Page 11234..1020..»

B’nai Brith Canada – Wikipedia

Posted By on December 5, 2016

B’nai Brith Canada (BBC) (English pronunciation: , from Hebrew: b’n brit, “Children of the Covenant”)[2] is the Canadian section of B’nai B’rith (the Canadian organization uses no apostrophe in “B’rith”), the oldest Jewish service organization in the world. It is committed to the security and continuity of the Jewish people and the State of Israel and combating antisemitism and bigotry.

The Mission of B’nai Brith Canada, as stated in the preamble to its constitution:

B’nai Brith has taken upon itself the mission of uniting person of the Jewish faith in the work of promoting their highest interest and those of humanity; of developing and elevating the mental and moral character of the people of our faith; of inculcating the purest principles of philanthropy, honour and patriotism; of supporting science and art; alleviating the wants of the poor and needy; visiting and caring for the sick; coming to the rescue of the victims of persecution; providing for, protecting and assisting the aged, the widow and the orphan on the broadest principles of humanity.[3]

Bnai Brith Canada has had a presence in this country since its earliest days, with roots stretching back to 1875. It is Canadian Jewrys most senior human rights advocacy organization and is the only national independent voice speaking out on behalf of grassroots Jewish Canadians.

In 1875, Lodge No. 246 was the first lodge founded in Toronto Canada, followed soon after by another in Montreal. Many community leaders were associated with these lodges. Over time, a team of dedicated volunteers and professional staff engaged in combating antisemitism, bigotry and racism in Canada and abroad in addition to wide-ranging educational and social programming, community and volunteer services, and human initiatives. These and other activities undertaken are meant to reflect the organizations commitment to People Helping People.[3]

Just as Bnai Brith has grown and evolved over the years in order to respond to the particular needs of the time, so has Canadian Jewry undergone many transformations. Throughout, Bnai Brith has consistently employed its successful advocacy model of strong community, results-oriented grassroots activism.

In the first two decades of the 20th century B’nai B’rith launched three of today’s major Jewish organizations: The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Hillel and BBYO (originally B’nai B’rith Youth Organization). Later they would take on a life of their own with varying degrees of autonomy.

In January 2004, Shahina Siddiqui, executive director of the Islamic Social Services Association, filed a formal complaint against B’nai Brith Canada under the “discriminatory signs and statements” section of the Manitoba Human Rights Code. After speaking with several people who attended a Winnipeg conference on terrorism hosted by B’nai Brith Canada in October 2003, she wrote that the event was biased against Muslims and would encourage the response teams in attendance to engage in racial profiling. The Manitoba Human Rights Commission (MHRC) accepted the complaint and began an investigation that would last five years. In 2009, the MHRC issued a report that dismissed the complaint due to a lack of evidence.[4] MHRC vice-chairwoman Yvonne Peters subsequently wrote that “the full investigation of the complaint that took place was warranted” and that “the decision was based solely on the insufficiency of the evidence with respect to this particular section of the Human Rights Code.”[4][5]

In 2008, David Matas, B’nai Brith’s senior counsel, sharply criticized the MHRC for its conduct during the investigation, stating that:

“The [Manitoba] Human Rights Commission itself is supposed to be promoting human rights, but in our view in this process it’s violating some pretty basic rights: a secret proceeding, a faceless accuser, failure to disclose documents. These are basic procedural rights that are being violated.”[5]

Writing in the National Post, Joseph Brean made several criticisms of the investigation:

Following the release of the MHRC report, Matas accused MHRC vice-chairwoman Yvonne Peters of taking a contradictory position, stating that:

“So what they’re saying is that a full investigation is warranted even when there’s no evidence, as long as the accusation is within the jurisdiction of the board. There’s a lot of problems with this. What basically happened is that Siddiqui heard a rumour. She makes a complaint, as a result of which the commission goes on a five-year fishing expedition. They don’t find anything. We’re co-operating with them. And then they dismiss the complaint. That’s not a proper procedure, in my view.”[4]

Matas also criticized the procedures of the MHRC, stating that they will “take an allegation, without evidence, and just run with it to see if it’s true.” The previous year, Matas in a submission in a Moon Report on Internet hate speech, Matas charged that Canada’s human rights commissions have demonstrated “a disastrous combination of investigative zeal and substantive ignorance.” Although Matas stated that he does not believe Siddiqui acted in bad faith, he added that:

“The people who run these procedures have to have a more objective viewpoint than the people who make the complaint.”[4]

In July 2009, B’nai Brith Canada issued a press release[6] denouncing Carleton University for hiring Hassan Diab, who was alleged by French authorities to have been responsible for the 1980 Paris synagogue bombing. Diab was living under virtual house arrest at the time (he had been granted bail but under very strict conditions) due to an extradition request from France. Diab, who has denied any involvement with the synagogue bombing, has not been convicted of any crime. Within a few hours of the B’nai Brith Canada complaint, Carleton University announced that it would immediately replace the current instructor, Hassan Diab” in order to provide students with a stable, productive academic environment that is conducive to learning. Bnai Brith executive vice-president Frank Dimant later stated that “the university did the right thing.[7]

On November 9, 2009, B’nai Brith Canada ran a full page ad in the National Post comparing radical Islam with Nazism. Frank Dimant, CEO of B’nai Brith, said “overall, feedback from the ad has been very positive.” At the same time, the ad drew the ire of the group Canadian Jewish Holocaust Survivors and the Canadian Association of Jews and Muslims.[8]

In September 2014, Ontario lawyer Michael Mostyn was appointed CEO of B’nai Brith Canada, succeeding Frank Dimant upon his retirement after 36 years with the organization. In 2015, the organization indefinitely suspended publication of Jewish Tribune and announced the sale of its heavily mortgaged headquarters at 15 Hove Street.[9]

In 2007, a group calling itself Concerned Members of Bnai Brith Canada charged that a new constitution had been passed despite a majority of members having voted against it at a general meeting. Henry Gimpel, a former Toronto lodge president, told The Forward that “[t]heres too much of [Bnai Brith Canada] being run by one person.[1] Frank Dimant, CEO of BBC, responded to the criticism over the constitution by saying that BBC followed proper governance procedures and that B’nai Brith International’s Court of Appeal determined that the constitution was properly enacted. Gimpel and seven other BBC members were expelled in June 2008 for what a disciplinary committee determined to be “conduct unbecoming a member.” Gimpel referred to the committee as a kangaroo court.[10]

On July 8, 2015, the Toronto Star reported that Dimant has demanded an annual retirement payout of $175,000, representing 75% of his former salary, which the B’nai Brith believes is too lucrative and will require the struggling charity to direct fundraising dollars to pay for Dimant’s pension. Dimant has stated that the payout was approved by the organization’s board, however, the Star cites an unnamed source as stating that the deal was arranged with little oversight while Dimant was still in charge. In the year following Dimant’s retirement, B’nai Brith Canada put its “state of the art” care facility for Alzheimer’s patients under insolvency protection while also trying to sell it. The project, initiated and led by Dimant, is a $16 million facility opened in 2013 but that been unable to attract enough patients, due to high fees for patients of $7,500 a month and the fact that it was not designed to be wheelchair accessible; the facility is losing $50,000 a month and owes $11 million to creditors.[11]

The Toronto Star article also claimed that other issues left by Dimant’s former management of B’nai Brith are a lack of records and record keeping and failure to always issue charitable tax receipts and poor corporate governance with approximately 50 people who had believed they were on various boards of B’nai Brith organizations learning that this is not the case, as Dimant’s management had failed to file the correct paperwork with government agencies.[11]

Due to financial difficulties, including a decline in charitable donations in recent years, B’nai Brith also ceased publication of its newspaper, Jewish Tribune in 2015, and is selling its headquarters which carries two mortgages totalling nearly $4 million, though the building itself is assessed at slightly over $3 million.[12] It was reported by The Forward in 2007 that the organization was struggling financially and mortgaged its head office in order to raise $850,000 to meet expenses.[1]

According to an article in The Forward, B’nai Brith Canada had 4,000 full-dues paying members in 2007.[1]

B’nai Brith Canada owned and operated the weekly Jewish Tribune as a subsidiary publication.[13] The newspaper claimed a circulation of over 62,000 copies a week which would make it the largest Jewish publication in Canada.[14] Publication was suspended in early 2015.[15]

On November 29, 2002, B’nai Brith Canada sued the Canadian government for “failing to crack down on the fundraising efforts of Hezbollah”, by not adding Hezbollah’s charity wing to the list of banned terrorist organizations; the military wing of Hezbollah was already listed, but not the entire organization.[16] About a week later, Canada made the decision to designate all of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.[17]

B’nai Brith Canada operates a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week ‘Anti-Hate Hotline’. The hotline receives calls from those who feel they have suffered from antisemitism or discrimination and is one of the sources of the organisation’s statistics for its Annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents. The hotline can be reached at 1-800-892-BNAI (2624).

Centre for Community Action Affordable Housing Community Volunteer Service Programs League for Human Rights 24-hour, 7-day-a-week Anti-Hate Hotline Annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents Institute for International Affairs Canadian Israel Public Affairs Committee (CIPAC) Government Relations Office National Task Force on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research Operation Thank You: Educational Initiative Honouring Canadian Troops in Afghanistan Communications Department Legal Desk Campus Outreach Program Young Leadership Development Groups Network of B’nai Brith Lodges Sports Leagues Jewish Canada Information Service Alzheimer’s Residence, Toronto

It was on B’nai Brith Canada’s recommendation that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was awarded B’nai B’rith International’s Presidential Gold Medal to honor what it described as his commitment to the Jewish people and the State of Israel.[19]

Award-winning film producer Robert Lantos has been a long-time supporter of B’nai Brith Canada and in 2008 was awarded the organization’s Award of Merit.[20] Among the other Canadian notables to have received the Award of Merit of B’nai Brith Canada are Lindsay Gordon, Blake Goldring, Frank Stronach, Tony Comper, Al Waxman, Wallace McCain, Lloyd Axworthy, Mayor Jean Drapeau, George Cohon, Leo Kolber, former Liberal Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin, hockey legend Jean Bliveau, Paul Tellier, former Ontario Premier Bill Davis, Ambassador Allan Gotlieb, Monty Hall, Surjit Babra and Walter Arbib, Izzy Asper, Guy Charbonneau, former Manitoba Premier Gary Filmon, former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister of Canada Herb Gray, former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed, Edward Samuel “Ted” Rogers, former Alberta Premier Ernest Manning, and Calin Rovinescu.

See the original post:
B’nai Brith Canada – Wikipedia

American Jews – Wikipedia

Posted By on December 5, 2016

American Jews Total population


American Jews, also known as Jewish Americans,[5] are Americans who are Jews, either by religion, ethnicity, or nationality.[6] The Jewish community in the United States is composed predominantly of Ashkenazi Jews and their US-born descendants, making up about 90% of the American Jewish population.[7][8] Minority Jewish ethnic divisions are also represented, including Sephardic Jews, Mizrahi Jews, and a smaller percentage of converts to Judaism. The American Jewish community manifests a wide range of Jewish cultural traditions, as well as encompassing the full spectrum of Jewish religious observance.

