“Jerusalem is the heart of the Jewish people.”
So said Yitzhak Rabin, prime minister of Israel, in remarks delivered in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol in 1995. The occasion was the overwhelming passage, by Congress, of the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, an important piece of legislation that, sadly, has been largely forgotten.
The bill recognized united Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and required the U.S. government to move the American embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. But the Clinton administration vehemently opposed the legislation, and managed to insert a loophole: every six months, the administration can postpone implementation for another six months if it deems implementation to be harmful to America’s “national security.” President Clinton proceeded to invoke the national security waiver every six months. So did President Bush. President Obama has done likewise. That successive presidents have found it politically convenient to appease the Arabs by ignoring the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act does not change the fact that the Act represents the truth.
Today marks 43 years since Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem, in the Six Day War, and 3,015 years since Jerusalem first became the capital of the Jewish people, under King David. No other nation on earth can stake a claim to its capital even remotely close to the claim of the Jews to Jerusalem. As Gov. Sarah Palin said in her Passover statement earlier this year, “Whatever the threats the Jewish people have faced, whatever the struggles, their connection to Jerusalem is ancient and unshakable.”
We say “amen” to Gov. Palin’s declaration. We join her, and the tens of millions of other Americans of faith who support her, in reaffirming that Jerusalem is the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish People.
Thanks, Scott! – Cartoonist Scott Williams was kind enough to illustrate a post we wrote last month, over a comment of radio host Rush Limbaugh. Here’s our original post:
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh says President Obama’s recent comments about illegal immigrants in Arizona, expose presidential ‘hypocrisy’ on the issue of Jewish ’settlements’ in Jerusalem.
The President, in his April 27 comments about the new Arizona legislation, asserted that some illegal immigrants have great-grandparents who lived in Arizona “before the state of Arizona existed.” The President suggested that having such ancestry gives illegal aliens a legitimate basis for remaining in the state.
Mr. Limbaugh, on his broadcast the following day, pointed out that “Jews have been living in Jerusalem for thousands of years, long before the United States existed, so why is the Obama administration condemning Israel for letting Jews live there?”
Limbaugh and other conservative commentators have strongly supported Israel’s claim to Jerusalem and have sharply criticized President Obama’s pressure on Israel to stop Jewish construction in its capital city.
‘ . . . you have shown me that you are not a “friend” of Israel and, intentionally or not, you misled me and a lot of other people when you represented yourself to be a friend.’
– Alan L. Edelstein is a governmental affairs consultant and advocate for 30 years. He and his wife are prominent members of the Jewish community in Sacramento and have long been active in the Democratic party.
An Open Letter to President Obama:
After 40 years as a registered Democrat (following in my father’s and his father’s footsteps), I just dropped my affiliation. I did it because of your policies on the Israel-Palestinian dispute and your apparent attitude and approach toward Israel. Simply put, I feel misled and hurt by what you have done and I am searching for tangible ways to express my feelings that will hopefully cause you to change course.
You should know at the outset that I am not one of those hardliner “don’t give up an inch, all of Biblical Israel belongs to Jews” Jews. Although I do think that the Jewish people have a superior historical claim to Jerusalem and the West Bank, and I do know that the Hashemite rulers of Jordan have no more claim to that country than anyone else who was handed a kingdom in exchange for support in a war, I have always supported territorial compromise, just as all Israeli leaders of every major party from Ben-Gurion forward have accepted such compromise.
Supported Peace Process
Thus, I supported the Camp David I process (can you imagine where the Palestinian nation would be today if the Palestinians had accepted that one?), the Oslo process, Barak’s Camp David II offer, the Taba enhancements, the Lebanon pullout, the Gaza pullout, and the Olmert Camp David II/Taba enhancements-plus offer made to President Abbas just last year.
I just wish the Palestinians would have accepted one of these offers, or at least counter-offered rather than just walked away or, worse, resorted to violence. I also wish that your Administration and all of the pundits that seem to feel only one side should be pressured in this process would remember who keeps making the offers and the unilateral gestures and who fails to accept them or counter offer. Indeed, if Chairman Arafat or President Abbas had said “yes” or “yes, but” to any of these offers, the current nastiness over “settlements” would never have occurred.
