The Anti-Defamation League allies with haters of Israel, Hamas apologists and blood libelers

 

The Arab Stooge, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO and National Director of ADL

When three Jewish teens were kidnapped and murdered by Hamas, Israel fought back, Jews mourned, and Sheera Frenkel rushed to claim that Hamas wasn’t responsible.

“There is a Hamas official in the story saying they are not Hamas,” she insisted on Twitter.

It was a low point in her career of smearing Israel with lies and hate, but not unusual.

Frenkel had accused Israel of using white phosphorus, falsely claimed that there had been a blast at an Iranian nuclear facility, wrongly described an Israeli ban on construction materials, and concluded her coverage of the brutal murder of a Rabbi and his family in Mumbai, India with a quote suggesting that “the attitudes of the Chabad, which gives the sense of an elite club for Jews alone, is part of what provoked the terrorists to target them for the attack.”

This is the sort of ugly hateful behavior the ADL should be condemning, not celebrating.

J Street uses a German pro-terrorist EU bureaucrat to malign Jewish neighborhood

 

Germans aren't happy that there are still Jews alive, but now they have help from a supposed "pro-Israel" antisemitic organization. J Street a self hating Jewish organization are joining the Germans to try to dismantle the Jewish state ...

J Street, in a mid-November email appeal, quoted an unnamed "top EU diplomat" in its tirade against an Israeli government call for bids for new homes in a nearly 30 year-old Jerusalem neighborhood, Givat Hamatos, where Ethiopian Jewish and Russian immigrants live.

What's worse than J Street's vitriol against the construction of Jewish homes, is that the name of the EU functionary was left off of J Street's rant, probably intentionally, because he is an anti-Israel extremist who earlier this year gave outright support for terrorists. According to Israel's Foreign Ministry, he stated that Palestinian Arabs affiliated with blacklisted groups remain eligible to participate in projects funded by the EU.

J Street is the controversial Washington, D.C., based Jewish pressure group that, judging by its actions, seems to have been created specifically, and almost exclusively, to lobby for an independent Palestinian state. J Street maintains, as a central theme, that Jews do not have a right to live wherever they choose and must be transferred out of their homes and neighborhoods in wide swaths of Judea-Samaria where Israeli citizens have lived for nearly fifty years.

The EU bureaucrat who opposes Jewish homes in Givat Hamatos in southern Jerusalem, and who was quoted by J Street, is a German named Sven Kühn von Burgsdorff.

Von Burgsdorff previously was the head of the EU's delegation to South Sudan and in a May 8, 2020 JTA article, he was identified as heading the "EU mission to the West Bank and Gaza Strip."

KINDLY SUPPORT OUR BLOG BY BROWSING THE ADS

THANKS SO MUCH, IT MEANS A LOT ESPECIALLY IN THESE DIFFICULT TIMES!  

J Street Endorses Vicious Anti-Semite Anti-White Candidate for Senate in Georgia

 

J Street is proud to endorse @ReverendWarnock in the Georgia Senate runoff! pic.twitter.com/liIUhAXRj5

— J Street (@jstreetdotorg) November 18, 2020

KINDLY SUPPORT OUR BLOG BY BROWSING THE ADS

THANKS SO MUCH, IT MEANS A LOT ESPECIALLY IN THESE DIFFICULT TIMES!   

Evil Jewish Congressman Andy Levin & 106 DemocRATS Congressmen Write Letter To Pompeo To Pull Back His Declaration "that Settlements are not illegal"

Over 100 Democratic House members on Friday excoriated the Trump administration for softening its position on Israel’s West Bank settlements.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday announced that “the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law,” breaking with decades of US policy.

The move, legislators wrote in a letter to Pompeo, made the possibility of an Israel-Palestinian peace agreement more difficult and hurt America’s interests in the Middle East.

“The announcement… has discredited the United States as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, severely damaged prospects for peace, and endangered the security of America, Israel, and the Palestinian people,” the letter says.

Orchestrated by the Jewish Michigan Representative Andy Levin, a freshman Democrat, the missive was signed by several other prominent members of Congress, including Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar, Rhode Island Representative David Cicilline, Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin, Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib, and others.

The lawmakers warned that the Trump administration’s decision “blatantly disregards Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention” regarding the rules governing the actions of an occupying power.

* Kindly Support Our Blog by Browsing the Ads.

