More Controversy At Democratic National Convention On Support For Israel

September 5, 2012
“Peace and Good Will” at  Democratic National Convention 1872
Credit: Wiki Commons

Now DNC lies about AIPAC?(Daled Amos): More Controversy At Democratic National Convention On Support For Israel

In addition to the controversy surrounding Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s claim that Israeli Ambassador Oren thinks Republicans are dangerous, the Democratic Platform is another issue raising doubts about the Democratic Party’s support for Israel.
I blogged yesterday asking Can You Guess What Israel Points Are Missing From The 2012 Democratic Platform?, noting omissions from the Democratic Platform first pointed out by the Republican Jewish Coalition both on Twitter and on their website (Democrats Strip Critical Pro-Israel Language from Platform)
In an effort to blunt criticism of their plaform, Democrats have attempted to give it the seal of approval of a major Jewish group: DNC Israel Platform Reviewed, ‘Loved’ By AIPAC, Sources Say. The result has been another debate on what was actually said.
According to the post, it is true that the 2004 and 2008 platforms had stronger pro-Israel platforms:

But the aide and a second source affiliated with the party — both of whom were not authorized to speak on the drafting process — added that officials with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the hardline pro-Israel interest group, had reviewed and approved the language prior to its finalization.
“They loved it,” said the aide who worked on the platform.

But the question is whether in fact AIPAC actually reviewed and approved — let alone loved — the 2012 Democratic Platform.
AIPAC says they didn’t.
Instead, their version of the story is very different, namely that AIPAC Not Consulted on Final DNC Platform:

Officials from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) were not consulted on the final version of the Democratic National Committee’s controversial language regarding Israel and the peace process, a revelation that calls into question numerous reports that the pro-Israel juggernaut was pleased with the party’s platform, according to a source close the group.
“AIPAC officials were not in the room when the platform was drafted,” the source told the Free Beacon Tuesday evening. “AIPAC was never provided with a full draft of the Middle East section of the platform.”
…“Jerusalem as the capital is Israel was part of the AIPAC submission to the platform committee,” the AIPAC source said.

The source claiming AIPAC approved and “loved” the platform is — like Debbie Wasserman Schultz — sticking by their story.


Audio Proves DWS Wasn’t Misquoted

September 5, 2012

(Commentary) After Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren disputed DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s claim that he called the GOP “dangerous” for Israel, the Florida congresswoman tried to dodge blame by insisting the Washington Examiner misquoted her. Unfortunately for DWS, the Washington Examiner’s Phil Klein just posted audio of her comment, and it matches up exactly with his original report.
First, here’s Wasserman Schultz insisting that she was misquoted by Klein on Fox News earlier tonight:

Now, listen to the audio of Wasserman Schultz at a DNC Jewish outreach event yesterday, saying exactly what Klein reported she said:

Could this possibly get any more embarrassing for the DNC? Wasserman Schultz not only misled Fox News, she also tried to baselessly smear a meticulous reporter, Phil Klein, who fortunately happened to record her statement on audio. Not only did DWS misrepresent the Israeli Ambassador’s comments, she also inaccurately claimed that Klein misquoted her. Why would any journalist — or, for that matter, any foreign diplomat — take her seriously again?

on the other hand… she does have a pretty good makeup job going for FOX NEWS. Someone did a great job with her hair. heh

Wasserman Schultz lies: Israeli ambassador categorically denies saying Republicans dangerous to Israel

September 5, 2012

(CARL) Debbie Wasserman Schultz told a training session of Jewish Democrats on Monday that Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has said that Republicans are dangerous to Israel because they criticize President Obama’s record. (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). In a statement issued by Israel’s embassy in Washington, Ambassador Oren categorically denies saying any such thing. In other words – at least according to Oren (and probably correctly) – the Chairlady of the Democratic party is a liar. This is from the first link.

The Florida congresswoman made the charge at a training session for Jewish Democrats held by the Obama campaign here at the Democratic National Convention, aimed at teaching Jewish Democrats how to convince their fellow Jews to vote for Obama.
Much of the session, which featured a string of speakers from the Obama campaign, was devoted to defending Obama’s record on Israel. During her talk, Wasserman Schultz said that Republicans, who “can’t get anywhere with our community on domestic issues” instead “do everything they can to lie and distort and mischaracterize this president’s stellar record on Israel.”
As she was wrapping up her remarks, she claimed that, “We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.”

