He Dared to Speak Out

  

        Take Your PAC $$ and...

 

Why I broke with J Street

by Doug Pike

Months ago—after a lot of reading, briefings and reflection—I clearly stated my support for Israel in a position paper. Yet my convictions as a candidate for Congress have not gotten through. The reason for this confusion is my endorsement by J Street’s political action committee. When I accepted it, I didn’t realize how different J Street’s approach is from mine on some key points.
One example is the 2009 Goldstone Report on the war in Gaza. This deeply flawed report to the United Nations Human Rights Council was absurdly critical of the Israeli Defense Forces, and unbelievably soft on the Palestinian militants.
Among its unfair aspects, the Goldstone Report gave short shrift to the militants’ routine use of innocent civilians as human shields. The report also failed to put the fighting in the appropriate context of Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza—a withdrawal followed by relentless missile attacks from Gaza against innocent civilians in Israel.
I strongly agree with a resolution that the House of Representatives passed by a 344-to-36 vote last November, calling the Goldstone Report “irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy.” So I was troubled to learn that J Street was slow to reject the biased report—and that the group worked to soften the resolution that Congress passed overwhelmingly.
I am also troubled by J Street’s position that Israel needs to end construction of any new housing units in East Jerusalem—an issue inflamed by the recent ill-timed announcement of a go-head for a 1600-unit project there. While this might seem an acceptable price for getting the Palestinians back to the bargaining table, underlying it is the Palestianians’ unrealistic hope of retaking control of East Jerusalem. Because I see Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, I do not like to hear loud voices in Washington—including top administration officials and J Street’s leadership—demanding an end to all housing construction in East Jerusalem.
I do not intend to get into a debate with J Street. But as a candidate for high office, I need to be judged on my own positions. So I have asked J Street to remove me from its list of endorsed candidates for Congress. I am also refunding the contributions that our campaign received through this group.
Let me summarize my views on Israel’s security. Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East. The United States should encourage a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, but ultimately, this must come from negotiations between the two sides. I agree with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Negotiations should begin as soon as possible without preconditions. The pending, indirect talks would be better than no talks.
Of course, the imminent threat to Israel’s security and its very existence is Iran’s drive to develop nuclear weapons. While I support strong diplomatic efforts to turn the Iranian leadership away from this reckless course, the United States and other nations must intensify their efforts by squeezing Iran economically because Iran must not be allowed to “run out the clock.” Israel has a legal and moral right to self-defense. If diplomatic and economic efforts fail, all other options must be on the table.
Israel’s survival and well-being are extremely important to me. I have visited the Jewish State twice to learn about it firsthand—and to visit my cousin and her family in Jerusalem. I intend to better communicate my commitment to Israel as a candidate—and to demonstrate it by my words and deeds as a member of the next Congress.
The writer, a former editorial board member at The Philadelphia Inquirer, is a Democratic candidate for Congress in the 6th District.

Playing Chinkin at Harvard Law School

                     Goldstone Report Commissioner Christine Chinkin

 Palestinian and Muslim students  have long been used to having their way on American campuses.  Employing a number of intimidating tactics for decades ranging from the application of "third world" guilt to disruptive shouting and heckling, they virtually rule the roost from Berkeley on the west coast to Harvard in the east.  Invariably, their one-sided events are populated by mainly women in hijabs whose role is to conflate a false image of middle east feminism with ululating outrage at "western" arrogance.  Last Friday was no exception.

Watch the short video carefully and you will notice the young woman wearing a hijab being instructed to shut down my video of the lecture.  Keep in mind this was a  lecture open to the public and no signs or prior notice were given prohibiting recording.



Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics, was one of four Commissioners chosen by Judge Richard Goldstone to investigate Israeli War Crimes in the 2009 Gaza conflict.  That's right - not chosen by UN mandate to impartially investigate alleged crimes on both sides, but to indict Israel in a pre-judged, rigged investigation that was subsequently condemned by even the Obama administration.  The final product of the report was so flawed and clearly biased that only the most virulent anti-Israel groups commended it.  Read the wording of that U.N. mandate:

"to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission"

Even Mary Robinson, the former head of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights not known for her impartiality on the subject of the Israel Palestinian conflict, refused to head the investigation saying the move was "guided not by human rights but by politics."  According to Professor Chinkin, the UN commission, even though it had investigatory powers, chose in almost all instances, to simply receive Palestinian and Hamas "testimony" at face value and refused to conduct forensic and other investigation throughout Gaza which would have incontrovertibly proven Hamas' use of human shields and the use of civilian and religious infrastructure to mask its military activities.  Watch this short video of one of the largest mosques in Gaza, Al Khulaf'a al Rashidoun being hit by Israeli bombs with secondary explosions, proving the presence of high explosives in the religious building:

Chinkin chose not to inform her audience of one of the most widely reported controversies about the Goldstone Report, namely, concerning her own appointment to the commission.  Listen to her response during the Q & A:

Notice how Ms. Chinkin's colleague, in a desperate attempt to extricate her from a tough situation, turns the question around by claiming "bias" against Islam and Muslims - standard operating procedure in the university setting.  As if the daily, horrendous practice of suicide/homicide bombing was unknown throughout the world.

 What compounded the clear bias of that commission was the fact that Professor Chinkin was one of several signatories to a highly publicized letter to the London Sunday Times which was headlined:

"Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence – it’s a war crime"

Professor Chinkin has stood by that letter, composed before her activities on the UN investigative team began.  In any judicial court or setting, expressing such sentiments towards one of the parties in a dispute would be cause for recusal or dismissal on the part of the examining body.  Not so with Judge Goldstone or the UN.  He has, to this day, stood by his commissioner and the report.