J Street "anti-Semites" Fervently Campaign Against Trump's Pick For Ambassador To Israel

The anti-Semitic, anti-Israel,liberal Jewish group J Street is pushing a campaign against David Friedman, US President Donald Trump’s pick to serve as ambassador to Israel. Ahead of Friedman’s confirmation hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this Thursday, J Street is scrambling to transmit its plea far and wide: “Stop Friedman.”

The self-hating Jewish group is calling on supporters and non-supporters alike to appeal to senators to oppose Friedman’s confirmation, charging that his appointment should alarm all Americans, including those who tend to disagree with J Street.

“David Friedman is a friend of the settlement movement who backs unlimited settlement expansion, has accused [former] president [Barack] Obama of being an anti-semite and says that liberal Zionists are ‘worse than kapos,’” the advocacy group stated. Anti-Jewish J Street supporters were the targets of the latter insult, while members of the Anti-Defamation League were branded by Friedman as “morons.”

“The contempt Mr. Friedman has shown toward liberal American Jews – labeling them worse than Nazi collaborators – makes him a horrible choice to be our representative in Israel,” reads a letter drafted by the anti-Semitic J Street for Friedman opponents to send to their senators.

The letter also accuses Friedman of posing “a threat to longstanding US policies in the Middle East that have been supported by Democratic and Republican presidents alike.” Friedman – who has a long personal history of supporting the settler enterprise – has referred to the two-state solution as a “scam” and “an illusory solution in search of a nonexistent problem.”

Friedman served as one of Trump’s two advisers on Israel throughout his presidential campaign. A bankruptcy lawyer, he has no prior experience in diplomacy or governance, another point highlighted by J Street.

Following Friedman’s nomination in December, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus responded to questions about his politics by asserting that Friedman would not dictate the direction of the administration’s policy on Israel. At the time, Priebus told Fox News that US ambassadors “represent the views of President-elect Trump, and not their own views when they get elected and appointed to these positions.”

J Street kicked to curb, Trump Chooses David Friedman a Pro-Settlement guy as Ambassador to Israel

President-elect Donald Trump announced Thursday that he will nominate attorney David Friedman as U.S. ambassador to Israel, selecting an envoy who supports Israeli settlements and other changes to U.S. policies in the region. 

Friedman said he looked forward to carrying out his duties from "the U.S. embassy in Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem," even though the embassy is in Tel Aviv.

Trump, like some of his predecessors, has vowed to move the American embassy to Jerusalem, a politically charged act that would anger Palestinians who want east Jerusalem as part of their sovereign territory. The move would also distance the U.S. from most of the international community, including its closest allies in Western Europe and the Arab world.

The president-elect said Friedman would "maintain the special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel.

But the nomination sparked anger from liberal Jewish groups. Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, called Friedman's nomination "reckless," citing his support for settlements and his questioning of a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

The statement doesn't detail how Friedman could work in Jerusalem. However, Trump advisers have insisted in recent days that the president-elect will follow through on his call for moving the embassy.

"He has made that promise," Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway told reporters Thursday. "I can guarantee you, just generally, he's a man who is going to accomplish many things very quickly."

One option Trump allies have discussed would involve Friedman, if confirmed by the Senate, working out of an existing U.S. consulate in Jerusalem. According to a person who has discussed the plan with Trump advisers, the administration would essentially deem the facility the American embassy by virtue of the ambassador working there.

It's unclear how far those discussions have gotten or whether Trump himself has been briefed on the proposal. Trump's transition team did not respond to questions about the matter.

Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush promised to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, but backed away from the idea once in office.

Israel captured east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war and annexed it in a move that is not internationally recognized. It claims the entire city as its capital. The Palestinians seek east Jerusalem, home to key Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy sites, as the capital of their future state.

Virtually all embassies to Israel are located in or around Tel Aviv.

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat told The Associated Press this week that he has been in touch with Trump's staff about the embassy issue. Barkat said his conversations have led him to believe that Trump is serious about making the move.

Michael Lerner and his magazine Tikkun, still passionately lobbying against Israel,

by Binyamin Korn

Isn't it remarkable how much of the fight over the Iran deal is a battle between different factions in the Jewish world?