You should also know that I am not one of the persons that believe the President and the U.S. have to agree with Israel on every point in order to be a friend of Israel and to garner my support. After all, we both know that nations aren’t really “friends.” Who is kidding who on that one? Nations have interests and support other nations when it is in their interest to do so. For a whole variety of reasons, U.S. presidents and members of Congress, reflecting the sentiments of a large bipartisan segment of the population, have always deemed it in the U.S. interest to generally support Israel. That does not mean that there have not been differences along the way, sometimes made public, but more often, as befitting “friends,” handled privately.
‘You are not a friend’
So, why did I drop my registration as a Democrat after all these years, a decision not without angst for me and one that would have caused my late father, a loyal supporter of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and all that they stood for, much heartburn? Because you have shown me that you are not a “friend” of Israel and, intentionally or not, you misled me and a lot of other people when you represented yourself to be a friend. Plus, your unfriendly behavior is telling others that perhaps it is time to be less supportive of Israel, to take advantage of it, to weaken it. Here are a few of the reasons I feel this way:
1. A friend doesn’t forget all of the history demonstrating a willingness to compromise outlined above and put the entire burden on one party to make concessions without even getting the other party to sit down at the bargaining table and at least recognize the existence of his friend.
2. A friend doesn’t use one stupid gaffe of the timing of a mid-level decision, nothing close to a final decision, to cause a major blow-out, which looks much like an attempt to either cause a change in his friend’s government or to give a green light to other governments to pile on. A friend doesn’t mix up West Bank settlements with existing Jewish neighborhoods without any Arab population that are situated between two Jewish neighborhoods. Once the Vice-President resolves the situation while staying on the mission of reassuring Israelis regarding Iran (something important to the U.S.), a friend does not then make the issue into one of the biggest fights in the history of relations between the two friends.
3. A friend doesn’t direct his Secretary of State to call the Prime Minister and engage in a 43 minute conversation complete with characterizations reserved for your worst enemies, demands, timelines, and threats of a change in relationship because of one unfortunate incident handled well by the Vice-President. A friend’s Administration does not then leak the details to the media.
4. A friend does not engage in behavior such as this that, wittingly or not, signals to the other side that a new day has arrived, that the nature of a relationship has changed, that the time is right for sitting back and demanding more without offering anything, that the friend cannot rely on the friendship, that the friend is vulnerable to being isolated and alone in its defense.
5. A friend, wittingly or not, does not insinuate that Israel’s ostensible intransigence rather than those who keep rejecting offers is the reason for the lack of progress in negotiations and is thereby somehow responsible for jeopardizing the lives of American military personnel. If American personnel are indeed in jeopardy because of the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, a friend doesn’t blame the democratic country that has withdrawn from territory and has made offer after offer. A friend moves quickly to get the Palestinians to come to the table and negotiate, rather than manufacturing excuses for them not to negotiate. A friend knows that this type of false innuendo and insinuation about Israel’s blame for jeopardizing American lives quickly morphs into one of the old favorites of Jew-haters everywhere: blame the Jews. A friend understands that Jews are extremely and justifiably sensitive about this.
6. Finally, a friend doesn’t, by making such a huge and unnecessary public crisis out of an ill-timed but relatively low-level decision about a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem, signal to members of Congress, other nations, and the Democratic Party and others that the tide is changing, that it is perhaps time to re-evaluate their relationships and attitudes.
Mr. President, after doing all of this and more that demonstrates your unfriendliness toward Israel, you and members of your Administration then modified a bit and started talking about what a great friendship you feel toward Israel. Perhaps acting not like a friend one day but saying you are a friend before and after the actions has some meaning in the diplomatic world. In my world it simply means you are not a good friend, a reliable friend, a trusted friend.
Obviously, Mr. President, if you believe what you are doing is in the best interest of the American people (something I disagree with), then you will pursue it, and you should. However, you should not have, intentionally or not, misled me and many others by saying you were Israel’s friend and you should not continue to confuse the matter.
I am afraid, Mr. President, that your actions are leading the nation, the world, and my Party of 40 years toward a new, very unfriendly and dangerous attitude toward Israel. One of the few ways I have of registering my objection and my strong feeling that you misled me is to drop my registration as a Democrat. I hope that you or some future leader of the Party will demonstrate a friendship toward Israel that will allow me to feel comfortable re-registering with the party of my father and grandfather.
Alan L. Edelstein
email@example.com <http://firstname.lastname@example.org> .
