Dor Chadash invites anti-Israel self hater to come speak

Dor Chadash is a Zionist organization, whose goal is to facillitate Jewish American and Israeli friendship, dialogue and understanding. It is an abomination that this supposedly 'Zionist' organization would invite some to speak who said that Israel acts like Nazi Germany. This is some sort of a 'legitimate' viewpoint?

And so, it happened that last night I went to the launch of "Z-Mag" (a Zionist blog) with the American Jewish Committee, and I was able to speak with the organizers of the Avrum Burg event from Dor Chadash. These people literally have no idea what Avrum Burg really said and think that he has a "legitimate viewpoint" that "deserves to be aired" and "it is censorship" to deprive him of a viewpoint. I told them that his "viewpoint" is nothing short of libels and hysteria, and says that Israel is essentially the new Nazi Germany. I said that his perspective is no more "legitimate" than Ahmadinejad, and if Dor Chadash allows Avrum Burg to speak, they might as well allow Ahmadinejad to speak. (why not? Columbia did!) I further said that if you were going to have a self hating Israeli come to speak, there should be some counterpoint to his hysterical perspective. I was told there was going to be someone from the "Forward" as a moderator. I replied that the "Forward" is a leftwing newspaper and not an effective counterpoint. I said a true counterpoint would be a Nonie Darwish or a Khaled Abu Toameh - Arabs who are pro-Israel. She replied "Well, we found it really hard to schedule people, it's not easy to bring people in to speak!" I said "Well, then you should not have scheduled Avrum Burg, because it is NOT an effective counterpoint to simply have the audience respond to him. The ONLY TRULY efective counterpoint to his perspective is to have an academic who is an Arab refusnik counter his blood libels." She basically was left speechless. I think I got through to the organizer from Dor Chadash, and she understands it might have been a mistake to invite this anti-Israel blood libeller to speak at what is *supposed* to be a Zionist organization.

If you are in the NYC area on April 1, I heartily encourage you to attend the Avrum Burg event to ask the difficult questions that need to be asked.

[UPDATE: Please go here for a fuller interview with Avrum Burg, so you can understand exactly who this man is.]

The ROOT of Jewish self hate

Carl in Jerusalem recently discussed the security fence in Israel, showing how in fact it is anti-security by its very nature. A commentator, Daniel, replied to this post basically saying how sick he was of liberal Jewry and their self loathing, placing the blame for Israel and the Jewish nation's cultural malaise on Reform/Conservative Judaism and a lack of Jewish pride. He stated that Jews did much during the Civil Rights movement for black people, but little to save Jews during the Holocaust. I wrote a response, and I think it is worth reading.

Daniel,

With all due respect, you have mischaracterized reform and conservative Judaism.

I believe most reform and conservative synagogues lack the passion and Jewish commitment of Orthodox synagogues, however, most are Zionist and most give Jews a connection to Judaism they otherwise would not have. The choice is not Orthodox or Reform. For many Jews, the choice is Reform of nothing at all. Given that, I would argue Reform synagogues are not a bad thing. Moreover, Reform synagogues are increasingly becoming more religious, anyway.

Now, as far as your argument about the Nazis; I have read about Rabbi Stephen Wise and the American Jewish community during WWII. Yes, there is more they could have done, in my opinion. But this all misses the broader problems in the world.

I believe that the problems Jews face are of more pressing significance than most ethnic/religious groups throughout the world. And so kapos and self hatred have a more immediate and disastrous effect on the Jewish nation than it does or would on most others. But self hatred is not limited to the Jews, and treason is not limited to the Jews.

Just look at Eurodhimmiland. It is a cesspool of self hate on a scale that I believe even outstrips Israel. Every opportunity is taken to bash the Judeo-christian Euro heritage. Even in the US, moveon.org had the gaul to call General Petreaus a traitor for simply saying the US is making progress in Iraq...and this ad was not condemned by a single Democratic candidate for president. Not one. Why is this?

I would argue the root of the self hatred is in communism, and in fact the free world only just barely won the Cold War; academia and the social elite of Eurodhimmiland and the US are littered with communists and socialists. And I view this, not Jewish self hatred as the root of the problem.

In short, I see Israel's problems as very related to its socialist roots. The further it gets from these socialist roots, the more it will have to grasp some alternative ideology. We cannot forget that socialism/communism is an antisemitic philosophy at its core. Karl Marx was not a Jew (his parents converted to Christianity and raised him non-Jewish), and he wrote the antisemitic paper, On the Jewish Question. There is a reason why the USSR was so hostile to Jews, and why communist nations around the world are so virulently hostile to Jews. Once you read On the Jewish Question, perhaps you will have a better understanding as to what I am talking about.