First off, one would think it would be an argument primarily over whether the agreement endangers America, not Israel. After all--as Prime Minister Netanyahu reminded us in his webcast this week--Iran still regards America as "the Great Satan"; Israel is just "the little Satan." Sure, Iranian protesters add an occasional "Death to Israel" to their chants, but it is "Death to America" that is heard loudest and longest.

Yet on Capitol Hill, the question that seems to be occupying everyone's mind is: 
how will Jewish Congress members vote?
 And on the op-ed pages and the radio talk shows, we hear mostly about AIPAC vs. J Street, and pundits speculate as to whether other Jewish organizations will support or oppose the Iran deal.

In Israel, both the governing Likud coalition and the Labor Party ("Zionist Union") opposition oppose the agreement.

 In the United States, the latest polls show the majority of American Jews oppose it. None of that seems to matter to J Street and others on the Jewish far left, who are spending millions of dollars in search of public and congressional support for the Iran agreement.

Think about it: 
Israeli Jews, from left to right, oppose the agreement because they recognize that it will put nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian theocracy, and it will strengthen Iran’s proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists.

 Yet a well-funded fringe faction of American Jews is aggressively supporting the agreement. 

Their actions could pave the way for more rockets to hit Tel Aviv--and that's just for starters.

 What motivates such Jews to take steps that will endanger the lives of their fellow-Jews?

A convincing answer is to be found in the remarkable new book, Jews Against Themselves, by Edward Alexander, just published by Transaction Books. Alexander, a professor emeritus at the University of Washington, is a combat veteran of the intra-Jewish quarrels of the past several decades, and he is one of the most skilled. In this, perhaps the most important of his many books, Prof. Alexander takes on the painfully relevant topic of what he calls "the new forms taken by Jewish apostasy."

Classic Jewish apostasy consisted of converting to Christianity or Islam, usually in order to avoid being persecuted. The modern version stems from essentially the same motive, but takes on peculiar forms. Nowadays, Jewish apostasy involves proudly brandishing one's Jewish identity or associations in order to legitimize actions that undermine Israel--in order to avoid being blamed for unpopular Israeli actions.

There is the author and pundit Peter Beinart, whose promotion of a boycott of "settlers" is, in fact, an extension of the 65 year-old Arab economic boycott of Israel, Alexander argues: "The 'selective' boycott requires boycotting feta cheese coming from cows in Judea but not companies--such as [those that] have been punished by the U.S. Treasury Department--that procure military equipment used by Hezbollah to murder Jews in Nahariya and Acco."

There are the Jewish faculty members at the Berkeley campus of the University of California who have built a cottage industry on denying that there is anti-Semitism on their campus, on other campuses, or practically anywhere else. Although Prof. Judith Butler, a leader of this group, grudgingly concedes that "those who do violence to synagogues" may be classified as anti-Semitic, she will not use that word to characterize violence against "synagogues and seders in Israel," Alexander points out. Good grief!

There is the peripatetic Michael Lerner and his magazine Tikkun, still passionately lobbying against Israel, more than two decades after his fifteen minutes of fame as then-First Lady's Hillary Clinton's short-lived moral guru. (Clinton's "Jewish Rasputin" is more like it, Alexander writes, recalling the pernicious role of the Russian Czar's senior adviser.)

And there are the obnoxious Jewish left-wing activists who invoke their dead grandmothers as weapons in the war against Israel, claiming that if Grandma were still alive,"she would be right there with me protesting against Israeli apartheid," as one recently wrote. Alexander comments: "Jewish mothers, one notices, rarely receive these accolades from their Israel-hating daughters; often still alive, mothers constitute too great a risk."

Jewish supporters of the Iran deal can't possibly think that the agreement itself makes America or Israel safer. They are driven by something else--by a desire to find favor with the current occupant of the White House, the news media, and the academic and intellectual elites whom they admire. It's disturbing, and in some ways hard to understand.

Jews Against Themselves sheds much-needed light on the subject and deserves to be on everyone's "must reading" list. 

J Street Push Obama to Drop Support for Israel at UN During White House Parley

Yup ... these Self-hating Jewish Bastards told Obama to stop supporting Israel in the United Nations! 
Hard to believe but true!

Members of a group of Jewish supporters of the Democratic Party who met with President Barack Obama this week urged him to remove the long-standing American veto protection of Israel at the United Nations. 

The group, affiliated with the left-wing lobby group J Street, pledged to support the president within the Jewish community in the event of a Security Council resolution calling for the creation of a Palestinian State.