R’ Shmuely – ‘Obama understood losing Wiesel over his Middle East policy spelled almost certain doom’
Celeb rabbi Shmuely Boteach, in the Jerusalem Post, has these penetrating observations about the recent ‘Wiesel affair’:
In the recent tension between the Obama Administration and the Jewish state over Jews building in Jerusalem, the pro-Israel camp was represented by Elie Wiesel whose full-page ads in major American newspapers criticized President Obama’s ban on Jews living anywhere in the holy city.
The letter, as with everything Wiesel writes, was haunting, stirring, and deeply personal. “For me, the Jew that I am, Jerusalem is above politics. It is mentioned more than six hundred times in Scripture and not a single time in the Koran. Its presence in Jewish history is overwhelming. There is no more moving prayer in Jewish history than the one expressing our yearning to return to Jerusalem… The first song I heard was my mother’s lullaby about and for Jerusalem.”
The letter, by one of America’s most celebrated citizens, caused such angst in the White House that President Obama changed his schedule to invite the Nobel Peace laureate to a private kosher lunch in order not to appear out of sync with the Jewish prophet. Like Lyndon Johnson who panicked when he lost Walter Cronkite over Vietnam, Obama understood that losing Wiesel over his Middle East policy spelled almost certain doom.
But while the President behaved courteously, Ben-Ami did precisely the opposite. Not content with Judaism’s greatest living personality having the last word, the J-Street head quickly went into action and responded to Wiesel with full page ads of a bizarre editorial by Yossi Sarid, the former Meretz politician, utterly unknown to the American public whom Ben-Ami is seeking to influence. The man who Oprah traveled to Auschwitz with and chose his book Night as a main selection of her book club and whose novels are studied in the world’s leading Universities was dismissed by Sarid as being a writer ignorant of current events. “You know much about the heavenly Jerusalem but less so about its counterpart here on earth.”
Professor Alan Dershowitz continues his campaign to repudiate the United Nations’ defamatory “Goldstone Commission Report” – which last year blamed Israel for disproportionate infliction of civilian casualties in its December 2008 “Cast Lead” incursion into Gaza.
Israel and its supporters have long understood the sad reality that any UN agency is essentially a kangaroo court when it comes to the Jewish State.
But Richard Goldstone – a Jewish jurist from South Africa, no less – may have set new records for mendacity by omitting from his lengthy UN report virtually any reference to the months, actually years, of thousands of unprovoked missile attacks originating from Arab-controlled Gaza, fired at nearby Israeli population centers.
Goldstone and Dershowitz have been publicly feuding since the report was issued.
Richard Goldstone, author of the notorious Goldstone report, did not become a South African judge in the post-Apartheid Mandela Era, as The New York Times and other media have erroneously reported. He accepted a judgeship during the worst days of Apartheid and helped legitimate one of the most racist regimes in the world by granting the imprimatur of the rule of law to some of the most undemocratic and discriminatory decrees.
Goldstone was – quite literally – a hanging judge. He imposed and affirmed death sentences for more than two dozen blacks under circumstances where whites would almost certainly have escaped the noose. And he affirmed sentences of physical torture – euphemistically called “flogging” – for other blacks. He also enforced miscegenation and other racist laws with nary a word of criticism or dissent. He was an important part of the machinery of death, torture and racial subjugation that characterized Apartheid South Africa. His robe and gavel lent an air of legitimacy to an entirely illegitimate and barbaric regime.
It is no surprise that Goldstone kept this part of his life secret from academic colleagues, friends and the general public. I recall him at the lunch and dinner tables in Cambridge describing himself as a heroic part of the struggle against Apartheid. Now it turns out he was the ugly face of Apartheid, covering its sins and crimes with a judicial robe. How differently we would have looked at him if we knew that he had climbed the judicial ladder on whipped backs and hanged bodies.
Now that his dirty secret has been exposed to the world, he has invoked the defense raised by German judges at Nuremberg: “I was just following the law.” This cowardly defense was rejected at Nuremberg and by the international law that Goldstone claimed to be applying against Israel in the Goldstone report. It should be resoundingly rejected by the court of public opinion.
With a heavy heart we bring to your attention “Time to Prepare for War,” by the Jerusalem Post’s deputy managing editor and weekly columnist, the incomparable Carolyn Glick.
The sad truth Glick exposes is that Obama’s policies have pushed Israel to the brink of war with Iran, and with the hard-line Iranian proxies – Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza – who surround Israel.
It is difficult to see how, at this stage, there is any turning back from armed conflict.
