A slur too far

John Cook and Wael Elasady do not stop with legitimate criticism of a Jewish-related issue. They openly slur the Jews.

Elasady compared Israel to Sudan’s genocide of Darfur’s people when he joined with others who assailed Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski for trading with Israel.

Cook, a Republican honcho in Texas, dragged the tussle over a Jewish speaker of the state House to a new low when he claimed that Christian conservatives “do the best jobs over all,” asked a reporter her religion, assured that Jews “are some of my best friends” and proclaimed his “favorite person” - hint, born of immaculate conception - to be a Jew.

Both occasions surface within a few days of each other, but attracted little attention - unlike Helen Thomas’ latest rantings, which surprised few people.

The Oregon flap stems from the governor’s act of signing a Memorandum of Understanding between Oregon and Israel last Oct. 27 “to develop and strengthen economic, industrial, technological and commercial cooperation between” them, according to Kulongoski’s press release.

The Web site Salem-News.com and The Vanguard, the student newspaper at Portland State University, reported earlier this month that an organization, called Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights, sent the governor an open letter condemning Israel’s occupation of its territories and “racism” toward Arabs who live in Israel and the territories.

Kulongoski stood his ground. In an e-mail to AUPHR, his communications director, Jodi Sherwood, wrote, “The governor believes that the Memorandum is in the best interest of the people of Oregon. Israel is a strong and democratic friend of Oregon and the United States. This agreement will build on our existing trade relationship with Israel, open up new opportunities to share information and foster commercial ties in areas that are vital to Oregon’s economic future.”

In response, Elasady, who is president of Students United for Palestinian Equal Rights, said according to these publications that Oregon’s refusal to conduct business with Sudan is precedent for not doing business with states that violate international law.

Sudan? That’s another blood libel. We all know that Sudan murders, rapes and expels hundreds of thousands of Darfurians who cannot defend themselves. Israel has made mistakes, but this ongoing war with the Arab world was thrust on it more than a century ago.

Deep in the heartlessness of Texan John Cook, the magazine Texas Observer’s web site reported in early December that Cook had sent an e-mail to Rebecca Williamson - both are members of the State Republican Executive Committee - explaining his opposition to retaining Joe Straus of San Antonio, who is Jewish, as House speaker. He wrote, “We elected a House with Christian, conservative values. We now want a true Christian, conservative running it.”

Cook dug a deeper hole for himself during a phone call with a reporter, Abby Rapoport of the Texas Observer, who quoted him as saying, “When I got involved in politics, I told people I wanted to put Christian conservatives in leadership positions. I want to make sure that a person I’m supporting is going to have my values. It’s not anything about Jews and whether I think their religion is right or Muslims and whether I think their religion is right…I got into politics to put Christian conservatives into office. They’re the people that do the best jobs over all.”

If Christian conservatives “do the best jobs, neither the U.S. Constitution nor Texas constitution allows a religious preference. Both forbid a religious test for anyone to hold public office.”

When he asked Rapoport if she is a Christian, he said, “I just need to know who I’m talking to so I can understand…The holy spirit is in the people who are Christian.” Rapoport is a Jewish name, and a look at her photo suggests she can be taken for Jewish.

He also said of Jews: “They’re some of my best friends.” Finally, “My favorite person that’s ever been on this earth is a Jews. How can they possibly think that if Jesus Christ is a Jew, and he’s my favorite person that’s ever been on this earth?”

Others who criticized Straus made comments that were too vague to be labeled anti-Semitic. Cook does not sound like a mean-spirited person, but his attitudes amount to anti-Semitism. He believes that good government requires good Christians, which certainly excludes Jews and adherents of other religions, atheists and agnostics. It would also cover Christians whom he could never accept as his kind of Christian.

Cook and Elasady may be different in a number of ways, but both do not know what they are talking about, and do not care. Jews are hardly the only people vulnerable to harm because of their attitudes.

A reason for the season - for all of us

As Kramer from “Seinfeld” might say, it’s a Chanukah miracle!!!

The word “Christmas” was removed from the 15-foot-high “Christmas Village” sign welcoming visitors to a Christmas market in front of Philadelphia’s City Hall by order of Managing Director Richard Negrin on Nov. 29. Some city workers and visitors griped about a religious sign on public property.

Come Chanukah eve, Dec. 1, Mayor Michael Nutter countermanded the order so Christmas could become part of the sign once again. Next morning, 25 days before the big day, a Philadelphia Daily News headline proclaimed: “Nutter saves Christmas!”

Each year we must contend with such episodes. After 2010 years, maybe it is time for a meeting of the spiritual minds to offer understanding and determine how the holiday season can bring us together.

I have observed many good friends beam as they prepared Christmas decorations at the officer or smile broadly as they wished me “Merry Christmas.” Christmas is important to millions of Americans and I have in the past expended efforts to help my Christians friends enjoy it.

However, lovers of Christmas need to understand how the holiday season affects others. At the very least, the remainder of the non-Christmas celebrating world is overwhelmed with reminders of a holiday that is foreign to us. Jews in particular do not mention Jesus in our religious traditions, and so we feel left out of a holiday that appears to be celebrated by almost everyone we encounter.

Historically, Jews have legitimate reason to be downright bitter about all Christian holidays. Christianity gave us not only Christmas and Easter but also the Crusades and the Inquisition, and it laid the foundation for the Holocaust.

Many Jews have personally experienced anti-Semitism. A Jew contending with a hostile environment could be subjected to nasty treatment for the first 11 months of the year, and then finds that people around him will be indignant if he does not catch the holiday spirit.

I fully understand that Christianity has evolved into a force that is far more civil as contrasted to earlier times, though it has taken some troubling turns. I find that gracious, kindhearted Christians are more the rule than the exception. The United States has been welcoming to the Jewish people, so I figure I can tolerate some discomfort.

Most Christians I know do not treat me as an outsider and celebrate Christmas because they love it, not as an instrument to denigrate other religions. I take their “Happy Hanukkah” greetings as a well-intentioned gesture to recognize the validity of Judaism. At the same time, they may not understand that we do not recognize Hanukkah as an important holiday.

I have found that one way to reward deeds of friendship is to make their holidays more joyous. Years ago, I spelled a woman assigned to work Christmas so that she could join her family for the holiday dinner. At the office, I do not complain about Christmas decorations or holiday talk because I figure, to paraphrase a song title, Christians just want to have fun.

I was initially against the Christmas Village at City Hall, but it occurred to me that other religious symbols are allowed on public property - most notably for an annual Menorah-lighting ceremony held near Independence Hall.

The local religious wars seemed to escalate a tad when a co-worker wore a button on her blouse stating: “It is okay to wish me a Merry Christmas.” This refers to the neutral practice of wishing others “Happy Holidays.” It is understandable that some people innocently greet others with “Merry Christmas” out of habit, but there are those who deliberately apply the greeting to those they know who do not celebrate Christmas. I believe that most people fall into the first category and should not be condemned for an honest mistake.

Maybe we should anoint a panel of wise, sensible folks to mediate holiday disputes. On a national or local basis, or both, a group of sages of different religions - imams, priests, rabbis and ministers - could convene in good fellowship and devise a list of do’s and don’t’s for the holiday season. Most of all, they can offer a reason for the season in which we can all delight.

I know many fine statements have been made that can qualify for this message, but they escape me for the moment. I must continue to search.

Meanwhile, I wish you all peace on earth and goodwill to men…and women.

Arab fears undermine future of Middle East

It is beneficial that Arab and Israeli leaders agree for once. Or is it just once?

As The New York Times and other media report, the release of state secrets from WikiLeaks reveal how Iran’s nuclear preparations have terrified Arab leaders, and some have been urging strong action, including a military strike. Israel has been more than open about these possibilities.

Arab leaders repeated their concerns in private, and they wanted someone else to do it - such as Israel or the United States.

No wonder we consistently fail to make progress on any Middle East issues. Arabs who might agree with Israeli positions nonetheless keep silent. As the Times explains it, “Publicly, these Arab states held their tongues, for fear of a domestic uproar and the retributions of a powerful neighbor. Privately, they clamored for strong action, by someone else.”

God forbid that an Arab publicly concede that Israel is right about something. Arab leaders have left sufficient hints about their real feelings about Iran, but it is no surprise that they would say one thing publicly and the complete opposite privately. If they concur with Israel on how to respond to Iran, what is the possibility that they agree with Israel on other crucial issues?

Many Arabs probably are not obsessed with Israel’s destruction; support Israel’s treatment of Gaza and its positions on a peace deal; and believe that Hamas should release captured Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit. Because violent extremists control the situation, they are simply too frightened to say so publicly.

To be sure, there are nonetheless plenty of Arabs who are virulently against Israel.

Though Arab fears are understandable, their approach undermines any prospect of resolving the many obstacles that already exist. Their silence, or their opposing positions, drains Israel of credibility when its representatives try to justify Israeli actions.

Israel is either left alone out there, or Arab criticisms challenge its positions. People who might otherwise back Israel’s actions will be turned off to it because of deceptive Arab responses.

When the truth comes out, Israel’s position is strengthened, as Israeli officials have emphasized. Now the world knows that Arab leaders were drawing the same conclusions about Iran’s plans as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials.

Besides bin Zayed’s “Ahmadinejad is Hitler” statement, King Hamad of Bahrain said, “That program must be stopped. The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.” A Saudi Arabian ambassador relayed this message from King Abdullah: “He told you to cut off the head of the snake.” Maj. Gen. Mohammad al-Assar, assistant to the Egyptian minister of defense, reportedly “stated that Egypt views Iran as a threat to the region.”

In reality, bin Zayed, Hamad, Abdullah and al-Assar were united with Israel privately, but not openly. After all, how could they lend credibility to a people who oppress the poor Palestinians, seek to dominate the Middle East and are the cause - with no exceptions - of all the problems plaguing the Arab world?