The exchange took place in the second of two meetings Obama held with American Jewish leaders to discuss the current negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, as well as other regional issues. 

According to a source who was in the room, one J Street supporter told the president that if he decided to back a Palestinian state resolution over Israeli objections, “let us know first, and we’ll do the legwork for you, in the community… so you’re not going to come in cold.” 

Among the J Street supporters who were part of the delegation meeting with Obama were Alexandra Stanton, Lou Susman and Victor Kovner.

The atmosphere at that second meeting was described as pleasant and cooperative, in marked contrast to the first meeting, described by one source as “ungiving, very stern and tense.”

The Algemeiner spoke to four individuals who attended the meetings, as well as one other who did not attend, but was extensively briefed on what was said. All of the sources declined to be named for this report, as they were not authorized by the Administration to speak on the record.

The discussions totaled approximately two hours and forty minutes and were likely the most significant ones between the two sides since the start of the Obama presidency. “For sure this was the most important” one prominent Jewish leader stated, “because it was about Iran.”

Regarding the first meeting, at which senior representatives of groups like the World Jewish Congress, the Conference of Presidents and the Anti-Defamation League were present, one source said the conversation was “difficult” and “depressing.” The source added that “nobody was breaking ground, they were at cross purposes.” An attendee who spoke with JTA described the gathering as “intense” and said, “There was an openheartedness, there were some deep reflections by the president.” Other participants who spoke with JTA used the term “therapeutic” to describe the tone of the talks.

The President joined the first meeting at 1:50 pm, about 5 minutes after it was opened by National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and spoke for about forty minutes before he took any questions. He reportedly discussed “everything in the world” including Israel and Iran. He left the meeting at about 3:00 pm.

In his opening remarks, Obama reiterated the sentiments he raised in an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, published on April 5th, in which he asserted that “It has been personally difficult for me to hear the sort of expressions that somehow we don’t have, this administration has not done everything it could to look out for Israel’s interest.”

One source told The Algemeiner that “the President acted as though he was very hurt that he has been so supportive of Israel and at this critical juncture finds that people are so critical of him for trying to keep Iran from having a nuclear bomb.” The President was at times anguished, participants told the JTA.

Obama addressed his relationship with Israel and recognized “the motivations of the Jewish community when they express concern” about the Iran deal “because of existential threats coming from [Iran's] Supreme Leader and others.”

In a report on Monday, shortly after the meetings took place, The Washington Post cited a participant who said, “The president talked about how deeply he feels about Israel and the Jewish people and antisemitism. It was not just about Iran. It was much, much deeper in terms of the president sharing with us how he felt.”

“It was very cordial, he had all our attention,” another participant told The Algemeiner. “He spoke from the heart.”

“In that part of the discussion, I think people around the table appreciated those comments,” yet another commented.

After the President’s introduction “there was ample opportunity for everybody to weigh in on a whole range of issues” one of the attendees said. “Anyone around the table who had something to say… the opportunity certainly was there.”

“The impression [President Obama] was left with was that many remain skeptical about Iranian intentions, not about the [White House's] intentions in trying to negotiate to end the program, we have differences about that,” one participant said.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, Founder and Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told The Algemeiner that he raised two questions with the President. The first was about the silence of the P5+1 powers in the face of threats to annihilate Israel, and the second was about why Israel should be required to relinquish land to the Palestinians while Hamas remains in control of the Gaza Strip.

Hier referenced an upcoming presidential trip to Berlin to commemorate the victims of World War II, and asked in light of Iranian threats to destroy Israel, “what is the meaning of the memorial if we don’t take action when [something similar] occurs.”

One source quoted a “well known Jewish leader” as telling the President that “unfortunately we have learned the lesson that when people say they want to exterminate us, they tend to try it.”

“The language at the table was, ‘what about this? and what about that?’ and what about the issue of billions of dollars that will come into the hands of the Iranians when the sanctions regime is loosened, or ended, that they would then plow back into their terrorist activity or to other military related issues,” an attendee said. “What was being said was, here are our concerns, we are in the middle of this, and these concerns are going to continue, because we don’t feel quite comfortable with where we are now.”

In terms of the takeaway from the first meeting, one participant said, “I think [Obama] understands that people are upset, and that people have a different, a very urgent view of the Iranian threat” but added that the leaders in the room “would not have felt that he totally understood our concerns.”