It is clear that the Obama administration not only will not significantly impede Iran’s nuclear weapons and missile delivery programs, by diplomatic or any other means.
Instead, Obama uses the UN to pressure Israel to disarm.
Read, and weep.
By CAROLINE GLICK
Jerusalem Post Online
The repeated abdication of responsibility by the Obama administration from preventing nuclear non-proliferation leaves it on Israel’s shoulders.
So much for US President Barack Obama’s famed powers of persuasion. At the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference that opened this week, the Obama administration managed to lose control over the agenda before the conference even started.
Obama administration officials said they intended to use the conference as a platform to mount international pressure on Iran to stop its illicit nuclear proliferation activities. But even before the conference began, with a little prodding from Egypt, the administration agreed that instead of focusing on Iran, the conference would adopt Iran’s chosen agenda: attacking Israel for its alleged nuclear arsenal.
. . .
On Wednesday, the US joined the other four permanent members of the Security Council in signing a statement calling for a nuclear-free Middle East and urging Israel, Pakistan and India to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear states. Following the US’s lead, on Thursday Yukiya Amano, the new director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, wrote a letter to IAEA member states asking for their suggestions for how to convince Israel to sign the NPT.
So as Iran – an NPT signatory – makes a mockery of the treaty by building nuclear weapons in contempt of its treaty obligations, the US has actively supported Iran’s bid to use the NPT review conference as yet another UN forum for bashing Israel.
PRO-ISRAEL FASHION STATEMENT: At Time Magazine’s May 4 dinner honoring the ‘100 Most Influential People in the World,’ Gov. Sarah Palin wears a pin featuring Israeli and American flags. ”While others are criticizing and pressuring Israel, Gov. Palin affirmed her solidarity with the Jewish State,” said Benyamin Korn, founder of JewsForSarah.com.
Photo by Adam Nemser/PHOTOlink, Courtesy JewsForSarah.com
ATTENTION EDITORS – You may download this photo without charge, for print or web publication, but we ask:
1) That you use complete credit line, and
2) That you notify us where and when it is being used – info@JewsForSarah.com.
THANK YOU – The Management
Arabs in the ancient city of Hebron set fire to the city’s historic Jewish cemetery yesterday.
Video of the fire
Spokesmen for the Hebron Jewish community said that since the fire broke out at about midnight and there is a tall iron fence surrounding the cemetery, arson appears to be the only plausible explanation.
Hebron Jewish residents commented that the fire would have sparked international outrage if Jews had set fire to a Muslim cemetery in Hebron.
In fact, when a mosque in the Palestinian Arab town of Luban al-Sharqiya was damaged in a fire of unknown origin on May 3, the New York Times published a half-page article about the incident. Police investigators said there was no Hebrew graffiti in the vicinity of the mosque, and no signs of a break-in, leading them to suspect that the fire may have been caused by a faulty electric outlet. Local Arabs accused Jews of setting the fire.
So far the Times has not reported the fire in Hebron.
Jonathan Tobin, Commentary’s editor blogging at the magazine’s “Contentions” page, gives us some insight into how JStreet’s takeover strategy is not completely succeeding.
Though JStreet scored early successes by generating massive numbers of political emails to Congress and the White House – all of them claiming that American Jews SUPPORT Obama-style pressure on Israel and Netanyahu – after a few weeks some important centrist Jews began to reassert themselves.
As he has done in decades past (remember Jimmy Carter ?), Hizzoner Ed Koch played Paul Revere to the Jewish Democrats in Congress, insisting that they speak out against the Obama betrayal of long-standing U.S. commitments to the Jewish State.
Soon after, two key Democratic Senators, Schumer of New York, and Cardin, newly elected in Maryland, went public with their criticism of POTUS Middle East policies.
This, plus highly-critical full-page newspaper ads from WJC chairman Ronald Lauder, and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, evidently gave rise to the new White House damage control operation, also known as the “charm offensive.” (Take a look at Moshe Aren’s comments, below, to see how Arens finds the new-found White House “charm” to be truly offensive.)
Tobin also spells out how the New York Times, in effect, have become propagandists for the JStreet line. Amazing! Is the “Gray Lady” really a JStreet true believer, or is George Soros sending bucks to ameliorate the “tsuris” of the NYT’s abysmal bottom line?
Tobin misses only one point – not only are a majority of American Jews opposed to Obama’s Israel policy, but a solid majority of all Americans are opposed. (See our post of 4.28.10).