The field of Human Rights Law on campuses around the world has sadly degenerated into an orgy of anti-israel rhetoric, reflecting the tragic-comic landscape of the United Nations.  Too many universities produce biased, shoddy scholars like Ms. Chinkin; and the UN hires them.  

Consider some of  the past members of the UN Human Rights Council (formerly the UN Commission on Human Rights): Libya, the Sudan and Saudi Arabia, some of the most egregious human rights violators in history.  Israel has never been invited to sit on the Council.  Unbelievable and predictable.  

The fact that the government of Israel did not issue a formal complaint over her obvious partiality does in no way obviate the serious questions of her selection and objectivity.  Remarkably, Judge Goldstone, admitting that his colleague, Chinkin, displayed prima facie bias, was dismissive of any concern about her objectivity:

Interviewer: "How did you agree that in your committee serves Professor Christine Chinkin of England who already stated in an article in the Sunday Times that Israel committed war crimes, even before the beginning of the work of your commission? Is it not a prejudice?
Goldstone: Well you know, firstly it’s not a judicial inquiry. It’s a fact-finding mission, I’ve known Professor Chinkin for many years. I’ve found her to be an intelligent, sensible, even-handed person and it wasn’t an article, she signed a letter together with a number of other, I think, British academics, at the time, soon after the Operation Cast Lead began, but working with her now I’m absolutely satisfied that she’s got a completely open mind and will not exhibit any bias one way or the other but in any event she is one of four people on the committee and I don’t believe that any prima facie views she might have held at an earlier stage is going to in any way affect the findings or the recommendations in the report."

 The Geneva based NGO, UN Watch,which holds Special Consultative Status with the U.N. responds:

"With respect, Justice Goldstone's arguments in defense of Chinkin’s impartiality are invalid. First, whether the Mission is judicial, quasi-judicial or investigative, it is required under international law and United Nations standards to be both objective and impartial. Justice Goldstone himself has repeatedly promised exactly this.
Second, the applicable test is not whether a fellow panel member is satisfied that Prof. Chinkin has an open mind. The test, rather, is whether the decision-maker is actually biased, or where there is an appearance of bias. Under either test, having expressed her views on the merits of the precise case and controversy that she is now meant to examine, Prof. Chinkin cannot be considered impartial.
Third, when a judge or fact-finder is found to be partial, the remedy is recusal or her removal. The partiality defect cannot be ignored by the fact that she is only one of four panelists. In the 2004 Sesay case in the U.N.-created Special Court of Sierra Leone, the fact that Justice Robertson was one of five judges did not mitigate his lack of impartiality, and he was disqualified."
For further background, see this report by Gilead Ini of CAMERA.

A final note:  Panel participant, Kenneth Reeves, longtime Cambridge, MA City Councillor and former Mayor, spoke with pride about his sponsorship of a resolution demanding that Israel withdraw from Gaza in January, 2010.  When asked why he had never sponsored a resolution condemning the prior 6 years of rocket attacks against Israeli civilians by Hamas, he replied, "I never knew about the rockets."  

                       Cambridge Councilman Ken Reeves: 
                       "I Never Heard of Rocket Attacks Against Israel."

 

Ben Ami, Classless as Ever, Trashes One of His Cash Recipients

 Jeremy Ben Ami thought that Doug Pike, Democratic congressional contender to unseat Jim Gerlach (R - District 6 in Philadelphia), would fall into line with his other "Pro Israel" cash recipients like Keith Ellison, (MN) , Donna Edwards (MD) and Maurice Hinchey (NY) - all three of whom possess some of the worst voting records on support for Israel.  Surprise! Mr. Pike, partly as a result of the current public whipping of Israel by Ben Ami's master, President Obama, released the following statement as he rejected J Street PAC funds and its endorsement:


"Belatedly, I got a clearer sense of the important points where J Street looks at things differently than I look at things," Pike said in an interview. "Also, people simply assumed when they heard that I was endorsed by J street that I agreed with them on everything. The endorsement was an impediment to my being able to explain my convictions about Israel's security." 

Oddly, over at J Street's "News" tab on their website, Mr. Pike is not mentioned today.  Ben Enemy, however - classy as ever - had this to say about a man who stood up to the blatant anti-Israel messages coming out of The White House:

"We wish Doug Pike well, but are pleased to see him return the funds provided to his campaign, as it is our purpose only to support politicians with the courage of their convictions."

 "We wish Doug Pike well..." Oh yeah, and your check is in the mail...  I would say that in refusing $6,000 of J Street cash, Doug Pike is eminently a man of conviction.

Yes to Max Boot, We Hope

Speaking at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire yesterday, General David Petraeus put to rest the spurious Mark Perry report that attributed the "prime mover" accusation against Israel that, in effect, American efforts in the Middle East were becoming endangered by the Israel-Palestinian conflict.  Read it here from Solomonia.  Judging from previous Mark Perry mis-reporting, we're not surprised.  Yet, the disturbing paragraph contained in CENTCOM's 56 page report focusing on "favoritism" towards Israel would seem to reflect Administration thinking, especially in light of the recent, unprecedented downgrading of relations with the Netanyahu government.  We can only hope that Petraeus has the ear of President Obama.  The Jerusalem Post has been following the story closely.

Dark Radio Days

 Flash! 

A Mistake or Not?

 Ramallah Town Square Named for Terrorist.......And Her Proud Work.