Depending on religious definitions and varying population data, the United States is home to the largest or second largest (after Israel) Jewish community in the world. In 2012, the American Jewish population was estimated at between 5.5 and 8 million, depending on the definition of the term. This constitutes between 1.7% and 2.6% of the total U.S. population.[1]

Jews have been present in what is today the United States of America since the mid-17th century.[9][10] However, they were small in number, with at most 200 to 300 having arrived by 1700.[11] The majority were Sephardic Jewish immigrants of Spanish and Portuguese ancestry;[12] until after 1720 when Ashkenazi Jews from Central and Eastern Europe predominated.[11]

After passage of the Plantation Act of 1740, Jews were specifically permitted to become British citizens and immigrate to the colonies. Despite some being denied the ability to vote or hold office in local jurisdictions, Sephardic Jews became active in community affairs in the 1790s, after achieving political equality in the five states where they were most numerous.[13] Until about 1830, Charleston, South Carolina had more Jews than anywhere else in North America. Large scale Jewish immigration, however, did not commence until the 19th century, when, by mid-century, many Ashkenazi Jews had arrived from Germany, migrating to the United States in large numbers due to antisemitic laws and restrictions in their countries of birth.[14] They primarily became merchants and shop-owners. There were approximately 250,000 Jews in the United States by 1880, many of them being the educated, and largely secular, German Jews, although a minority population of the older Sephardic Jewish families remained influential.

Jewish migration to the United States increased dramatically in the early 1880s, as a result of persecution and economic difficulties in parts of Eastern Europe. Most of these new immigrants were Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazi Jews, though most came from the poor rural populations of the Russian Empire and the Pale of Settlement, located in modern-day Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. During the same period, great numbers of Ashkenazi Jews also arrived also from Galicia, at that time the most impoverished region of Austro-Hungarian empire with heavy Jewish urban population, driven out mainly by economic reasons. Many Jews also emigrated from Romania. Over 2,000,000 Jews landed between the late 19th century and 1924, when the Immigration Act of 1924 restricted immigration. Most settled in the New York metropolitan area, establishing the world’s major concentrations of Jewish population. In 1915 the circulation of the daily Yiddish newspapers was half a million in New York City alone, and 600,000 nationally. In addition thousands more subscribed to the numerous weekly papers and the many magazines.[15]

At the beginning of the 20th century, these newly arrived Jews built support networks consisting of many small synagogues and Ashkenazi Jewish Landsmannschaften (German for “Countryman Associations”) for Jews from the same town or village. American Jewish writers of the time urged assimilation and integration into the wider American culture, and Jews quickly became part of American life. 500,000 American Jews (or half of all Jewish males between 18 and 50) fought in World War II, and after the war younger families joined the new trend of suburbanization. There, Jews became increasingly assimilated and demonstrated rising intermarriage. The suburbs facilitated the formation of new centers, as Jewish school enrollment more than doubled between the end of World War II and the mid-1950s, while synagogue affiliation jumped from 20% in 1930 to 60% in 1960; the fastest growth came in Reform and, especially, Conservative congregations.[16] More recent waves of Jewish emigration from Russia and other regions have largely joined the mainstream American Jewish community.

Americans of Jewish descent have been disproportionately successful in many fields and aspects over the years.[17][18] The Jewish community in America has gone from a lower class minority, with most studies putting upwards of 80% as manual factory laborers prior to World War I and with the majority of fields barred to them,[19] to the consistent richest or second richest ethnicity in America for the past 40 years in terms of average annual salary, with extremely high concentrations in academia and other fields, and today have the highest per capita income of any ethnic group in the United States, at around double the average income of non-Jewish Americans.[20][21][22]

Scholars debate whether the favorable historical experience for Jews in the United States has been such a unique experience as to validate American exceptionalism.[23]

Korelitz (1996) shows how American Jews during the late 19th and early 20th centuries abandoned a racial definition of Jewishness in favor of one that embraced ethnicity. The key to understanding this transition from a racial self-definition to a cultural or ethnic one can be found in the Menorah Journal between 1915 and 1925. During this time contributors to the Menorah promoted a cultural, rather than a racial, religious, or other view of Jewishness as a means to define Jews in a world that threatened to overwhelm and absorb Jewish uniqueness. The journal represented the ideals of the menorah movement established by Horace M. Kallen and others to promote a revival in Jewish cultural identity and combat the idea of race as a means to define or identify peoples.[24]

Siporin (1990) uses the family folklore of ethnic Jews to their collective history and its transformation into an historical art form. They tell us how Jews have survived being uprooted and transformed. Many immigrant narratives bear a theme of the arbitrary nature of fate and the reduced state of immigrants in a new culture. By contrast, ethnic family narratives tend to show the ethnic more in charge of his life, and perhaps in danger of losing his Jewishness altogether. Some stories show how a family member successfully negotiated the conflict between ethnic and American identities.[25]

After 1960, memories of the Holocaust, together with the Six Day War in 1967 had major impacts on fashioning Jewish ethnic identity. Some have argued that the Holocaust provided Jews with a rationale for their ethnic distinction at a time when other minorities were asserting their own.[26][27][28]

In New York City, while the German Jewish community was well established ‘uptown’, the more numerous Jews who migrated from Eastern Europe faced tension ‘downtown’ with Irish and German Catholic neighbors, especially the Irish Catholics who controlled Democratic Party Politics[30]at the time. Jews successfully established themselves in the garment trades and in the needle unions in New York. By the 1930s they were a major political factor in New York, with strong support for the most liberal programs of the New Deal. They continued as a major element of the New Deal Coalition, giving special support to the Civil Rights Movement. By the mid-1960s, however, the Black Power movement caused a growing separation between blacks and Jews, though both groups remained solidly in the Democratic camp.[31]

While earlier Jewish immigrants from Germany tended to be politically conservative, the wave of Jews from Eastern Europe starting in the early 1880s, were generally more liberal or left wing and became the political majority.[32] Many came to America with experience in the socialist, anarchist and communist movements as well as the Labor Bund, emanating from Eastern Europe. Many Jews rose to leadership positions in the early 20th century American labor movement and helped to found unions that played a major role in left wing politics and, after 1936, in Democratic Party politics.[32]

Although American Jews generally leaned Republican in the second half of the 19th century, the majority has voted Democratic since at least 1916, when they voted 55% for Woodrow Wilson.[29]

With the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt, American Jews voted more solidly Democratic. They voted 90% for Roosevelt in the elections of 1940, and 1944, representing the highest of support, only equaled once since. In the election of 1948, Jewish support for Democrat Harry S. Truman dropped to 75%, with 15% supporting the new Progressive Party.[29] As a result of lobbying, and hoping to better compete for the Jewish vote, both major party platforms had included a pro-Zionist plank since 1944,[33][34] and supported the creation of a Jewish state; it had little apparent effect however, with 90% still voting other-than Republican. In every election since, except for 1980, no Democratic presidential candidate has won with less than 67% of the Jewish vote. (In 1980, Carter won 45% of the Jewish vote. See below.)

During the 1952 and 1956 elections, they voted 60% or more for Democrat Adlai Stevenson, while General Eisenhower garnered 40% for his reelection; the best showing to date for the Republicans since Harding’s 43% in 1920.[29] In 1960, 83% voted for Democrat John F. Kennedy against Richard Nixon, and in 1964, 90% of American Jews voted for Lyndon Johnson, over his Republican opponent, arch-conservative Barry Goldwater. Hubert Humphrey garnered 81% of the Jewish vote in the 1968 elections, in his losing bid for president against Richard Nixon.[29]

During the Nixon re-election campaign of 1972, Jewish voters were apprehensive about George McGovern and only favored the Democrat by 65%, while Nixon more than doubled Republican Jewish support to 35%. In the election of 1976, Jewish voters supported Democrat Jimmy Carter by 71% over incumbent president Gerald Ford’s 27%, but during the Carter re-election campaign of 1980, Jewish voters greatly abandoned the Democrat, with only 45% support, while Republican winner, Ronald Reagan, garnered 39%, and 14% went to independent (former Republican) John Anderson.[29][35] Many American Jews disagreed with the Middle East policies of the Carter administration.[citation needed]

During the Reagan re-election campaign of 1984, the Republican retained 31% of the Jewish vote, while 67% voted for Democrat Walter Mondale. The 1988 election saw Jewish voters favor Democrat Michael Dukakis by 64%, while George H. W. Bush polled a respectable 35%, but during Bush’s re-election attempt in 1992, his Jewish support dropped to just 11%, with 80% voting for Bill Clinton and 9% going to independent Ross Perot. Clinton’s re-election campaign in 1996 maintained high Jewish support at 78%, with 16% supporting Robert Dole and 3% for Perot.[29][35]

In the 2000 presidential election, Joe Lieberman was the first American Jew to run for national office on a major party ticket when he was chosen as Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore’s vice-presidential nominee. The elections of 2000 and 2004 saw continued Jewish support for Democrats Al Gore and John Kerry, a Catholic, remain in the high- to mid-70% range, while Republican George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004 saw Jewish support rise from 19% to 24%.[35][36]

In the 2008 presidential election, 78% of Jews voted for Barack Obama, who became the first African-American to be elected president.[37] Additionally, 83% of Jews voted for Obama compared to just 34% of white Protestants and 47% of white Catholics, though 67% of those identifying with another religion and 71% identifying with no religion also voted Obama.[38]

In the February 2016 New Hampshire Democratic Primary, Bernie Sanders became the first Jewish candidate to win a state’s Presidential primary election.[39]

As American Jews have progressed economically over time, some commentators[citation needed] have wondered why Jews remain so firmly Democratic and have not shifted political allegiances to the center or right in the way other groups who have advanced economically, such as Hispanics and Arab-Americans, have.[40]

For congressional and senate races, since 1968, American Jews have voted about 7080% for Democrats;[41] this support increased to 87% for Democratic House candidates during the 2006 elections.[42]

The first American Jew to serve in the Senate was David Levy Yulee, who was Florida’s first Senator, serving 18451851 and again 18551861.

In the 114th Congress, there are 10 Jews[43] among 100 U.S. Senators: nine Democrats (Michael Bennet, Richard Blumenthal, Barbara Boxer, Benjamin Cardin, Dianne Feinstein, Al Franken, Carl Levin, Charles Schumer, Ron Wyden), and Bernie Sanders, who became a Democrat to run for President but returned to the Senate as an Independent.[44]

In the 114th Congress, there are 19 Jewish U.S. Representatives.[43] There were 27 Jews among the 435 U.S. Representatives at the start of the 112th Congress;[45] 26 Democrats and one (Eric Cantor) Republican. While many of these Members represented coastal cities and suburbs with significant Jewish populations, others did not (for instance, Gabrielle Giffords of Tucson, Arizona; John Yarmuth of Louisville, Kentucky; Jared Polis of Boulder, Colorado; and Steve Cohen of Memphis, Tennessee). The total number of Jews serving in the House of Representatives declined from 31 in the 111th Congress.[46]John Adler of New Jersey, Steve Kagan of Wisconsin, Alan Grayson of Florida, and Ron Klein of Florida all lost their re-election bids, Rahm Emanuel resigned to become the President’s Chief of Staff; and Paul Hodes of New Hampshire did not run for re-election but instead (unsuccessfully) sought his state’s open Senate seat. David Cicilline of Rhode Island was the only Jewish American who was newly elected to the 112th Congress; he had been the Mayor of Providence. The number declined when Jane Harman, Anthony Weiner, and Gabrielle Giffords resigned during the 112th Congress.

