Jewish Groups Condemn #Cardozo Award To #Dhimmi #Carter — And We Are Still Going To Sue Him

April 10, 2013

When the New York Times reported on the growing controversy over Yeshiva University’s Cardozo Law School giving an award to Jimmy Carter — with the headline Law School Group Incites Fury With Choice to Honor Carter — it became clear that this was no small disagreement among Jewish groups.
The anger is real, and the controversy and the history of Jimmy Carter’s anti-Israel campaigns are the story.
Now Jewish groups are making their views known.
YnetNews reports that Young Israel Calls to Rescind Invite to Jimmy Carter:

“The National Council of Young Israel strongly urges Yeshiva University, the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and the school’s Journal of Conflict Resolution to do the right thing and rescind the invitation that has been issued to former President Carter,” said Farley Weiss, the president of the National Council of Young Israel. “We believe that honoring President Carter as an International Advocate for Peace Award may be consistent with this organization’s past of honoring another demonizer of Israel, Bishop Desmond Tutu, but it does not mean that bad decisions should be repeated over again; rather, they should learn from the past and honor those who truly deserve to be honored.

Meanwhile, The Algemeiner reports ADL, Simon Wiesenthal Center Blast Cardozo’s Jimmy Carter Honor

Abraham Foxman, the ADL’s National Director, told The Algemeiner: “The students were wrong – they are entitled to be wrong and inappropriate and we are entitled to say that honoring former President Carter is wrong, especially for a Jewish institution…and indeed for any institution. Desmond Tutu, who is more problematic than Jimmy Carter when it comes to issues relating to Israel, was also honored. I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t vote for it, I wouldn‘t support it. We need to do a better job educating – wrongly stigmatizing Israel does not help to resolve the problems. Hopefully if we instill those values, future mistakes like this will not be made.”
Foxman added that “the University responded properly,” to the controversy.
Likewise Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told The Algemeiner that the students did not “exercise due diligence .”
“Had they done so,’ he added, “they would have discovered that Mr Carter has never resolved his conflict with the Jewish state. His serial bias against Israel is well-documented. That alone should have led tomorrow’s lawyers, whatever their ethnicity or religion, to conclude that President Carter should not receive such an honor.”

Jimmy Carter will nonetheless get his award.
Still, while the students will honor Carter, the Jewish community has had the opportunity to highlight Jimmy Carter’s actual record, his hostility towards Israel and legitimization of terrorist groups like Hamas.
And one more thing: Jews Still Planning to Sue Jimmy Carter over Anti-Israel Book:

Asserting that no individual has done more than former President Jimmy Carter to defame Israel and to challenge its right to exist, a group of readers filed a class action suit against Carter and the Simon and Schuster publishing company, back in February, 2011, alleging that Carter’s book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” contains numerous false and knowingly misleading statements intended to promote the author’s agenda of anti-Israel propaganda and to deceive the reading public instead of presenting accurate information as advertised.
The suit, Unterberg et al. v. Jimmy Carter et.al (11 cv 0720), filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in February, 2011, sought compensatory and punitive damages against the defendants.
The five plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are seeking at least $5 million in compensation.

It’s the least the Jewish community could do to let Jimmy Carter know what we really think of him.
—–


Report: #Hagel Said #Israel Headed Toward #Apartheid, #Netanyahu a ‘Radical’

February 19, 2013
(Report: Hagel Said Israel Headed Toward Apartheid, Netanyahu a ‘Radical’ | Washington Free Beacon)