Israel and its Arab neighbors must operate in unison to resolve the Middle East’s challenges. Many of these issues reached crisis level long ago. Israel and the United States cannot be expected to save this corner of the world themselves, especially when weighted down by those who should be their allies.

A 'religious test' in Texas?

Texas can boast the heroes of the Alamo, Sam Houston’s victory at San Jacinto that gave Texas its independence, World War II hero Audie Murphy and three presidents.

Hopefully, Peter Morrison and Ray Myers do not reflect today’s average Texan. Morrison and Myers exposed themselves as sloppy, insensitive nitwits, if not rabid anti-Semites, by raising concerns about a Jewish politician’s fitness to hold public office.

If Myers and Morrison believe that a Jew should be barred from some or all public offices, they are defying Article VI of our nation’s Constitution. It states: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

As Texas newspapers describe the matter, state House Speaker Joe Straus was subject to several e-mails emphasizing his religion in the midst of a furious re-election contest for the speaker’s post. State representatives Warren Chisum and Rep. Ken Paxton are challenging Straus on grounds that he is not conservative enough. All three are Republicans.

Morrison and Myers were publicly identified as prominent writers of some e-mails, but other writers are not publicly known. Morrison, who is treasurer of the Hardin County Republican Party, wrote in his Nov. 11 newsletter that Straus’ rabbi is involved with Planned Parenthood.

He also wrote, “Both Rep. Warren Chisum and Rep. Ken Paxton, who are Christians and true conservatives, have risen to the occasion to challenge Joe Straus for leadership.”

Myers, who chairs the Kaufman County Tea Party, praised another Republican lawmaker, Rep. Bryan Hughes, as “a Christian conservative who decided not to be pushed around by the Joe Straus thugs.”

Thugs? A remnant of the Jewish Defense League?

Myers subsequently told a Dallas Morning News reporter that “it never crossed my mind” that Straus is Jewish when he wrote the e-mail. “We’re going after the RINOs (Republican in name only),” he said.

Morrison sent the News an e-mail stating, “I was simply making factual statements about Rep. Chisum and Rep. Paxton.” He added that he opposed Straus on the basis of issues, not religion.

Their efforts to clarify their original statements were pitiful. A reasonable person could conclude from their words that they object to a Jew holding a leadership post in the House. However, their comments can be interpreted in a broader context.

Whatever these idiots sought to do, they were reckless to even hint or suggest that Straus’s religion disqualified him. It is certainly worse if they meant this.

Their ideas did not influence anyone with power. Both Chisum and Paxton quickly disavowed these thoughts. “These sorts of attacks on a man’s religion have absolutely no place in the race for Speaker,” Chisum wrote in a statement. “We certainly have our differences, but they are differences of public policy and organization of the House.”

While Texas is largely conservative with a Christian religious fervor, Paxton and Chisum did the right thing. It would be no surprise if they personally hate Straus, but it is not because he is Jewish.

Morrison and Myers still owe the public an explanation and a profuse apology. It begs the question if Morrison believes all Jews share the same political attitudes. It is true that many Jews are pro-choice on abortion, but Orthodox Jews and even some who are less observant oppose abortion.

Straus belongs to a Reform synagogue in San Antonio, Temple Beth-El, which was founded in 1874. Reform Jews are generally liberal, so it should be no surprise if Senior Rabbi Barry H. D. Block would be involved with a pro-choice organization - just as if an Orthodox rabbi participates in an anti-abortion group’s activities.

When the dense duo praises Straus’ enemies as Christians and conservatives, that takes some explaining: To apply Western parlance, is the only good liberal a dead liberal? Are all Jews and non-Christians liberals? That begs the next question: Is the only good Jew and non-Christian a dead Jew and a dead non-Christian?

Let’s not give Myers and Morrison the benefit of the doubt. We could excuse this as warped language, but they must explain this concern if they do not want to be branded as vile anti-Semites.

They must understand the obstacles that Jews and other minority groups overcame before laws were changed and the public became more accepting of their place in government and many other areas.

I recall from past readings that delegates to the Constitutional Convention added the clause barring a “religious test” for public office during the period that the Pennsylvania legislature considered adding such a test. The delegates did not openly clarify their reasons for this clause because of the secrecy clouding the convention’s deliberations.

Maryland barred Jews from holding public office until 1826. Since then, Marylanders have elected a Jewish governor and the Speaker of the House of Delegates from 1979 to 1986, Benjamin L. Cardin, is Jewish. Cardin is now Maryland’s junior U.S. senator.

Do Morrison and Myers want to turn Texas into pre-1926 Maryland? They still have us wondering.

Transit links Jews in more ways than one

The reinvented National Museum of American Jewish History features this inspired advantage: A visitor can readily find it, and swiftly reach it.

The museum, which traces the Jewish experience in the United States, is located at the same corner as Philadelphia’s Fifth Street SEPTA subway station and a stop for numerous SEPTA buses; one block from where a dozen New Jersey Transit buses stop, for southern New Jersey travel; three blocks from a train station for South Jersey commuting; and six blocks from a SEPTA commuter rail station with one train route that runs to Trenton, where a rider can connect to a Manhattan-bound train.

Many of these lines link to the city’s 30th Street Amtrak station two miles west of the museum. SEPTA is the transit system for the Philadelphia area and PATCO is a train route jointly operated by Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

The museum moved from a small facility on Nov. 14 to a new home around the corner in a 100,000-square-foot facility at the southeast corner of Fifth and Market streets less than a block from Independence Hall. After an extravagant ceremony on Nov. 13 and 14, the museum opens to the public this Friday.

Access to public transit this extensive, or even a fraction this advantageous, has steadily gone the way of the dinosaur for Jewish facilities during the last four or five decades, not to mention public facilities in general.

As a frequent patron of public transit, I could not help but notice the access to subways, trains, etc., to the museum. Of course, the museum was built there because of its proximity to Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell.

Public transportation is important for Jewish connections. It is no coincidence that we are less engaged in Jewish causes and activities as more Jews have relocated to the suburbs. Among positive developments, transit links between Jewish communities have grown, especially in the Northeast. However, many transit agencies are raising their fares, and Jewish facilities are more often than not located in spots that are inconvenient for those who depend on public transportation.

The museum’s proximity to so many transit links is obviously a happy coincidence, and we should hope that more Jewish facilities model their locations on Philadelphia’s Jewish museum. With the current pattern of Jewish movement out of the big cities, new facilities to serve them have risen up closer to their new homes.

Synagogues, community centers and day schools do not require the comprehensive access available at Fifth and Market streets, but they do need a reasonable level of public transportation. These facilities are often placed in isolated areas, and public transit there either does not exist or is severely limited. A bus may stop in front of a Jewish facility on weekdays, but not at night or weekends. Some suburban facilities are convenient to reach by transit, but those places are too frequently the exception rather than the rule.

Decades earlier, urban living and extensive transportation provided the glue that held the Jewish community together. One could attend synagogue by walking or, if necessary, taking a bus. Those who live in the suburbs usually must drive…on the Sabbath, yet.

Interestingly, visitors to the two main Jewish museums in Manhattan must negotiate an obstacle course. Both are located four miles or more from Penn Station and Grand Central Station, and each museum is situated six blocks from the nearest subway stop. A Holocaust museum planned for Hollywood, Fla., was to be located more than a mile east of the Tri-County rail line that runs from Palm Beach to Miami; transit is otherwise sporadic in that area.

The Philadelphia museum’s access exemplifies the extensive rail network, especially in the Northeast, that allows area Jews to reach it with little trouble. It is obvious that the museum could be a large draw for Jews from New York City and its suburbs.

A number of ways are available to reach Philadelphia, but the most common means is commuter rail from Manhattan’s Penn Station to Market East Station in Philadelphia, six blocks west of the museum. Visitors from New York can take a New Jersey Transit train to Trenton and switch to a SEPTA train bound for center city.

Long Islanders and New Jerseyans can readily connect. A family from Short Hills or Teaneck in New Jersey can ride a local train to the Secaucus Junction (between Newark and Manhattan) and switch to a New Jersey Transit train bound for Trenton. A family from Great Neck or Merrick can take the Long Island Rail Road to Penn Station to catch an NJT train. It is also doable for those living in Westchester and Connecticut if they do not mind spending 20 minutes on the subway connecting Grand Central to Penn Station.

The museum’s management might wish to consider promoting its access to transportation.

The major transit agencies in the Northeast have tossed in obstacles in the form of higher fares, including NJT, SEPTA and New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority. NJT’s fares rose sharply last May 1. A round-trip from Trenton to New York shot up from $21.50 to $31. Coupled with SEPTA’s lesser increases a few months later, the combined round trip from Philadelphia to Manhattan increased from $37.50 to $49. Ironically, Amtrak prices have dipped, though not enough.

Rising fares will only deter people from using public transportation, and local service should be expanded in communities that need it. Meanwhile, we can be grateful for the system that now exists, especially in the Northeast. May a higher authority forbid that it should turn into a museum piece.

Using power shift to aid Israel

Eric Cantor, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Allen West missed a fitting opportunity to challenge President Obama’s inconsistent approach to Israel.

The occasion emerged in early November when the president clashed with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once again over East Jerusalem housing.

Well, the Cantor/Ros-Lehtinen/West crowd has two years to assure Israelis and the rest of the world that many Americans staunchly support Israel. In January, they will join at least 238 other Republicans who will run the U.S. House of Representatives.

Actually, while I was in the midst of composing this commentary, Cantor sort of spoke up on Wednesday, Nov. 10, when he told Netanyahu that his party will serve as “a check” on Obama, and the following Monday Cantor claimed he was only referring to domestic policies.

He was trying to quell accusations that he was interfering with Obama’s relationships with foreign leaders. If Cantor meant domestic matters, why did he mention it to a foreign leader in the first place?