As of January 2014[update], there are five openly gay men serving in Congress and two are Jewish: Jared Polis of Colorado and David Cicilline of Rhode Island.

In November 2008, Cantor was elected as the House Minority Whip, the first Jewish Republican to be selected for the position.[47] In 2011, he became the first Jewish House Majority Leader. He served as Majority Leader until 2014, when he resigned shortly after his loss in the Republican primary election for his House seat.

American Jews have historically been prominent participants in civil rights movements. In the mid-20th century, American Jews were among the most active participants in the Civil Rights Movement and feminist movements. American Jews have also since its founding been largely supportive of and active figures in the struggle for gay rights in America.

Seymour Siegel suggests that the historic struggle against prejudice faced by Jews led to a natural sympathy for any people confronting discrimination. Joachim Prinz, president of the American Jewish Congress, stated the following when he spoke from the podium at the Lincoln Memorial during the famous March on Washington on August 28, 1963: “As Jews we bring to this great demonstration, in which thousands of us proudly participate, a twofold experienceone of the spirit and one of our history. … From our Jewish historic experience of three and a half thousand years we say: Our ancient history began with slavery and the yearning for freedom. During the Middle Ages my people lived for a thousand years in the ghettos of Europe. … It is for these reasons that it is not merely sympathy and compassion for the black people of America that motivates us. It is, above all and beyond all such sympathies and emotions, a sense of complete identification and solidarity born of our own painful historic experience.”[48][49]

During the World War II period, the American Jewish community was bitterly and deeply divided and was unable to form a common front. Most Jews from Eastern Europe favored Zionism, which saw a return to their historical homeland as the only solution; this had the effect of diverting attention from the persecution of Jews in Germany. German Jews were alarmed at the Nazis but were disdainful of Zionism. Proponents of a Jewish state and Jewish army agitated, but many leaders were so fearful of an antisemitic backlash inside the U.S. that they demanded that all Jews keep a low public profile. One important development was the sudden conversion of most (but not all) Jewish leaders to Zionism late in the war.[50]The Holocaust was largely ignored by American media as it was happening. Reporters and editors largely did not believe the atrocity stories coming out of Europe.[51]

The Holocaust had a profound impact on the community in the United States, especially after 1960, as Jews tried to comprehend what had happened, and especially to commemorate and grapple with it when looking to the future. Abraham Joshua Heschel summarized this dilemma when he attempted to understand Auschwitz: “To try to answer is to commit a supreme blasphemy. Israel enables us to bear the agony of Auschwitz without radical despair, to sense a ray [of] God’s radiance in the jungles of history.”[52]

Jews began taking a special interest in Jewish international affairs in the late 19th century; for example, poet Emma Lazarus wrote poems against the pogroms in Eastern and Central Europe in the 1870s. Jews focused on the pogroms in Imperial Russia and restrictions on immigration in the 1920s. Jews have also shown interest in affairs unrelated to Jewish causes throughout their time in the United States. Zionism became a well-organized movement in the U.S. with the involvement of leaders such as Louis Brandeis and the British promise of a homeland in the Balfour Declaration of 1917.[53] Jewish Americans organized large-scale boycotts of German merchandise during the 1930s to protest Nazi rule in Germany. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s leftist domestic policies received strong Jewish support in the 1930s and 1940s, as did his anti-Nazi foreign policy and his promotion of the United Nations. Support for political Zionism in this period, although growing in influence, remained a distinctly minority opinion among German Jews until about 194445, when the early rumors and reports of the systematic mass murder of the Jews in German-occupied Europe became publicly known with the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps and extermination camps. The founding of Israel in 1948 made the Middle East a center of attention; the recognition of Israel by the American government (following objections by American isolationists) was an indication of both its intrinsic support and influence.

This attention initially was based on a natural and religious affinity toward and support for Israel in the Jewish community. The attention is also because of the ensuing and unresolved conflicts regarding the founding of Israel and Zionism itself. A lively internal debate commenced, following the Six-Day War. The American Jewish community was divided over whether or not they agreed with the Israeli response; the great majority came to accept the war as necessary. A tension existed especially for some Jews on the left who saw Israel as too anti-Soviet and anti-Palestinian.[54] Similar tensions were aroused by the 1977 election of Menachem Begin and the rise of Revisionist policies, the 1982 Lebanon War and the continuing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.[55] Disagreement over Israel’s 1993 acceptance of the Oslo Accords caused a further split among American Jews;[56] this mirrored a similar split among Israelis and led to a parallel rift within the pro-Israel lobby, and even ultimately to the United States for its “blind” support of Israel.[56] Abandoning any pretense of unity, both segments began to develop separate advocacy and lobbying organizations. The liberal supporters of the Oslo Accord worked through Americans for Peace Now (APN), Israel Policy Forum (IPF) and other groups friendly to the Labour government in Israel. They tried to assure Congress that American Jewry was behind the Accord and defended the efforts of the administration to help the fledgling Palestinian Authority (PA), including promises of financial aid. In a battle for public opinion, IPF commissioned a number of polls showing widespread support for Oslo among the community.

In opposition to Oslo, an alliance of conservative groups, such as the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) tried to counterbalance the power of the liberal Jews. On October 10, 1993, the opponents of the Palestinian-Israeli accord organized at the American Leadership Conference for a Safe Israel, where they warned that Israel was prostrating itself before “an armed thug”, and predicted and that the “thirteenth of September is a date that will live in infamy”. Some Zionists also criticized, often in harsh language, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, his foreign minister and chief architect of the peace accord. With the community so strongly divided, AIPAC and the Presidents Conference, which was tasked with representing the national Jewish consensus, struggled to keep the increasingly antagonistic discourse civil. Reflecting these tensions, Abraham Foxman from the Anti-Defamation League was asked by the conference to apologize for bad mouthing ZOA’s Morton Klein. The conference, which under its organizational guidelines was in charge of moderating communal discourse, reluctantly censured some Orthodox spokespeople for attacking Colette Avital, the Labor-appointed Israeli Consul General in New York and an ardent supporter of that version of a peace process.[57]

The Jewish population of the United States is either the largest in the world, or second to that of Israel, depending on the sources and methods used to measure it.

Precise population figures vary depending on whether Jews are accounted for based on halakhic considerations, or secular, political and ancestral identification factors. There were about 4 million adherents of Judaism in the U.S. as of 2001, approximately 1.4% of the US population. According to the Jewish Agency, for the year 2007 Israel is home to 5.4 million Jews (40.9% of the world’s Jewish population), while the United States contained 5.3 million (40.2%).[58]

In 2012, demographers estimated the core American Jewish population (including religious and non-religious) to be 5,425,000 (or 1.73% of the US population in 2012), citing methodological failures in the previous higher estimates.[59] Other sources say the number is around 6.5 million.

The American Jewish Yearbook population survey had placed the number of American Jews at 6.4 million, or approximately 2.1% of the total population. This figure is significantly higher than the previous large scale survey estimate, conducted by the 20002001 National Jewish Population estimates, which estimated 5.2 million Jews. A 2007 study released by the Steinhardt Social Research Institute (SSRI) at Brandeis University presents evidence to suggest that both of these figures may be underestimations with a potential 7.07.4 million Americans of Jewish descent.[60] Those higher estimates were however arrived at by including all non-Jewish family members and household members, rather than surveyed individuals.[59]

The population of Americans of Jewish descent is demographically characterized by an aging population composition and low fertility rates significantly below generational replacement.[59]

The Ashkenazi Jews, who are now the vast majority of American Jews, settled first in and around New York City; in recent decades many have moved to Miami, Los Angeles and other large metropolitan areas in the South and West. The metropolitan areas of New York City, Los Angeles, and Miami contain nearly one quarter of the world’s Jews.[61]

The National Jewish Population Survey of 1990 asked 4.5 million adult Jews to identify their denomination. The national total showed 38% were affiliated with the Reform tradition, 35% were Conservative, 6% were Orthodox, 1% were Reconstructionists, 10% linked themselves to some other tradition, and 10% said they are “just Jewish.”[62]

According to a study published by demographers and sociologists Ira Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky, the distribution of the Jewish population in 2015 is as follows:[63]

Although the New York City metropolitan area is the second largest Jewish population center in the world (after the Tel Aviv metropolitan area in Israel),[61] the Miami metropolitan area has a slightly greater Jewish population on a per-capita basis (9.9% compared to metropolitan New York’s 9.3%). Several other major cities have large Jewish communities, including Los Angeles, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and Philadelphia. In many metropolitan areas, the majority of Jewish families live in suburban areas. The Greater Phoenix area was home to about 83,000 Jews in 2002, and has been rapidly growing.[65] The greatest Jewish population on a per-capita basis for incorporated areas in the U.S. is Kiryas Joel Village, New York (greater than 93% based on language spoken in home),[66] City of Beverly Hills, California (61%),[67]Lakewood Township, New Jersey (59%),[68] two incorporated areas, Kiryas Joel and Lakewood, have a concentration of ultra-Orthodox Jews and one incorporated area, Beverly Hills, having a concentration of non-Orthodox Jews.

The phenomenon of Israeli migration to the U.S. is often termed Yerida. The Israeli immigrant community in America is less widespread. The significant Israeli immigrant communities in the United States are in Los Angeles, New York City, Miami, and Chicago.[69]

According to the 2001 undertaking of the National Jewish Population Survey, 4.3 million American Jews have some sort of strong connection to the Jewish community, whether religious or cultural.

According to the North American Jewish Data Bank[71] the 100 counties and independent cities as of 2011[update] with the largest Jewish communities, based by percentage of total population, were:

These parallel themes have facilitated the extraordinary economic, political, and social success of the American Jewish community, but also have contributed to widespread cultural assimilation.[72] More recently however, the propriety and degree of assimilation has also become a significant and controversial issue within the modern American Jewish community, with both political and religious skeptics.[73]

While not all Jews disapprove of intermarriage, many members of the Jewish community have become concerned that the high rate of interfaith marriage will result in the eventual disappearance of the American Jewish community. Intermarriage rates have risen from roughly 6% in 1950 and 25% in 1974,[74] to approximately 4050% in the year 2000.[75] By 2013, the intermarriage rate had risen to 71% for non-Orthodox Jews.[76] This, in combination with the comparatively low birthrate in the Jewish community, has led to a 5% decline in the Jewish population of the United States in the 1990s. In addition to this, when compared with the general American population, the American Jewish community is slightly older.

A third of intermarried couples provide their children with a Jewish upbringing, and doing so is more common among intermarried families raising their children in areas with high Jewish populations.[77] The Boston area, for example, is exceptional in that an estimated 60% percent of children of intermarriages are being raised Jewish, meaning that intermarriage would actually be contributing to a net increase in the number of Jews.[78] As well, some children raised through intermarriage rediscover and embrace their Jewish roots when they themselves marry and have children.