BY:
February 19, 2013 12:51 pm
Secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel said Israel is on its way to becoming an apartheid state during an April 9, 2010, appearance at Rutgers University, according to a contemporaneous account by an attendee.
Hagel also accused Israel of violating U.N. resolutions, called for U.S.-designated terrorist organization Hamas to be included in any peace negotiations, and described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “radical,” according to the source.
Kenneth Wagner, who attended the 2010 speech while a Rutgers University law student, provided the Washington Free Beacon with an email he sent during the event to a contact at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The email is time-stamped April 9, 2010, at 11:37 AM.
“I am sitting in a lecture by Chuck Hagel at Rutgers,” Wagner wrote in the email. “He basically said that Israel has violated every UN resolution since 1967, that Israel has violated its agreements with the quartet, that it was risking becoming an apartheid state if it didn’t allow the Palestinians to form a state. He said that the settlements were getting close to the point where a contiguous Palestinian state would be impossible.”
“He said that he [thought] that Netanyahu was a radical and that even [former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi] Livni, who was hard nosed thought he was too radical and so wouldn’t join in a coalition [government] with him. … He said that Hamas has to be brought in to any peace negotiation,” Wagner wrote.
AIPAC had no comment.
Wagner said the remarks were made during the Q amp;A session. The speech took place at the Rutgers School of Law in Newark.
Wagner, a pro-Israel activist, reiterated the account in an interview with the Free Beacon and called Hagel’s comments “pretty shocking.”
“I was very surprised at his attitude because I had been listening to politicians speak about the situation in the Middle East and the U.S. Israel relationship for about two decades,” Wagner told the Free Beacon. “And it was probably the most negative thing I’d ever heard anybody in elected office say.”
The news of the comments given during the 2010 speech comes at a time when the embattled secretary of defense nominee has been forced to respond to a report that he called the State Department an adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry during the Q amp;A portion of a 2007 speech at Rutgers.
The Free Beacon reported Thursday on a contemporaneous account of another speech then-Senator Hagel gave at Rutgers in 2007. The report, written by Hagel supporter and political consultant George Ajjan, claimed Hagel had described the U.S. Department of State as an extension of the Israeli government.
Sens. Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte on Friday sent a letter to Hagel requesting an explanation of the alleged comments. The Anti-Defamation League also called on Hagel to explain, and the American Jewish Committee said, “Further Senate deliberation is called for before any final vote is taken.”
Hagel has disavowed the remarks and says he does not recall making them.
“I do not recall making any such statement, or ever making any similar statement,” he wrote in a reply letter to Graham and Ayotte on February 16. “I completely disavow the content of the alleged statement attributed to me.”
According to one of the 2007 event’s organizers, Hooshang Amirahmadi, who is currently running for president of Iran, Ajjan’s account of the 2007 speech is “complete nonsense.”
Amirahmadi told the Free Beacon that some of his “very good Jewish colleagues who are very pro-Israel” did not appear offended at any point during the speech.
The Daily Caller reported on Monday that Amirahmadi accepted funding grants from the Alavi Foundation, which federal law enforcement officials have called a front group for the Iranian regime.
Amirahmadi is also the head of the American Iranian Council, which awarded Hagel an expensive clock in 2002.
Another attendee at the 2007 speech, Rutgers Professor Charles Häberl said he is “certain” Hagel did not say the State Department was an adjunct of the Israeli government, BuzzFeed reported today.
When the Free Beacon contacted Häberl about the 2007 speech last Thursday, he said he was not the best person to talk to about the event.
“Have you been in touch with Hooshang Amirahmadi?” Häberl wrote in an email. “He’s the one who organized the event, and he would be the best situated to talk about it. At the time, I was just a lecturer.”
Meanwhile, Ajjan stood by his account and said he is the only person who has provided a written report from the time.
“If somebody comes out with a transcript and those words aren’t uttered, I’d be the first one to say, ‘My apologies. I wrote something down that was wrong—I misheard it, or I misreported it,’ if that’s the case,” Ajjan told the Washington Free Beacon.
“I’m a conscientious person,” Ajjan said. “When I was blogging at that time, I did my best to record things accurately … there’s no way that I would pick a phrase like ‘adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry.’ That’s a pretty odd combination of words to use. I wouldn’t have just pulled those out of thin air.”
When asked about Häberl disputing his account, Ajjan said he wants to make it clear he is not trying to undermine Hagel’s confirmation or the Rutgers event. He said he is still a supporter of Hagel.
“I suppose [Häberl] thinks that I’m somehow trying to disparage Chuck Hagel or cast a dark shadow over his confirmation hearings. That’s not the case at all. And I certainly don’t wish to besmirch the people who organized the event,” said Ajjan. “I very much enjoyed the event, I appreciate the people who organized it.”
The Free Beacon is working to obtain transcript and video of Hagel’s comments during the question and answer sessions at Rutgers in both 2007 and 2010, and is continuing to speak to others who attended both events.
A representative for Hagel did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