The incident raises concerns about opposition leaders undermining the president on foreign policy. It depends on the situation and, without delving too deeply into arguments, I think it is entirely appropriate for Cantor and his colleagues to bolster Israel’s role in the ever-twisting Middle East entanglement.

Cantor, the only Jewish Republican in the House for the time being, is expected to become House majority leader. Ros-Lehtinen, who represents parts of Miami and Miami Beach, could rise from ranking Republican member to chairperson of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Israel’s supporters here need to take full advantage of Cantor/Ros-Lehtinen/West’s strong sympathies for Israel to compensate for President Obama’s inconsistencies and pressure the Arab world to deal with Israel in a good-faith manner.


Most American Jews are fully behind Obama’s domestic policies, but we are at the very least confused by his approach to Israel. The president has been helpful in some ways, but at times he has been downright hostile to Israel. A slight number of Jews have called Obama anti-Semitic.

Cantor, Ros-Lehtinen and West, a new congressman, are now in a commanding position to introduce legislation and communicate tough viewpoints to criticize not only Arab leaders but also the president when he is out of line. The media will take Cantor, Ros-Lehtinen and West far more seriously in January because of the GOP’s control of the House.

Ros-Lehtinen, whose congressional district comprises large Jewish and Cuban populations, is a stalwart backer of Israel. On Jan. 9, 2009, for example, she co-authored a resolution with Democrat Howard Berman “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself,” according to a news release issued by her office.

West, who will represent a neighboring congressional district, has expressed even stronger pro-Israel views which should cheer hardliners. He even hired Fort Lauderdale radio host Joyce Kaufman as his chief of staff, but she subsequently decided to stay in Florida. Kaufman, whose father was Jewish, has chided Jews who are twice the Jew she is…biologically, that is…for voting for Obama.

Most Jews would vehemently oppose their domestic positions, especially those of West, but we might as well take advantage of their newly found clout to shore up Israel’s legitimacy.

To give the likes of Cantor, Ros-Lehtinen and West some rare credit, they should recognize that their pro-Israel positions will not help them much in terms of actual votes. Few Jews will change their registration to Republican.

However, Republican positions on Israel please conservative Jews who contribute to political campaigns.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is believed to be emboldened by the Republican takeover of the House. He signaled as much when he responded defiantly to Obama over construction of 1,300 new housing units in East Jerusalem.

After the housing plans were presented, The Los Angeles Times reported Obama to say during his Asian tour: “This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations, and I’m concerned that we’re not seeing each side make that extra effort involved to get a breakthrough. Each of these incremental steps ends up breaking trust.”

Netanyahu evidently believes the Republicans have his back, which might be why he said in response: “Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is the capital of the state of Israel. Israel sees no connection between the diplomatic process and the planning and building process in Jerusalem.”

House Republicans can take legitimate steps to advocate for Israel. They might as well start with engaging in the current flap by backing Netanyahu’s position.

While they are on the subject, they can ask the Arabs to justify being given control of East Jerusalem. The Arabs have yet to explain in any satisfactory way why they need it.

Among other issues, the Republicans can press for strong efforts on Iran, hostile actions and threats from Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the release of Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit, who is presumably being held by Hamas in Gaza.

Some Democrats in Congress, notably Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Anthony Weiner, both of New York, were blunt in criticizing Obama over Israel in the past.

As the balance of power shifts, the Jewish community will probably have political leaders with clout solidly in Israel’s corner.

Walking on eggshells: When race intersects with anti-Semitism

The day after news broke that a Catholic archbishop suggested that Judaism has been displaced, Abe Foxman fired off a letter to Cardinal-elect Kurt Koch, the newly appointed president of Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.

Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote on Oct. 25: “We write to protest the shocking and outrageous anti-Jewish comments made by Greek Melkite Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros in connection with the final communique of the Bishops Synod on the Middle East.

“By stating that God’s covenantal promise of land to the Jewish people ‘was nullified by Christ’ and that ‘there is no longer a chosen people,’ Archbishop Bustros is effectively stating that Judaism should no longer exist. This represents the worst kind of anti-Judaism, bordering on anti-Semitism…We urge that you swiftly and publicly correct Archbishop Bustros’s shocking and damaging statements.”

On Oct. 21, The Philadelphia Daily News reported that a Pakistani-born Muslim professor at Lincoln University called on attendees at a Labor Day rally in Washington, D.C., to “stand united to defeat, to destroy, to dismantle Israel - if possible by peaceful means.” Lincoln, historically a suburban Philadelphia university serving African-American students, is partially state funded.

While Pennsylvania officials have raised questions with the university, representatives of five Jewish organizations were slated to meet on Oct. 28 to devise a response plan, according to The Jewish Exponent of Philadelphia.

Funny that it took Foxman one day to formulate a strategy.

The contrast between the two situations highlights two issues involving the Jewish advocacy community: anxiety at challenging anti-Semitism linked to African-Americans and the frailties of Jewish organizations.

It is painfully obvious that people are reluctant to contend with bias originating with a group which itself has faced bigotry. Jews have had this problem with anti-Semitism in the black community.

A passage from the Oct. 28 Exponent reinforces such a concern: “Several sources expressed concern that, if Jewish organizations acted too rashly, the whole issue could be seen through a black-Jewish lens and become a flashpoint for inter-ethnic tensions.”

Notice that these “several sources” refuse to identify themselves for publication. What is so terrible about what they say here?

Let’s be adults. Certainly, we are aware that no single person or institution represents the entire black community. Jews have valid reasons to detest or distrust Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton Jr. and Jesse Jackson, but few Jews lump all African-Americans with them.

When a sensitive situation arises, a Jewish advocacy group needs to move swiftly and firmly assert its concerns, but approach the subject in a respectful manner. Organizations like the ADL and the American Jewish Committee were created in part to challenge anti-Semitism, which was far more prevalent years ago.

Of course, the evolving of these groups quelled manifestations of anti-Semitism so that there is much less of it today.

So what if an African-American individual or institution is the focus of an inquiry? If the subject of a complaint is wrong, they will back off. Some may wave the race card when they are first confronted with a reaction, but the agency must remain resolute in pursuing the matter. Bigots are bullies, no matter what their race or religion, and bullies crumble - sooner or later - in the face of strength and power.

Consider, too, how Catholic church officials might feel if they learned about the slower pace applied to the Lincoln case. They could question if this is a case of anti-Catholic bias.

Jewish organizations have yet to respond to an African-American candidate for governor of New York, Jimmy McMillan, who singled out Jews for keeping slaves in an interview with a New York City newspaper. I know for certain that the ADL received at least one complaint about McMillan.

On a personal level, I complained to the ADL some years ago that an African-American senior manager at my office posted Israel-bashing signs on her bulletin board. If the ADL did anything, I was not aware of it.

The Lincoln matter is already improving. State Sens. Daylin Leach and Anthony H. Williams, respectively Jewish and African-American, initially raised questions with university officials if they were aware of Siddique’s anti-Israel attitudes when he was hired and later granted tenure. They also asked if Siddique’s “anti-Semitic diatribes” are part of his course instruction, according to the News.

One state official also asked the university to inquire if Siddique used Lincoln’s resources for his anti-Israel politics, according to another news report.

In a follow-up article, the Exponent reported that representatives of the Jewish organizations met with Lincoln President Ivory Nelson, who repudiated Siddique’s comments and agreed to plan an educational program.

Nelson said no action could taken against Siddique so long as he separated his outside politics from his job.

Ilana Krop Wilensik of the American Jewish Committee told the Exponent, “They abhor what happened, but find themselves in a bind because their hands are virtually tied with what they can and what they can’t do.”

Reading between the lines, Lincoln officials could fear that Siddique will file legal action if he is disciplined or fired.

The Lincoln matter also points to longstanding concerns that the Jewish community is served by many Jewish organizations whose responsibilities overlap, and despite that these groups at times neglect to act on some issues. The guarded reaction, and lack thereof, to black anti-Semitism is a glaring example of their flaws.

Anti-Semitic rants too damn high-strung

Rick Sanchez is a bungler when it comes to anti-Semitic rantings, as compared to a New York gubernatorial hopeful, a Boston archbishop and a suburban Philadelphia English professor.

After the Cuban-American CNN anchor was fired over offensive comments, these professional anti-Semites shamed him with their anti-Jewish slurs. One blamed the Jews for slavery, another bashed Israel for oppressing Arabs and a third warned Jews that his Muslim siblings could demolish Israel - peacefully, if possible.

Sanchez was griping during an interview about the lack of diversity on cable channels and comedian Jon Stewart’s jabs at his anchoring style when, told that Stewart is Jewish, he blurted out that “everybody that runs CNN is a lot like Stewart.”

As if Sanchez had thrown down a gauntlet, Jimmy McMillan must have felt challenged to prevail over him while running for governor of New York as founder of the Rent is Too Damn High Party. He had just upstaged Democratic candidate Andrew Cuomo and Republican rival Carl Paladino during a debate on Monday, Oct. 18.

McMillan once accused Jewish landlords of inflating rents in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg section. He apologized for this smear on his Web site and then dug a deeper hole by telling The New York Daily News: “Jews were slave masters. They enslaved my people. You can’t call me anti-Semitic.”

There were Jewish slave masters, but Christians obviously held most slave master roles. There were also Jewish abolitionists and later rabbis who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Nelson Mandela commended South African Jews for their efforts to end apartheid.

Slogging deeper into the anti-Semitic mud was Cyrille Salim Bustros, an archbishop in the Greek-Melkite church, an Eastern Rite church whose bishops attended the Vatican’s annual Middle East synod, according to The New York Times. He headed a committee of Middle East bishops that released a statement calling for a two-state solution so the Arabs in Israeli territories would have “an independent and sovereign homeland where they can live with dignity and security” and “the state of Israel will be able to enjoy peace and security within internationally recognized borders.”

The Oct. 23 statement also proclaimed that “recourse to theological and biblical positions which use the word of God to wrongly justify injustices is not acceptable.”