Speaking - some might characterize it as pandering - to the national AIPAC Conference in Washington, D.C, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, erroneously attributed the outrageous naming of a town square near Ramallah in the memory of Dalal Mughrabi, the 1978 terrorist who murdered 37 Jews including 13 children - to only HAMAS!  The commemoration ceremony was well attended by members of Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party.  One Abbas lieutenant described Mughrabi as a "courageous fighter who held a proud place in Palestinian history."  Tawfiq Tirawi, a member of the Fatah Central Committee declared, "We are all Dalal Mughrabi!"  Consider the import of this monumental gaffe.  Abbas and the PA constitute Israel's only legitimate negotiating partner and the Administration's "Partner in Peace."  By condemning the commemoration, even if in error, Hillary is condemning that peace partner. 

When a Hamas-controlled municipality glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis, it insults the families on both sides who have lost loved ones in this conflict."

At first hearing, Hillary's condemnation seems sincere and strong.  It elicited a predictable, sympathetic response from her AIPAC audience.  But her well-rehearsed indignation at  HAMAS' role in honoring a terrorist (in reality it was FATAH that orchestrated the memorial) was a calculated, no-risk statement intended to compensate for the Administration's uncompromising demand to dry up all Israeli settlements - in effect, to ethnically cleanse the West Bank of Jews while Arab settlements in Israel and the West Bank grow and thrive without comment or criticism from the President.

But let's look a little more closely at her words: "Innocent Israelis"  Did other terrorist (NPR calls them "activists") attacks kill "guilty" Israelis?  
"It insults the families on both sides who have lost loved ones."  That one needs a lot of explaining, Madame Secretary.  How does the familiar pattern of Arabs murdering Jewish civilians - including children - "insult the families on both sides?"  Was it an insult to the family of Dalal Mughrabi, the terrorist or to the families of the FATAH officials who presided over the event?  Not an insult - a triumph.
Madame Secretary, can you point to the town square in Israel named for Baruch Goldstein?   Can you remember the last Jewish suicide bomber who hijacked a PA bus and murdered 37 "innocent" Arabs?  Hillary's performance was made easier in front of an audience that desperately wanted to applaud her before her act began.   Of course, there were plenty of skeptics in the crowd, but the AIPAC leadership made it clear that it would brook no public disapproval.

Hopefully there is a growing challenge to the Administration's doctrine of "the infernal equal sign": the murder of Jewish civilians is equal to the murder of Arab civilians...the insult to Jewish families is equal to an insult to Arab families...Palestinian terror is equal to the building of Jewish apartments...and on and on.  Only when thinking Jews and non-Jews understand the fallacy of this kind of logic will the stark reality of the epochally dangerous policy of the Obama Admninistration sink in.

   If she acknowledged her omission of Mahmoud Abbas' party's role in terror and its glorification, she would be compelled to acknowledge the genocidal intent of ALL major Palestinian Arab "Peace Partners."  Unless, of course - and this is a distinct possibility - AIPAC leaders gloss over the statement  lest it be perceived as "disrespect' for the Secretary of State.  In that case, it will be dismissed as an innocent naming error or a "misstatement".  Hopefully, we haven't heard the end of this story.
 _______________________________________________________

Talkshow Host Unleashes Classic Antisemitic Tirade in Boston

                                 WTKK Talkmeister, Jimmy Myers

                    Jeff Klein, Once-a-Jew, Now Palestinian Die-Hard


If you're still doubting the impact of the recent CENTCOM briefing before the Senate and the Obama administration's incendiary attacks on settlements, listen to yesterday's Boston talk show with host Jimmy Myers - yes, his host station, WTKK, is a conservative media outlet.

Mr. Meyers' guest was a local agit-propper named Jeff Klein, self-described "former Jew", labor organizer, Pro Palestinian, Pro Hamas, George Galloway cheerleader who never saw an Arab atrocity against Jews he couldn't "understand."  In the course of the half hour rant against Israel, Mr. Meyers crossed the line to thinly-veiled Jew hatred.  Describing Jews as "arrogant", his rhetoric and fury were redolent of a Father Coughlin or a Gerald L.K. Smith of the 1930's and '40's.    Listen, if you can stomach it:

The Insult, Decoded.

Now That's an Insult.

The Obama Administration must have been reading from its Marxist  playbook (Groucho, of course) when they escalated a non-event into the most serious breach in American Israeli relations since Gen. George Marshall wished for the stillbirth of the Jewish State in 1948.  Just imagine - Joe Biden, Barack Obama, David Axelrod, Ram Emanuel, Hillary Clinton - all children of the 60's - irreverant and iconoclastic - suddenly and grievously "insulted" by the announcement that Jews will expand a community in the capital of their own country.   Imagine the effrontery!  Imagine their injured pride!

And yet, for some inexplicable reason, Joe Biden was apparently not insulted or bothered by his other "peace partner", Mahmoud Abbas, when he dedicated a town square in Ramallah in the memory of Dalal Mughrabi, the terrorist who, in 1978, commandeered a bus and murdered 37 Jewish civilians including 13 children.  No "slap in the face" there.  As a matter of fact, Joe gave Mahmoud a great big hug when he visited Ramallah last week.

The "insult" has spawned international outrage at Israel for her impertinence of wanting to build apartments in her own capital city.  Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman of the New York Times penned op-eds condemning the action and the same paper's Ethan Bronner even played the race card in smearing Israelis. In the ensuing feeding frenzy, Ben Cohen of the American Jewish Committee was man-handled on CNN by an unabashed Ben Ami supporter;  J Street could not hide its delight at its Presidential Messiah leading the charge.  The EU is now demanding more stringent concessions from Israel and insists on a complete settlement freeze including natural growth.   There can be no other interpretation of a ban on "natural growth" than ethnic cleansing. 