In contrast to the ongoing trends of assimilation, some communities within American Jewry, such as Orthodox Jews, have significantly higher birth rates and lower intermarriage rates, and are growing rapidly. The proportion of Jewish synagogue members who were Orthodox rose from 11% in 1971 to 21% in 2000, while the overall Jewish community declined in number.[79] In 2000, there were 360,000 so-called “ultra-orthodox” (Haredi) Jews in USA (7.2%).[80] The figure for 2006 is estimated at 468,000 (9.4%).[80] Data from the Pew Center shows that as of 2013, 27% of American Jews under the age of 18 live in Orthodox households, a dramatic increase from Jews aged 18 to 29, only 11% of whom are Orthodox. The UJA-Federation of New York reports that 60% of Jewish children in the New York City area live in Orthodox homes. In addition to economizing and sharing, Orthodox communities depend on government aid to support their high birth rate and large families. The Hasidic village of New Square, New York receives Section 8 housing subsidies at a higher rate than the rest of the region, and half of the population in the Hasidic village of Kiryas Joel, New York receive food stamps, while a third receive Medicaid.[81]

About half of the American Jews are considered to be religious. Out of this 2,831,000 religious Jewish population, 92% are non-Hispanic white, 5% Hispanic (Most commonly from Argentina, Venezuela, or Cuba), 1% Asian (Mostly Bukharian and Persian Jews), 1% Black and 1% Other (mixed race etc.). Almost this many non-religious Jews exist in United States, the proportion of Whites being higher than that among the religious population.[82]

Many Jews identify as being of Middle Eastern descentor simply as “Jews”as supported by genetic research.[86] As with some other racial and ethnocultural minorities, Jews have a complex relationship to the concept of “whiteness”, and as a result, many Americans of Jewish descent do not self-identify as white.[24][87][88][89] Prominent activist and rabbi Michael Lerner argues, in a 1993 Village Voice article, that “in America, to be ‘white’ means to be the beneficiary of the past 500 years of European exploration and exploitation of the rest of the world” and that “Jews can only be deemed white if there is massive amnesia on the part of non-Jews about the monumental history of anti-Semitism”.[90]African-American activist Cornel West, in an interview with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, has explained:

The American Jewish community includes African American Jews and other American Jews of African descent, a definition which may exclude North African Jewish Americans, who are considered Sephardi and thus sometimes classed as white. Estimates of the number of American Jews of African descent in the United States range from 20,000[92] to 200,000.[93] Jews of African descent belong to all of American Jewish denominations. Like their white Jewish counterparts, some black Jews are Jewish atheists or ethnic Jews.

Notable African-American Jews include Lisa Bonet, Sammy Davis, Jr., Rashida Jones, Yaphet Kotto, Jordan Farmar, Taylor Mays, and rabbis Capers Funnye and Alysa Stanton.

Relations between American Jews of African descent and other Jewish Americans are generally cordial.[citation needed] There are, however, disagreements with a specific minority of Black Hebrew Israelites community from among African-Americans who consider themselves, but not other Jews, to be the true descendants of the ancient Israelites. Black Hebrew Israelites are generally not considered to be members of the mainstream Jewish community, since they have not formally converted to Judaism, nor are they ethnically related to other Jews. One such group, the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem, emigrated to Israel and was granted permanent residency status there.[citation needed]

Education plays a major role as a part of Jewish identity; as Jewish culture puts a special premium on it and stresses the importance of cultivation of intellectual pursuits, scholarship and learning, American Jews as a group tend to be better educated and earn more than Americans as a whole.[94][95][96][97][98] Forty-four percent (55% of Reform Jews) report family incomes of over $100,000 compared to 19% of all Americans, with the next highest group being Hindus at 43%.[99][100] And while 27% of Americans have had college or postgraduate education, fifty-nine percent (66% of Reform Jews) of American Jews have, the second highest of any religious group after American Hindus.[99][101][102] 31% of American Jews hold a graduate degree, this figure is compared with the general American population where 11% of Americans hold a graduate degree.[99] White collar professional jobs have been attractive to Jews and much of the community tend to take up professional white collar careers requiring tertiary education involving formal credentials where the respectability and reputability of professional jobs is highly prized within Jewish culture. While 46% of Americans work in professional and managerial jobs, 61% of American Jews work as professionals, many of whom are highly educated, salaried professionals whose work is largely self-directed in management, professional, and related occupations such as engineering, science, medicine, investment banking, finance, law, and academia.[103]

Much of the Jewish American community lead middle class lifestyles.[104] While the median household net worth of the typical American family is $99,500, among American Jews the figure is $443,000.[105][106] In addition, the median Jewish American income is estimated to be in the range of $97,000 to $98,000, nearly twice as high the American national median.[107] Either of these two statistics may be confounded by the fact that the Jewish population is on average older than other religious groups in the country, with 51% of polled adults over the age of 50 compared to 41% nationally.[101] Older people tend to both have higher income and be more highly educated.

While the median income of Jewish Americans is high, there are still small pockets of poverty. In the New York area, there are approximately 560,000 Jews living in poor or near-poor households, representing about 20% of the New York metropolitan Jewish community. Most affected are children, the elderly, immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Orthodox families.[108]

According to analysis by Gallup, American Jews have the highest well-being of any ethnic or religious group in America.[109][110]

The great majority of school-age Jewish students attend public schools, although Jewish day schools and yeshivas are to be found throughout the country. Jewish cultural studies and Hebrew language instruction is also commonly offered at synagogues in the form of supplementary Hebrew schools or Sunday schools.

From the early 1900s until the 1950s, quota systems were imposed at elite colleges and universities particularly in the Northeast, as a response to the growing number of children of recent Jewish immigrants; these limited the number of Jewish students accepted, and greatly reduced their previous attendance. Jewish enrollment at Cornell’s School of Medicine fell from 40% to 4% between the world wars, and Harvard’s fell from 30% to 4%.[111] Before 1945, only a few Jewish professors were permitted as instructors at elite universities. In 1941, for example, antisemitism drove Milton Friedman from a non-tenured assistant professorship at the University of WisconsinMadison.[112]Harry Levin became the first Jewish full professor in the Harvard English department in 1943, but the Economics department decided not to hire Paul Samuelson in 1948. Harvard hired its first Jewish biochemists in 1954.[113]

Today, American Jews no longer face the discrimination in higher education that they did in the past, particularly in the Ivy League. For example, by 1986, a third of the presidents of the elite undergraduate final clubs at Harvard were Jewish.[112]Rick Levin has been president of Yale University since 1993, Judith Rodin was president of the University of Pennsylvania from 1994 to 2004 (and is currently president of the Rockefeller Foundation), Paul Samuelson’s nephew, Lawrence Summers, was president of Harvard University from 2001 until 2006, and Harold Shapiro was president of Princeton University from 1992 until 2000.

There are an estimated 4,000 Jewish students at the University of California, Berkeley.[118]

Jewishness in the United States is considered an ethnic identity as well as a religious one. See Ethnoreligious group.

Jewish religious practice in America is quite varied. Among the 4.3 million American Jews described as “strongly connected” to Judaism, over 80% report some sort of active engagement with Judaism,[119] ranging from attendance at daily prayer services on one end of the spectrum to as little as attendance Passover Seders or lighting Hanukkah candles on the other.

A 2003 Harris Poll found that 16% of American Jews go to the synagogue at least once a month, 42% go less frequently but at least once a year, and 42% go less frequently than once a year.[120]

The survey found that of the 4.3 million strongly connected Jews, 46% belong to a synagogue. Among those households who belong to a synagogue, 38% are members of Reform synagogues, 33% Conservative, 22% Orthodox, 2% Reconstructionist, and 5% other types. Traditionally, Sephardic and Mizrahis do not have different branches (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, etc.) but usually remain observant and religious. The survey discovered that Jews in the Northeast and Midwest are generally more observant than Jews in the South or West. Reflecting a trend also observed among other religious groups, Jews in the Northwestern United States are typically the least observant.

In recent years, there has been a noticeable trend of secular American Jews returning to a more observant, in most cases, Orthodox, lifestyle. Such Jews are called baalei teshuva (“returners”, see also Repentance in Judaism).[citation needed]

The 2008 American Religious Identification Survey found that around 3.4 million American Jews call themselves religious out of a general Jewish population of about 5.4 million. The number of Jews who identify themselves as only culturally Jewish has risen from 20% in 1990 to 37% in 2008, according to the study. In the same period, the number of all US adults who said they had no religion rose from 8% to 15%. Jews are more likely to be secular than Americans in general, the researchers said. About half of all US Jews including those who consider themselves religiously observant claim in the survey that they have a secular worldview and see no contradiction between that outlook and their faith, according to the study’s authors. Researchers attribute the trends among American Jews to the high rate of intermarriage and “disaffection from Judaism” in the United States.[121]

About one-sixth of American Jews maintain kosher dietary standards.[122]

American Jews are more likely to be atheist or agnostic than most Americans, especially so compared with Protestants or Catholics. A 2003 poll found that while 79% of Americans believe in God, only 48% of American Jews do, compared with 79% and 90% for Catholics and Protestants respectively. While 66% of Americans said they were “absolutely certain” of God’s existence, 24% of American Jews said the same. And though 9% of Americans believe there is no God (8% Catholic and 4% Protestant), 19% of American Jews believe God does not exist.[120]

A 2009 Harris Poll showed American Jews as the religious group most accepting of evolution, with 80% believing in evolution, compared to 51% for Catholics, 32% for Protestants, and 16% of Born-again Christians.[123] They were also less likely to believe in supernatural phenomena such as miracles, angels, or heaven.

Jews are overrepresented in American Buddhism specifically among those whose parents are not Buddhist, and without Buddhist heritage, with between one fifth[124] and 30% of all American Buddhists identifying as Jewish[125] though only 2% of Americans are Jewish. Nicknamed Jubus, an increasing number of American Jews have begun adopting Buddhist spiritual practice, while at the same time continuing to identify with and practice Judaism. Notable American Jewish Buddhists include: Robert Downey, Jr.[126]Allen Ginsberg,[127]Goldie Hawn[128] and daughter Kate Hudson, Steven Seagal, Adam Yauch of the rap group The Beastie Boys, and Garry Shandling. Film makers the Coen Brothers have been influenced by Buddhism as well for a time.[129] Founder of the New York City Marathon, Fred Lebow, dabbled in Buddhism for a brief period.

Today, American Jews are a distinctive and influential group in the nation’s politics. Jeffrey S. Helmreich writes that the ability of American Jews to effect this through political or financial clout is overestimated,[131] that the primary influence lies in the group’s voting patterns.[35]

“Jews have devoted themselves to politics with almost religious fervor,” writes Mitchell Bard, who adds that Jews have the highest percentage voter turnout of any ethnic group (84% reported being registered to vote[132]).