Bustros, whose church is in or near the heavily Jewish Boston suburb of Newton, Mass., injected his own comment: “The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians. Sacred scripture should not be used to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestine.”

Bustros has gall to lecture Jews when it was acceptable to use sacred scripture to accuse Jews of killing Jesus, massacring Jews and Muslims during the Crusades and murdering and torturing Jews and Muslims in Spain.

The bishops conveniently forget that the Arabs have no independent state because their so-called leaders - first Yasser Arafat in 2000 and more recently Mahmoud Abbas - have refused reasonable offers for such a state. Or that Israel was attacked from Gaza and southern Lebanon after evacuating those areas.

Israeli spokesman Yigal Palmor said in response, “I think this ambiguity should be lifted by authorized voices from the Vatican.”

Grand champion for anti-Semitic rants in recent weeks is Kaukab Siddique, a Muslim associate professor of English at Lincoln University in Chester County, Pennsylvania. His standout line at an anti-Israel rally on Labor Day in Washington, D.C.: “For the Jews, I would say, ‘See what could happen to you if the Muslims wake up.’ And I say to the Muslims, ‘Dear brothers and sisters, unite and rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism.”

When The Philadelphia Daily News contacted him, he responded in an e-mail: “When I refer to the ‘Jews’ I am referring to the current leadership of the ‘state of Israel’ and to their major supporters, not to the Jewish race as a whole…I am not anti-Semitic…I am certainly not hostile to, nor do I discrimate against the Jewish people because of their lineage.”

That’s comforting, but as a professor who teaches English, shouldn’t he know from the outset that a speaker or writer must be clear in his/her communications? If he is speaking only about Israeli leaders, wouldn’t he limit his references to Israeli leaders?

If he is “not hostile to…the Jewish people,” then we must wonder why he once said: “Mohammed has taught us not to follow Jews but to go against them in all things. We are against the Jews because they have usurped Palestine and they take interest on loans and have built up the exploitative economic structure.”

This last quote was supplied by the Anti-Defamation League, which emphasizes that the Labor Day speech was nothing new for Siddique, who predictably denies that the Holocaust occurred.

Fortunately, the ADL is protesting the Vatican’s association with the Greek bishops’ statement, and Pennsylvania lawmakers and other state officials have been questioning Lincoln University officials as to whether the professor mixed his job with his anti-Israel politics; the university receives state funds.

That these bigots could go as far as they did is abhorrent. Talk about a race to the bottom.

Is it safe? Overreaching against terrorism

“We are safer today as a result of these convictions.”

So proclaimed U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of Manhattan after four Newburgh, N.Y., men were convicted of plotting to bomb two shuls in the Bronx’s Riverdale section and firing missiles at military planes taking off from a base outside Newburgh.

These guys deserved to be convicted, but they needed to conspire with the FBI to commit these crimes. They were motivated to murder their fellow Americans in the name of Allah, but they lacked for supplies and skills until an FBI informant guided them through the process and provided them with the deactivated bombs and missiles to carry out this terrorist act. Are we safer?

In Brooklyn and Manhattan, sizeable crowds outmatched five members - count ‘em, five - of the Westboro Baptist Church who taunted Jews and gays in a series of demonstrations. The Westboro gang tends to be outnumbered wherever they go. Are we safer?

In Jerusalem, the Israeli government decided to require new citizens who are not Jewish to pledge loyalty to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Is Israel safer?

They are all legitimate concerns - homegrown terrorism, bigotry and potential treason. However, each situation constitutes a sideshow which distracts attention from the main issue, wastes resources and potentially bring about new problems.

The FBI responded to the bomb plot in a manner likely designed to make a big splash - four would-be terrorists nabbed in one of the few plush outer-borough neighborhoods left in New York City. Newspaper reports, quoting some unnamed sources, suggested that the feds had a solid case when the defendants picked up the bombs and missiles in Stamford, Conn., which would have precluded any need to follow through with the mock bombings in Riverdale.

Most galling was Bharara’s self-congratulatory words on Oct. 18: “Homegrown terrorism is a serious threat, and today’s convictions affirm our commitment to do everything we can to protect against it.” The FBI moved further than “everything” in counteracting terrorism. Media reports noted that the FBI picked the neighborhood for the crimes and relayed that choice to the defendants through their informant.

As one letter-writer asked, why Riverdale? Westchester County, located between Riverdale and upstate Newburgh, is home to dozens of large, expensive synagogues. Surely the FBI would never choose Riverdale where a “terrorist” act in New York would magnify the event and broadcast to the world that the FBI was doing “everything we can to protect against it.”

Many NYC police officers provided backup when they could have been deployed elsewhere in the city stopping real crimes.

Finally, the FBI endangered the lives of every person in the vicinity by taking the case this far. Suppose one of these guys shot up the street and shot a resident passing by the scene. The FBI made provisions to prevent a shootout, but what if they missed something? Anything could have gone wrong and they should have known that.

The five members of the Westboro Baptist Church, the same Kansas-based group that protests soldiers’ funerals, were met by 125 counter-demonstrators at one stop, The Brooklyn Paper reported. In one instance, Jewish Assemblyman Dov Hikind tried to knock down some church signs, including one reading, “God hates Israel,” according to The New York Jewish Week.

Good people should respond even when such a strange, bigoted group is that small, but was Hikind’s reaction necessary? Now the Westboro five can broadcast how they were harassed, and they would be right.

Israel has amended its citizenship oath so it requires non-Jews to pledge their loyalty to a state that is Jewish. Cabinet members are especially concerned that West Bank males will marry Israeli women as an excuse to embed themselves in Israel so they can one day carry out terrorist acts.

Valid concern, but this change in the oath does nothing more than antagonize the Arab world and embarrass Jews in Israel, America and elsewhere. How hard would it be to check out this guy’s background? It would be a big red flag if the guy is already married, and an excuse to deport them.

These actions are examples of overreaching, to put it mildly. It does not make me feel safer.

Jewish roots of new leader of British Labour Party: Merely a technicality?

Ed Miliband could become the second Jewish-born prime minister of Britain any time in the next few years through either parliamentary elections or earlier, with the possible collapse of the current governing coalition.

Unlike Benjamin Disraeli, Miliband can openly practice Judaism if he chooses. Actually, the 40-year-old Miliband chose to be an atheist. Disraeli was baptized as a Christian at the age of 13 and counted himself as an Anglican. He was elected to Parliament before 1858 when Jews were first permitted to hold office there.

The very idea Miliband was born into a Jewish family will probably infuriate many Israel advocates even more once they learn of his Middle East attitudes. They will dismiss his Jewish roots as a technicality.

Upon his election as the new leader of Britain’s enfeebled Labour Party, Miliband delivered a maiden speech on Sept. 27 that is certain to antagonize much of the pro-Israel crowd. That will make him the second leading British politician - after current Prime Minister David Cameron - to issue upsetting comments about Israel. From a transcript, Miliband says at the tail end of his speech:

“There can be no solution to the conflicts of the Middle East without international action, providing support where it is needed, and pressure where it is right to do so. And let me say this, as Israel ends the moratorium on settlement building, I will always defend the right of Israel to exist in peace and security. But Israel must accept and recognize in its actions the Palestinian right to statehood.

“That is why the attack on the Gaza Flotilla was so wrong.

“And that is why the Gaza blockade must be lifted and we must strain every sinew to work to make that happen. The government must step up and work with our partners in Europe and around the world to help bring a just and lasting peace to the Middle East.”

Strain every sinew?

If he leads Labour once a political opportunity is ripe, Miliband will present liberal British Jews with the same kind of dual loyalty test that American Jews are enduring under President Obama’s tenure. They generally endorse Obama’s progressive policies, but they are either confused by or boiling over his approach to Israel.

Labour was ousted from power when the Conservatives surged in last May’s parliamentary elections and fell short of winning a majority of seats. The Conservatives entered into a shaky alliance with the Liberal Democrats, thus displacing Labour after 13 years in power under prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Ed’s older brother David, who was foreign minister under Brown, was the presumed heir to Brown and ran for the leadership post among a field of five candidates. The more liberal Ed was one of the other four candidates and edged out David in a narrow election.

Both their parents fled Hitler and made their mark in Britain despite their relatively brief family history there. Their late father, Ralph, arrived in 1940, nearly 60 years after Disraeli died. Disraeli became prime minister twice, the first time only for a matter of months in 1868 and the second time for six years, from 1874 to 1880. Queen Victoria admired Disraeli and detested opposition leader William Gladstone.

Ed campaigned on his opposition to the Iraq war, which David supported, and the need for deeper reforms. His policies are very liberal, as outlined in his speech, and like President Clinton he does not know when to shut up. A printed transcript of his repetitive speech runs 21 pages.

His father, a socialist scholar, was a professor at the London School of Economics and became one of Britain’s most acclaimed left-wing intellectuals. His mother, Marion Kozak, was a supporter of Jews for Justice for Palestinians. Ed cohabits with girlfriend Justine Thorn, who is pregnant with their second child, and they plan to marry.

Cameron preceded Miliband with offensive remarks about Israel last July 27 when he visited Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara. Cameron wants Britain to conduct business with Turkey, and Erdogan persists in seeking an apology from Israel for the deaths of nine Turkish blockade-runners on the sea outside Gaza on Memorial Day.

Cameron said, “The situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp…The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. I have told Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous.”

Both Miliband and Cameron conveniently forget that Israel established the blockade to prevent smugglers from using the sea to sneak weapons into Gaza. Why should Israel allow access to a hostile territory? Both the current prime minister and his potential replacement dismiss Hamas’ devotion to Israel’s destruction.

Also, neither Cameron nor Miliband expressed any sympathy for Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit, who was kidnapped by terrorists and presumably held captive in Gaza for the last 51 months.