Time for some more research into what really happened here


Publisher of The Jewish Week Asks Jews "PLEASE Don’t Piss off Obama"

November 17, 2011

(Yid With Lid) Sometimes it astounds me the extent to which a progressive “journalist” will go to spin stories in their direction, thus putting politics before serving the readers. Sometimes it astounds me the extent to which a progressive Jew will go to promote their favorite politicians thus putting politics before either their home country, America or the Jewish people.

In his latest column in the paper he publishes, Gary Rosenblatt of the Jewish Week astounded me times two, as he talked about the disastrous ADL/Abe Foxman request for Jews to avoid criticizing the POTUS and warned that if American Jews upset President Obama, he might be really bad toward Israel in a second term.

Case in point: There are no more savvy experts on the mood and politics of the American Jewish community than Abe Foxman and David Harris, professional heads of the ADL and American Jewish Committee, respectively, our two leading mainstream national Jewish defense organizations.
But Foxman and Harris seem to have been caught off guard last month by the sharp criticism of their joint National Pledge for Unity on Israel, which they no doubt thought would be widely accepted in the Jewish community — a kind of motherhood-and-apple-pie affirmation of the ongoing power, and need, for bipartisan support in Washington for the Jewish state.
The outcries over the unity pledge, particularly on the right, have underscored just how fractured political activists in our community are over Israel. More specifically, the issue speaks to the debate over the wisdom of criticizing the Obama administration, and especially the president himself, as being Israel’s adversary as he seeks re-election.

Things need to be put in context. In this column a progressive publisher, is supporting a progressive advocate who is supporting a progressive president while not admitting to their political bias, which is a disservice to the readers, in the case of the Jewish Week and the donors in the case of the ADL.
As I pointed out when the “shut up pledge”  was first published, Abe Foxman has been running the ADL as  his own personal progressive activist group. Indeed the organization spends as much time promoting progressive social issues such as abortion and illegal immigration as it does Jewish issues.  So of course Abe will do just about anything he can to get his progressive prophet re-elected.
As for Gary Rosenblatt and his Jewish Week, the paper could be much more profitable if most of the reporters were fired and replaced with press releases from Media Matters, J Street, the DNC, and the Obama White House. And the best part of it all the readers wouldn’t be able to detect anything different. In the interest of full disclosure, let me remind you that I am a columnist for a competitive paper, The Jewish Star.
In supposedly “pure news” articles, the Jewish Week shows its bias by only interviewing people with a progressive perspective, trashing the tea party as dangerous, white-washing the Antisemitism of the Occupy movement, criticizing Jews who disagree with Obama, calling people who fight jihad in America “McCarthyists,” supporting the socialist “Jewish Funds for Justice” in its George Soros-directed attacks on Glenn Beck, and much,much,more. With the exception of one reporter by the name of Stewart Ain, every writer for the paper displays a very strong progressive/liberal bias in their writing, whether the story is about politics in the US or Israel.  And like most progressives, the paper always finds a way to criticize those who are most observant, which is strange because Rosenblatt is a graduate of Yeshiva University.

In his column Rosenblatt supports Foxman and threatens that if the Jews upset Obama, he might take his revenge out on Israel.