Tobin’s full post:
If Jews Back Obama’s Pressure, Why Was the
‘Charm Offensive’ Necessary?
Jonathan S. Tobin – 05.05.2010 – 3:50 PM
For those who were thrilled by President Obama’s decision to distance itself from Israel and to treat Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem as illegal settlements, the recent “charm offensive” by which the White House has sought to deflect the growing criticism from friends of the Jewish state has to be a downer. With recent polls showing that a majority of American Jews disapprove of Obama’s handling of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and with most of the centrist leadership of American Jewry expressing dismay over the president’s positions on Jerusalem, the left’s assertion that the president can count on Jewish support for his pressure on Israel has been effectively debunked.
But that hasn’t stopped The New York Times from once again trotting out one of the standards of their coverage of American Jewry. The headline of the piece published today on their website couldn’t make the agenda of the article any clearer: “On Israel, Jews and Leaders Often Disagree.” The familiar conceit of the feature is that while the big names of American Jewry and the leaders of the alphabet soup of organizations still support Israel, the rank and file do not.
The piece argues that the overwhelming support for Obama in the 2008 election and the reliably liberal Democratic cast of Jewish voters must mean that they applaud his clear animus for Israel. Of course, if that were true, Obama wouldn’t have bothered campaigning as if he were a devoted friend of Israel. Despite that, the leader of the left-wing J Street lobby is still trying to promote the idea that most Jews don’t support Israel’s policies and want Washington to pressure it to accept a two-state solution. But as uneasiness over the administration’s hostility grew in recent months, it became clear that even most Jewish Democrats knew that Israel’s government has accepted such a solution but that it is the Palestinians who won’t make peace. Thus, J Street has made little headway in Washington with a Congress that is still reliably pro-Israel and unhappy about the administration’s drift. But that doesn’t stop the Times from treating its claims as self-evident.
But for all the protestations by the left of Jewish support for pressure on Israel, it has to be obvious that the White House doesn’t buy it. If they were as confident as J Street that their Jewish Democratic base liked what they were doing, then why would they have spent so much time in the last month trying to back away from a fight with Israel that they had picked in the first place? Why shlep Elie Wiesel to the White House yesterday for a private audience with the president after he published an ad in several newspapers warning Obama that Jerusalem was the “heart of our heart and the soul of our soul” if the administration wasn’t convinced that the famed Holocaust survivor’s concerns weren’t far more representative of public opinion than the partisan natterings of J Street founder Jeremy Ben-Ami?
While the charm offensive may not do much more than calm some panicky Jewish Democrats who are willing to believe Obama’s new promises just as they swallowed his campaign pledges, it does prove one thing: the White House knows that an open feud with Israel and its friends is political poison.
Indeed, the best the Times could do to support its thesis that Ben-Ami is right is to gather a few members of a Secular Humanist Temple in suburban Detroit to find a some Jews who are willing to attack Israel’s government. While the members of that tiny slice of Jewish demography are as entitled to their opinions as anyone else, the notion that this small splinter group of Jews who eschew religious faith in favor of a secular ethnicity is representative of American Jewry is absurd. But even there, among members of a Temple who cannot help but be far more liberal than the average Jewish congregation, the Times still discovered that there were some who were concerned about those who unfairly blame Israel for the conflict. As 87-year-old Rosetta Creed stated: “It makes me angry that the Israelis are always blamed for the problems and asked to make concessions,” Ms. Creed said. “You know, the Israelis are not the ones launching rockets and placing fighters in houses with children inside.”
Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of COMMENTARY magazine and a contributor to its blog at www.commentarymagazine.com. He can be reached via e-mail at: email@example.com.
On Feb. 5, 2010, WorldNetDaily publishe this report of ours from the left-wing “JStreet” conference at Hillel’s new (2003) center at the University of Pennsylvania.
In our article, we describe JStreet’s self-declared Alinsky-ian takeover attempt of the American Jewish community.
The whole JStreet effort is directly linked to the proliferation of left-wing, New-Israel-Fund-sponsored NGO’s in Israel, who gave all their “ammunition” against the Israeli government to the United Nations’ slanderous ”Goldstone Report.”
Fortunately, the NIF groups were exposed by a plucky group of Israeli activists calling themselves Im Tirzu (“If You Will”). The activists made good use of the fact that the NIF groups had maligned the Israeli Army, which is definitely not appreciated by most Israelis.