Neither of these guys know what they’re talking about when discussing Israel. Cameron was downright abrasive when he blasted Israel. Miliband at least voiced his Middle East views in a more subdued manner. Granted that Israel is not immune from criticism, but they fail to understand the dangers facing Israel.

The Brits rightfully griped about contending with President Bush for eight years. Now supporters of Israel must contend with Cameron and Miliband. What can we expect once they strain every sinew?

Memo to Time Mag: No caution, no 'peace'

Editors at Time Magazine may be unfairly accused of anti-Semitism, but they are reckless with their semantics. As experienced journalists, they should understand that misleading language can be dangerous.

The magazine’s Sept. 13 cover headline - “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” - brought its editors condemnation from supporters of Israel. The Anti-Defamation League slammed the Time article for stressing Israelis’ inclination to make money.

Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight, a staunch gentile supporter of Israel, called Time “anti-Semitic” because of the headline and its accompanying article inside which contends that Israelis are apathetic toward the peace process with the Arabs.

Karl Vick, the writer, indeed succeeds in reaching this conclusion. Who can blame the Israelis? Hostilities resulted from the offer of a Palestinian state in 2000 and withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Personally, I long ago ceased understanding what Israel gets out of negotiating a pact with Arabs over Israel’s territories.

Vick and his editors made three mistakes. First, a Time spokesman boasted that the article is a scoop. Oh yeah? A Newsweek article reached the same conclusion last January.

The article carelessly states: “They’re otherwise engaged; they’re making money; they’re enjoying the rays of late summer.”

No doubt that claim is factually true for many Israelis, but the phrase “they’re making money” is delicate wording when applied to Jews, who have been stereotyped as greedy throughout the ages.

The most gaping blunder is the headline, which presumes that Israel is apathetic to peace.

“Peace” is not what Israelis need from Arabs in the territories. They already have a relative level of peace within Israel proper. Terrorist bombings from the West Bank ended after the security barrier started going up. Rocket attacks from Gaza and southern Lebanon dwindled after recent military confrontations with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Time would have been more factual, if tedious, had they composed this headline: “Why Many Israelis Don’t Care About Reaching Terms.”

The word “peace” is tossed around too casually in the context of this conflict, and Time is far from alone in committing this offense. “Peace” has evolved as shorthand for a process that is too convoluted to be reduced to a single five-letter word. It allows for a catchy phrase, but Time editors may disdain letting the facts get in the way of a good headline.

The only objective that seems plausible is the handover of land - namely, Gaza and the West Bank - so the Arabs can form their own society. That’s fine, but a treaty will not ensure “peace” and “peace” need not be achieved through a treaty. Even if it agrees to a near-perfect deal, Israel must still worry about Iran’s nuclear designs and the ongoing arms build-up in Gaza and southern Lebanon.

The same obstacles persist - security needs, excessive Arab demands, settler resistance, Hamas’ control of Gaza and right-wing pressures within the Israeli government.

Hawkish advocates for Israel will insist that the West Bank is not peaceful, but what do the settlers expect when they choose to live amid a hostile population? “Peace” can only be accomplished there by removing the settlers, even unilaterally; expelling the Arabs; or negotiating a pact that is fully enforced. Israelis who live in Israel proper care about West Bank “peace” when their sons and daughters in uniform are assigned to protect the settlements.

For the record, it would be valuable if an accord is reached, but it is still a feat that most Israelis can live without…in peace. Violence can erupt at any time, as was the case with riots in east Jerusalem and the murder of four settlers in recent weeks. Even if a “peace” treaty is ever implemented.

Some suburbs feast as cities starve

The contrast is infuriating.

The loss of nearly $7 million in state funds to Jewish social service agencies in New York City will mean cuts in services to the poor, elderly and immigrants and layoffs of employees who operate those services, according to a New York Jewish Week article.

The city of Newton, Mass. - home to many former Jewish New Yorkers, interestingly - is now served by a $197-million high school which The Boston Globe reports is the most expensive school ever built in Massachusetts. With the known exception of California, it sounds as if Newton North High School may be the most expensive school built in most states.

This scenario exemplifies not only America’s multiple societies but also the Jewish community’s multiple societies. The economic gap in general widens as more people lose jobs, government budgets unravel and charities contend with greater demands and reduced revenues. On Sept. 16, the Census Bureau reported that 44 million Americans struggled below the poverty line in 2009 - a 4 million boost from the previous year.

The New York/Newton contrast sharpens the clarity of this situation. Middle class flight to the suburbs persists. At one time the suburbs were the places where our rich cousins lived. Now most of our friends and relatives have moved there. Even those of us who remain within a city’s borders could one day move there. Those suburbs that were once a foothold for city expatriates is now an anchor, and many others departed their respective metropolitan areas altogether.

Left behind are the most vulnerable citizens. The cities lose tax revenues and their former inhabitants now invest their taxes to build their new communities.

Especially, they ensure that their children can attend quality schools. Seeking a good education is a traditional characteristic of the Jewish people. So it stands to reason that the residents of Newton, Mass., pop. 83,000, would support construction of Massachusetts’ most expensive school.

Newton is a wealthy place that is home to possibly the largest number of Jews in any town close to Boston. It is also a very liberal city that habitually votes for Democrats. It is the only city in the country that has elected black candidates for mayor, governor and president. Republican Sen. Scott Brown won the majority of Massachusetts votes last January, but Newton voters rejected him out of hand.

Many Jews in the Boston suburbs hail from New York City and vicinity. Democratic U.S. Rep. Barney Frank and the late author and professor Howard Zinn, respectively from Bayonne, N.J., and Brooklyn, had moved to Newton. Alan Dershowitz grew up in Brooklyn and joined the Harvard University faculty. Jewish New Yorkers who attend college there often remain. While visiting Brandeis University, I met an elderly couple who said they moved from New York to Waltham to be near their daughter.

In Newton, Jews from New York along with neighbors who are not Jewish or not from New York authorized spending $197.5 million to build a 413,000-square-foot facility that features two theaters, an Olympic-size pool, a print shop, an auto body shop, two gymnasiums and a student café, according to the Globe. Massachusetts Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill proclaimed Newton North a “poster child” for the need to transform the system for constructing schools.

On Manhattan’s Lower East Side, America’s most historic Jewish neighborhood, the United Jewish Council is losing $600,000 in state earmarks which means five agency layoffs and cuts to transportation programs that aid the elderly in making medical and other appointments, senior home care and a health care advocacy coalition, according to the Jewish Week article.

A loss of up to $120,000 to the Council of Jewish Organizations of Flatbush, in Brooklyn, resulted in two layoffs and elimination of a computer literacy program that helped housewives and others return to the workforce. “Now they are up the creek,” Rabbi Yechezkel Pikus, the agency’s director, told the newspaper.

The Bronx Jewish Community Council’s $200,000 loss will prompt future staff reductions, but immediate layoffs can be offset because of previous cuts in staff, executive director Brad Silver told Jewish Week. Silver is responsible for the main JCC and satellite facilities that aid some of New York’s poorest Jews in Co-Op City, Pelham Parkway, Parkchester and the Concourse-North Bronx area.

This money was previously doled out to social service agencies under a legislative earmark program which Gov. David Paterson vetoed, due to the state’s funding crunch. Agencies large and small under the UJA-Federation of New York umbrella are losing $7 million as a result, The Jewish Week reported.

What may be the saving grace for these agencies is the coverage area of the UJA-Federation of New York, the Jewish charity which partially funds these programs. It also serves affluent counties such as Westchester to the north and Long Island’s Nassau and Suffolk counties. What would Federation have done without suburban donors?

If we do the math, this $7 million is a drop in the bucket for Newton taxpayers, not that residents were unanimous in supporting the scope of the new school. Now there are questions as to the challenges in paying off Newton North.

The principle of sharing the wealth has been progressively threatened by a refusal to tax the rich more fairly and the unexpected emergence of city and state deficits. President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress faced defiance from Republicans and some Democrats in restoring higher federal income tax rates for the wealthy.

Arguments against raising taxes for the rich make little sense. Some of the largest numbers among the wealthy live in metropolitan areas that consistently vote Democratic, particularly New York and Los Angeles. Most suburbs close to New York and Los Angeles are represented in the House of Representatives by Democrats.

We do not begrudge the people of Newton the opportunity to support their community resources, but they are feasting while New York agencies starve, somewhat literally at that. Some balance is in order here.

A Jones keeps up with the goons of August

Hillary Clinton is spot on here: That now-canceled Koran bonfire in Gainesville, Fla., pop. 126,000, would have been a “disrespectful, disgraceful act.” So was the U.S. Senate’s majority vote in October 2002 to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq.

Sure, the Rev. Terry Jones probably would have provoked Muslims around the world had he burned a pile of Korans on the his church’s property on the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy. As provocations go, the catastrophic invasion of a Muslim nation trumps a stunning Koran-burning any day.

Clinton, whose vote as New York’s junior senator helped make Bush’s provocation possible, must share the blame for the creation of this new monster. After all, Jones joins a long line of Americans and others from supposedly civilized nations who have incited the Muslim world in recent years. They were especially active during their summer vacation in a drive, so it seems, to trigger World War III.

A bit ironic that World War I hostilities opened in August 96 years ago and Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939.

Our government is no less responsible for inciting Muslim violence than Jones and the other goons of August. The Afghanistan operation might have been necessary, but Bush and Congress were repeatedly warned that the Iraq invasion could produce a bloody quagmire. It sure did, and despite President Obama’s pronouncement that we have turned the page, it is far from over. Congress had its chance nearly eight years ago to assess the risks of entering Iraq, but in quick order majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to give Bush authorization.

While Clinton was not alone in voting for this measure, her condemnation of Jones - in her present position as Secretary of State - was both contemptible and laughable at the same time.

