Roosevelt, Ibn Saud, and American Jews

March 27, 2013

Andrew Bostom h/t Doc’s Talk:

This morning at AT, Professor Emeritus Edward Bernard Glick described his frank 1958 discussion with Eleanor Roosevelt regarding her husband, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s decision not to bomb the railway tracks connecting to the Nazi extermination camps for European Jews. Professor Glick also alludes to prevalent antisemitic attitudes in the State Department, and perhaps President Roosevelt, himself, whom he quotes as having stated to a prominent Jewish Congressman, “The Jews in America should know that they are tolerated here, but not more than that.

Roosevelt’s statement was in fact a crude retrogression from the attitudes expressed by America’s first President, George Washington. Following a visit to Newport, RI in August, 1790, and his warm reception by the local Jewish community, represented in a letter by Moses Seixas, George Washington wrote a moving reply to Touro’s congregation. Our first President rejected the idea of mere “tolerance” of Jews, embracing them as full, equal citizens of the nascent American nation, with complete freedom of conscience, and the guarantee of their personal security. Washington stated,
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. [emphasis added]

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

Roosevelt made another particularly maleficent, if bizarre, statement revealing his visceral antisemitism during the seminal February, 1945 Yalta Conference between the American President, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The President was scheduled to meet with Arabia’s despot King Ibn Saud immediately after the Conference. Alluding to this upcoming meeting with the Arabian despot, Stalin asked Roosevelt what concessions the President might make to Ibn Saud regarding Middle Eastern issues. As per two independent sources of archival documentary evidence (hat tip, Diana West), i.e., the minutes preserved in the Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, New York, and the papers of then Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius (the latter reproduced in the recent M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein analysis, “Stalin’s Secret Agents—The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government,” p. 35),
The President [Roosevelt] replied that there was only one concession he thought he might offer and that was to give him [Ibn Saud] the six million Jews in the United States. [February 10, 1945]

Professor Glick warns, appropriately, about the pitfalls of American Jews’ blindly misguided reverence for Democratic Presidential “saviors,” such as Franklin Roosevelt, or Barack Obama, “whom Jews revered then [Roosevelt] as much as they lionize President Barack Obama now ,” despite their latent (or blatant) antisemitism, and the actions, or inactions, such attitudes may engender.
All Articles Copyright © 2007-2013 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage(For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

(Saudis remember FDR’s broken promise – Baltimore Sun) Roosevelt spelled out this promise in a letter to King Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud on April 5, 1945:
Your Majesty will recall that on previous occasions I communicated to you the attitude of the American Government toward Palestine and made clear our desire that no decision be taken with respect to the basic situation in that country without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews. … [D]uring our recent conversation I assured you that I would take no action, in my capacity as Chief of the Executive Branch of this Government, which might prove hostile to the Arab people.
…when Roosevelt made this promise about Palestine, it never occurred to Ibn Saud that another president could come along and break that promise.???????
But Roosevelt died a week after sending the letter to Ibn Saud.
Harry S. Truman, Roosevelt’s successor, came to office suddenly and unexpectedly.
Truman placed the United States forcefully and decisively in support of the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state in 1948. The sentiments of the king of Saudi Arabia were not considered important.
“I’m sorry, gentlemen,” Truman explained to worried Arabists. “But I have to answer to hundreds of thousands of people who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”

(Saudis remember FDR’s broken promise – Baltimore Sun) The meeting took place in February 1945 aboard the USS Quincy, a destroyer, in the Great Bitter Lake of the Suez Canal, where Roosevelt stopped on his way home from the Yalta Conference with Churchill and Stalin.
Ibn Saud was brought to the rendezvous aboard the USS Murphy, a cruiser, along with an extraordinary cargo, though not nearly as strange as it might have been if the king had had his way. Ibn Saud had arrived at the dock with an entourage of about 200 men, plus quite a few women from his harem.
The captain of the Murphy was appalled. He warned the king’s entourage of problems that might arise with women aboard a naval vessel manned by a crew that had been at sea and at war for a long time. The women were left behind. The king brought a retinue of 48, including coffee servers, cooks and six huge Nubians with swords.


Are the Democrats lost to Israel?