To sum this all up...to the extent that Jews might suffer particularly from self hate and self destructiveness, as opposed to Eurodhimmiland and the like, it is because of the large numbers of Jewish communists. The Jewish communists are not the recent immigrants from the former USSR, as most of those saw the destructiveness of communism and are now ardently anti-communist. No, the communists mostly are Red diaper babies whose parents and grandparents left the USSR and Eastern European and European states when communism was en vogue. Most of these Red diaper babies are assimilating, anyway. Witness the Adam Shapiro story. And thus, within the next few generations, I predict that the Jewish nation will only improve, if nothing else due to demographics of who is reproducing.

Daniel replied with the following:

I believe most reform and conservative synagogues lack the passion and Jewish commitment of Orthodox synagogues, however, most are Zionist and most give Jews a connection to Judaism they otherwise would not have. The choice is not Orthodox or Reform. For many Jews, the choice is Reform of nothing at all. Given that, I would argue Reform synagogues are not a bad thing. Moreover, Reform synagogues are increasingly becoming more religious, anyway.

I wish you were correct. I wish c&r's were becoming more observant, having large numbers of Jewish kids, visited Israel at a higher rate than xtians, and didn't intermarry. Yes, the local federation rags often profile a temple that added a few lines of hebrew. but this is like the MSM in the 70's profiling the successful black woman that was once on welfare.

The facts speak for themselves. r%c have intermarriga rates approaching 75% in some locales. 2007 National Survey of American Jews demonstrated how with each generation the non orthos have little concern for Israel and Judaism.

We can pretend that r& c are strongly committed , but for the vast majority are places for going twice a year and for treif bnai mitzvas.

Conservative "believes" in halacha, and you can probably find a minyan of shomer mitzva conservative jews, but I'd bet my left foot that less tah 1% of C's practice family purity and only5% would even know that they are supposed to.

100 years from know when historians write the history of American Jewry-at least of the wave that came at the beginning of the 20TH century- will be "they came , they prosperred , they intermarried, they ignored TWO HOLOCAUSTS, and they disappeared."

Nothing to be proud of.

p.s. notice that I intentionally excluded the refugees from hitler and stalin- They are the Maccabees of America

This brought the following reply by me:

Daniel:

I have to reiterate how you have the wrong perspective.

If the choice were between Orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism, you would have a point, and maybe I would agree with you. That is not the choice.

The choice of most Jews would be between Reform Judaism and nothing, or even converting out of Judaism. So the correct comparison that should be made is not between Reform/Conservative Jews and Orthodox Jewry. The correct comparison should be between Reform/Conservative and nothing/atheism.

Given those are the choices, (and I can say for the most part, that is the reality) the real question should be whether Reform/Conservative Judaism is better than nothing at all. And the answer to that question, in my mind, is a clear yes.

There are real benefits offered in Reform/Conservative shuls. Firstly, technically speaking, Conservative shuls believe in Halacha, however, the synagogues are integrated by gender, and most of the congregants do not follow Halacha in their daily lives. How is it a negative if Jews in that category are exposed to what is authetic Judaism when they go to shul, which they otherwise would not do?

Then there are Reform congregations, which do not follow Halacha and do not necessarily believe in Halacha. I would argue that the validity of these synagogues is on a case by case basis. Some are basically churches with a few Hebrew words uttered; I see little value in that and no point in holding on to Judaism if that is all that is left. Other synagogues offer much more.

Your analysis is very black and white, whereas the world of Reform/Conservative Judaism is anything but that.

Finally, you have not addressed the rest of what I said, which I believe to be the bottom line basis for the self hate. I do not see this as a particularly theological Jewish struggle, except to the extent that Judaism is and can be used as an alternative to the destructiveness of communist self hate. I have atheist Jewish friends who are the biggest Zionists around. They identify with capitalism and secular humanism, and even vote for the religious parties in Israel, as they are also capitalist and anti-communist.

The root of the self hate in Israel is the same root found in Eurodhimmiland, the US, and the rest of the West. It is communism, which we know is linked with Islamofascism. It is that root which must be expunged, not Reform and Conservative Judaism.

P.S.: I never said that Reform or Conservative Jews are as committed as Orthodox Jews, because they are not. However, most congregations are much more committed to Israel and the Jewish nation than the general population of the US or Eurodhimmiland. Moreover, if any kid of a secular Jew is to make teshuva, they would come from the Reform/Conservative pool, NOT the pool of kids with atheist parents.