At the same time, an even more ominous storm has appeared on the horizon in the form of General David Petraeus' report to The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, that the current Israeli government, in effect, is also an "insult" to the Arab and Muslim world in its "intransigence" by not completely acceding to Palestinian demands.  Petraeus' report was most troubling in its ultimate warning that Israel's perceived obstructionism in the Peace Process was placing American lives in danger in the region (read soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq).  Forget about the fact that during the past twenty years, American blood has been intentionally shed by Palestinians: Scores of American citizens, including the unsolved (and quickly forgotten) murder of three U.S. diplomatic security guards in October of 2003.

Petraeus' and CENTCOM's heaving of Israel under the bus would appear to comport well with the current administration's unprecedented public animus towards one of its staunchest allies.  Diana West has been brilliantly following the story here,here,and here.

 Biden reinforced the Petraeus message last week when he reportedly said to Bibi, "This [building housing in Jerusalem] is starting to get dangerous for us. What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

All of these ominous signs beg the question, exactly who is informing Obama on the Middle East conflict?  I think we have to look to the antecedents of the current (manufactured) crisis:  Rashid Khalidi and Samantha Power, to name just two of the most prominent players.  It is worth recalling that Ms. Power is now Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs at the National Security Council working for General Jim Jones.  Ms. Power sounded alarm bells when she advocated U.S. military intervention on behalf of Palestinians in the current conflict.   Listen carefully to her comments, especially her nervous swipe at Jewish "financial" power:



Jones, it should be noted, was the keynote speaker at the American Task Force for Palestine conference in October of last year.  At that conference, its President, Ziad Asali, boasted of nearly a billion dollars in working capital earmarked for building in the disputed areas of the West Bank (don't ever call them Arab "settlements").

Obama's Advisors?  G-d Help Us.

Hussein Ibish, an inveterate demonizer of Israel, occupies a high position at the ATFP.  Add to the mix the undoubted counsel of Rob Malley, apologist for Arafat, and you have the perfect storm of advisors to a President whose address to the Arab and Muslim world in Cairo in June of last year signaled near submission.

Finally, that leaves us with Rashid Khalidi, another inveterate Israel basher, advocate of a one (none) state solution for the Jews and a close, personal friend of the President.  Speaking of Khalidi, what ever happened to the "lost" video of Obama's comments at Khalidi's farewell dinner party?


There is no question of the seriousness of the current administration's hostility towards Israel, especially at a time of plunging polls for the President.  Hanging Israel out to dry would seem a no-risk proposition, especially with the cheering on of George Soros' favorite Jewish organization, J Street.

J Street is Slap Happy.

                   Jewish Housing - As Dangerous as Iran's Bomb?

 Q: What is J Street's definition of other Jews wanting to start new families and exercise their right to live in peace anywhere they want?
A: "A Slap in the Face", "An Affront", "Provocative", and "Arrogant"
And so, Jeremy Ben Enemy, in typical sing- song imitation of his boss, Obama, is still smarting from the incredible slap in the face.:

"Israel’s recent announcement of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem wasn't just a slap in the face to Vice President Joe Biden.
It was a wake-up call to us all that business-as-usual peace processing is bringing us no closer to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And now it may derail or delay the proximity talks just announced by Special Envoy Mitchell."

Clearly reveling in the moment, Axelrod declared on ABC's This Week, "Well, look, what happened - there was an affront.  It was an insult, but that's not the most important thing.  What it did was it made more difficult a very difficult process..." 

Picking up on Axelrod's cue, ABC's Senior White House Correspondent, Jake Tapper, went even further:
"I hate to say this, but yes or no, David, does the intransigence of the Israeli government on the housing issue, yes or no, does it put U.S. I believe that that region and that issue is a flare point throughout the region, and so I'm not going to put it in those terms.troops lives at risk?"

Axelrod: "I believe that that region and that issue is a flare point throughout the region, and so I'm not going to put it in those terms."

Well, I guess that was a "yes" from Axelrod.  Now the stage is set.  The next time a U.S. soldier is shot by a Sunni fanatic in Kandahar or an Iranian mob calls for "Death to America", we can lay the blame at Israel's door.  But why stop there?  Obviously, when a Jordanian devotee of Shari'a law kills his sister, it's Israel's fault.  When a Jihadi blows up a jetliner over America, it's Israel's fault.  If only all those offensive Israeli Jews could learn to be Citizens of the World like Jeremy Ben Ami. 

                            Dalal Mughrabi's Handiwork in 1978, 
                            Honored by the "Moderate" Abbas

At the same time the unbearable slap in the face (why wasn't the phrase, "stab-in-the-back" employed?) was being administered by Israel, Mahmoud Abbas' 'moderate" Fatah party was honoring one Dalal Mughrabi, the terrorist who murdered 37 Jews including ten children when she hijacked two buses on the coastal road in 1978.

 No one from the Obama administration seemed concerned or "insulted" by the Palestinian action, including the voluble Joe Biden.  As usual, when an American administration assumes the role of the "offended" party, there are severe consequences for Israelis.  The pattern is all too familiar.  Palestinians are gently urged to tamp down the terrorism, with absolutely no material penalties.  Israelis (Jews) must show humility and penance with real, physical concessions.  And, usually, the Jews comply with bowing and scraping.  But this time, Bibi, while apologizing for the timing and context of the announcement, is not backing down in the face of unbelievable pressure.