I try not to throw up a person’s past mistakes at them, but I nearly lost it as I learned how so many people who helped make Jones denounced him. Sarah Palin’s gross hypocrisy was expected, but Clinton is a far more accomplished person. General David Petraeus never publicly warned of the prospect of Iraq’s chaotic aftermath, yet here he is alerting us that the burning might jeopardize our troops.

Even the Vatican weighed in against Jones, a few years after Pope Benedict XVI spent part of a speech to quote a passage that denigrated Islam. He was not worried about provoking the Muslim world at that time. We will not count the Crusades and the Inquisition against the modern-day church.

Jones could especially draw inspiration from the assorted goons of August who abrasively assailed the proposed mosque two blocks from Ground Zero; a taxi passenger who charged in the stabbing of his driver in Manhattan after asking if he is a Muslim; a suspected arsonist who set fire to construction equipment on the planned site for expansion of a Murfreesboro, Tenn., mosque; and opponents to mosque proposals in small towns never stung by Islamic violence.

Across the Atlantic, a right-wing mob threw rocks, bottles and a smoke bomb at police in Bradley, England, which contains a large Muslim community; a bank official in Berlin accused Turkish immigrants of exploiting Germany’s social welfare system; and an ultra-Orthodox rabbi sermonized that God should strike “these Ishmaelites and Palestinians with a plague, these evil haters of Israel.”

For the record, many lovers of Israel like myself never heard of this rabbi; many opponents of the Manhattan mosque are genuinely concerned solely about its location; and the hoodlums in England and the Berlin banker are in the minority in their countries.

We were all as relieved as Hillary Clinton when Jones called off his bonfire, but Jones did not emerge in isolation. All this hypocrisy should, well, burn us up.

Ambush underscores settlement danger

“Everybody loses if there is no peace.” So stated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House to herald the revival of peace talks.

Too bad Israeli troops were not around to keep the peace the night before on the road to the West Bank settlement of Beit Hagal. What two women and two men had to lose were their lives, near Hebron.

Nothing justifies how these savages fired upon their car and removed the victims from the vehicle when they shot them again to ensure that they were dead. The New York Times carried a photo of Hodaya Ames, 9, as she wept next to the draped body of her mother, Tali Ames, 45, who had been pregnant and was also a grandmother.

However, the Israeli government under the current and past administrations - whether right-wing or left-leaning - knows that the Aug. 31 slaughter is the latest in an ongoing pattern of Arab attacks in the decades since the settlements swelled in the West Bank.

In October 2000, two Israeli reservists mistakenly drove into Ramallah where a mob stabbed and beat them to death, The Los Angeles Times reported. Two months later, the son and daughter-in-law of the controversial Rabbi Meir Kahane were killed by terrorists while traveling near Ramallah, leaving six orphaned children, according to the Ynet Web site.

The West Bank has been relatively calm during the last two years, but Jews there are nonetheless vulnerable because the isolated settlements are difficult to protect. They exist in the midst of a hostile Arab population, and many settlers and the soldiers assigned to protect them have been killed or injured.

Because of these dangers, Israel should never have allowed settlements to be built in Gaza and the scattered sections of the West Bank. The government could have acted unilaterally any time, as it started with Gaza, to evacuate the settlements.

Fortunately, many of these settlements are obvious objects for removal in the revived talks, if they are still on, while the government plans to retain communities located near Jerusalem because a greater amount of Israelis live there, making these areas easier to protect.

Jews do have a right to live in the West Bank, but the isolated sites are unmanageable. Jews lived there prior to 1948 and Israel captured the territory in 1967 in a war effectively begun by its Arab neighbors. Advocates for the Arabs will cite international law which they say prohibits an occupying power from developing land that it conquered in war. They also claim that Israel stole land from Arabs who lived there, an accusation which Israelis sharply dispute.

Settlers may well resist any attempts to evacuate them, a likely complication that might have been averted had Yasser Arafat accepted a peace settlement at Camp David in 2000. At the time, settlers were reportedly somewhat resigned to the prospect of leaving, but they have become more hardened since the Gaza evacuation in 2005. Case in point: The Hebron slaughter prompted settler leaders to declare a resumption of settlement expansion.

Jeff Jacoby, a Boston Globe columnist, recently characterized the Gaza evacuation as “a disaster in every respect.” Jacoby and other hardliners correctly point to the Hamas takeover and the excessive rocket attacks on southern Israel.

They neglect to mention that settlers and troops in Gaza are no longer vulnerable to terrorist violence because the settlers no longer live there and troops are no longer stationed there. There were plenty of grisly incidents similar to the West Bank assaults chronicled above.

If Israel erred at all in Gaza, it was probably in the removal of all the soldiers. They might have left a smaller contingent behind to block arms smuggling and prevent attacks on southern Israel. That is probably what they should do in the West Bank.

As the settlements continue to function as a powderkeg, maybe Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will resolve the issue to everyone’s satisfaction, including the settlers and their Arab neighbors. There is scant reason to be optimistic.

Alternative peace plans to consider

Low expectations, or no expectations, can only benefit the revived Middle East peace talks.

As Tevye in “Fiddler on the Roof” assesses his future son-in-law, Motel the tailor, we can characterize the Israeli and Arab leaders’ prospects thus: “They have absolutely nothing. On the other hand, things could never get worse for them. They could only get better.”

To the surprise of only the most optimistic, the average observer fully anticipates the new talks to fizzle out before the one-year self-imposed deadline ends. The Washington Post signaled that this new development hardly constitutes major news by running the story of the announcement on page two.

With expectations so low, Israelis and Arabs might not be too disappointed if the talks are unproductive. It will be all the more an impressive surprise if Israel and the Arabs reach a settlement that will improve the lives of both peoples.

In typical inside-the-box thinking, they are operating on the assumption that an independent Palestinian state is the solution. Is that the only possible solution?

A Palestinian state could founder for any number of reasons: Israeli security concerns, unknown governing abilities, the undersized dimensions of the territory, excessive Arab demands, divided Arab factions, settler resistance to expulsion and so on. Said Palestinian state could be dependent on international support for years, maybe forever.

There are other possibilities which are presented here as raw concepts. They are likewise vulnerable to failure. Present realities alone, such as Hamas’ stranglehold on Gaza, could preclude their chances of success:

Annex Alternative - On paper, this concept makes the most sense. Egypt would annex Gaza and Jordan would negotiate with Israel to annex part of the West Bank. Egypt is located adjacent to Gaza, and the West Bank is separated from Jordan by the narrow Jordan River. Egypt and Jordan both have peace treaties with Israel and will provide a ready-made defense operation. As Arabs, most of their citizens share the same religion and traditions.

Downside: The leaders of both Egypt and Jordan want nothing to do with the territories, which ironically they spent 25 years trying to seize by force. They fear that extremists will attempt to undermine their governments. Likewise, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has dismissed such an arrangement.

Disengagement, again - Israel would unilaterally pull out of the West Bank with the exception of the Jerusalem suburbs. Unlike the Gaza pullout, Israel would maintain a military presence to prevent attacks on Israel proper and arms smuggling from Jordan. While some believe Israel has a right to occupy the West Bank, the territory has been a burden since both settlers and the troops assigned to protect them have been vulnerable to attacks.

Downside: The Palestinian Authority will probably balk at such a move and many settlers will resolve to remain in place. Israel should go through the motions of consulting beforehand with both parties. If the authority refuses to cooperate, that is their decision. Israel should not try to forcibly remove the settlers, and let them know that they are on their own; consider that many settlers have military experience and have no doubt assembled arsenals of their own.

Knesset in Charge - Israel would continue to occupy the territories in a shared governance arrangement. The West Bank and Gaza (assuming that Hamas is contained) would be formed as provinces or states of Israel. The citizens would vote for their own elected officials who will be responsible for all locally-oriented services and Israel would administer programs which affect both Israel proper and the territories.

Downside: While the Palestinian Authority would condemn this plan for lesser reasons, they would oppose the denial of voting rights for national elections. This plan is designed as a compromise so that citizens of the territories can elect officials responsible for direct local needs. However, their inability to vote in national elections would preclude them from dominating the national government. This is an admission that, if it comes down to it, Israel must remain Jewish as the sovereign power. Israel was created as a Jewish state in the middle of far larger Muslim-dominated countries.

Turkish Dish - The bloody flotilla incident could offer a silver lining. The Turkish government and a controversial charity organization claimed they are deeply concerned about the fate of Gaza’s citizens. They have a chance to prove it: Annex Gaza and maybe the West Bank. Turkey can govern one or both territories and set everything right. They have the resources and their close relationship with Hamas might permit a peaceful end to Hamas’ chokehold. Turkey is close enough geographically to Gaza for ready access, but far enough that Gaza is not positioned to undermine its government. Turkey would be responsible for security and must answer for any lapses.

Downside: Obviously, Turkey may not be willing to put its money where its mouth is. Hamas may be unwilling to cooperate with Turkey.

Each one of these plans is filled with pitfalls, but no more or less than a formalized two-state solution. My expectations that any of the parties would give these proposals any consideration are, well, quite low. Who knows? There could be a workable solution down there somewhere.

Silence of the (Arab) Lambs

Heartwarming words from Sarah Shiha, a student at Ain Shams University in Cairo: “Apart from the political issues, we are humans. I respect your religion, you respect mine.”

Her next comment, on Israel, sounded more robotic than humane: “What we see is that we had a land, and that people came and took this land. Now they want to stay here, and every day they are killing more and more of our siblings.”

Shiha is among 20 students from Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon who participated in a five-week program sponsored by the U.S. State Department to learn how religious pluralism is among America’s great strengths, according to an article in The Jewish Exponent of Philadelphia.

It seems that Shiha and her associates could have been a tad more diplomatic, especially since her inflammatory comment might be read by thousands of American Jews. She could have easily sidestepped the question by insisting she needed to learn more about the Israeli/Arabic conflict, couldn’t she? She might have faced more than verbal disdain back home. She might be murdered by her own people.