In summation: the logical and constructive path to take is to encourage and support Orthodox Jewry, while not denigrating Reform/Conservative congregations unless they fail to support the Jewish nation. (such as in Lerner's case) For every Lerner synagogue, there are 20 Zionist congregations that might not be as ardent as Orthodox congregations, but are definitely not anti-zionist. (and that said, the Satmar are Orthodox and anti-Zionist)

So what should be done? Work with the Reform/Conservative shuls. Have Zionist speakers come and educate the members of these shuls, and get out the facts, which are on our side. Hope is not lost, and the vast majority of Reform/Conservative synagogues are not the enemy.

Thoughts?

War and Peace

My friend (who I showcased an email correspondence with over here) wrote me a long email about his correspondence with a 'peace' group, and in it he wrote that he disagreed with their stance on Israel, but he agreed with their other stances. I wrote back that I doubted that he really agreed with them on their other stances. This is the exchange that followed. I am copying all you find folks, as I feel that in these emails I showed the utter hypocrisy of the 'peace' groups.

This is his email back to me:

We haven't really discussed the other positions of the 'peace group,' which I support. Here are a few:

1. paper ballots over electronic voting...at least until more testing is done; (i have to learn more though)
2. raising awareness about the conditions of, and resources avaibable to, Iraq War veterans.
3. anti-Iraq war
4. Darfur Genocide awareness
5. counter military recruitment (at least when it targets underage kids)

My reply was as follows:

I will give my stance on those issues, and then explain why I do not believe you actually agree with all of them...

1. Yes, I agree electronic voting has too many problems at present and I support a paper system; that said, New York's non-electronic system is one of the most faulty in the nation, and with the most machine breakdowns.
2. Raising awareness of Walter Reed medical center and problems that might be there is noble, certainly.
3. Anti-Iraq War is NOT noble from their position. And I doubt you agree with it. They want troops to be brought home NOW, this second. They are NOT looking for a staggered troop withdrawal. I read their statements, they believe it is most 'peaceful' to have mass pandemonium which has hundreds of thousands of troops leave at once and immediately dismantle the infrastructure. But oh, there is more. This sort of nonsensical policy would lead to mass slaughter of Iraqis. In other words, they are in favor of pandemonium and slaughter. And no, I am not exaggerating. Their petition says "bring home troops NOW." They are demanding the end to ANY funds for military action. (never mind the fact that it would take money, and lots of it, to suddenly bring hundreds of thousands of men and women back to the US at once) And never mind the fact that if troops lack money, they will have to cannibalize their resources. Military policy says that if suddenly they lack guns/arms/food due to the US not funding it, they will steal from locals, and do whatever it takes to get this.
   
   This horrific scenario is what the 'peace group' advocates. You cannot possibly agree with it, even if you do believe troops should be out of Iraq. I would like to add that this is the most anti-humane and anti-troop thing you could possibly think of. (not to mention anti-Iraqi) When I read they are in favor of veteran awareness, you have to laugh, given how anti-troop they really are.
   
   One more thing. These 'peacers' are un-American to even call this an 'Occupation' of Iraq. It is NOT an 'occupation,' and they only use the word to evoke the sympathies of anti-zionists to their cause.
4. Darfur we agree with, but then again, they are all fake. They like to scream about Darfur, but if the US were to go in there with a military action, they would be anti-war. They are only talking about Darfur because it's a way for them to be anti-Bush.
5. Finally, counter-military recruitment is another stupid and suicidal policy. Why, exactly, should we not be doing what we can to encourage kids to join the military? No one is forcing them to join; there is no draft, unlike in many other nations. If you are going to end military recruitment, why not end college recruitment? Is the military somehow a less legitimate life path than college? I know you do not believe that. For many kids, the military is the most sensible path and one they desire, rather than college. To be against military recruitment is to be against having an effective fighting force, and whatever your feelings on Iraq, you again cannot possibly be in favor of that. In contrast, I do believe that the 'peace group' is in favor of dismantling the US army, and this is but one way to do it.

In summary, I do not believe you actually agree with the phony "peace group's" other positions on other issues, however, I also know you are not passionate about Iraq, military equipment, or even Darfur as you are about Israel.