….Responding to widespread criticism from the right [Rosenblatt incorrectly assumes that only people on the right are displeased with Obama on Israel] , the AJC’s Harris posted a blog that made the distinction between “slash and burn” partisanship, where the goal is to attack one’s political enemy, and pro-Israel advocacy, which is grounded in “the here and now,” irrespective of which political party is in and which is out. And the ADL’s Foxman issued a follow-up statement saying that some had distorted the idea behind the pledge [I fact-check Foxman’s defense of the pledge here}

He said the original premise was not to discourage debate but a plea “to avoid harsh and personal rhetoric or tactics in the form of attacks on political opponents’ positions on Israel.”
Too late.
Obama has already been described as the worst president ever for Israel, and an enemy of the Jewish state.

He is.

…What Harris and Foxman didn’t say, but what is surely on the mind of mainstream [liberal] pro-Israel groups, is that if Obama is re-elected next year, he will be free to carry out foreign policy initiatives in a second term, without political constraints. So it behooves the American Jewish community to be on good terms with him rather than burn its bridges in seeking his defeat.

Here also Rosenblatt is being political rather than honest. Before the 2008 election many Jews predicted that Obama would be awful to Israel, based on previous statements, actions and who his advisers were.  The progressive publisher is failing to acknowledge that Obama’s anti-Israel presidency proceeded as many of us warned.
Rather than Rosenblatt’s don’t piss off the POTUS scenario allow me to offer a more logical one. Barack Obama has a long history of anti-Israel positions and advisers, except for a brief time in 2008 when it looked as though he might have problems with the Jewish vote.Ignoring the warnings  Jewish voter support was extremely high (78%) and he receive the bulk of Jewish presidential campaign donations.
Despite all of this support, Obama has been the worst president for Israel in American history, worse than Carter and worse than George H.W. Bush. All this time he knew he would need Jewish support in 2012. So does it really matter whether he gets the support or not?  If he was so lousy when he needed the supporters of Israel, if re-elected he will be even worse as he needs no one. That why supporters of Israel should be campaigning hard to make sure that Barack Obama is not re-elected, because whether he likes the Jews or not, he is bound to be worse than he was during the first four years.
I would invite Rosenblatt to take a look at the economy, and what has undoubtedly happened to the Jewish Week’s ad pages. Part of the reason for the downturn may be that the Jewish Star hired a new political columnist eleven months ago, but  more likely reason is that Barack Obama has not been good to the economy.  This too may get even worse during a second term as the president will no longer have to make voters happy.
But none of this matters to people like Gary Rosenblatt. Honesty with readers may be part of Journalistic ethics, but as we have learned so many times with the progressive media, journalistic ethics are not very important.


"Jews Care About Their Own!" Is Not An Indictment

November 15, 2011
Edward Gilbert, the leader of the Catholic Church in Port of Spain…
EXERCISING THE EMPATHY MUSCLE (h/t Daled Amos) by Rabbi Avi Shafran


Politicians are often subject to derision, often for good reason. Recently, though, a Catholic cleric hurled an unusual and creative insult at local politicos: They are like Jews.
Edward Gilbert, the leader of the Catholic Church in Port of Spain, the capital of the southern Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago, made the comparison between elected officials and “the original Jewish people,” explaining that Jews, at least in ancient times, cared only about their own.
“The Jews were compassionate and caring to the people of their nation, to the people of their race…,” Archbishop Gilbert reportedly said during an October 24 religious ceremony commemorating the 225th anniversary of the Roman Catholic presence on Trinidad. Christianity, he proudly asserted, “universalized the concept of love.”
Predictably, the Anti-Defamation League protested the sermon, calling Mr. Gilbert’s statements “a disturbing repackaging of ancient anti-Jewish canards and supersessionist beliefs.” The American Jewish Committee chimed in with chiding of its own, contending that “such prejudicial comments not only reflect personal ignorance, but also ignorance of the teaching of the Catholic Church since Nostra Aetate.” That was a reference to the Vatican II declaration repudiating the centuries-old “deicide” charge against all Jews, stressing the religious bond shared by Jews and Catholics, and reaffirming the eternal covenant between G-d and the People of Israel (though it does not, of course, renounce the essential beliefs of Christianity).
Personally, I wasn’t insulted by the Archbishop’s characterization, even if he meant to include contemporary Jews.