FROM WND’S JERUSALEM BUREAU
‘Anti-Israel’ group praises ‘our rabbi Alinsky’
Philadelphia meeting ‘confers ordination’ on radical 1960s theorist
Posted: February 05, 2010
11:50 pm Eastern
By Benyamin Korn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
PHILADELPHIA – Paying tribute to “our rabbi” – the radical 1960s theorist Saul Alinsky – leaders of the left-wing Jewish lobby J Street launched what they hope will be a national mobilization, before an audience of about 175 people at the University of Pennsylvania Hillel center last night.
After he “conferred” rabbinical ordination on Alinsky, Temple University professor Elliot A. Ratzman used rhetoric from the late father of community organizing about “organizing people and mobilizing resources” to inspire conference attendees, which included many veteran activists of the Jewish left.
Ratzman, it was announced, will head the new “Philadelphia local” of J Street, along with well-known Jewish “peace” organizer, attorney Steven Masters.
In his own remarks, Masters said J Street had already amassed a war chest of $4 million to promote its agenda.
Masters also announced he was formally merging the peace group he founded in the mid-1990s, Brit Zedek V’Shalom, or Covenant of Justice and Peace, into the J Streetorganization. In past publications, Masters claimed Brit Zedek had thesupport of 1,000 rabbis and 40,000 lay members.
J Street’s founder and president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has acknowledged receiving seed money from left-wing billionaire activist George Soros. J Street has also come under fire for accepting funds from numerous Arab sources as well as pro-Arab organizations.
Yesterday’s event took place in the facilities of Hillel, which promotes itself as the largest Jewish campus organization in the world and is known as the center of mainstream Jewish life on campuses across the U.S. J Street conference leaders said they were simulcasting the keynote speech of Ben-Ami to 20 remote locations, including 400 in attendance in New York and “over 200″ in Boston.
In his broadcast remarks, Ben-Ami struck a moderate tone, telling activists to engage in a “respectful dialogue” with mainstream Jewish groups. He said J Street wants to pressure Congress and the Obama administration to pursue “a two-state solution” to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But this is a position the mainstream Jewish community, President Obama and successive Israeli governments already embrace.
Nonetheless, “this administration came into office promising to make a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict its first priority, and we intend to hold them to that promise,” Ben-Ami declared.
In a question-and-answer session following the broadcast, Ben-Ami acknowledged a lack of student turnout for the kick-off event. But he stressed the importance of student and faculty involvement and said J Street had already launched a campus program it is calling “J Street U.”
All three speakers were enthusiastic about using the Alinskyian tactic of “mobilizing” clergy and religious congregations, in this case rabbis and synagogues, to promote their political agenda, which they vociferously insist is pro-Israel.
J Street brands itself as pro-Israel. It states on its website it seeks to “promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts peacefully and diplomatically.”
But the group also supports talks with Hamas, a terrorist group whose charter seeks the destruction of Israel. The group opposes sanctions against Iran and is harshly critical of Israel’s anti-terror military offensives.
A group opposing J Street called Z Street staged a simultaneous counter-program at Penn Hillel, which organizers said attracted about 100 people, including about 20 students. Penn is home to a large and active Jewish student population. There were no public confrontations at last night’s conference between the two groups.
Alinsky is widely regarded as the founder of modern community organizing. He founded and trained community organizations to follow his methods, including organizations in South Chicago, where President Obama credits his political beginnings.The Washington Post reported Obama was hired shortly after graduating from college by a group of Alinsky’s disciples to be a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side.
Former 1960s radical and FrontPageMagazine Editor David Horowitz describes Alinsky as the “Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States.”
Horowitz writes in his 2009 pamphlet, “Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution. The Alinsky Model”:
“The strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it was what sixties radicals called ‘boring from within.’…. Like termites, they set about to eat away at the foundations of the building in expectation that one day they could cause it to collapse.”
As WND reported, Obama approached Northwestern University professor John L. McKnight – a loyal student of Alinsky’s radical tactics – to pen a letter of recommendation for him when he applied to Harvard Law School. Under the tutelage of McKnight and other hardcore students of Alinsky, Obama said he got the “best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School.”
In a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe, Alinsky’s son praised Obama for stirring up the masses at the Democratic National Convention “Saul Alinsky style,” saying, “Obama learned his lesson well.”
The letter signed L. David Alinsky closed by saying, “I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully.”