November 1, 2012

At the end of a lengthy column, in which he argues that while most Israelis would prefer that Mitt Romney win the upcoming US election, if Obama wins we will have to find a way to work with him, Isi Leibler comes up with this:

Irrespective who becomes the next President of the USA, American Jewish leaders must seek to reverse the growing threat from the far left anti-Israeli activists in the Democratic party and reinvigorate the bi-partisan spirit which has been so vital to maintain the strong US-Israel relationship.

Well, yeah, but….
1. Many of those far left anti-Israel activists are Jews.
2. Many of the American Jewish leaders are far left anti-Israel activists.
3. Israel lost most of the Democrats – and particularly the far left Democrats – when the Kibbutz movement all but imploded 20 years ago. The Kibbutzim were the only thing that attracted  the American far left to us, and they won’t reconsider their stance unless and until we set ourselves up to be annihilated by putting a ‘Palestinian’ reichlet in Judea and Samaria.
4. This isn’t the job of American Jewish leaders anyway. It’s the job of the Israeli government. If we really want to have an impact, then every Jewish leader in the Democratic party who is still salvageable (and someone who works for the Government of Israel should be making the assessment as to who is still salvageable) should be brought to Israel and given the Ariel Sharon – George W. Bush helicopter tour.
Maybe Isi can show them around once we get them here. At least his head is screwed on relatively straight. 

Jewish Democrats still unhappy with corrected party platform, which omits clauses on Hamas, refugees and borders | The Times of Israel

September 7, 2012

Democrats who followed or attended their national convention in Charlotte this week generally insist it was energizing, interesting, and reaffirmed for many the argument against Mitt Romney and for Barack Obama.
But the platform debacle – which saw the party dropping mentions of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the only instance of the word “God” and several pro-Israel provisions from its platform, only to have to hurriedly reinstate God and Jerusalem – won’t disappear so quickly from memory if Jewish Democratic leaders have their way. Some have started to call for blood.
The platform was handled “by children,” one Jewish leader in Charlotte who asked to remain anonymous told The Times of Israel.
In the kind of scathing critique that reporters heard from multiple sources this week, the longtime Jewish activist said, “The people responsible for the platform did such a terrible job working on the wording because they did not conduct an inclusive process with members of the [pro-Israel] community. That’s what led to this problem, and those people should be held responsible.”
What’s more, some pro-Israel activists are far from satisfied even with the corrected language in the platform.
Said longtime Democrat and prominent law professor Alan Dershowitz: “I would like to see the president make statements over the course of the coming weeks which re-affirm what was said in the 2008 platform, not only with regards to Jerusalem, but in regard to the borders, the refugees and with regard to Hamas,” he said. Off-the-record, other Jewish Democratic insiders echo the objections.
The 2008 platform had demanded “the isolation of Hamas until that organization renounces terrorism and accepts other requirements of the peace process,” insisted that “any settlement of the so-called ‘refugees’ question in a final settlement make a future Palestinian state, not Israel, the destination for Palestinian ‘refugees,’” and noted “that it’s not realistic to expect [the] outcome of negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”
The platform produced ahead of the convention “wasn’t anti-Israel,” said the Jewish leader who spoke to The Times of Israel anonymously. “It wasn’t bad. It’s just that [the drafters] are children on this, and there was no adult supervision. They don’t understand that there has to be continuity of language. They threw out the previous platform and wrote a new one from scratch.”
That inexperience led the Democrats to the embarrassing primetime television spectacle of attempting to forcibly restore language about God and Jerusalem to the platform on Wednesday through a voice vote on the convention floor – a measure that was loudly booed by some delegates in the half-empty hall.
The Jewish activist’s description of the original platform rewrite process was confirmed by a Democratic official, David Harris of the National Jewish Democratic Council, who said Wednesday, “The party platform is not held up from the previous election. A fresh document was created.”
Harris did not himself criticize party officials for the foul-up, instead preferring to add to the praise other Jewish Democrats had for Obama’s decision to reopen the platform, even at the cost of negative media coverage.
“I’d say it’s a pretty significant moment for any political party to reopen a political document like this at the request of the President of the United States,” said Harris.
The Jewish leader agreed. The platform crafters erred by “trying to align [the platform’s language] with the White House’s policy. The White House’s policy is no different than it was under Bush. But policy is different from a platform. They’re not the same thing.”
“The president’s decision to reinsert some of the language,” said the leader, “was a rebuke to those who did this.”
The word “rebuke” figured heavily in Democrats’ version of events by Thursday.
Dershowitz suggested to Algemeiner on Thursday that the boos in the convention hall on Wednesday came from “rogue elements” of the far left. He said the vote on the forced reinsertion of language on God and Jerusalem made him “frankly very happy… because I think it alerted everybody to the fact that this group within the Democratic Party poses a tremendous danger to the bipartisan support for Israel that has characterized American politics since 1948.”
“We caught them, and the president rebuked them basically,” he added.
The Jewish leader who spoke with the Times of Israel, a man intimately familiar with Democratic Party institutions, dismissed the boos from the convention floor, saying they were “mostly about God” rather than Jerusalem.
“The people in the room that early in the day were from the far left of the party. Some of them didn’t understand the process, because it wasn’t previewed for them. So they didn’t like the process, and they were reacting to inserting God” into the platform, he said.
Pressed, however, as to whether C-SPAN’s footage of Arab American activists booing indicated that some convention delegates may, in fact, have been angered by wording over Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the Democratic leader conceded, “There were some anti-Israel activists in the crowd who made a lot of noise.”
As they pick up the pieces of the PR debacle, Jewish Democrats are pointing fingers at two names especially: former Florida Congressman Robert Wexler and Georgetown University professor and defense analyst Colin Kahl.
Wexler could not be reached for comment. Kahl did not return emails requesting comment.
The platform changes don’t reflect “the views of Democrats,” said the Jewish leader, or even of a minority as Dershowitz believes. Rather, it was Wexler’s and Kahl’s bungled misunderstanding of what a platform is all about that led to the primetime hiccup and “hurt the president.”
Many Jewish Democrats were still unhappy about the reinserted language on Thursday.
“They still did not reinsert [language saying] Israel is our most reliable ally in the Middle East. And they did not reinsert [language saying Palestinian] refugees will return to a Palestinian state. Those are fundamental parts of the special relationship” between the US and Israel, said the leader.
Dershowitz, too, was “not satisfied…..and I communicated this to the White House.”
Democrats are now looking to move past the incident, which is why it is difficult to get any Democratic insider to speak on the matter on record.
But the public quiet hides behind-the-scenes agitation. Democrats have witnessed, spectacularly, their clumsiness on Israel, even from such veteran and intelligent operators as Wexler and Kahl, insiders acknowledge. They will likely be much more careful on the issue in the 61 days that remain till November 6.