Though the majority (6070%) of the country’s Jews identify as Democratic, Jews span the political spectrum, with those at higher levels of observance being far more likely to vote Republican than their less observant and secular counterparts.[133]

Owing to high Democratic identification in the 2008 United States Presidential Election, 78% of Jews voted for Democrat Barack Obama versus 21% for Republican John McCain, despite Republican attempts to connect Obama to Muslim and pro-Palestinian causes.[134] It has been suggested that running mate Sarah Palin’s conservative views on social issues may have nudged Jews away from the McCainPalin ticket.[35][134] In the 2012 United States presidential election, 69% of Jews voted for the Democratic incumbent President Obama.[135]

American Jews have displayed a very strong interest in foreign affairs, especially regarding Germany in the 1930s, and Israel since 1945.[136] Both major parties have made strong commitments in support of Israel. Dr. Eric Uslaner of the University of Maryland argues, with regard to the 2004 election: “Only 15% of Jews said that Israel was a key voting issue. Among those voters, 55% voted for Kerry (compared to 83% of Jewish voters not concerned with Israel).” Uslander goes on to point out that negative views of Evangelical Christians had a distinctly negative impact for Republicans among Jewish voters, while Orthodox Jews, traditionally more conservative in outlook as to social issues, favored the Republican Party.[137] A New York Times article suggests that the Jewish movement to the Republican party is focused heavily on faith-based issues, similar to the Catholic vote, which is credited for helping President Bush taking Florida in 2004.[138] However, Natan Guttman, The Forwards Washington bureau chief, dismisses this notion, writing in Moment that while “[i]t is true that Republicans are making small and steady strides into the Jewish communitya look at the past three decades of exit polls, which are more reliable than pre-election polls, and the numbers are clear: Jews vote overwhelmingly Democratic,”[139] an assertion confirmed by the most recent presidential election results.

Though some critics charged that Jewish interests were partially responsible for the push to war with Iraq, Jewish Americans were actually more strongly opposed to the Iraq war from its onset than any other religious group, or even most Americans. The greater opposition to the war was not simply a result of high Democratic identification among U.S. Jews, as Jews of all political persuasions were more likely to oppose the war than non-Jews who shared the same political leanings.[140][141]

A 2013 Pew Research Center survey suggests that American Jews’ views on domestic politics are intertwined with the community’s self-definition as a persecuted minority who benefited from the liberties and societal shifts in the United States and feel obligated to help other minorities enjoy the same benefits. American Jews across age and gender lines tend to vote for and support politicians and policies supported by the Democratic Party. On the other hand, Orthodox American Jews have domestic political views that are more similar to their religious Christian neighbors.[142]

American Jews are largely supportive of LGBT rights with 79% responding in a Pew poll that homosexuality should be “accepted by society”.[143] A split on homosexuality exists by level of observance. Reform rabbis in America perform same-sex marriages as a matter of routine, and there are fifteen LGBT Jewish congregations in North America.[144] Reform, Reconstructionist and, increasingly, Conservative, Jews are far more supportive on issues like gay marriage than Orthodox Jews are.[145] A 2007 survey of Conservative Jewish leaders and activists showed that an overwhelming majority supported gay rabbinical ordination and same-sex marriage.[146] Accordingly, 78% percent of Jewish voters rejected Proposition 8, the bill that banned gay marriage in California. No other ethnic or religious group voted as strongly against it.[147]

In considering the trade-off between the economy and environmental protection, American Jews were significantly more likely than other religious groups (excepting Buddhism) to favor stronger environmental protection.[148]

Jews in America also overwhelmingly oppose current United States marijuana policy. Eighty-six percent of Jewish Americans opposed arresting nonviolent marijuana smokers, compared to 61% for the population at large and 68% of all Democrats. Additionally, 85% of Jews in the United States opposed using federal law enforcement to close patient cooperatives for medical marijuana in states where medical marijuana is legal, compared to 67% of the population at large and 73% of Democrats.[149]

Since the time of the last major wave of Jewish immigration to America (over 2,000,000 Jews from Eastern Europe who arrived between 1890 and 1924), Jewish secular culture in the United States has become integrated in almost every important way with the broader American culture. Many aspects of Jewish American culture have, in turn, become part of the wider culture of the United States.

Most American Jews today are native English speakers. A variety of other languages are still spoken within some American Jewish communities, communities that are representative of the various Jewish ethnic divisions from around the world that have come together to make up America’s Jewish population.

Many of America’s Hasidic Jews, being exclusively of Ashkenazi descent, are raised speaking Yiddish. Yiddish was once spoken as the primary language by most of the several million Ashkenazi Jews who immigrated to the United States. It was, in fact, the original language in which The Forward was published. Yiddish has had an influence on American English, and words borrowed from it include chutzpah (“effrontery”, “gall”), nosh (“snack”), schlep (“drag”), schmuck (“an obnoxious, contemptible person”, euphemism for “penis”), and, depending on ideolect, hundreds of other terms. (See also Yinglish.)

The Persian Jewish community in the United States, notably the large community in and around Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, California, primarily speak Persian (see also Judeo-Persian) in the home and synagogue. They also support their own Persian language newspapers. Persian Jews also reside in eastern parts of New York such as Kew Gardens and Great Neck, Long Island.

Many recent Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union speak primarily Russian at home, and there are several notable communities where public life and business are carried out mainly in Russian, such as in Brighton Beach in New York City and Sunny Isles Beach in Florida. 2010 estimates of the number of Jewish Russian-speaking households in the New York city area are around 92,000, and the number of individuals are somewhere between 223,000350,000.[154] Another high population of Russian Jews can be found in the Richmond District of San Francisco where Russian markets stand alongside the numerous Asian businesses.

American Bukharan Jews speak Bukhori, a dialect of Persian, and Russian. They publish their own newspapers such as the Bukharian Times and a large portion live in Queens, New York. Forest Hills in the New York City borough of Queens is home to 108th Street, which is called by some “Bukharian Broadway”,[155] a reference to the many stores and restaurants found on and around the street that have Bukharian influences. Many Bukharians are also represented in parts of Arizona, Miami, Florida, and areas of Southern California such as San Diego.

Classical Hebrew is the language of most Jewish religious literature, such as the Tanakh (Bible) and Siddur (prayerbook). Modern Hebrew is also the primary official language of the modern State of Israel, which further encourages many to learn it as a second language. Some recent Israeli immigrants to America speak Hebrew as their primary language.

There are a diversity of Hispanic Jews living in America. The oldest community is that of the Sephardic Jews of New Netherland. Their ancestors had fled Spain or Portugal during the Inquisition for the Netherlands, and then came to New Netherland. Though there is dispute over whether they should be considered Hispanic. Some Hispanic Jews, particularly in Miami and Los Angeles, immigrated from Latin America. The largest groups are those that fled Cuba after the communist revolution (known as Jewbans), and Argentine Jews. Argentina is the Latin American country with the largest Jewish population. There are a large number of synagogues in the Miami area that give services in Spanish. The last Hispanic Jewish community would be those that recently came from Portugal or Spain, after Spain and Portugal granted citizenship to the descendants of Jews who fled during the Inquisition. All of the above listed Hispanic Jewish groups speak either Spanish or Ladino.

Although American Jews have contributed greatly to American arts overall, there remains a distinctly Jewish American literature. Jewish American literature often explores the experience of being a Jew in America, and the conflicting pulls of secular society and history.

Yiddish theater was very well attended, and provided a training ground for performers and producers who moved to Hollywood in the 1920s. Many of the early Hollywood moguls and pioneers were Jewish.[156][157]

Many individual Jews have made significant contributions to American popular culture. There have been many Jewish American actors and performers, ranging from early 1900s actors, to classic Hollywood film stars, and culminating in many currently known actors. The field of American comedy includes many Jews. The legacy also includes songwriters and authors, for example the author of the song “Viva Las Vegas” Doc Pomus, or Billy the Kid composer Aaron Copland. Many Jews have been at the forefront of women’s issues.

Since 1845, a total of 34 Jews have served in the Senate, including the 14 present-day senators noted above. Judah P. Benjamin was the first practicing Jewish Senator, and would later serve as Confederate Secretary of War and Secretary of State during the Civil War. Rahm Emanuel served as Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama. The number of Jews elected to the House rose to an all-time high of 30. Eight Jews have been appointed to the United States Supreme Court.

The Civil War marked a transition for American Jews. It killed off the antisemitic canard, widespread in Europe, to the effect that Jews are cowardly, preferring to run from war rather than serve alongside their fellow citizens in battle.[158][159]

At least twenty eight American Jews have been awarded the Medal of Honor.

Original post:
American Jews – Wikipedia

Huck Finn Teachers Guide: Huck Finn in Context: The …

Posted By on December 5, 2016

Nigger (also spelled niggar): a word that is an alteration of the earlier neger, nigger derives from the French negre, from the Spanish and Portuguese negro, from the Latin niger (black). First recorded in 1587 (as negar), the word probably originated with the dialectal pronunciation of negro in northern England and Ireland. –Anti-Bias Study Guide, Anti-Defamation League, 1998

In the United States, “nigger” was first regarded as pejorative in the early nineteenth century. In the era of enslavement, the words “nigger” or “black” were inserted in front of a common American first name (e.g., John), given to a slave to distinguish the slave from any local white person with the same name. While usage of the word in African American culture is complex in that it can be used affectionately, politically, or pejoratively, the epithet is considered an abusive slur when used by white people. Langston Hughes in The Big Sea (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1940) offered an eloquent commentary:

The word has gained more acceptance in recent years in youth culture through song lyrics and stand-up comedy. Some claim that the word can be defused through reclaiming it. However, most adults continue to view the word as offensive and harmful.

In the Classroom

Whether in the context of Huck Finn or in any other text in which the word is used, “nigger” raises a number of concerns for both teachers and students when it is used in a classroom setting. When the issues surrounding the word have not been previously addressed in the classroom, it “changes everything,” according to parent Danny Elmore. “Five seconds before that word is used, everyone in class might have been your friend. But now you’re reassessing yourself, and they’re reassessing you. It has a profound effect. Nothing is the same after it is used.”

The feelings and reaction of students may depend on the demographics of the student population. In schools that are predominantly African American, students may feel more comfortable with the word, although not necessarily with its repeated use by white characters in a “classic” text. When African American students are in the minority, however, they often feel embarrassed and singled out. Said one African American student in Cherry Hill, “Every time the word came up [during oral reading], everybody turned around to look at me.” It’s equally important, however, to address the issue regardless of whether the class is racially mixed or homogeneous.

Different teachers handle the word in different ways. Some never use it, and will not allow students to use it. Instead, they skip over it or use a euphemism such as “the ‘n’ word.” Here again race can be a factor. A white teacher, for instance, may be far more reluctant to use the word than a teacher of color, regardless of the class demographics. Nancy Methelis, the English teacher at Boston Latin School featured in the film Born to Trouble: Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, explains her decision not to use the word aloud in class:

In the film one of Methelis’s students, Shantae, adds, “I hear it every day in school, but I just . . . kind of like the fact that [she] didn’t use it in class.” Chrissy Hayes, an African American student at Cherry Hill East High School, acknowledges that the word is problematic: “There’s no way to completely ease the tension when they keep saying ‘nigger, nigger, nigger’ and you’re the only one in the room it could apply to. But even if teachers say ‘the n word’ instead, it’s written right there in the book, and everyone still reads it in their minds.”

Kathy Monteiro, the mother in the film who wanted the book removed from the school’s required reading list, says, “How can you ask kids to go home and read the word ‘nigger’ two hundred-something times in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and then expect kids to come back to school and not use the word?”

In deciding how to handle the word, consider how its use in the classroom — reading it aloud or as part of assigned silent reading — will affect students. Some educators believe that the word should be said and discussed openly. Professor Maghan Keita says, “Within the framework of the text, if you don’t understand how that word can be used, that it’s satire [in the case of Huck Finn] — if you don’t teach that, you’ve missed a teaching moment. Our task is to prepare students to think so that when confronted with these words in a text they can see what the author’s intent is. What is the meaning of it in this text?”

