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.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, November 12, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)