My friend wrote this in reply:

so you agree..... i do agree with them on other issues. no matter that they're fake on darfur. i still agree w/ the position. well, i'm not sure what their position is...military intervention, or bulking up the AU forces. no matter that i don't agree w/ where they're coming from....i still agree w/ raising awareness about veterans' needs. i agree they don't give a genuine shit about military issues and military families...only as it suits their agenda. i was at an ISO sponsored planning event for a Washington Heights anti-war rally earlier this summer...and they were talking about finding out where war widows in w. heights lived, visiting them and soliciting their help to march at the front -- so all the cameras can be on them. i played out the scenario in my head....i imagined some families would be happy to get the visit, but imagine the poor widow who gets visited and decides it's not for them and wants nothing to do w/ anti-war movement? can you imagine the condescension and self-righteousness from these socialist fuckers ...i'm sure they'd commit to not interrogating her, but they'd drop in a "you do know that your husband died for a lie, don't you? and oh, thanks for letting us use your bathroom mrs. gonzalez" i got chills sitting there.

yea, about the iraq war...you know i'm w/ you. i'm against the war, but i don't agree w/ them about ending it.

i also agree w/ you about counter-recruitment. what i agree w/ the 'peace group' about is how some recruitment centers have been targeting under-age kids....15 and 16. i don't think that's right, and they have been breaking rules doing it. counter-recruitment people in general yes, are retarded. they'd be willing to reduce america's military to the national guard....but only if they promised not to shoot.

I read that and I thought..."my friend still doesn't totally get it...I have to drive the point home!" So I wrote the following:

Let me sum up this 'peace group' as well as other 'peace' groups and their positions...

"Rethuglicans and BushCo are war mongers and hate mongers. Therefore, anything they advocate has to be bad, and we must do what is necessary to undermine any and everything they do, in the interest of peace and anti-hate."

This is the lens through which they view modern politics. So, let's examine how they view everything, with that lens...

1. Electronic voting machines are seen as bad because a Republican owns the Diebold corporation. They fear this can be exploited against Democratic (i.e., 'peace') candidates. As such, they work against electronic voting machines. Oh yeah, those 2006 Midterm elections worked out for the Dems, didn't they? And electronic voting was used in much of the country, electing Dems...hmmm...well, let's not talk about that, and ignore it, pretend it didn't happen. So even this position is hypocritical.
2. Despite the fact that Clinton set about eight years of cuts to the military, including to veteran facilities, the problems at Walter Reed Medical Center is another way to blame Bush, while appearing to be noble about it. They can pretend they care about the troops, when really this position again is only used to show how war-like Bush is, compared to their peacefulness.
3. Iraq - They are against this war solely because Bush and Rethugs started it. You heard nary a peep from 'peace' groups when Clinton was bombing aspirin factories in Sudan, or bombing Kosovo, including many civilian localities. (that was under the 'war hero' and 'peacenik,' Wesley Clark) That is right, our campaign in Kosovo included bombing civilian infrastructure...but no one said this was 'a war crime,' or was sobbing for the innocent Serbs who were killed. Feel free to read more about this humanitarian bombing'), but fighting a war in Iraq is a war crime.
4. Darfur again, under this lens, is merely a way to criticize Bush. They do not care about the Darfurians or anyone except excising BushCo from the White House.
5. In general, if there is one thing a 'peace' group is against, it is the military. They don't merely care about targetting 'underage kids,' because they want the military to be barred from college campuses as well. As far as targetting underage kids; you have to be 18 to enlist, anyway. The only wrong thing about military recruitment of underage kids (or ANYONE) is that they might tell lies to entice people to join. That is wrong; but that is not what this 'peace group' ultimately cares about. They just see the military as linked with Bush and anyway evil, but they know based on lessons from Vietnam War protesting that they cannot come right out and say that. So they do every single thing possible to weaken the strength, morale, and fighting ability of the military, with the goal of defanging our defenses. However, we are allowed to fight only when a non-"Rethug" is in the White House. All in the name of peace.
   
   Sorry for going off on this ramble, but I just find 'peace' groups to be the most dishonest racket around. They believe in peace insofar as they view anti-Chimpy McHalliburton to mean 'peace,' regardless of what policies must be used to be anti-Chimpy McHalliburton. If somehow such policies would cause Israel to be obliterated, Iraqis to be slaughtered en masse, and Americans to be subjected to the worst sorts of terrorism...that does not matter. As it is peaceful, simply because it is anti-BushCo.
   
   They sicken me to no end.

I hope this email exchange as as interesting for you as it was for me in the intellectual exercise of writing it!

