated Wise’s efforts to deflect any criticism from his perceived patron. When invited to participate in a teleconference with the president and1000 rabbis on the healthcare fracas, he expressed his satisfaction that no one took the opportunity to challenge Obama on his choice of Mary Robinson to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom after her checkered record as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Rabbi Moline continues to back President Obama’s efforts to, if necessary, unilaterally pressure Israel to achieve progress in their conflict with the Arab world, despite Israel’s track record of compromise in pursuit of peace.
There is, however, one crucial difference between Rabbis Wise and Moline. Rabbi Wise had the sense to speak out against the Nazis at the first opportunity. Jack Moline, meanwhile, tends to dismiss the threat of a nuclear, ideologically motivated Iran as something that will somehow be handled, no doubt by his own imagined benefactor.
Rather than further the strides Jews have made in America and around the world, Rabbi Jack Moline’s actions are the leftist counterpart to those of the Neturei Karta, the misguided Orthodox group that believes any show of Jewish self-determination outside the model of the shtetl is somehow “ungodly.” At a time when the situation seems to deteriorate more each day, we can no longer afford to let Moline continue unchallenged.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
What The Rabbi Did Last Summer...
As we languish in the depths of an unusually cold winter, perhaps it will warm you up to know what our favorite self defeatist, Rabbi Jack Moline, did this past summer. Then again, perhaps it will chill you to the bone.
1) GAVE POLITICAL COVER TO HIS MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD FRIENDS
When Mahdi Bray was accused of supporting terrorism and encouraging anti-Semitism his response was that, although he has “some strong opinions on Israel and its policies,” he is in no way an anti-Semite. In a quote in Washington Jewish Week (WJW) on July 8, 2009, he offered the following as proof:
"I've got people in the Jewish community who've known me for years." That includes, he said, Rabbi Jack Moline of Congregation Agudas Achim in Alexandria, who has worked together with him on interfaith projects.
And who, you might ask, is Mahdi Bray? Perhaps these will provide an answer:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/profile/112
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOyRipFULNY
Contrast Bray’s rationalization of his own actions with this assessment by author, journalist and award-winning PBS documentarian Steven Emerson, from the same Washington Jewish Week article:
Bray has defended terrorists and those alleged to be supporting them…Bray and the Muslim American Society are the modern-day, Islamic equivalent of the Nazi party, except they haven't carried out mass killings, although their ideology calls for that.
Whether you accept Bray’s version or that of Emerson, the fact that a man who regularly engages in and enables white-hot vilification of Israel’s efforts to defend itself against an enemy that explicitly calls for its destruction can be seen by a rabbi as a partner for interfaith dialog is inexplicable. But Moline does indeed see Bray as a colleague in efforts to foster “understanding” between communities, as he himself stated in the WJW article:
Moline…and Bray served together on the board of the Interfaith Alliance and have combined forces on several domestic issues. "But we have assiduously avoided conversations on the Middle East," he added, "because I know that we disagree." [Emphasis added]
Were one somehow to find oneself working on a project in close quarters with a cannibal, would it be rational to focus on completing the project without discussing your cohort’s dietary preferences? That (non) conundrum aside, Moline’s unwillingness to sully his own vision of his own interfaith work is neatly summed up in his shockingly mild assessment of Bray’s position on Israel in the very next line:
Regarding Bray's stances on Israel and Zionism, Moline said, "I think it's fair to say that in certain areas, he is poorly informed."
2) MET WITH MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD FRONT GROUPS AND EXTREMIST ENABLERS
In a story dated July 3, 2009, the Washington Times Web site reported that the Islamic Society of North America’s (ISNA) annual conference that weekend at the Washington Convention Center would constitute “an unprecedented outreach to Christians and Jews”, and would include the participation of none other than Rabbi Jack Moline.
ISNA, besides being named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the infamous Holy Land Foundation case, can be directly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that has been involved in or directed jihadist violence around the globe (most notably through their Palestinian wing, Hamas). Rather than an echo of a foreign conflict on American shores, figures closely associated with ISNA and its parent/affiliate organizations are active in the United States and working toward their anti Jewish and anti Western goals within the framework of American politics and culture.
One example is Virginia’s Dr. Esam Omeish. Former head of the Georgetown University Muslim Student Association (MSA), a precursor to ISNA, and former president of the Muslim American Society (MAS), an organization with even closer links to the Muslim Brotherhood, Omeish is yet another figure deeply involved in the interfaith dialog community who advocates the violent jihad of the Palestinians against Israel. He can be seen in action here and here. When the remarks and actions caught on these videos came to the attention of Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine, he asked for Omeish’s resignation from his position on the Virginia Commission on Immigration.
But despite this, Omeish has his supporters. And Jack Moline is prominent among them. In the face of Omeish’s fulmination, Moline still saw fit to offer his seemingly unconditional support. When Omeish ran for a seat in the Virginia General Assembly in 2009, Moline’s show of support appeared on his blog on the Organizing for America site.