Sandra Fluke argued for sex-change insurance mandate in 2011

September 5, 2012

DENVER, CO – AUGUST 8: (Daily Caller)U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during a grassroots campaign stop at the Auraria Events Center August 8, 2012 in Denver, Colorado. (Photo by Marc Piscotty/Getty Images)
In an academic article published last year, contraception advocate Sandra Fluke made the case that private health insurers should be required to pay for sex change operations.
Fluke has become a vocal surrogate of the Democratic Party and is scheduled to address the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., Wednesday night. On Tuesday afternoon she appeared at a Planned Parenthood “Yes We Plan” rally outside the convention venue, where condoms in anti-Republican packaging were distributed. [RELATED: Planned Parenthood distributes condoms with message: “Protect yourself from Romney & Ryan”]
She thrust herself into the media spotlight in February when she told the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee that many of her Georgetown Law School classmates were without birth control pills because the university’s insurance plan was not forced to cover it.
Fluke and co-editor Karen Hu advocated remaking U.S. law to remove what they called a “gender bias” at the root of denying coverage for “transgender medical needs,” describing it as “a prime example of direct discrimination.” [RELATED: Sandra Fluke chickening out on women’s issues debate with Breitbart’s Dana Loesch?]
“Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label [gender-reassignment] surgery as cosmetic, or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered,” Fluke and Hu wrote for the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.
The review article was titled “Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons” and appeared in print in 2011.
By some estimates, sex change operations can cost between $15,000 and $20,000; the cost for some procedures can be as high as $50,000. Fluke and other advocates want insurers to cover all such operations. In general, assuming the costs of new coverage mandates tends to raise rates for all enrollees in a given health-care plan.(MORE)

