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.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)