Because caring for one’s own is eminently defensible. In fact, it’s the only way to truly care for anyone.
Not much effort is needed to profess true love for all the world; but to actually feel such love just isn’t possible. Gushing good will at everyone is offering it to no one.
That is because, by definition, care grows within boundaries; our empathy for those closest to us, to be real, must be of a different nature than our concern for others with whom we don’t share our personal lives. Boundaries are what make those beloved to us… beloved to us.
Every person lives at the center of a series of concentric circles, the smallest one (in a healthy dynamic) encompassing parents, spouses, and children; the next circle out, other family members and friends; the one beyond that, members of their ethnic or religious groups. At a distance removed from that is a larger circle of human beings with similar values. And further out still, the circle containing the rest of humanity.
It is perfectly proper that we feel, and demonstrate, our deepest concern for the circle closest to us. More: it is the only way to achieve genuine care, providing us the ability to bestow it, if in a less intense form, upon those in the next circle out, and, in turn, on those beyond it.
Nothing demonstrates the danger of “universalizing the concept of love” better than the religion Mr. Gilbert represents. For all Christianity’s claim to have expanded its affection to all of humanity, early Church history was characterized by the vicious intolerance demonstrated by early “fathers” and emperors; the Middle Ages’ Crusades left swollen rivers of blood; and, a few centuries later, Reformation battles between Catholics and Protestants added millions of corpses to the body count.
Perceptive Jews and non-Jews alike understand how essential it is that ethnic or religious groups show special concern for other members of their “tribes.” They sense what to some may seem counterintuitive: it is precisely the intense empathy we feel and express for our “inner circles” alone that enables us to feel genuine, if somewhat less acute, concern for those in more distant ones. People who focus their deepest feelings on those close to them are those most likely to truly care about their fellow citizens or wider circles still. Exercising the “empathy muscle,” so to speak, provides the ability to feel—less intensely but more genuinely—concern for people who are not close to us.
So while the Trinidadian cleric may have been attempting an insult, he inadvertently provided his listeners—and all who were reached by media reports of his words—something else: a valuable opportunity to ponder how caring works.

this post gets to the heart of why liberal universalism (also meaning Catholicism) is the heart of what is wrong with the world today and how true love does not come from abstract ideas like “the world”, but rather true love comes from loving within boundaries. That means NATIONALISM, and your FAMILY. The real haters think they are in love with Gaia or some material everything. The real lovers have walls. The real haters want to tear down borders. The real haters want to push standards that are not compatible with FAMILY. The real haters want to create universal equivalencies. They want to take away difference. The real haters don’t want to recognize gender. The real haters don’t want to recognize borders. The real haters are what today we consider social liberals… and they have so much in common with the liberals of yesteryear… yes the liberals called Christians.


Congress and the ADL calls on Obama to apologize to Netanyahu [UPDATED]

November 9, 2011

Even the ADL dhimmis are forced to condemn Obama after saying they didn’t want to make Israel a campaign issue:

We are deeply disappointed and saddened by this decidedly un-Presidential exchange between Presidents Sarkozy and Obama.
President Obama’s response to Mr. Sarkozy implies that he agrees with the French leader. In light of the revelations here, we hope that the Obama Administration will do everything it can to reassure Israel that the relationship remains on a sure footing and to reinvigorate the trust between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, which clearly is not what it should be.
What is sad is that we now have to worry to what extent these private views inform foreign policy decisions of the U.S. and France — two singularly important players in the peace process.