“Many people walked in having questions and left having questions,” another said. “I don’t know that positions were necessarily changed around the table.”

The second meeting, which was largely stacked with Obama allies, “was very pleasant,” according to one of the guests. It was “all his friends,” the guest said. As well as J Street supporters, others present included Haim Saban, the Israeli-American entertainment mogul who has been critical of Obama’s Middle East policies, and Democratic donors associated with AIPAC, including past presidents Amy Friedkin and Howard Friedman

Obama presented himself as thinking “like an ultra-liberal Jew” and conveyed the “J Street mantra,” according to the source.

Although some pointed questions were asked, Obama faced far less resistance, and was even encouraged to take steps against Israel and remain steadfast in his approach to Iran negotiations.

According to the source, one “J Streeter” pushed Obama to remove the American veto protection of Israel at the UN in the event that a Security Council resolution called for the creation of a Palestinian State.

The individual “said if you decide to go against Israel at the UN, ‘let us know first, and we’ll do the legwork for you, in the community… so you’re not going to come in cold…’ and they pushed him to do it,” the participant told The Algemeiner. “Another major Jewish leader… not J Street, more centrist, but he wants to cosy up to Obama, says [regarding Iran] ‘you are doing the right thing, we are behind you 100 percent’.”

Obama said that despite his disagreements with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on a host of issues, “the countries are still working tightly together on security and military issues,” and “the fact that him and Bibi are not getting along is not hurting the relationship between the two countries.”

Obama was also asked if he would invite Netanyahu to visit the US in the near future. The President said he would not because “‘all Bibi will do is… go out there and publicly criticize me,’ so it will be awkward.” The President said “we’ll wait until July,” according to the source.

The President also criticized efforts in the Senate to assume a role in the negotiations through the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which unanimously passed review at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday and will now move to the full Senate for a vote.

The President expressed a “deep, deep resentment of Republicans in Congress…. and a feeling that Congress is out of bounds” in its actions on Iran, according to one of the sources.

The meetings with the Jewish groups were initiated as part of an extensive outreach effort by the Administration to win support for a framework nuclear agreement reached with Iranian negotiators in Switzerland last week. Critics of the deal say the White House has made far too many concessions in the talks. The agreement’s most vocal opponent, Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, has said that it paves Iran’s path to nuclear armament and leaves Israel vulnerable. Israel has long called for the removal of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as well as the cessation of uranium enrichment.

Just days before the meetings were held, a Gallup poll found that American Jews’ approval of President Obama has dropped 23 percentage points since 2009, and the gap between Jewish approval and general American approval of Obama—which has been marked by higher Jewish approval—is narrowing.

The Truth about J Street, Video

Jeb Bush Responds To Criticism Over His Anti-Israel Advisor James Baker YM"S

His excuses did little to reassure critics.

Likely Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush earned widespread criticism this week regarding a speech planned by his foreign policy adviser, former Secretary of State James Baker. 

As Baker geared up to deliver an address Monday evening before a gathering of the left-leaning lobbying organization J Street, a number of conservative sources skewered him for his perceived anti-Israel position.

Radio host Mark Levin, for one, cited a “well-documented” pattern of “antipathy toward Israel” regarding Baker, adding both he and Obama share similar hatred toward the Jewish nation.

“This is they guy,” Levin continued, “the leading adviser to Jeb Bush on foreign policy, who Jeb Bush asked to be his leading adviser, and now he’s the keynote speaker to this left-wing hate group J Street.”

Even before Baker’s speech, Bush spokesman Tim Miller attempted to distance the former Florida governor from the actions of his adviser.

Bush, Miller said, “firmly opposes lobbying groups whose actions undermine Israel’s efforts to defend itself.”

The backtracking continued Tuesday when another Bush spokesperson, Kristy Campbell, sent out a statement indicating that Bush “respects Secretary Baker” but “disagrees with the sentiments he expressed last night and opposes J Street’s advocacy.”

She went on to cite Bush’s “unwavering” support both for Israel and its presumptively reelected prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Bush camp’s attempts to assuage misgivings have apparently been insufficient, as evidenced by the comments left by several readers of a Politico article on the topic.

One commenter declared Bush a “political coward” while several asserted he is lying about his purported stance on Israel.