Wasserman Schultz went on to elaborate that Republicans were “undermining Israel’s security by suggesting that the United States and Israel don’t have anything other than a unique and close and special relationship. It undermines Israel’s security to its neighbors in the Arab world and to its enemies. And we need to make sure that the fact that there has never been and will never be daylight between the two parties or the support for Israel that we have in the United States, that that is conveyed to Jewish Americans across this country. That’s our responsibility. It’s the responsibility we’re asking all of you to take on.”
She made similar remarks in a recent interview with Hadassah magazine.
It’s especially ironic for her to argue that Republican attacks were dangerous because they were creating a perception of “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel. Creating daylight was precisely the goal Obama adopted when he took office. As the Washington Post reported, a few months into his presidency, Obama told a group of Jewish leaders that the peace process didn’t advance during the prior administration because President Bush was too reflexively pro-Israel.

Oren denies the charge. This is from the second link.

The Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. has released a statement “categorically” denying Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s claim that he accused Republicans of being “dangerous for Israel.” The Washington Examiner earlier reported that at a Monday event here, Wasserman Schultz decried Republicans attacks on President Obama’s record on Israel, and insisted that, “We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.”
But the Israeli embassy has now released a statement from Ambassador Michael Oren responding to the Examiner report. “I categorically deny that I ever characterized Republican policies as harmful to Israel,” the statement reads. “Bipartisan support is a paramount national interest for Israel, and we have great friends on both sides of the aisle.”

Gee, wasn’t it the Democrats who were complaining last year about Israel being made into a ‘wedge issue‘?

Actually, we’d love to see Assad overthrown

June 13, 2011

Yaakov Katz argued that the US may be going easy on Assad due to fears that Assad will take his wrath out on Israel is he is treated roughly.
In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, says ‘please don’t go easy on Assad because of us‘ (Hat Tip: Instapundit).

For the second time, a recent Journal article (“Syrian Violence Tests U.S.,” page one, June 3) asserts that Israel has expressed fears of instability in Syria if leader Bashar al-Assad is overthrown. I emphatically denied this the first time (“U.S. Seeks to Raise Heat on Syria,” page one, April 25) and categorically deny it again. Israel has expressed no such concerns. Allied with Iran, Mr. Assad has helped supply 55,000 rockets to Hezbollah and 10,000 to Hamas, very likely established a clandestine nuclear arms program and profoundly destabilized the region. The violence he has unleashed on his own people demonstrating for freedoms confirms Israel’s fears that the devil we know in Syria is worse than the devil we don’t.
Ambassador Michael Oren
Israeli Embassy

Gee, ya think maybe the Obama administration keeps planting these stories about the Israelis wanting them to go easy on Assad to justify Obama’s predilection to go easy on Assad ‘the reformer’? Hmmm.

ACLU Censors Free Thought

February 27, 2011
I agree that the ACLU are bad news, but I am not convinced without a doubt that the ACLU is really against free speech. My guess is that the ACLU is merely biased and misinformed, but I do not believe they think they are about censorship. It is a catchy title… and it gets people’s attention. So I left it… but frankly I don’t think it helps the cause of Israel to frame the debate in a way that an impartial party would not get. I believe this is an example of speaking to your own crowd and getting away with a soft cushion. The ACLU are not good people, but it doesn’t help our cause to assume their intentions. The ACLU is primarily about attacking western religion and reinforcing Orientalist ideas like Islam. I think they are wrong… and evil,… but I would not broad brush their goals.  Dershowitz had Chomsky as his camp counselor.  Her really is a left winger at heart and it shows.  He is still an idiotic believer in the “Two State Delusion”.  Just like Noam?
here is the real hypocrisy of the ACLU.  I don’t buy Deshowitz’s point at all…
but it is interesting and provocative.  Not sure it convinces neutral parties…