Keep in mind that in the nearly 17 years of Oslo and its ill-conceived progeny, no instrument was ever signed by Israel agreeing to the curtailment of building or "natural growth", although they have dismantled scores of "illegal" outposts.  The Palestinians, on the other hand, were signatories to many agreements that obliged them to confiscate weapons, disband militant groups and to "end incitement" in general, not one of which was ever implemented.   In practice, the more the Palestinians violated their signed agreements, the more money and sympathy they garnered from the U.S. and the European Union.  The pattern appears unbreakable, especially in light of Obama's Cairo speech considered by many  to be an appeasement to the Arab and Muslim world.


Unlike their initial ignoring of Israel Apartheid Week, J Street did issue a strong condemnation of Abbas' action.  We thank them for that.   It should be noted, however, that the outrageous Palestinian action never rose to the level of condemnation-with-consequences that followed the housing announcement.    How would the Obama administration and Ben Ami react were an Israeli government to dedicate a town square to Baruch Goldstein?

Visiting Ramallah and embracing Abbas, Vice President Biden made no statement regarding the terrorist naming ceremony, nor was any statement forthcoming from anyone in the Administration.  It was a non-event.  The administration was going to take Bibi to the woodshed, and, as Axelrod made clear, Israeli behavior was unacceptable. At a time when Obama may suffer his most significant congressional defeat with a still-born health plan, the administration needs to look strong and resolute.   With increasing public impatience with the war in Afghanistan and an impotent sanctions policy towards Iran's nuclear progress, Obama is in need of a big stick.  With American Jews reluctant to criticize him, Obama could find no better whipping boy than Bibi.  And J Street will hand him the whip.  No one's going to accuse them of dual loyalty!  So long as Obama believes that the strongest American Jewish lobby is J Street, Israel is in deep trouble.  At least the ADL issued an immediate statement on the administration's "overreaction."


In spite of the bad timing of the Israeli housing announcement, once the decision was made, Bibi and his government should have stood behind the decision, asserting the right of Jews to live where they choose, especially if that building affects or displaces no Palestinians. Ramat Shlomo, the community in question, is located a mere two miles from the western wall and will displace no one; moreover, it is in Jerusalem, not East Jerusalem, no matter how repetitively the administration and the media attempt to create a Palestinian sovereign entity where none exists.

 

Ramat Shlomo

And the piling on was not lost on the Palestinians. Nabil Abu Rudeineh, a spokesman for the Palestinian government, called the new housing announcement “a dangerous decision that will torpedo the negotiations and sentence the American efforts to complete failure.”  The last thing Obama wants - if the health bill fails - is another complete failure.


Sadly, the pattern of unilateral concessions, begun in the first Clinton administration and its creation of the eternal "Peace Process" has carried over into the Obama administration.  The U.S., the EU and Russia have become accustomed to demanding life-threatening concessions from Israel while demanding exactly nothing from the Arabs:

May 4, 1994:   The first substantive instrument signed by Israel and Arafat; Israel was to gradually withdraw from Gaza and Jericho; Arafat was to disarm Hamas and Islamic Jihad.  Israel complied - Arafat did not.

Sept. 28, 1995: Oslo II: Further delineated Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and west bank areas, assigning areas A,B and C.  Israel further releases hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, many with "blood on their hands" as a goodwill gesture.  Palestinians continue to arm and to incite with no international consequences.

Jan. 17, 1997: The Hebron redeployment agreement, whereby Israel agrees to hand over 99% of the city to the PA in area H1.  The agreement was signed by Bibi Netanyahu.  Palestinians continue to arm and incite.

Oct. 23, 1998: The Wye River Memorandum.  Ostensibly, under Clinton, the details of Oslo II are agreed on, requiring the Palestinians to comply with previous weapons confiscations and to combat incitement.  No compliance on the Palestinian side; Israel completes its withdrawals shortly thereafter.

Sept. 4, 1999: The Sharm-el-Sheikh Memorandum: Intended to resolve foot-dragging by PA in terms of arms and incitement and likewise by Israel in redeployment. 95% of the area given to the PA.


July 11-25, 2000: The Camp David Summit: Israel agrees to dismantle all settlements in areas taken over by the PA including Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount and East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state in return for an end to the conflict and incitement.  Arafat answers with the "2nd Intifada" which was planned before the summit convened.

Though not a complete timeline, this should suffice to illustrate a consistent pattern of Israel's  tangible, material concessions in contrast with Palestinian no-concessions.  J Street shows no signs of criticizing this lethal pattern.

Worse Than Originally Suspected...

  
 When we did our original analysis of The Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Boston cash grants to organizations that demonstrated extreme animus towards Israel - and in some cases - advocated the dissolution of the Jewish State - we missed possibly the most extreme, anti-Israel group of all - The Haymarket Peoples' Fund.  This group maintains an extremist agenda against Israel.

The Haymarket People's Fund has bankrolled the Somerville Divestment Project (SDP) for years.  They have tried in vain to convince the voters of that city close to Boston to: 

 "Reduce the military and political support given to Israel by the U.S. in order to end the military occupation of Palestine and instead have their country support human rights of Palestinians including the Right of Return.  They use grassroots organizing and education to advocate for human rights of all Palestinians."

One of the founders of the SDP was one Ron Francis (no longer in New England), an Andover High School teacher whose virtual every waking moment was spent in demonizing and attempting to harm Israel.
  Most shockingly of all, while the Boston Jewish Community Relations Council was participating in the campaign opposing the Somerville Divestment Project, its parent, the CJP, was funding (most likely, indirectly) the SDP through the Haymarket grant!  Even if the grant was earmarked for another Haymarket project, the overall, intensely anti-Israel nature of the charity should have been recognized.  After all, no mainstream Jewish philanthropy would fund Hamas' "social service" wing and then claim that no money was given to the "military" wing.