Israel Bashing J Street Features Rep Schakowsky bashing "Orthodox Jew"

Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), speaking on Monday at the 2015 J Street convention, praised the far left “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace?” organization for backing her 2010 re-election campaign against Joel Pollak, Breitbart News’s Senior Editor-at-Large and Breitbart California Editor.

Schakowsky begins by thanking J Street for its backing of her positions when it comes to Israel.

“I’d like to begin with just a great thank you for J Street. I have to tell you that the courage to take positions that I’ve been able to take are [sic] really because of the space that, in a very short time, J Street had opened for members of Congress to expand political discussion about the State of Israel and our relationship to it.”

In the video—which was provided by Paul Miller, who served as a senior policy adviser for Pollak’s campaign and is now the executive director of the Salomon Center—the Democratic Rep. from Illinois rips into the Breitbart editor.

“In 2010, I had an election… an election within our community. That is, I ran against a Jewish-Orthodox, Tea Party Republican who made it very clear that actually Jan Schakowsky was anti-Israel because of the positions that she took,” the Congresswoman said of Pollak.

“J Street came to my rescue,” she added. “Not just with money, but with the kind of moral support that was able to assure a substantial victory in that election.”

Ron Kampeas, the JTA Washington bureau chief, wrote on Twitter that Schakowsky “ickily” noted Pollak’s Orthodox observance of his faith:

The Democratic representative was one of the fringe leftist members of the House who decided to boycott Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress.

Pundits have noted that Schakowsky has consistently taken controversial positions when it comes to Israel. Others have expressed doubt that J Street itself is in fact a pro-Israel organization.

“She has walked lockstep with the most anti-Israel administration in the history of US-Israeli relations,” Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick said of Schakowsky in February.”

Famed Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz said of J Street in April 2014, “How can you be a ‘pro-Israel’ organization and never express any pro-Israel views? It is absolutely shocking to me. Every press release seemed to have a negative about Israel.”

“I just have to shake my head when these [J Street members] ask me to believe in Iran,” former Rep. Allen West said of the group in 2010.

J Street has consistently opposed any new sanctions against the Iranian regime and has pushed for further pressure against the Jewish state at the United Nations. Its Washington D.C. policy conference, which is rife with controversial figures, ends Tuesday.

Netanyahu Speaks and Satmar, J Street and Reform Liberal Jews Tremble

On the eve of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress the level of hysteria among American Jewish liberals has reached cascading proportions. 

From full-page advertisements in The New York Times to anguished columns in The Times of Israel expressions of outrage pour forth. They are furious lest an Israeli prime minister implicate them in such a heinous deed as warning against the imminent surrender of the Obama administration to Iranian nuclear ambitions.

All the usual suspects on the Jewish left chimed in. J Street released a petition with 20,000 signees protesting: “I’m a Jew. Bibi does NOT speak for me.” 

That self-identified “pro-Israel pro-peace” group also purchased a full-page advertisement in The New York Times warning that the Prime Minister’s speech would damage American-Israeli relations. 

Jewish Voice for Peace urged members of Congress to skip the speech, presumably lest they be contaminated by hearing something outside their comfort zone. Not to be outdone Tikkun declared: “No Mr. Netanyahu, we will not let you drag us into a proxy war for Israel against Iran.”

The following warning from similarly frightened American Jews resonates in memory: “Harm has been done to the morale and . . . to the sense of security of the American Jewish community through unwise and unwarranted statements and appeals which ignore the feelings and aspirations of American Jewry.” 

It might even include: “The State of Israel represents and speaks only on behalf of its own citizens and in no way presumes to represent or speak in the name of Jews who are citizens of any other country.” 

Ooops. Those were the words of American Jewish Committee president Jacob Blaustein, fifty-five years ago, in a letter to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. The Israeli leader had the temerity to request assistance from the American government for the fledgling state and urge  American Jews to make aliya. In the old Yiddish expression: “plus ca change plus c’est la meme chose.”

Now it is Netanyahu’s turn to heighten the anxiety of anxious American Jews. 

Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, criticized his plan to speak to Congress as “a bad idea” because it might make Israel a partisan issue in American politics. “That is something we in the Jewish community cannot afford,” he added. 

Prominent Jewish organization leaders chimed in. Anti-Defamation League director Abe Foxman labeled the controversy “a tragedy of unintended consequences.” Seymour Reich, former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations lamented that Netanyahu was splitting Congress and dividing the American Jewish community.