if that is the intent at all

The international campaign to prevent speakers from delivering pro-Israel talks at universities has been assisted by leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union—an organization that is supposed to protect freedom of speech for all. The method used to silence these speakers and preclude their audiences from hearing their message is exemplified by a now infamous event at the University of California at Irvine.
Michael Oren—a distinguished scholar and writer, a moderate supporter of the two-state solution, and now Israel’s Ambassador to the United States—was invited to speak. The Muslim Student Union set out to prevent him from delivering his talk Here is the way Erwin Chemerinksy, Dean of the law school, described what the students did:
“The Muslim Student Union orchestrated a concerted effort to disrupt the speech. One student after another stood and shouted so that the ambassador could not be heard. Each student was taken away only to be replaced by another doing the same thing.”
Chemerinsky understates what happened, as anyone can see by watching a video of the event, available online (). This was more than a “concerted effort to disrupt the speech.” It was a concerted effort to stop it completely—to censor Oren’s right to speak and his audience’s right to hear him. The efforts to disrupt succeeded; the effort to stop ultimately failed. Moreover, Chemerinsky fails to mention what happened both before and after the concerted effort. There is undisputed evidence that there was a well-planned conspiracy to censor Oren’s talk, and then to lie about it, which the students did after the event.

At a 1969 “War Council” in Flint, Michigan,
Weatherman leader Bernardine Dohrn
(currently a law professor at Northwestern University
and a Board member of the ACLU)
praised the serial murderer
Charles Manson and his accomplices:
“Dig it. First they killed those pigs,
then they ate dinner
in the same room with them.
They even shoved a fork
into the victim’s stomach.
Wild.” She then proclaimed
that the time had come to
launch a war against “Amerikkka”
(Weatherman always spelled “America”
this way, to convey the group’s belief
that the nation was
ineradicably racist to its core).
Toward this end,
Dohrn advocated the formation
of an even more radical
“Weather Underground”
cult to carry out
covert terrorist activities
rather than public acts of protest.
By early 1970, her wish would be realized.

The students were disciplined by the university for their actions, though the nature and degree of the discipline has been kept confidential. Campus sources have characterized it as a “slap on the wrist.” Since the students were arrested, the District Attorney, quite understandably, commenced a criminal investigation. After learning of the careful planning that went into the concerted effort to prevent Oren from speaking and the subsequent cover-up, the DA filed misdemeanor charges against those who were involved.
This decision resulted in an outcry by radicals, many of whom favor censorship of pro-Israel speakers. In a letter to the DA signed by many well-known anti-Israel zealots, the incident was described as merely a protest: “The students nonviolently and verbally protested…”
Then, in an effort to blame the victims, the letter pointed the finger at pro-Israel students who wanted to listen to Oren speak claiming—quite falsely—that the Muslim Student Union censors “conducted themselves in less of a disruptive manner than some of the counter-protestors…” This is simply a lie, as anyone can see by viewing the video. Moreover, the intent of the so-called “counter-protestors” was simply to hear the speaker, whereas the intent of the Muslim Student Union was to censor the speaker.
The fact that radical anti-Israel zealots would support censorship of a pro-Israel speaker comes as no surprise. But the fact that the letter of support was signed by two ACLU leaders should shock all civil libertarians and supporters of the ACLU. I have been a supporter of the ACLU for half a century and was a national board member. I supported the right of Nazis to march through Skokie and I defend the right of the most virulent anti-Israel speakers to participate in the marketplace of ideas. The ACLU policy has always been to oppose concerted efforts to prevent speakers from delivering their remarks. While supporting sporadic heckling and jeering that merely demonstrates opposition to the content of the remarks, the ACLU has always condemned concerted efforts to silence invited speakers.
Yet signatories of the letter—which never once criticizes the censoring Muslim Union students while condemning those who wanted to hear the speaker—include “Chuck Anderson,” who identifies himself as President ACLU Chapter, Orange County and Chair, The Peace and Freedom Party, Orange County;” (a hard left anti-Israel group), and “Hector Villagro,” who identifies himself as “Incoming Executive Director, ACLU of Southern California.”
Dean Chemerinsky, while also opposing criminal prosecution, made a point to condemn the censoring students:
“The students’ behavior was wrong and deserves punishment. There is no basis for the claim that the disruptive students were just exercising their First Amendment rights. There is no constitutional right to disrupt an event and keep a speaker from being heard. Otherwise, any speaker could be silenced by a heckler’s veto. The Muslim students could have expressed their message in many other ways: picketing or handing out leaflets outside the auditorium where Ambassador Oren was speaking, making statements during the question and answer period, holding their own events on campus.”
The ACLU leaders, on the other hand, seem to be justifying the actions of the censoring students while limiting their condemnation to the pro-Israel students who wanted to hear the speaker.
After being criticized for supporting censorship, Villagro sought to justify his signing the letter by the following “logic:”
“The district attorney’s action will undoubtedly intimidate students in Orange County and across the state and discourage them from engaging in any controversial speech or protest for fear of criminal charges.”
The opposite is true. If these students are let off with a slap on the wrist from the University, that will encourage other students around the nation and the world to continue with efforts to prevent pro-Israel speaker from delivering their speeches. The ACLU should be supporting a clear line between occasional heckling and outright censorship. The ACLU leaders who signed the letter are on the wrong side of that line and should not be speaking for the ACLU.