In the Middle East, free speech can carry a fatal price. Arabs have murdered their own who were suspected of collaborating with Israel, and Arab leaders who suggested or acted upon peaceful existence with Israel. Remember Anwar el-Sadat?

Yasser Arafat indicated that he feared a comparable fate if he assented to the peace plan offered during the Camp David summit 10 years ago. In his book “The Missing Peace,” Dennis Ross (then President Clinton’s Middle East envoy) relates a conversation in which Arafat asked then secretary of state Madeleine Albright if she wanted to attend his funeral. This comment came out of left field, but why else would he say this?

Arafat’s comment could invite some sarcastic responses - such as, his funeral was long overdue. I think his top motive for rejecting the plan was fear that other Arabs would kill him because they refused to accept any peace settlement.

It is clear that many Arabs keep silent because they fear retaliation. Of course, it is impossible to determine how many Arabs really loathe Israel and those who follow the script to protect themselves and their families.

Examples do abound. Before returning to his current prime minister post, Benjamin Netanyahu was asked by a television interviewer to identify Arab businesspeople with whom he communicates; he refused because, he said, it would jeopardize their lives. I recently read a report of an Arab man who saved Jews during World War II and told them to say nothing about his help. Israeli leaders claim that Arabs who sold land to Jews denied doing so because they could be harmed.

Some months ago, a native Iranian on a German sports team refused to play against an Israeli team. He did not offer this as a reason, but he still had family in Iran who could be endangered by his participation in that game.

The Arab and Muslim world is tightly controlled in parts. Putting Israel aside, ordinary Arabs and Muslims must worry about violent feuds between families and tribes, honor killings of women and conflicts with the ruling class. On Aug. 8, an Iranian attorney fled to Norway after he defended a woman who faced being stoned to death because she allegedly committed adultery.
An Afghan couple were stoned to death, on Taliban orders, because they allegedly cheated on his wife and her family-chosen fiance.

Those familiar with the Middle East attest that roughly half of Turkish and Iranian citizens are sensible people who yearn for more moderate leaders. Egyptian businesspersons worked well with their Israeli counterparts, and Turks in the military oppose their ultra-religious regime.

Tom Friedman of The New York Times reported on a Gazan woman whose son’s life was saved by a Jewish physician at an Israeli hospital. Now she wants her son to blow up…er, grow up…to become a suicide bomber. Consider that she must return home to face not only her neighbors but also Hamas, which has the power to make life miserable for her.

It is most annoying that American Muslims readily complain of bigotry, yet are less consistent in condemning Islamic-related violence - especially when Israelis are victimized. Muslim society in America appears to be closeted and hard to figure out.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the driving force behind the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, dodged a radio reporter’s question as to whether he concurred with the State Department’s designation of Hamas as a terrorist group, The New York Jewish Week reported.

Said Rauf: “I’m not a politician. I try to avoid the issues. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question…I’m a bridge builder. I define my work as a bridge builder…I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy.”

Far from an exercise in clarity.

I wouldn’t begin to guess what Rauf is really thinking. However, many Arabs and Muslims probably are scared to openly express their true feelings.

It is strange that free speech exists on two levels in our own country - one standard for most of us and a self-imposed standard for a stifled and bewildering minority.

New attacks underscore security concerns

‘Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them, Cannon in front of them volley’d and thunder’d; Storm’d at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well, Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of Hell Rode the six hundred.’

- from ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’ by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Gaza rockets from the south of them, a Sinai rocket from the southeast of them and an OK Corral-style shootout from the north of them.

These days, Israel’s multiple conflicts resemble the aforementioned passage in “The Charge of the Light Brigade.” Where is Errol Flynn when we need him?

Israel endured a two-front war at this time four years ago, and in recent months it has contended with attacks on four fronts, by my count - the blockade incident on the high seas, Gaza, southern Lebanon and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty three decades ago, yet Egypt cannot control terrorists operating on its lands.

Meanwhile, President Obama and others pine for the day when Israel hands over the West Bank to the Palestinians so they can, supposedly, live happily ever after. Many in the pro-Israel camp believe that the Arabs will never be happy until all of Israel is, well, no longer Israel.

Foes of a Palestinian state have said that Israel does not need another front. The most worrisome concern over a Palestinian state is Israel’s security. The border between Israel and the West Bank is much longer than its other borders, and Israel proper is directly vulnerable to attack.

Israeli leaders have said that Ben Gurion International Airport is within range of the West Bank. Security must be directly addressed before Israel considers further negotiations about the West Bank. It has not been adequately addressed.

Some protective measures have been taken. Construction of a security barrier along the border has eliminated terrorist attacks that were rampant up to five years ago. A strong Palestinian security force has been built. The West Bank has been much calmer. Still, none of these developments combined guarantee that Israel will be safe from attack if a Palestinian state is established.

Events of recent weeks underscore security concerns. Israel withdrew all troops and settlers from the Sinai Peninsula three decades ago; all troops from Lebanon in 2000; and all troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005. After Yasser Arafat rejected a peace plan in 2000, the Palestinians started a war that led to fierce fighting in Gaza and the West Bank and terrorist attacks in Israel proper. The Gaza evacuation was followed by thousands of rocket attacks into Sderot and other sections of southern Israel.

My educated guess in 2005 was that the Gaza evacuation would produce some aggression, but Israel could manage it. I was wrong.

Beyond rocket attacks, Israel fought a two-front war against terrorists in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, and again in Hamas-controlled Gaza in December 2009. More worrisome is the build-up of weapons in Gaza and Lebanon to be used for future assaults against Israel.

Last month, Gaza terrorists broke a long lull firing rockets that struck the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon and an Israeli college near the border, The New York Times reported.

Then Monday, Aug. 2: A barrage of missiles fired from the Sinai Peninsula struck both the resort city Eilat in Israel and neighboring Aqaba in Jordan, where a taxi driver was killed. Egypt subsequently admitted that they were fired from Sinai, ostensibly under Egyptian control.

The following day, Lebanese soldiers - possibly influenced by Hezbollah - fired at Israeli soldiers over a petty border dispute. United nations peacekeepers declared that the Lebanese were entirely at fault.

It should be no surprise if someone - perhaps Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - was conspiring to provoke Israel to engage in yet another war.

With all this on Israel’s plate, Israeli leaders are still willing to enter negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. Fortunately, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has raised security concerns.

What might that entail? Possibly Israel can evacuate the more isolated settlements while maintaining a strong military presence. However, that military presence would be trimmed somewhat because the troops would not need to worry about protecting the settlements.

Maybe that will not be necessary, but I for one do not want to be wrong again.

Dual loyalty test possible in Pa.

A dual loyalty test approaches that Jews in Pennsylvania do not need.

Old conservative hands William Kristol and Gary Bauer are being abrasive…er, gracious…enough to spend time reminding us that we could be choosing between policies that will better America and those that imperil the security of Israel. How generous of them.

As is usual in mid-term elections, President Obama’s policies will be reconsidered by voters this November through Democratic surrogates running for House and Senate seats. Jewish voters in Pennsylvania must choose between Obama’s slow-moving progressive agenda and deep concerns over the White House’s depth of support for Israel.

The vast majority of American Jews - roughly 75 to 80 percent - nearly automatically vote for
Democrats or moderate Republicans because of their support for centrist and liberal policies.
Nearly 80 percent of Jews were estimated to vote for Obama in 2008 at a time when we had a right to wonder about Obama’s position on Israel.

During the special Senate election in Massachusetts last January, the majority of voters in most towns with large Jewish populations, especially Newton and Brookline, cast ballots for Democrat Martha Coakley over Scott Brown, the Republican who won the election. However, there were no known reports of Israel being raised as an issue.

This year, the dual loyalty test for Pennsylvania Jews is more sharply defined.

Injecting part of that sharper definition is U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, who is accused by some supporters of Israel of anti-Israel attitudes. He beat Sen. Arlen Specter in last May’s Democratic primary and faces Republican Pat Toomey in November. Toomey is an ultra conservative former congressman, and Republicans claim to staunchly back Israel.

Kristol and Bauer have formed the Emergency Committee for Israel which targeted Sestak with hardhitting television ads, reported Politico and The New York Jewish Week.

Team Kristol/Bauer’s initiative could prove a double-edged sword. Maybe it will serve as shock therapy for Obama and Democratic senators and representatives who stubbornly assail Israel’s blockade of Gaza, peace-process policies and Jerusalem housing. American Jews have understandable reasons to be upset with the White House and some congressional Democrats.
However, invoking Israel as an election issue could get messy.

Sestak was among 54 Democrats criticizing Israel’s blockade of Gaza without mentioning the four-year imprisonment of Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit, who was seized by terrorists in a cross-border raid on June 25, 2006.

However, Sestak was subsequently a co-sponsor of a House bill urging the immediate release of Shalit.

Obama repeatedly calls the conditions in Gaza “unsustainable,” yet critics ignore the fact that Israel no longer runs Gaza. Hamas governs it, and that makes them responsible for the welfare of their citizens. Hamas has launched thousands of rocket attacks against Israel, which is positioned to advance or devastate Gaza’s economy as it pleases.

Vice President Biden’s outburst last March over housing plans in Jerusalem triggered anger among Jews because the project was proposed in a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem, and many supporters of Israel oppose giving up any part of Jerusalem to the Arabs. Biden’s complaint would have been understandable if he referred to West Bank settlement expansion, which has far less support among Jews.

Granted, a vocal Jewish minority adamantly opposes any peace settlement, adheres to the biblical proclamation that God gave all this land to the Jews and refuses to criticize any Israeli failings. Most American Jews are flexible and rational - to varying degrees - in assessing the situation and for now believe Israel is in the right on most basic issues.

Obama and Congress deserve credit for persistently contesting Iran’s nuclear ambitions; standing behind Israel’s response to attempts to breach its blockade of Gaza; and being deeply involved in the peace process. Sestak has pointed to many of his strong pro-Israel positions.