Even former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, not otherwise noted for his pronouncements as a Jew, chimed in. He dutifully informed Israelis: “You should know that the new-found alliance between your Prime Minister and our Republican Party, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and some wealthy right-wing Jews here (such as billionaire Sheldon Adelson), is poisoning the relationship between Israel and the United States.” 

The shanda of speaking to Congress “foists your own domestic politics onto ours,” especially “the right-wing radicalism that has taken hold in Israel – a radicalism that rejects a ‘two-state solution’ and continues to build new settlements on the West Bank.”

Frustrated and infuriated American Jewish liberals, like their outraged conservative anti-Zionist predecessors, seem terrified at the prospect of an Israeli prime minister saying something to an American audience about protecting Jews. 

Dual loyalty always has been, and remains, the unspoken curse of Diaspora communities. American Jews – especially, these days, of a leftist persuasion – must beat a hasty retreat from Israel lest it sabotage their privileged American status and penchant for moral preening.

But Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel issued a bold challenge to the Netanyahu naysayers when he announced his intention to attend the Prime Minister’s Congressional warning about the horrific dangers of a nuclear Iran. 

In an ad placed in The New York Times by Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Wiesel requested support “for keeping weapons from those who preach death to Israel and America.”

Who knows better than Elie Wiesel that one Holocaust is enough?

Jerold S. Auerbach is a frequent contributor to The Algemeiner.