 Of course, we don't believe that  CJP is anti-Israel.  They fund and organize wonderful and indispensable programs in Haifa and other Israeli cities.  They support strongly pro-Zionist organizations directly and through their Donor Advised Funds as we have noted.  They were instrumental in defeating the SDP ballot initiative.

But who's minding the store at 126 High Street?  Spending roughly one minute googling Haymarket People's Fund will reveal their extreme, anti Israel agenda.   Funding an organization like Haymarket is beyond the pale.  Can you imagine the NAACP funding a white supremacist organization?

 

  

SDP Rally in Boston

CJP has to get its act together.  The donor guidelines we suggested in a previous posting should provide a basis for ensuring that the organization is not working at cross purposes.   Donors who wish to channel their charitable contributions through CJP to groups like Haymarket must be informed about their lethal goals or have their offers rejected. 


Here's a short video of the kind of activities CJP should not be funding, even indirectly or inadvertently:

What We Should Expect From CJP

According to the latest communication from Boston's Combined Jewish Philanthropies, in response to our discovery that that organization had funded such overly anti-Israel groups as the Unitarian Universalist Association and the American Friends Service Committee, a representative maintained that their vetting process was "sound."   Considering an organization's mission statement as definitive in regards to its policy and activities vis a vis Israel is naive at best.

We beg to differ.  There is nothing "sound" about funding groups that:

• Actively support Hamas support groups like The International Solidarity Movement (UUA).
• Actively support BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanction) campaigns (AFSC).
• Actively support Israel Apartheid Week (UUA).
• Refuse to allow pro-Israel groups and speakers a place at their events (UUA and the AFSC).

We do not believe that our CJP intentionally supports these anti Israel groups.  The temptation of accepting funds earmarked for groups that routinely denigrate and de-legitimize Israel must be resisted.   Donor Advised Funds (DAF's) must conform to the overall mission statement of the CJP itself:   "Our Israel agenda will focus on advocacy, connection and impact."  

Chaos engulfed the San Francisco Jewish Community Federation earlier this year when it supported the screening of the  the intensely propagandistic anti-Israel film, "Rachel", by the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, which selectively recounted the life and tragic death of Rachel Corrie, an ISM member accidentally killed in Gaza while shielding weapons smuggling tunnels.  Daniel Sokatch, CEO of the SFJCF and supporter of the film's screening, has since moved on to become CEO of The New Israel Fund and was a keynote speaker at last October's J Street Washington conference.

                     Daniel Sokatch of the New Israel Fund

Hoping to avoid such divisive controversies in the future, the SFJCF has since adopted a set of guidelines governing support and funding of organizations that conflict with the organization's mission statement on Israel.


We believe that the Boston CJP must adopt and enforce similar safeguards against the support and funding of overtly anti-Israel groups, including donations via Donor Advised Funds.


These must include donations and support for organizations that:

• now, or in the past, have - through publications, speeches, films and other presentations - directly or indirectly supported the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.
• have hosted predominantly anti-Israel speakers and failed to host a balanced number of pro-Israel speakers.
• have advocated the "one state solution" (which implicitly advocates the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state).
• have advocated and/or supported Boycott, Divestment or Sanctions (BDS) initiatives or petitions against Israel.
• presented or supported anti-Semitic speakers or events.
• have funded - directly or indirectly - individuals and/or organizations that support U.S. State Department designated terror groups such as Hamas. 
• have depicted Israel as "an Apartheid state" and/or participated in "Israel Apartheid Week.

 Considering the groups that CJP has funded recently who are clearly anti-Israel (as a Jewish and democratic state), adoption and enforcement of such guidelines are essential to maintaining CJP's mission of defending and supporting Israel at a time of unprecedented existential threats. 

Revelation at Harvard: Who Wrote Obama's Cairo Speech?

 

"I Cannot Tell a Lie - I Wrote it."

For nearly ten months questions have swirled around the country about the identity of the speechwriter responsible for Obama's controversial address to the Muslim and Arab world delivered at Cairo University on June 4, 2009. In attendance was the Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayyid Tantawi of that other great seat of learning and tolerance, Al Azhar (co-sponsor of the speech); the Sheikh has stated that there are "good Jews and bad Jews": "The good ones convert to Islam...the bad ones do not." Dr. Andrew Bostom excerpts some of Sheikh Tantawi's interfaith gems in his groundbreaking work, "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism."

The much ballyhooed speech, originally scheduled for Morocco, was changed to Cairo to have the greatest impact in "correcting" the perceived Muslim hostility to the U.S.engendered by  George.W. Bush.  The Wall St. Journal and Politico guessed it was the product of  Ben Rhodes, Obama's only foreign policy speechwriter (and erstwhile novelist: "The Oasis of Love") who traveled with him for his first major European speech, often dubbed the "Blame America First" speech.

Well, speculate no more. The writer wasn't Ben Rhodes or Chris Brose, former foreign policy speechwriter for Condoleeza Rice.  If we can believe him - and there is no reason to doubt his word - it was Stephen P. Cohen.   Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called Cohen a week before the trip and asked him to prepare a first draft for the speech, "A New Beginning."

That's right!  BHO chose a Jew to write the most important  address by an American President  -in the middle of a war against Islamic terrorists - to the Muslim world.

Steve Cohen, founder of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development, Harvard PhD, visiting professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Princeton and other high powered institutions, recently spoke at Harvard's Center for Middle East Studies beneath the smiling portraits of Harvard's stellar contributors to the landscape of failed foreign policy initiatives, notably, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski.  We all remember "Zbig", the guy who helped weaponize the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan along with someone called Osama Bin Laden.  Now that was a brilliant move.