Nonetheless, Obama and Sestak invited the wrath of Kristol and Bauer - respectively, the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, and a former Republican presidential candidate - because of their aforementioned positions. It would benefit everyone, except political opportunists, if Obama and other members of Congress would rethink their past actions.

This emergency committee already struck with an advertisement carried on Comcast blasting
Sestak’s letter on the Gaza blockade while refusing to sign a petition of defense of Israel circulated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and for his appearance at a fundraiser for the Council on American Islamic Relations, which the FBI called a “front group for Hamas,” Politico reported.

The ad’s narrator asks, “Does Congressman Joe Sestak understand Israel is America’s ally?”

Sestak spokeswoman April Mellody tells Politico of Sestak’s pro-Israel record, but adds this dismissive statement: “It’s political silly season so it’s not surprising these conservatives are trying to distort Joe’s record.”

Israel is fair game in an election. Though conservatives can be shrill on many issues, Kristol and
Bauer raise legitimate concerns on Israel’s fate. Shamefully, rational discourse is hardly the outcome when Israel is raised as an issue. Any American Jew can be rightfully apprehensive that mention of the Middle East in this election could become ugly and chaotic.

Remember that Republicans’ most sincere intentions have not always translated into the best outcome for Israel. President Bush created a monster when he drove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, which freed up Iran from its historic tensions with Iraq. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - the monster in question - emerged as Iran’s president and focused his government’s attention on threatening Israel with nuclear annihilation.

Less than two weeks following the committee’s formation, The Philadelphia Daily News reported that Sestak said his campaign asked Comcast to cease running the ad because it is “harming Israel’s security.” How does an advertisement jeopardize Israel?

Just as puzzling are these words, also quoted in The Daily News, uttered by committee spokesman Michael Goldfarb: “We were outraged that they tried to get our ad taken down through legal threats.” Sorry their feelings were hurt.

Rational discourse this isn’t. So far, absurdity trumps reason. Kind of like life in the Middle East.

The British are bashing! The British are bashing!

This is a tale of two David Camerons. Each of them is known as the prime minister of Britain and leader of the Conservative Party.

There is the David Cameron who proclaims himself a “Conservative Friend of Israel” on the Web site of Conservative Friends of Israel, which promotes support for Israel and conservative ideas in Britain.

This is the David Cameron who rebuffed American demands to investigate the release of a Libyan terrorist convicted in the Lockerbie passenger jet bombing in Scotland. The David Cameron who tolerates Turkey’s blockade of ships from Cyprus.

Then there is the other David Cameron who bashed Israel and European leaders during his visit to Turkey on Tuesday, July 27, and met with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. This David Cameron uttered these words about Israel:

“The situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp…The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. I have told prime minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change.”

The Guardian, a London daily newspaper, suggests that Cameron’s hissy fit amounted to an overheated intensification of past criticisms of Israel. Cameron told the House of Commons on June 28: “Everybody knows that we are not going to sort out the problem of the Middle East peace process while there is, effectively, a giant open prison in Gaza.”

No mention of Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit’s four-year imprisonment in Gaza. Or Hamas’ rocket attacks, weapons smuggling and its pledge to destroy Israel. Or that Hamas murders, tortures and terrorizes its own people. Or that the flotilla committed an act of war by attempting to breach the blockade. Or that Turkish terrorists on the Mavi Marmora attacked Israeli commandos.

The Guardian also reported that he accused France and Germany of double standards for refusing Turkey membership in the European Union while expecting Turkey to guard Europe’s borders as a NATO member.

Of that situation, it turns out that Turkey operates a blockade of its own - against Cyprus. Cameron forgets to mention that the EU has barred Turkey from membership partly because it denies ships from Cyprus entry to Turkish ports. Cyprus is an EU member and the northern part of the island is occupied by Turkey.

Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 in the wake of a power struggle with Greece; Cyprus is populated mainly by ethnic Greeks and Turks, respectively 80 percent and 20 percent.

Most of us would have noticed if past British prime ministers attacked Israel so viciously. In fact, with their English accents and refined manner, who can imagine a British prime minister behaving in such an abrasive manner? Cameron’s words were so blunt he could not even sound ironic or sarcastic.

Cameron’s style - if you can call it a style - was pure bullying. To characterize him as pond scum would be an insult to pond scum. He is intellectually dishonest and contradicts himself in a number of areas. Worse, his rant is downright dangerous.

Past prime ministers like Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher, whose ideologies were far apart from one another, conducted themselves with a measure of class and decorum. Of course, their jobs were more stable. Cameron sounds like a desperate politician who expects to be in trouble in the next election. He must understand by now that his fellow Brits did not return the Conservative Party to power out of love for it.

The Conservatives exploited a set of circumstances to oust the Labor Party from controlling Parliament a few months ago. Fresh from their defeat, Labor leaders are carefully examining what went wrong. Cameron knows that continuation of Conservative power is by no means ensured in the next election.

One would think that the leader of the Conservative Party would be more supportive of Israel, or at least more careful with his words.

The Wall Street Journal relates this explanation from Wolfango Piccoli, analyst at Eurasia Group, a political-risk consultancy: “Support for Turkey is nothing new, but the economy is the bottom line. One of the aims of the Cameron administration is to raise the level of exports - and Turkey is part of that.”

At Israel’s expense, no less.

Perhaps the Liberal Democrats, his coalition partner, influenced him. Or he is mining votes among British Muslims. Maybe he hopes that liberal Britons will consider voting Conservative.

After this performance, how can Cameron make any claim to credibility? He is prime minister of one of the world’s greatest powers. Does he believe that his hypocrisy will go unnoticed?

Finding obnoxious...er, common...ground (Groan!)

Curious how both an Orthodox Jewish leader and a Jewish gay-rights activist could be just as tactless and insulting.

Toronto’s Elle Flanders joined the city’s Pride Parade as spokesperson for Queers Against Israeli Apartheid to bash Israel. Jewish organizations protested her group’s inclusion in the parade, and parade sponsor Pride Toronto initially banned its participation and then reversed itself.

Nathan Diament, who directs the Institute for Public Affairs of the Orthodox Union, railed against a call to action to fund only organizations which have non-discrimination policies - namely, those that hire Jews of gay orientation.

Flanders did not account for the possibility that her tactics might divert attention from the Pride Parade’s primary message: promoting inclusion and tolerance, as attorney and gay activist Martin Gladstone put it. “(QuAIA) has created a divisive, hateful environment,” he told The Canadian Jewish News. “(Pride turned) from a celebration to a battleground.”

“It’s about gay rights. Or it used to be,” added Paul Druzin, a gay participant who served in the Israel Defense Forces.

My on-and-off experience with activism taught me that it is not wise to combine unrelated issues at the same event. Flanders’ Israel-bashing tack could have overwhelmed the ambience of the parade, which fortunately it did not do.

Accusing Israel of “apartheid” is a broad brushed phrase sure to inflame Jews and other supporters of Israel. Flanders would have benefited everyone if she sought a more focused forum and had been more clear about her concerns.

Enough supporters of Israel marched with Kulanu Toronto, the city’s Jewish gay-rights organization as a counter-protest to Flanders’ group. Justine Apple, Kulanu’s executive director, said the number of people marching with Kulanu quadrupled from last year to 500, the Jewish News reported.

Before the event, city councilors proposed retrieving the city’s contribution of $121,000 for the parade and deny Pride Toronto funding for next year. Flanders’ organization is entitled to free speech, but the city has the freedom not to pay for it.

Flanders, who once lived in Israel, dug her hole deeper by telling the Jewish News: “Pride is what it’s always been about, which is achieving equality. Equal rights is about having a voice. I think debate is healthy…The core of American democracy is free speech. It shocks me when it’s free speech for me but not for you.”

Flanders also wants begin a dialogue in the Jewish community about Israeli policy. What dialogue? Her mind is already made up.

From Tulsa, Okla., Lynn Schusterman penned an op-ed for Jewish newspapers urging more forceful support for Jews who count themselves part of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community.

“The continued marginalization of LGBT Jews is especially disheartening for those of us who believe in the power of a fully inclusive Jewish community that embraces every Jew as ‘b’tzelem elokim,’ made in God’s image,” writes Schusterman, who chairs the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation.

Then she throws down the gauntlet: “We are asking all Jewish organizations to join our foundation in adopting non-discrimination hiring policies that specifically mention sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. We are also challenging donors to join us in holding organizations accountable for doing so…we will only consider funding organizations that have non-discrimination policies covering both sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.”

In a counter op-ed, Diament writes, “She’s overlooked the fact that many synagogues and day schools run under Orthodox auspices or the auspices of other ‘traditional’ views cannot embrace homosexual activity as legitimate, a perspective based upon clear teachings of Jewish law and tradition going back to the Bible.”

Diament goes on to defend an exemption in Congress from the federal Employment Non-
Discrimination Act to ban workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He also warns that Schusterman’s proposal, “if taken to its logical conclusion, would result in Orthodox institutions being excluded from Jewish community support by having them denied funding from Jewish foundations and, one presumes, federations.”

Diament’s main fear is likely that Orthodox organizations might lose support from some Jewish groups, but he is disingenuous to warn about the Federation system, the Jewish charity operation that allocates money for services for the Jewish community and Israel.

Federation leaders would be suicidal to deny Orthodox organizations funding with the exception of legitimate reasons unrelated to sexual orientation. The federations reach out to any Jews for contributions, and it is easier with the Orthodox because they are so close-knit.

Diament’s reference to Congress seems misplaced. He claims that Congress “realized that an exemption for religious employers is a necessary balancing of civil rights for gays and the religious liberties of sectarian institutions.”

Doubtful. Members of Congress probably feared they would lose far more votes among the ultra-religious than the gay community.

At least, Diament and Flanders can claim to have something in common. It would help us all if they looked to Schusterman’s example of goodwill.