Writer David Bradley agrees. “We cannot avoid being hurt. Language hurts people, reality hurts people. . . . If the word ‘nigger’ did not have meaning today we wouldn’t care that it was in [Huck Finn]. The hurt is that it still does have meaning. . . . People sometimes think the book causes things. It only causes things if there are things there that are waiting to happen. If I go into a school or talk to a school administrator who says, well, gee, this book is going to cause all kinds of trouble, I’m going to say, you’ve already got trouble.”

Teaching Tips

Some teachers may feel apprehensive about exploring racism and related issues. The following suggestions will help teachers deal with these or other emotionally charged issues. You may also want to inform parents in advance about how you will be approaching the use of the word in the classroom and in the book.

* Adapted from Fires in the Mirror: Essays and Teaching Strategies, WGBH, 1993.

Discussion Questions

Students may be shocked to hear “the ‘N’ word” used openly in the classroom. Prepare the class by explaining they are about to study a book that contains a pejorative term. To frame the discussion and to empower students to feel free to speak their thoughts and opinions, you may want to begin with a key question such as, “Huck Finn and many other works of literature contain the word ‘nigger.’ How should we deal with this in the classroom?” Emphasize that exploring the meaning and use of the word does not mean an acceptance or approval of the word. Use the following questions to help foster classroom discussion. You may also want to expand this discussion to explore the power of words when used as epithets.


Next: Section 2: Behind the Mask – Exploring Stereotypes

See also: Controversy at Cherry Hill

Huck Finn Teachers Guide: Huck Finn in Context: The …

Anti-Defamation League: Ellison’s past remarks about Israel …

Posted By on December 4, 2016

The Anti-Defamation League on Thursday voiced its opposition to Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellisons bid to run the Democratic Party, citing deeply disturbing and disqualifying past statements about Israel.

Pointing to a resurfaced 2010 speech, the CEO of the Jewish civil rights group, Jonathan Greenblatt, questioned whether “Ellison faithfully could represent the Democratic Party’s traditional support for a strong and secure Israel.

“A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right?” Ellison said at the time, according to reports cited by the League.

The League’s statement deals a blow to Ellison’s bid to lead the Democratic National Committee. So far, he has emerged as the frontrunner with a large slate of endorsements from across the political spectrum, including incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck SchumerCharles SchumerOvernight Finance: Trump takes victory lap at Carrier plant | House passes ‘too big to fail’ revamp | Trump econ team takes shape Anti-Defamation League: Ellison’s past remarks about Israel ‘disqualifying’ Dems press Trump to keep Obama overtime rule MORE (N.Y.) and populist darling and Vermont Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersFive things to watch for in the DNC race Sanders: I have little hope Trump will keep promises Democrats offer double-talk on Veterans Affairs MORE.

Greenblatt’s statement goes on to accuse Ellison, “whether intentional or not” of raising “the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government.”

The statement was released just hours after a new report by CNNon ThursdaydetailedEllison’s defense of Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader who has made anti-Semitic comments in the past.

Ellison responded in an open letter to Greenblatt and the ADL.

In the letter, Ellison called himself “a strong supporter of the Jewish state, voting for more than $27 billion in aid to Israel” and adding he’s committed to the safety and security of the Jewish State.

“I wish we could have spoken once again before your most recent statement. If given the opportunity, I could have provided a full and proper explanation,” Ellison wrote, adding that he is “saddened” by the ADL’s statement but looks forward to working with them.

His letter argues that the audio was “was selectively edited and taken out of context by an individual the Southern Poverty Law Center has called an anti-Muslim extremist.'”

“My memory is that I was responding to a question about how Americans with roots in the Middle East could engage in the political process in a more effective way. My advice was simply to get involved,” he said.

“I believe that Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship are, and should be, key considerations in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East. Americans with roots or interests in the region should be involved in advocacy and discussions of public policy concerning the region. My response was meant to encourage those in attendance to increase their level of involvement and effectiveness.”

Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, has been dogged by accusations of ties to anti-Semitism from the start of his bid, but the League originally came to his defense.

In a statement last week, Greenblatt said that while Ellison made statements and took positions the group didnt agree with, hes a man of good character an important ally in the fight against anti-Semitism and for civil rights.

Ellison is set to speak at Denver forum for DNC chairman candidates at a meeting of state party chairs Friday.

Read the original here:
Anti-Defamation League: Ellison’s past remarks about Israel …

ADL combats criticism of being too tough on Trump

Posted By on December 2, 2016

The Anti-Defimation League circulated a letter defending itself and its CEO Jonathan Greenblatt over charges that they are too tough on Donald Trump. | Getty

The Anti-Defamation League is forcefully pushing back on criticism that the Jewish-rooted civil rights group has drifted too far to the left after emerging as a frequent and vociferous critic of Donald Trump and members of his incoming administration.

Over the past year, certain columnists and elements of the US Jewish community have engaged in a full-scale assault on ADL and its CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, read a letter sent out to the organizations membership and reviewed by POLITICO. We came back from Thanksgiving to find that an organized, concerted effort to delegitimize ADL was underway. These charges against ADL are a significant and deliberate misrepresentation of our positions and actions.

Story Continued Below

The ADL and its CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, were often critical of Trump during the campaign, frequently calling on Trump to distance himself from white supremacists and lambasting his call for a ban on Muslim immigration. After Trumps win, the ADL strongly condemned the appointment of Stephen Bannon who has served as executive chairman of Breitbart News to a role as senior adviser and chief strategist in Trumps White House, calling it a sad day when a man who presided over the premier website of the Alt Right, a loose-knit group of white nationalists and unabashed anti-Semites and racists, assumed a top position in a presidential administration.

That posture, which was echoed by a long list of other Jewish groups, still earned the ADL criticism from outposts like the Zionist Organization of America, a group that often advocates conservative positions on Israel-related issues and has close ties to Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson. The Republican Jewish Coalition of which Adelson is a board member has also been critical of the ADL, suggesting their remarks about Trump have gone too far, and the organization has not opposed Bannon, with one board member coming out strongly in support of him, though other board members were quietly divided over Trump throughout the campaign.

In the letter, the ADL put forth what they characterized as five myths about the organization, from accusations that the organization does not support Israel (False. ADL always has been and always will be a fierce advocate for the Jewish State of Israel,), to the notion that the organization was much tougher on Bannon than on Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a possible Democratic National Committee chair who has been critical of Israel.

Myth: ADL attacked Steve Bannon but gave Keith Ellison a pass, the letter read. Fact: False. We voiced our concerns about the placement of Steve Bannon in a senior White House role based on his statements about the Alt-Right and the writing at Breitbart. As for Representative Ellison, we also expressed concerns: it is very disturbing that someone who has been excessively critical of the State of Israel at key junctures in recent history might become the titular head of the Democratic Party.

But overall, the group rankled some conservatives because it was much more measured in its assessment of Ellison than it was of Bannon, noted the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, which also first reported the letter.

Still, Greenblatt stressed in the letter that the nonpartisan organization was just as willing to call out what they sees as problematic statements that stem from the left as from the right, adding in a separate part of the letter that the groups first priority remains combating anti-Semitism wherever it emerges. He noted that a recent conference the ADL hosted explored [anti-Semitism] from all angles, including discussions of manifestations of anti-Semitism from the radical Left in the form of the [Boycott, Divest, Sanction] movement as well as extreme Right in the form of white supremacy.

Remember that much of this campaign reflects wider trends of our time: the dangerous polarization in the US, Israel and within our community fed by the dogma that if you are not 100 percent with me you are the enemy, as well as the phenomenon of fake news where agenda-driven half-truths are presented as fact, reinforcing these hardened positions, the letter warned. But it also reflects willingness by some to pass along lies because, frankly, there are few consequences for doing so.

The organization, Greenblatt pledged, will vigorously dispute them.

ADL combats criticism of being too tough on Trump


Posted By on November 30, 2016

THE ROLE OF ZIONISM IN THE HOLOCAUST Article by Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann – Australia ——————————————————————————–

“Spiritually and Physically Responsible ”

From its’ inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that all Jews loyal to G-d should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregants and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism is a chauvinistic racist phenomenon which has absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the well being of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive. Further, it would taint the reputation of Jewry as a whole and would cause utter confusion in the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a race or a nationality. That was and still remains the consensus amongst the rabbis.

We were given the Holy Land by G-d in order to be able to study and practice the Torah without disturbance and to attain levels of holiness difficult to attain outside of the Holy Land. We abused the privilege and we were expelled. That is exactly what all Jews say in their prayers on every Jewish festival, “Umipnay chatoenu golinu mayartsaynu” – “Because of our sins we were expelled from our land”.

We have been forsworn by G-d “not to enter the Holy Land as a body before the predestined time”, “not to rebel against the nations”, to be loyal citizens, not to do anything against the will of any nation or its honour, not to seek vengeance, discord, restitution or compensation; “not to leave exile ahead of time.” On the contrary; we have to be humble and accept the yoke of exile.

(Talmud Tractate Ksubos p. 111a).

To violate the oaths is not only a sin, it is a heresy because it is against the fundamentals of our Belief. Only through complete repentance will the Almighty alone, without any human effort or intervention, redeem us from exile. This will be after G-d will send the prophet Elijah and Moshiach who will induce all Jews to complete repentance. At that time there will be universal peace.


All of the leading Jewish religious authorities of that era predicted great hardship to befall humanity generally and the Jewish People particularly, as a result of Zionism. To be a Jew means that either one is born to a Jewish mother or converts to the religion with the condition that he or she make no reservations with regard to Jewish Law. Unfortunately there are many Jews who have no inkling whatsoever as to the duties of a Jew. Many of them are not to blame, for in many cases they lacked a Jewish education and upbringing. But there are those who deliberately distort the teachings of our tradition to suit their personal needs. It is self understood that not just anyone has the right or the ability to make a decision regarding the philosophy or law of a religion. Especially matters in which that person has no qualification. It follows then that those individuals who “decided” that Judaism is a nationality are to be ignored and even criticized. It is no secret that the founders of Zionism had never studied Jewish Law nor did they express interest in our holy tradition. They openly defied Rabbinical authority and self-appointed themselves as leaders of the Jewish “nation”. In Jewish history, actions like those have always spelled disaster. To be a Jew and show open defiance of authority or to introduce “amendment” or “innovation” without first consulting with those officially appointed as Jewish spiritual leaders is the ideal equation to equal catastrophe. One can not just decide to “modernize” ancient traditions or regulations. The spiritual leaders of contemporary Judaism better known as Orthodox rabbis have received ordination to judge and interpret matters pertaining to the Jewish faith. These rabbis have received their rights and responsibilities and form a link in the unbroken chain of the Jewish tradition dating all the way back to Moses who received the Torah from Almighty G-d Himself. It was these very rabbis who, at the time of the formation of the Zionist movement, foresaw the pernicious outcome that was without a doubt lined up. It was a man possessing outstanding Judaic genius, and a level of uncontested holiness who enunciated the Jewish stance regarding Zionism.