Obama's shameless Jewish cheerleaders

Obama's shameless Jewish cheerleaders by Issi Leibler While U.S. President Barack Obama determinedly pursues his policy of appeasement, which may enable the world's most dangerous terrorist state to become a nuclear threshold power, some Israelis and American Jews have initiated a campaign against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  The campaign calling for the maintenance of bipartisanship toward Israel is in reality undermining the hitherto strong bipartisan congressional opposition to the catastrophic U.S. policy on Iran. Israeli opposition groups and the anti-Netanyahu media are now concentrating their efforts on discrediting and calling on the prime minister to cancel his address to the joint session of Congress scheduled for March 3. Disregarding the gravity of the negotiations with Iran -- the underlying reason for the invitation -- they accuse Netanyahu of destroying the U.S.-Israeli relationship by failing to obtain Obama's advance approval to address Congress (which would never have been forthcoming). The White House even falsely alleged that Netanyahu accepted the invitation before they were aware of it. Labor leader Isaac Herzog, in an irresponsible breach of propriety while attending a conference on security in Munich, slandered the prime minister, calling on "Bibi to act as a patriot … cancel his speech … which was born in sin … and not throw Israel's security under the bus of the elections." The timing of his comments were even more shameful as on that same day and in the same city U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was meeting Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Zarif. Similar sentiments were echoed by other political leaders, whose primitive electioneering tactics display utter indifference and contempt for the repercussions on the greatest threat facing Israel. They warn that Israel would suffer serious ramifications if Netanyahu persisted in addressing Congress and demand that he postpone his address until after the elections -- when the "negotiations" will be over. They also accuse him of forcing Democrats to choose between supporting their president or undermining his policies, and thus destroying bipartisanship. That surely sends the wrong message to Congress about limiting Obama's actions. Worse still, it sends bad vibes to American Jews, reinforcing their inability to stand up and protest against Obama's hostile policies.  The White House, of course, uses this to discredit Netanyahu on the grounds that he is merely engaged in an electoral stunt. Truth be told, a failure by Netanyahu in this area could cost him the election. But Iran has genuinely been Netanyahu's greatest concern and without his intervention would already be a nuclear state. Israel remains the target for annihilation by the Holocaust-denying Iranians who brazenly repeat their determination to eradicate the "cancerous" Israel from the map. Yet Israel is marginalized by the P5+1 nations determining the outcome. Netanyahu regarded the invitation not only as a means to promote his case to Congress but also as a platform to convey his message to the entire world. But this is ignored by his Israeli political opponents who are more concerned with electoral populism than displaying a united front in the face of an existential threat. Yet Obama is on extremely shaky ground. Even the normally supportive Washington Post published an editorial warning him against presenting the world with a fait accompli over Iran's nuclear goals and granting them regional hegemony. It accused Obama of seeking "to avoid congressional review because he suspects a bipartisan majority would oppose the deal he is prepared to make." It is in fact Obama, not Netanyahu, who has made this a partisan issue, because of his fear that an effective presentation by Netanyahu at Congress could have a major impact on legislators and the public. It is this, rather than pre-election protocol, that explains the frenzied efforts and threats that the White House has engaged to discredit Netanyahu. Netanyahu's efforts are also being undermined by extreme left-wing groups like J Street, which call on congressmen to boycott his speech and launch petitions proclaiming that he does not represent the views of American Jews. This is buttressed by media court Jews like New York Times columnist Tom Friedman resurrecting the traditional anti-Semitic dual loyalties accusation, warning Jews that if they protest against Obama's policies on Iran, Americans will be convinced that Israel controls Washington, was responsible for the war in Iraq, and is now dragging the U.S. into another war. American Jews claim that they live in a unique democratic country and enjoy full equality. Yet, whereas most Americans have no hesitation in criticizing their president when they disagree with his policies, the traditionally feisty and outspoken American Jewish leaders seem fearful of criticizing their president even in the most respectful terms. This, even after Obama's repeated and crudely appalling behavior aimed at humiliating his ally, the Israeli prime minister, in direct contrast to his servility to representatives of rogue states including Iran. On this issue, most of the Jewish leadership establishment remained silent. This included the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, whose officials, according to the White House, privately distanced themselves from Netanyahu's visit. To his credit, Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, was one of the few mainstream leaders stressing that Netanyahu's intention was neither to personally attack the president nor become engaged in U.S. domestic politics. Rather, it was to promote Israel's concerns about developments that it considers an existential threat and great danger to the world. But shockingly, a number of Jewish leaders also publicly slammed Netanyahu. Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, went so far as to describe the issue as a "circus" and called on House Speaker John Boehner "to withdraw" the invitation and Netanyahu to rescind his acceptance. He was followed by Rabbi Rick Jacobs of the Reform movement, who said Netanyahu's speech was "a bad idea" and urged him "to bite the bullet and postpone his address" or he would "turn Israel into a partisan issue." This was outrageous. Who gave Foxman and Jacobs a mandate to challenge the decision of Israel's prime minister to appeal against enabling the Iranian terrorist state to become a nuclear state -- an act of appeasement that would dwarf Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler in Munich? Foxman's subsequent effort to modify his outburst by condemning J Street's "inflammatory and repugnant campaign" against Netanyahu did not detract from the damage he caused. Jacobs and Foxman may have convinced themselves that by seeking to avoid a conflict with their president, they were acting on the side of the angels. It was left to the hawkish Zionist Organization of America to bitterly condemn their intervention and make chilling parallels between their behavior and that of Rabbi Stephen Wise, who in 1944 urged Jewish leaders to cease campaigning to pressure the White house to intervene on behalf of the Jews in Europe in order not to embarrass President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Today, Netanyahu is desperately appealing to the world to prevent an evil apocalyptic Islamic terrorist state, committed to Israel's destruction, from becoming a nuclear power. Yet Foxman and Jacobs seem more concerned to placate their president. In making such negative statements, it is they who are transforming this into a partisan issue and providing enormous satisfaction to Iranian mullahs who undoubtedly appreciate their efforts. Shame on them! Not surprisingly, the White House exploited these outbursts as a means of encouraging Democrats to boycott the address. The president even shed crocodile tears bemoaning that Israel would become a partisan issue.  Conveniently, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden announced that he would be out of the country and unable to attend. Yet very few Democrats have indicated that they would absent themselves. Indeed, while unhappy with the timing, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said she would attend, and dismissed calls for a boycott. Rep. Eliot Engel, the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also made it clear that he intends to hear what Netanyahu has to say. There is, in fact, a growing awareness that Obama's proposed deal represents a sellout to the Iranians. What were hitherto considered wild accusations that Obama was abandoning the traditional allies of the U.S. in order to enter into an alliance with the Iranians has now become a genuine concern. Netanyahu's speech from a U.S. Congress platform will undoubtedly enjoy massive media exposure and may bring public pressure on the P5+1 countries to refrain from committing an act that would have horrific implications not only for Israel but the entire world. Those committed to overcoming the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism and preserving the well-being of the Jewish state should pray that Netanyahu will succeed in his efforts. Isi Leibler's website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com. He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com.