ZOA: Rescind Convention Invitation to Carter

August 19, 2012
Jimmy Carter visits Arab neighborhood
(Jimmy Carter visits Arab neighborhood
Israel news photo: Flash 90)
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has called upon the Democratic National Committee to rescind its invitation to former President Jimmy Carter to address the upcoming 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The ZOA pointed to Carter’s “decades-long hostility towards, and defaming of, Israel” as well as his “advocacy of negotiations with Hamas” as evidence of the “inappropriateness of the invitation.”
The Republican Jewish Coalition and the National Jewish Democratic Council have both opposed Carter’s scheduled appearance. Yet, the Democratic National Convention continues to champion Carter “one of the greatest humanitarian leaders of our time and a champion of democracy around the globe.”
“The invitation to President Carter to address the Democratic National Convention is an insult to American Jews, Christian Zionists and all Americans who care — as polls show them to do in large numbers — for Israel,” said ZOA National Chairman of the Board Dr. Michael Goldblatt.
President Carter’s 2007 book titled Peace Not Apartheid, contains “numerous falsehoods about Israel, not least the vicious insinuation in its title that Israel resembles the evils of the apartheid regime in South Africa.”
In the book, “Carter falsely claimed that, not Arab non-acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state, but Jews living in Judea and Samaria, is the ‘primary’ obstacle to peace. He has thus endorsed the Palestinian agenda of setting up a Jew-free state.”
The ZOA continued to cite the many falsehoods and libels against Israel that Carter has spread over the years, including his claim that, “Israel destroyed 40,000 homes; destroyed hospitals; rendered several hundred thousand Palestinians homeless; that Gaza was surrounded by an impenetrable wall; and that the Goldstone Report had investigated the deaths of 1,387 Palestinians in that conflict.”
“In fact, not a single one of these claims was correct; they were all lies against the Jewish state of Israel,” Goldblatt asserted.
“Far from being a champion of human rights, Jimmy Carter has harmed the cause of human rights, especially in regard to the continuing Arab war on Israel. The Democratic National Convention Committee and Obama for America should do the right thing and rescind their invitation to Jimmy Carter.”

Lee Whitnum, a Jew hating Democrat candidate for Joe Lieberman’s Senate seat

April 8, 2012
(A Purported 20-month romance
with John Kerry

(Caroline Glick) We should remember that in the Democrat primary in 2006, Lieberman’s rival Ned Lamont heavily employed anti-Jewish innuendos, blaming neoconservatives, (that is, Jews), for the war in Iraq. His backers were unabashed in their use of anti-Jewish slurs against Lieberman and his family.
And Lamont WON the primary. And the Democrat Party refused to back Lieberman in the primary.
Obviously, Lee Whitnum the Jew hater featured below decided it makes sense to use her Jew hatred as a campaign asset.


NJ Dem Primary Gets Ugly – How is @ArefAssaf a power mover in the Democratic party? #BillPascrell #SteveRothman

February 21, 2012

( A prominent Arab supporter of New Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell invoked the “Israel firster” specter over the weekend when he accused the state’s Jewish voters of being more loyal to Israel than America.
@ArefAssaf, president of the New Jersey-based American Arab Forum, opined Sunday evening in the New Jersey Star-Ledger about a Democratic primary that the state’s pro-Israel community is closely watching. The race pits Rep. Steve Rothman, a veteran pro-Israel stalwart, against Bill Pascrell, a well-liked Democrat who boasts a solid voting base.
Assaf accused New Jersey’s Orthodox Jewish voters of transforming the race from a domestic duel between local lawmakers into a proxy war between the state’s Jewish and Muslim communities.
“Unquestionably, this primary election is pitting two otherwise harmoniously coexisting communities: the Muslim and Jewish communities,” Assaf wrote in an article headlined “Rothman is Israel’s man in District 9.”
“As total and blind support for Israel becomes the only reason for choosing Rothman, voters who do not view the elections in this prism will need to take notice. Loyalty to a foreign flag is not loyalty to America’s,” Assaf added. (MORE)

It is frightening to think how stupid some people are if they think that guys like Mr. Assaf are merely part of an inclusive pattern in the Democratic party. This is the power base.