This charismatic individual, the Rebbe of Satmar, Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, did not mince any words. Straight to the point he called Zionism “the work of Satan”, “a sacrilege” and “a blasphemy”. He forbade any participation with anything even remotely associated with Zionism and said that Zionism was bound to call the wrath of G-d upon His people. He maintained this stance with unwavering bravery from the onset of Zionism whilst he was still in Hungary up until his death in New York where he lead a congregation numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Grand Rabbi Teitelbaum, scion to a legacy of holy mystics and Hassidic Masters unfortunately had his prediction fulfilled. We lost more than six million of our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters in a very horrible manner. This, more than six million holy people had to experience as punishment for the Zionist stupidity. The Holocaust, he wept, was a direct result of Zionism, a punishment from G-d.


But it doesn’t end there. It wasn’t enough for the Zionist leaders to have aroused the wrath of G-d. They made a point of displaying abysmal contempt for their Jewish brothers and sisters by actively participating in their extermination. Just the idea alone of Zionism, which the rabbis had informed them would cause havoc, was not enough for them. They made an effort to pour fuel on an already burning flame. They had to incite the Angel of Death, Adolf Hitler. They took the liberty of telling the world that they represented World Jewry. Who appointed these individuals as leaders of the Jewish People?? It is no secret that these so-called “leaders” were ignoramuses when it came to Judaism. Atheists and racists too. These are the “statesmen” who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933. This boycott hurt Germany like a fly attacking an elephant – but it brought calamity upon the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and England were at peace with the mad-dog Hitler, the Zionist “statesmen” forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and with their boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy. Genocide began, but these people, if they can really be classified as members of the human race, sat back.

“No Shame”

President Roosevelt convened the Evian conference July 6-15 1938, to deal with the Jewish refugee problem. The Jewish Agency delegation headed by Golda Meir (Meirson) ignored a German offer to allow Jews to emigrate to other countries for $250 a head, and the Zionists made no effort to influence the United States and the 32 other countries attending the conference to allow immigration of German and Austrian Jews. [Source]

On Feb 1, 1940 Henry Montor executive vice-President of the United Jewish Appeal refused to intervene for a shipload of Jewish refugees stranded on the Danube river, stating that “Palestine cannot be flooded with… old people or with undesirables.” [Source]

Read “The Millions That Could Have Been Saved” by I.DombIt is an historical fact that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that: a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.

The Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.

The answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments: a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees. b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a “Jewish State” at the end of the war. c) No ransom will be paid This response to the Gestapo’s offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.

These treacherous Zionist leaders betrayed their own flesh and blood. Zionism was never an option for Jewish salvation. Quite the opposite, it was a formula for human beings to be used as pawns for the power trip of several desperadoes. A perfidy! A betrayal beyond description!

In 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved. The same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).

The British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The “Jewish Agency” leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.

On December 17, 1942 both houses of the British Parliament declared its readiness to find temporary refuge for endangered persons. The British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany. This motion received within two weeks a total of 277 Parliamentary signatures. On Jan. 27, when the next steps were being pursued by over 100 M.P.’s and Lords, a spokesman for the Zionists announced that the Jews would oppose the motion because Palestine was omitted. [Source]

On Feb. 16, 1943 Roumania offered 70,000 Jewish refugees of the Trans-Dniestria to leave at the cost of $50 each. This was publicized in the New York papers. Yitzhak Greenbaum, Chairman of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency, addressing the Zionist Executive Council in Tel Aviv Feb. 18 1943 said, “when they asked me, “couldn’t you give money out of the United Jewish Appeal funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said NO! and I say again, NO!…one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance.” On Feb. 24, 1943 Stephen Wise, President of the American Jewish Congress and leader of the American Zionists issued a public refusal to this offer and declared no collection of funds would seem justified. In 1944, the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People called upon the American government to establish a War Refugee Board. Stephen Wise testifying before a special committee of Congress objected to this proposal. [Source]

During the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weizman, the first “Jewish statesman” stated: “The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important”. Weizman’s cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe”.

And then, after the bitterest episode in Jewish history, these Zionist “statesmen” lured the broken refugees in the DP camps to remain in hunger and deprivation, and to refuse relocation to any place but Palestine; only for the purpose of building their State.

In 1947 Congressman William Stration sponsored a bill to immediately grant entry to the United States of 400,000 displaced persons. The bill was not passed after it was publicly denounced by the Zionist leadership. [Source]

These facts are read with consternation and unbearable shame. How can it be explained that at a time during the last phase of the war, when the Nazis were willing to barter Jews for money, partly because of their desires to establish contact with the Western powers which, they believed, were under Jewish influence, how was it possible one asks that the self-proclaimed “Jewish leaders” did not move heaven and earth to save the last remnant of their brothers?

On Feb. 23, 1956 the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, Minister for Immigration was asked in the Canadian House of Commons “would he open the doors of Canada to Jewish refugees”. He replied “the government has made no progress in that direction because the government of Israel….does not wish us to do so”. [Source]

In 1972, the Zionist leadership successfully opposed an effort in the United States Congress to allow 20,000-30,000 Russian refugees to enter the United States. Jewish relief organizations, Joint and HIAS, were being pressured to abandon these refugees in Vienna, Rome and other Europiean cities. [Source] The pattern is clear!!! Humanitarian rescue efforts are subverted to narrow Zionist interests.

There were many more shocking crimes committed by these abject degenerates known as “Jewish statesmen”, we could list many more example, but for the time being let anyone produce a valid excuse for the above facts.

Zionist responsibility for the Holocaust is threefold.

1. The Holocaust was a punishment for disrespecting The Three Oaths (see Talmud, Tractate Kesubos p. 111a).

2. Zionist leaders openly withheld support, both financially and otherwise, to save their fellow brothers and sisters from a cruel death.

3. The leaders of the Zionist movement cooperated with Hitler and his cohorts on many occasions and in many ways.

Zionists Offer a Military Alliance with Hitler

It would be wishful thinking if it could be stated that the leaders of the Zionist movement sat back and ignored the plight of their dying brothers and sisters. Not only did they publicly refuse to assist in their rescue, but they actively participated with Hitler and the Nazi regime. Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letter for its name, “Tel Aviv”, while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party (Nazi) member. Many years later a traveler aboard the ship recalled this symbolic combination as a “metaphysical absurdity”. Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler’s Third Reich. In early January 1941 a small but important Zionist organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”, better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist “National Military Organization” (Irgun Zvai Leumi – Etzel) over the group’s attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism.

This remarkable proposal “for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation on the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany” is worth quoting at some length:

“The NMO which is very familiar with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program takes the view that: 1.Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO. 2.Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry. 3.The establishment of the Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty, with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.

“On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.

“This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the “Jewish” men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front be formed.

“The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European-Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

“The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England”.

(Original document in German Auswertiges Amt Archiv, Bestand 47-59, E224152 and E234155-58. Complete original text published in: David Yisraeli, The Palestinian Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Israel: 1947) pp. 315-317).

On the basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interests.

This is just one example of the Zionist movements’ collaboration with Hitler for the purpose of possibly receiving jurisdiction over a minute piece of earth, Palestine.

And to top it all up, brainwashing!

How far this unbelievable Zionist conspiracy has captured the Jewish masses, and how impossible it is for any different thought to penetrate their minds, even to the point of mere evaluation, can be seen in the vehemence of the reaction to any reproach. With blinded eyes and closed ears, any voice raised in protest and accusation is immediately suppressed and deafened by the thousandfold cry: “Traitor,” “Enemy of the Jewish People.”

Source for paragraphs marked “[Source]”: The Wall Street Journal December 2, 1976

The data presented on this page was prepared by AJAZ.

Follow this link:


Posted By on November 25, 2016

What is the Bnai Brith Justice Unit #5207?

Itis a local chapter of Bnai Brith International. Its members consist of Jewish attorneys and judges, located primarily Broward County, Florida. BBJUhas provided an important avenue for civic and social involvement of our members while carrying out the ideals of Bnai Brith. BBJUsponsors social, educational and charitable programs for its members in conjunction with other Broward County voluntary bar associations and professional organizations.

We focus on Jewish tradition and the Jewish future. We support Bnai Brith ideals and work to promote local, national and international charities. We offer the opportunity to build camaraderie and network with local attorneys and judges. We provide social as well as educational events. ( CLE credit may be available ) We demonstrate leadership by example. We contribute to the communitys needs by assisting Hatikvah House residents in Coral Springs, supporting Jewish Adoption & Foster Care Options (JAFCO), offering mentoring programs for young adults and providing other needed resources to the community. We contribute to the legal professions needs by recognizing excellence in law students at local law schools, participating in Law Day activities, the 17th Judicial Circuit Robing Ceremony and other judicial and bar association functions.

Why Bnai Brith? Click here to find out.

Read the original post:

Anti-Defamation League Official: Racist Incidents ‘A Wake-Up …

Posted By on November 25, 2016

People protest the appointment of white nationalist alt-right media mogul, former Breitbart News head Steve Bannon, to be chief strategist of the White House by President-elect Donald Trump on Nov. 16, near City Hall in Los Angeles, Calif.MCNEW/AFP/Getty Images) David McNew/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

People protest the appointment of white nationalist alt-right media mogul, former Breitbart News head Steve Bannon, to be chief strategist of the White House by President-elect Donald Trump on Nov. 16, near City Hall in Los Angeles, Calif.MCNEW/AFP/Getty Images)

Meeting with The New York Times today, Donald Trump said the words many have been waiting for: “I disavow and condemn them.”

He was answering a question about a gathering of the so-called alt-right a few days ago in Washington. The views of the self-described alt-right are widely seen as anti-Semitic and white supremacist.

A video taken at the conference by The Atlantic for a documentary out next month shows a speaker calling out “Hail Trump! Hail our people! Hail victory!” The crowd responds with cheers; some, with Nazi salutes.

This kind of behavior doesn’t shock Deborah Lauter, senior vice president for policy and programs with the Anti-Defamation League.

“We’ve been monitoring these groups for decades,” she tells NPR’s Kelly McEvers. “But it is shocking to most people (it) should be and, in a way it’s good for people to understand that it still exists, and that, unfortunately, it’s growing.”

On Donald Trump’s disavowal of the alt-right

I was very pleased to hear that he used the words “condemn” and “disavow” we’ve been asking him to do that over the course of the campaign and post-election. … I think he’s gonna need to continue to do it. It’s an important statement for him to make, and it’s important for the white supremacists who are touting him as their new leader to hear that he is not in their camp.

On the uptick of harassment and hate speech since the election

That’s probably our biggest concern. … This mainstreaming of hate speech is something we never really thought we’d see in this country again. …

It’s a definite, dramatic increase. It’s manifesting as vandalism a lot of swastikas, we’re seeing but it’s also manifesting in diverse schools where some children, particularly immigrant children, or families of immigrants, are being taunted and bullied.

So the key is for people to continue to report those incidents, because we can’t address it unless we know about them and can provide support. …

It’s a coarsening of our democracy, and it makes people who live here feel fear and insecurity. And that’s just not what our country is about.

On whether recent incidents mark a turning point

I hope it’s not a turning point. I would probably refer to it more as a wake-up call. The Anti-Defamation League has always said we need to fight hate in a comprehensive way, and now that it’s been exposed so graphically and in the public’s face, I think what we need is for people to really heed that wake-up call and stand up to the hate.