You might recall the less-than-rave reviews the Cairo speech garnered.  Charles Krauthammer called it "abstract, vapid and self-absorbed."  Anne Bayefsky had this to say:

"President Obama's Cairo speech was nothing short of an earthquake — a distortion of history, an insult to the Jewish people, and an abandonment of very real human-rights victims in the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is not surprising that Arabs and Muslims in a position to speak were enthusiastic. It is more surprising that American commentators are praising the speech for its political craftiness, rather than decrying its treachery of historic proportions.

"Obama equated the Holocaust to Palestinian "dislocation." In his words: "The Jewish people were persecuted. …anti-Semitism …culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust…. Six million Jews were killed…. On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland." This parallelism amounts to the fictitious Arab narrative that the deliberate mass murder of six million Jews for the crime of being Jewish is analogous to a Jewish-driven violation of Palestinian rights.

Speaking in an Arab country to Arabs and Muslims, Obama pointedly singled out European responsibility for the Holocaust — "anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust." In other contexts, the European emphasis would be a curiosity. In Egypt, it was no accident. The Arab storyline has always been that Arabs have been forced to suffer the creation of Israel for a European crime."  Read More... 

Bayefsky's piece was entitled Obama's Stunning Offense to Israel and the Jewish People.  Why an "offense?"  What could have prompted such visceral reactions from writers like Bayefsky and Krauthammer?  Read the full excerpt to find out:

"America's strong bonds with Israel are well known.  This bond is unbreakable.  It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.(our emphasis)

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.  Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich.  Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today.  Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful.  Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.  For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation.  Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead.  They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation.  So let there be no doubt:  The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.  And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. " (Applause.) 

To trace the history of the Jewish People in Israel from a point 70 or so years ago is grossly and historically inaccurate - and a slander.  Speechwriter Cohen quickly followed up the slap with another: Imputing the seemingly endless Middle East conflict to Israel's creation by visiting "the pain of dislocation" upon the Palestinian Arabs.  That one, needles to say, went over big in Cairo and around the Muslim world.

To further woo and wow his Cairo audience, Cohen decided to recount the Isra, or The Prophet's miraculous "night journey" to heaven on the back of his noble, flying steed, Buraq, during which he hangs with Moses and Jesus.  Cohen reads ecumenicism into what most of the Muslim world sees as triumphalism.  Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran; only the term, al-Masgidu l'-Aqsa, the "farthest mosque."  Considering the fact that Palestine had not yet been conquered and colonized by Muslim armies (621 CE), many scholars dismiss as ridiculous the notion that that "mosque" indicates Jerusalem.  At any rate, Cohen not only buys into the story, but glorifies it.

For at least the past 75 years, Palestinian Arabs (and much of the Muslim world) have attempted to deny the abundant historical data and physical evidence that substantiate Jewish presence as the sovereign people in their own land for at least a thousand years before the birth of Mohammed and the Islamic conquest of Palestine.  Official after official of both Hamas and the PA have denied Jewish existence there and have refused to acknowledge the historicity of Har ha Bayit, The Temple Mount, built by Herod the Great over 2000 years ago.  The Islamic Waqf, or Holy Trust for the Haram al Sharif, has even attempted to destroy priceless Jewish (and other) artifacts uncovered on the Temple Mount during expansions of the Al Aqsa mosque.

Having erased the nettlesome matter of Jewish patrimony, Cohen then goes beyond mere dhimmitude and starts writing like a true believer.  His rhapsodic rendering of Prophet's miraculous night journey to heaven  could have come from the pen of a ninth century compiler of the hadiths.

When asked during the Q&A why he had traced Jewish "aspirations" for their land only as far as the end of World War II, he did show a measure of remorse - but only to extend that connection back to 1920!  He still refused to acknowledge the historicity of thousands of years of Jewish presence on the land.

Listen to his answer (and my apology for the poor audio quality):

Yes, "upsetting to Israelis", but apparently not so for Mr. Cohen.


Yet in spite of his regrets over making Israelis uncomfortable, he concluded by again warning Israelis to hew to the Administration line by heeding Joe Biden's upcoming admonitions in Israel, no doubt reiterating Obama's demands for a settlement freeze.


Again, the Academy has marched the world ever closer to the abyss in its insatiable desire to become the perfect dhimmi.

At Last - J Street Comments on Israel Apartheid Week... Weakly

 

More Than an "Analogy"

Following this blog's noting J Street's silence on the blood libel of Israel Apartheid Week, Jerermy Ben Ami has finally published a response.    In typical, studied, tortured and almost diplomatic prose, the statement nowhere rejects the substance of the campaign, namely, that Israel IS an apartheid state.  IAW is not constructing analogies - it defines "Israel as an apartheid system."

Rather than simply and emphatically stating that Israel is NOT an apartheid state, J Street nibbles at the edges by saying:
"We also reject comparisons of Israel to South African apartheid. The analogy clearly implies that Israel is illegitimate."(our emphasis).   

There is no "analogy" - according to IAW, Israel IS an apartheid state, clear and simple.  Continuing, the J Street statement criticizes the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanction) crowd by claiming that they are:
"making no distinction between West Bank settlements and Israel proper, and refusing to support a two-state solution..."

In other words, J Street would probably be quite delighted were the BDS movement to target the "settlements" per se.  Moreover, if IAW would only sign onto J Street's idee fixe of the two state solution, then they might go along with them. 

Clearly and irrefutably, Israel - including the "settlements"- are not "apartheid states".  Why won't J Street come out and unequivocally state that obvious fact?  Because they have the agenda juggernaut of "no settlements and a two state solution".