Unless the ACLU explicitly renounces its’ leaders support for students who seek to censor pro-Israel speakers, that organization will lose the backing of many who believe that all speech should be protected—not only speech approved of by its leaders.

image (HT: Power Line)

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

Among other things, Professor Dershowitz revealed that Noam Chomsky, the radical leftist, had once been his camp counselor. Apparently, Counselor Chomsky did no lasting harm to Counselor Dershowitz.
Another thing Professor Dershowitz revealed tells us much about former President Jimmy Carter. It seems that when Carter appeared at Brandeis to plug his book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid, he pledged to answer any questions that students e-mailed him afterward. Many took him up on the offer, and Carter did answer every question… except one.
That one was this: Did you advise Yasser Arafat to reject the peace offer Israel made at Camp David, at the end of Clinton’s term? According to Professor Dershowitz, some 15 students e-mailed that question, and they were the only students not to be answered.

How many times do you have to tell Spitzer that there are no settlements in Jerusalem?

November 11, 2010

was Eliot playing dumb?

Israeli Ambassador Oren wants to push Gender Engineering to appease the Judenhass

February 25, 2010

…This type of thinking assumes that men and women are different then they were for thousands of years. Can anyone find any evidence that women don’t tease and gossip any less the they did one hundred years ago? Can anyone find any argument that men are any less distracted by these Divas? I suggest before we ask for change because of people that simply hate us for being Jews that we take a look at ourselves in relation to our codes and see for certain if these boundaries do or do not have a purpose. If these traditions do have a function then I suspect that we should respect them. That said I appreciate the great job Oren is doing representing the Jewish people, but I don’t think being pressured into failure is prudent.

Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, seeks to use his position — which is designed to maintain good relations with the U.S. government — as a base for pushing for a revolutionary change at the Western Wall (Kotel) that may challenge Orthodox tradition.

Oren told the Jewish Council for Public Affairs in Dallas this week that the recent disruption at the Western Wall by a woman wearing a prayer shawl and demanding a Torah scroll for prayers will require compromise. Women and men traditonally pray separately to maintain modesty and prevent unnecessary mingling that could interfere with the sanctity of prayers. Limits in Jewish law also exist concerning the use of Torah scrolls by women.

Responding to a question about the woman’s arrest for causing a disturbance by trying to change long-standing Orthodox tradition at the Western Wall, Oren stated, “I will only assure you that I think there are good solutions for the problems at the Kotel. They are at the top of my agenda. And that at the end of the day, it will require compromise on everyone’s behalf.”

The report was carried by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, heavily funded by the Jewish Agency and which often promotes the agenda of Conservative Jews. Oren grew up in the United States, was active in the Conservative movement and also attended Reform temples.

The JTA added that Steven Wernick, the president of the Conservative movement’s congregational arm, stated that Oren’s remarks “show he understands that the status quo isn’t working and that some changes and compromises need to be made.”

Israel National News asked the Foreign Ministry why the ambassador to a foreign country made public comments on religious practices at the Western Wall, but no one was available to speak.

Oren (pictured) recently stated that he wants to involve all elements of American Jews. He told the Los Angeles Jewish Journal earlier this month, “I want to reach out to those parts of the Jewish community, especially the young American Jewish community, that have grown distant from Israel.”

He also specifically included the controversial New Israel Fund, a liberal group that has funded several pro-Arab groups that are blatantly anti-Israel and provided biased information for the Goldstone Report that accused Israel of committing war crimes in the war against Hamas terrorism.

“One of the first things I did when I took office is meet with New Israel Fund,” Oren told the Journal. “They were in my office. I want to be as inclusive as possible. With that, I also have to uphold what I see as Israel’s essential security interests. It’s a bit of a balancing act.”

“And I thought coming myself from an American Jewish background, having gone to a Conservative synagogue and a Reform synagogue, that I would be a natural nexus between Israel and the American Jewish community…With the American Jewish community, I’ve been surprised by the complexity of it.”