On what people who oppose the alt-right can do

It’s imperative that good people speak out. So if they do witness someone who is being harassed or bullied because they have a hijab on, for example they need to be an ally, they need to step forward and say this is not acceptable. For people who see incidents in their community whether it’s a swastika or other bigoted incident come together as a community and stand up and say our neighborhood will not tolerate this.

There are things individuals can do, communities can do, but it’s essential that we not be passive about it. And I think people who are doing this have a sense of pride that they are being part of something bigger and that they’re helping this country return to normalcy of civility.

View original post here:
Anti-Defamation League Official: Racist Incidents ‘A Wake-Up …

ADL Chief Who Smeared Steve Bannon Directed Project at Soros …

Posted By on November 23, 2016


Greenblatt last week stirred controversy by baselessly smearing Steve Bannon for associations with anti-Semites. Those charges collapsedafter Jewish leaders and Breitbart employees described Bannon as staunchly pro-Israel and a fighter of anti-Semitism, with the ADL itself conceding on Thursday that it is not aware of any anti-Semitic statements made by Bannon himself.


Bannon, Breitbarts former executive chairman, was named by President-elect Donald Trumplast week as chief strategist ofthe new White House administration.

Greenblatt in November 2014 was appointed head of the ADL, coming straight from the Obama administration, where he served as Director of the White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation.

Greenblatts official ADL bioshowslittle documented experience in combating anti-Semitism.

Greenblatt was an ADL intern while a graduate student at Tufts University, but the Forward newspaper reportedthat his professional life took him to other directions.

Continued the paper:

He managed real estate and later co-founded a socially conscience business venture, Ethos Brands, which sold bottled water while donating part of the profits to clean water programs. The company was later sold to Starbucks and Greenblatt became a vice president of the giant coffee shop conglomerate. He later served as head of GOOD media company and founded the not-for-profit All for Good, an Internet platform connecting volunteers with organizations seeking help. Greenblatt also taught social entrepreneurship at UCLA.

Soros ties

Until his appointment as head ofObamas Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation, Greenblatt served as Director of the Impact Economy Initiative at the George Soros-funded Aspen Institute.

Curiously, that role is not mentioned in Greenblatts ADL bio, which simply states that he is a member of the 2006 class of Henry Crown Fellows at the Aspen Institute. The Fellowship describes itself as seeking to develop the next generation of community-spirited leaders, providing them with the tools necessary to meet the challenges of business and civic leadership in the 21st century.

Besides funding from Soros, Aspen has hosted Soros on numerous occasions, including one reportedly clandestine summit aimed at devisinga strategy to defeat George W. Bush in the 2004 election.

The Aspen Institutes official mission statement is nondescript. It says the organization seeks to:

Spark intellectual inquiry and exchange, connecting new concepts to timeless values.

Create a diverse worldwide community of leaders committed to the greater good.

Provide a nonpartisan forum for reaching solutions on vital public policy issues.

Like Aspens generalized mission statement, Greenblatt described what he meant by Impact Economy, the namesake of the Aspen division that he directed, in general terms. He stated in a 2011 interview that Impact Economy focuses on national competitiveness, social impact and environmental benefit a phenomenon that encompasses a wide range of sectors including community enterprises and clean tech as well as new fields such as affordable living and ethical brands.

Discover the Networks reports on Aspens mission thusly:

Encompassing a broad range of issues, many of AIs policy-work programs are rooted in the belief that the United States is a nation whose history amounts largely to an unbroken narrative of injustice; that government intervention frequently represents the best remedy for social and economic problems; and that Americas deep-seated structural racism, while harder to see than its previous incarnations, is just as likely as its forerunner to perpetuate racial group inequity.

Indeed, the term structural racism is a major theme on Aspens website.And it has been the theme of numerous Aspen publications and events. A closer look may help explain Greenblatts institutional background at Aspen as it relates to his perspective on issues of racism.

Aspen defines structural racism, which it contends continues to impact the U.S., as:

A system in which public policies, institutional practices, culturalrepresentations, and other norms work in various, often reinforcing ways to perpetuateracial group inequity. It identifies dimensions of our history and culture that have allowedprivileges associated with whiteness and disadvantages associated with color to endure andadapt over time. Structural racism is not something that a few people or institutions choose to practice. Instead it has been a feature of the social, economic and political systems in which we allexist.

An Aspen blog post regarding the Institutes Roundtable on Community Change contends:

From both historical and contemporary standpoints, whites have possessed advantages in all of the principal opportunity domains for a long time, including education, employment, housing, health care, political representation, and media influence. It has accumulated into an understanding among whites (and perhaps others) that whiteness is the default setting for race in America and that it is the assumed color of our nation.

Aspens roundtable suggested the use of a structural racism lens to understand the following concepts:

The racial legacy of our past.

How racism persists in our national policies, institutional practices, and cultural representations.

How racism is transmitted and either amplified or mitigated through public, private, and community institutions.

How individuals internalize and respond to racialized structures.

The roundtable concluded it is important to challenge the American ideals of equal opportunity and meritocracy by considering the following:

The notion of the fairness of the system.

Consider where we, as individuals, fit into and help sustain structural racism, especially in the media and popular culture.

Reflect on the role that social service, community development, or philanthropic organizations play in the maintenance of racial inequity.

Soross Open Society Foundations has provided numerous grants to the Aspen Institute totaling at least $515,000.

In August 2004, Soros reportedly attended a clandestine summit meeting that took place at the Aspen Institute, in Colorados Rocky Mountains. The participants, all Democrats, were sworn to secrecy and, according to the New Yorker, included Soros and four other billionaires who shared a common goal: to use their fortunes to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush in the 2004 election.

In 2006, National Review Online reported:

Soros, through his Open Society Institute, provides support for the Aspen Institute, which runs various activities in support of its stated mission of foster[ing] enlightened leadership and open-minded dialogue. Among these activities are its Justice and Society Seminars, which often have federal judges as participants. The Aspen Institute has waived the steep seminar fee (currently up to $6,950) for participating federal judges, and also has covered their expenses for travel, lodging, and meals.

Soros himself spoke at a July 2004 Aspen event titled Americas Role in the Fight Against Global Poverty.

In August 2006, Aspen hosted Soros again for a speech about his book released that year, titled, The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror.

Jim Spiegelman, Aspens director of communications, formerly served as special assistant to Soros, Spiegelmans Aspen bio notes.

Soros-funded J Street

Greenblatt, meanwhile, stirred controversy for remarks he made about Israel at a speech earlier this year to J Street, the Soros-financed liberal Middle East activist organization.

J Street has been critical of Israeli anti-terror operations, considers Israeli settlements an obstacle to peace, and strongly supported the Iran nuclear deal labeled by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a threat to Israels very survival.

The pro-Israel Zionist Organization of America compiled some of Greenblatts most controversial statements at the J Street speech alongside ZOAs concerns about those statements.

ZOA says Greenblatt wrongly blamed both sides for acts that are the sole responsibility of Palestinian Arabs and their leaders.

This was a response to Greenblatts statements:We must be on guard for those who place blame on one side instead of putting forward solutions that acknowledge the role and responsibility of both sides and both sides need more investment and less intifada, more business and less boycott, more help and less hate.

ZOA contended that Greenblatt falsely accused fellow Jews of Islamophobia and marginalizing Palestinians and claimed that the Palestinian narrative is legitimate.

Greenblatt stated at the J Street dinner: We should not stand idly by when those in our community exhibit Islamophobia or deny the rights of the marginalized, Palestinian or otherwise. So, when it comes to striving for a two state solution, its critical for two parties to meet halfway. Both sides need to acknowledge the legitimacy of the others narrative. We need equal pressure for equality.

The ZOA noted that the Palestinian narrative consists of the false claim that Jews living on Jewish land are occupiers that stole their own land from Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian narrative also falsely claims that Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are Islamic holy places that Jews are defiling, and that Jews have no connection to Jerusalem.

The ZOA argued Greenblatt falsely implied that Israel does not protect Arab citizens rights today, and instead portrayed protecting Arab citizens rights as a future aspiration for which activists must fight.

Greenblatt stated: We want to see Israel as a democratic country that acknowledges[sic] and protects[sic] the rights of all its citizens, Ashkenazi and Sephardic, Sabra and immigrant, Jew and Arab.

The ZOA further protested:

Israel in fact already protects the rights of all its citizens, including its Arab citizens. Israeli Arabs vote in Israeli elections; serve as doctors, lawyers and top judges in Israel; and even sit as members of the Israeli Knesset, despite supporting Israels enemies. Israeli Arab MKs have visited and comforted families of Arab terrorists who murdered Jews,joined the IHH flotilla to break the Israeli blockade of arms shipments to Hamas,urged Islamist terrorist group Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah to fight Israel, and supported the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.

The ZOA wrote that Greenblatt encouraged criticism of Israel as to why there is no twostate solution whole ignoring that the Palestinians rejected offers of a state in 1937, 1947, 2000, and 2008, and have refused to even come to the bargaining table in recentyears.

The ZOA was referring toGreenblatts statement: Looking back [after the hopes of Oslo], some disagree about what happened or how we get to that two-state solution. We can and should have a robust debate. We can criticize and argue with our brothers and sisters in Israel, and with their government. I know I do. I know ADL does. Greenblatt also said: We can seek to support Palestinian self-determination.

Jerusalem Post columnist and veteran international Jewish leader Isi Leibler protested not only Greenblatts statements on Israel, but the ADL chiefs attendance at a J Street event, which Leibler feared would provide legitimacy to the controversial organization.

The negative impact of Greenblatts overtures to J Street should not be underestimated. This is a crucial period in Israel-US relations. For one of the wealthiest Jewish establishment bodies to shower praise on an organization with a consistent track record of undermining and demonizing Israel and to call for its inclusion in the big tent will surely serve to encourage Obama to exert pressure against Israel in the last months of his tenure.

Aaron Klein is Breitbarts Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, Aaron Klein Investigative Radio. Follow him onTwitter @AaronKleinShow.Follow him onFacebook.

With research by Brenda J. Elliott.

See more here:
ADL Chief Who Smeared Steve Bannon Directed Project at Soros …

B’nai B’rith Apartments Rentals – Deerfield Beach, FL …

Posted By on November 23, 2016

Finding Apartments for Rent in Deerfield Beach, FL

Deerfield Beach is a beautiful coastal town in Florida. It is located along the eastern coast between Boca Raton and Pompano Beach. Even though this is considered to be part of the Miami Metropolitan area, it is actually a smaller community. Here are a few things about Deerfield Beach, FL that you should know if you are considering living here.

The Best Neighborhoods in Deerfield Beach, FL

This quaint town in South Florida has plenty to offer, including a wide variety of different housing options. When looking for the right place to live, one of the things that is helpful to know is the best neighborhoods. If you want to live right on the water, then the Ocean Vue neighborhood is the place to be. This is made up of high rise condos as well as high dollar single family homes that sit right one the beach. This gives you private access to the ocean.

Learn More about Deerfield Beach

Read more here:
B’nai B’rith Apartments Rentals – Deerfield Beach, FL …

Page 11234..1020..»