I suppose we must issue a muffled congratulations to Ben Ami, but nibbling at the edges of this modern blood libel will not suffice. 
 

CJP Follow Up

 A number of readers have inquired about DAF's (Donor Advised Funds) in relation to targeted grants bestowed by the CJP.  Briefly stated, DAF's are charitable giving vehicles administered by a third party and created for the purpose of managing charitable donations on behalf of an organization, family, or individual.

  Rather than setting up your own foundation, DAF's provide a means of charitable giving that avoids the lengthy and expensive (tax and administrative costs) process inherent in direct giving.  Other than the basic requirement of fiscal due diligence, the administering non-profit may or may not reserve the right to reject targeted grants.

CJP reserves that right as stated on its website:

"CJP reserves the right to reject grant recommendations for purposes contrary to its mission or to organizations that fail to maintain proper standards of financial oversight or accountability. CJP may request the return of grants that are discovered to be in conflict with its mission, or in violation of the guidelines in this section."

Moreover, as CJP states:

"Contributions to your DAF are irrevocable gifts to CJP. In accordance with the Internal Revenue Code, CJP owns the assets in each DAF outright and retains exclusive legal control over these assets for the charitable purposes of CJP. Donors may not restrict the absolute rights of CJP as owner of the assets. This is the basis for your eligibility for a federal income tax deduction."


These two paragraphs essentially say it all.  "CJP reserves the right to reject..."  And as "exclusive" controllers of these funds, ultimate responsibility for approving grantees resides with the CJP.   Do cash grants to organizations like the American Friends Service Committee and Media Matters conflict with its mission?  I believe they do. Let the debate begin.

Guess Who's Dining at CJP's Trough?

  The Combinded Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston is one of the nation's highest funded charitable groups.  With assets approaching half a billion dollars and annual revenues approaching two hundred million dollars, they are chartered to dole out lots of money to groups whom they deem worthy causes.  In addition to providing valuable social services to local Jewish and non-Jewish communities, one of their central activities, they claim, is support for israel.
Their mission statement declares:

"Our Israel agenda will focus on advocacy, connection and impact."

I find that statement quizzical, to say the least, but designed to accommodate groups like The Workmen's Circle (whose support for Israel has been demonstrated by hosting any and every anti-Israel group they can muster) and the likes of J Street and The New Israel Fund.  The NIF received close to $42,000.00 in 2007.
Each year the Boston CJP provides cash grants in compliance with federal regulations governing the operations of a 501(c)(3) non-profit.

We thought you might be interested to see just who receives the CJP's largess, ostensibly in keeping with that organization's strong support for Israel.  For the latest reporting period, here are some of those recipients:

• The American Friends Service Committee
• Democracy Now!
• The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
• The Tides Foundation
• Media Matters
• The New Israel Fund
• Brit Tzedek v'Shalom
• Physicians for Social Responsibility
• The Workmen's Circle
• Amnesty International

Many of these organizations have been highly critical of Israel - to say the least - some even have questioned Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State.  To be fair, the CJP has also awarded grants to groups like the David Horowitz Freedom Center.  And yet, contributions to organizations like Media Matters and The Tides Foundation, whose financial clout and animus towards Israel are well known, should raise some significant eyebrows for an organization that is so self-avowedly "Pro Israel".  Through George Soros' affiliated non-profits like MoveOn.org, The Open Society Institute, The Center for American Progress and through his associate, Peter Lewis, Media Matters has plenty of money to spend bashing Israel.  Read a recent Media Matters piece by M.J. Rosenberg on the infamous Goldstone Report condemning Israel at the U.N:

"Did Congress condemn Israel for its disproportionate use of force (1400 Palestinians killed including 320 children vs. 13 Israelis)?
Nope.  On the contrary, the House condemned the distinguished Justice Richard Goldstone, who wrote the United Nation's report on Gaza, for daring to criticize Israel's conduct. It called on the Obama administration to do everything it could to suppress the United Nations report! Only 36 representatives voted "no."

CJP awarded Media Matters $200,000.00 in 2007.


Do contributions (no matter how small an amount) to organizations like the Unitarian Universalist Association or The American Friends Service Committee comport with CJP's stated claim to support Israel?  This week the UUA church in Cambridge will host an Israel ApartheidWeek event.  The AFSC, long a champion of Palestinian "resistance" while "disagreeing" with Iran's Jew-hating President, put out this statement in reaction to his Holocaust denial and threats to destroy Israel:

"The AFSC will continue to reach out to the Iranian people and their leaders and pursue
dialogue on the basis of what we believe to the shared value that affirms that of God in 
each of us."


Democracy Now! is the media vehicle for Amy Goodman, a longtime Israel-hater, who never saw a Palestinian act of "resistance" she couldn't relate to.

The Tides Foundation, another George Soros-affiliated group, has been generous with CAIR (The Council for American Islamic Relations) many of whose officials are serving prison sentences for aiding HAMAS and which was recently named an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful prosecution of The Holy Land Foundation in Texas.  Tides also funds the National Lawyers' Guild, whose anti-israel positions are legendary.  Read more...

Physicians for Social Responsibility is a global non-profit which has demonstrated a particularly nasty attitude towards the Jewish State.  While highlighting Israel's supposed "human rights violations", the group routinely whitewashes Palestinian violations such as the use of ambulances to ferry weapons and combatants.

As we reported earlier, The New Israel Fund was predictably silent on the current offensive of Israel Apartheid Week as was their parent, J Street.

Should the CJP's putative "support" for Israel extend to financing groups that have demonstrated a long-standing animus towards The Jewish State?

Who's minding the store at 126 High Street?