[UPDATE]: Bachmann Wants Obama to Apologize to Netanyahu

Congressman Mike Grimm (R-NY) has called on President Obumbler to apologize to Prime Minister Netanyahu:

November 8, 2011
For Immediate Release
Carol Danko 202-225-3371
Rep. Grimm Calls on President Obama to Apologize to Israeli P.M. Netanyahu over G20 Remarks
WASHINGTON, DC – Rep. Michael G. Grimm (R,C-NY) issued the following statement in response to President Obama’s remarks overheard at the G20 summit criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu:
“I find President Obama’s criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu highly offensive and call on him to issue a formal apology on behalf of the American people. Whether the microphones are on or off, the message to our allies in Israel should always remain the same: ‘We stand with you.’
“As an American, I understand the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship to our own national security as well as to the peace and security of the Middle East. As a member of Congress, I will do all I can to ensure our alliance remains strong.
“President Obama’s comments are disgraceful and inappropriate coming from someone who holds the highest office in the United States. They provide a poor and inaccurate reflection of the American people he was elected to represent, and they must be rescinded.”
Rep. Michael Grimm is a co-chair of the House Republican Israel Caucus.

(Israel Matzav) Grimm has accurately characterized Obama’s remarks. But I don’t want a self-serving apology from Obama. I want Netanyahu to issue a statement thanking the President for finally letting out in the open how he really feels about Netanyahu and about Israel. We would also be deeply grateful if he could release the original recording so that it can be used in ads in the 2012 campaign.

What the #ADL does with your money

November 3, 2011
Do you contribute money to the ADL or to your local federation, which gives the ADL money? Do you know what the ADL does with that money? You may be in for a surprise….

Only 3 percent of ADL’s press releases focus on Islamic extremism and Arab anti-Semitism. Only another 5 percent deal with domestic and international terrorism. By contrast, fighting for causes unrelated to Jewish defense accounts for 31 percent of ADL’s press release output.

If you follow that link, you will find only the paragraph Carl quoted above. But with the author’s permission, Carl uploaded the article to ScribD and it is embedded below. Here’s the key passage:
Only 3 percent of ADL’s press releases focus on Islamic extremism and Arab anti-Semitism.
Only another 5 percent deal with domestic and international terrorism. By contrast, fighting for causes unrelated to Jewish defense accounts for 31 percent of ADL’s press release output. Instead of warning the Jews about Islamic anti- Semitism, these days, the ADL is often warning us about the dangers of “Islamophobia,” a term created and employed by radical Islamists to block and stain with the racist label, any public concern about Islamist beliefs and conduct.
Read the whole thing below.


Poll: One in five Americans believes Jews have too much control of Wall Street

November 3, 2011
Insane. What is even more insane is how it effects a young Jew’s ability to get a job without starting his own business. People know there is hate out there, but there are economic burdens that come with the hate and people think all Jews have money. Many of us are unemployed and can’t get help because the prejudice is that because we are Jews then we must be smart and have loads of cash.

Photo(Jewish Journal/h/t Bat-Zion Susskind-Sacks) A table from the Anti-Defamation League’s “Survey of American Attitudes Toward Jews in America.” The dark blue bars represent the responses of those identified by the survey as “the most anti-Semitic” Americans. The light blue bars represent the general population’s responses. Courtesy ADL and Marttila Strategies. The folks on the fringes of Occupy Wall Street rallies who have been holding signs and hollering slogans about Jewish control of large banking institutions may just be the loudest among the minority of Americans who think Jews have too much influence in the financial sector. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) released the results of its most recent “Survey of American Attitudes Toward Jews in America,” on Nov. 3. The survey (pdf) found that 19 percent of Americans thought it was “probably true” that “Jews have too much control/influence on Wall Street.” That’s an increase from the last time the ADL asked the question, in 2009, when only 14 percent of Americans answered that way. In an emailed statement announcing the findings, ADL National Director Abe Foxman attributed the increase in anti-Semitic beliefs among Americans to “the downturn in the economy” and “changing demographics in our society.” The 11-question poll, which was first devised by the ADL in 1964, was administered to 1,754 adults across the country by telephone in October. The survey also found that nearly one in three Americans (30 percent) believes Jews are “more loyal to Israel than to America,” and a similar number (31 percent) feel that “Jews talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust.” The survey did show that most Americans have non-prejudicial things to say about Jews. Seventy-nine percent said Jews “have a strong faith in God,” 64 percent agreed that Jews “have contributed much to cultural life of America,” and 83 percent credited Jews with emphasizing “the importance of family life.”