'Masked' the play

Last night, I saw something that had me very deeply disturbed. I saw a play called 'Masked,' about three Palestinian brothers. This was written by Ami Dayan, Moshe Dayan's nephew. One of the brothers is a suspected 'collaborator' with Israel, one is an Arafish stooge, and one is young and impressionable - the question is where he will go in the future. The play ignored several key parts to the 'Palestinian' question, namely, Islam and jihad. The word 'jihad' was not mentioned once. Moreover, the suffering of the Israelis at the hands of these 'Palestinians' was not mentioned at all. I also saw the choice of the 'collaborater' brother as a false one. Given how leftist Barak basically left a number of the Southern Lebanese army to die after the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000...why would ANYONE want to risk their life to be a 'collaborator' if they get little to nothing in return?

But anyway, that was only half of my criticism. The brunt was aimed at one of the members of the panel discussion after the play, Elik Elhanan. He said that he lost his sister, and he blamed the death of his sister on the 'cycle of violence' caused by 'the occupation.'

I raised my hand and said "With all due respect, Mr. Elhanan, but there is no cycle of violence. Arafat was offered all that Israel could be willing to give in 2000, and he answered that with the Intifada."

In response, Elhanan said "Oh, but you don't know what was offered, have you seen maps?"

I said "Yes, I have. Dennis Ross wrote a book about this."

Then he incredibly said that you cannot trust Dennis Ross! Abram Epstein, an old and tired leftist Jew also on the panel, responded that his 'Palestinian' friends would say this was all about East Jerusalem. I responded "With all due respect, this was not about East Jerusalem. This was about the 'right of return,' which everyone knows is a ploy to destroy Israel. And moreover, when Israel does not return fire, they get MORE fire, not less. There is absolutely no cycle of violence."

Then some other audience members had a few other comments to make, and Epstein had the gaul to say that Hamas does not have to recognize Israel, as that would be like having the Native Americans recognize America. The most we could expect is they will renounce violence. I responded (shouting out in the audience), "Oh, you mean a hudna." He got very angry at that suggestion, and said "No, I mean long term peace." I laughed at him when he said that. It should be noted that Native Americans recognize America, and certainly have no terror campaign as the 'Palestinians' do.

Finally, it was down to closing comments. Blah, blah, blah. Then down to Elhanan. My friend sitting next to me whispered "Watch him say occupation!" Next thing you know, Elhanan, in his sinister way, said "Really, this is all about the occupation. My sister died due to the occupation. Little children on all sides have died due to the occupation. The occupation is the cause of all the troubles, and drives the 'Palestinians' to commit their terror!" (talk about soft bigotry of low expectations!) My friend and I laughed out loud, right in front of him, as he uttered such tripe.

What a travesty. Little old ladies thanked me afterwards, for stating FACTS in the midst of Jewish self hating LIES. It was disgusting to see such lies propagated to an audience who maybe does not know so much about the conflict, and now might buy into the garbage. Very sinister.

I would like to add that Elhanan stated that he and his cronies, 'Combatants for Peace,' go into 'Palestinian' areas and 'protect' the 'Palestinians' from Israeli bulldozers and IDF action. This is Rachel Corrie-esque. I hence view Elhanan, who organizes far leftist soldiers to not fight in the 'territories,' and 'protects' the 'Palestinians' from IDF action to be a traitor to Israel and the Jewish nation. I wanted to spit at him, I was so furious to see him. He should honestly be tried and convicted of treason, for the activities he has done.

What makes it the most tragic is that he lost his sister, killed by 'Palestinians.' Instead of blaming the right source, he and his family blamed ISRAEL! They blamed the victim! I sort of understand this mentality, as it is twofold. On the one hand, he must think that if people hate Jews so much, they have to have a reason! Many Jews turned to self hatred from this respect, during and after the Holocaust. On the other hand, it is much easier (and safer) to rail against Israel than it is to rail against the corrupt Jew-hating thugs which make up the 'Palestinian' leadership and media (indoctrinating all 'Palestinians' to hate) It gives him hope to rail against Israel, as Israel is a democracy, and responsive to his hate. In contradistinction, the 'Palestinians' would not stop their butchery of Israeli civilians due to Elhanan's action or inaction.

So sad. There was a British man on the panel, Glemore Trenear-Harvey, and as soon as I heard his British accent, I figured he would be a dhimmi. (due to recent British politics) While he most certainly was misguided, he actually was less misguided than the Jews on the panel!

If that does not sum up what is wrong with modern leftist Jews in a nutshell, what does?

UPDATE:

Carl in Jerusalem supplied information about Elhanan's mother. Evidently she was a speaker at a UN-sponsored conference of hate against Israel. With parents such as those, it is no wonder he came out as he did.