Another spoke in ISNA’s wheel is Warith Deen Umar, a known radicalized imam who was dismissed from his position as Administrative Chaplain for the New York State Department of Corrections as a result of his preaching anti-American jihad to inmates. Umar was a featured speaker at the “unprecedented outreach” event Moline attended, where he delivered a caustically anti-Semitic speech.
Moline was evidently able to look past all of this, even participating in another ISNA-hosted event less than three weeks later. This four day program culminated in lunch at the embassy of Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Wahhabism, in Washington, D.C.
If any of this leaves any question as to the nature of ISNA and associated organizations, let the words of the Muslim Brotherhood itself [see page 12, “The Brotherhood in the West”], as well as those of Deputy Chairman Mohammed Habib, remove any lingering doubt:
SM: Is there a Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.?
Mohamed Habib: I would say yes. There are Muslim Brotherhood members there.
SM: Then what are they doing there?
Mohamed Habib: No, there are already existing institutions; there are laws and a constitution that they operate under in order to have a role in serving the American society. They are part of the American society and they want to an active positive role in it, and a part of that is to spread a positive image of Islam along with its values, culture, history and teachings.
SM: This is naturally very important. Who represents you in the US?
Mohamed Habib: Well, there are there those who do represent us, who do that role.
SM: But it’s not CAIR, right? The Council for American Islamic Relations? Many people say that they are your front. Other people say that its (sic) ISNA……….
Mohamed Habib: Ehh, this is a sensitive subject, and it’s kind of problematic, especially after 9/11 …
3) TWEETED & DELETED—SHIELDING OBAMA FROM JEWISH CRITICISM
Like his questionable partners in the interfaith dialog world, Moline feels he can simply retract his words when doing so suits his PR goals.
As an invited participant in an August 2009 conference call with the Oval Office on the topic of Obama’s proposed program of health care reform, Moline saw fit to comment on the proceedings in real time via his Twitter stream. As he did so, Moline caused a minor storm of controversy by claiming that the president characterized his governmental and faith-based allies in the matter as “[G-d’s] partners in matters of life and death.”
Perhaps more disturbing, however, given Moline’s role as rabbi and self-professed Zionist, was his Tweet praising Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of Reform Judaism and another participant in the conference call, for not taking the opportunity to challenge Obama on some of his more provocative positions: namely, his administration’s stance on Israeli settlements (for which Yoffie has chided him in the past) and his selection of the former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson, to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom after her questionable record as a U.N. high commissioner for human rights.
After the contents of Moline’s Twitter stream were picked up by Washington Jewish Week and Politico.com, among other outlets, all of the Tweets relating to the call—save for Obama’s closing wishes of “shanah tovah”—were deleted.
4) “I’M NOT DEVOTED TO THE CONTAINMENT OF IRAN”
In this November 2008 interview with the Philadelphia Jewish Voice, Moline rather eloquently digs himself a hole regarding his vision of interfaith dialog and its role (and religion’s in general) in American politics. Though never out and out contradictory, his statements call into question his understanding of just how and where—if, indeed, at all—religion and politics do and should meet, as well as his devotion to his role as a congregational clergyman, which he seems to see as a nine-to-five workaday job that loses its applicability to his personal conduct when he’s off the clock.
It is ¾ of the way down the page, though, where he lets slip another of his jaw-dropping statements. And though the general context of the whole remark can be seen as somewhat softening the intensity of this particular quote, the unmistakable implication is that Jack Moline simply does not see an anti-Semitic, ideologically motivated, nuclear armed Iran as a terribly pressing issue for a rabbi to address. Even Stephen Wise was prescient enough to protest Nazi Germany at the earliest signs of Hitler’s intentions.
[A more comprehensive examination of the discouraging similarities between Rabbis Wise and Moline, and their respective eras, is the subject of a forthcoming post.]
The remarks by Moline highlighted here, and a host of others, point to a number of trends in his public and professional conduct that are, at best, troubling. Though obviously not without a vision of ways he can contribute to interfaith dialog and cooperation, he appears to be more concerned with his image within that vision and less concerned with actual, substantial progress and results in bridging very real philosophical divides while still effectively advocating for and defending his own community.
When one of Moline’s congregants, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, spoke to the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America this past November, he offered up a quote that frames the situation perfectly:
Emanuel opened up his speech by jibing at his D.C.-area rabbi, Jack Moline. After it was announced over the weekend that he was pinch-hitting for President Obama at the GA, Emanuel received an e-mail with suggested "talking points" for his speech from Moline, the media-friendly rabbi at Agudas Achim Congregation in Alexandria, Va., and the Rabbinical Assembly's director of public policy.
The final talking point, he said, was "Don't forget to mention Jack Moline."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)