Page 21234..1020..»

Jewish American Heritage Month –

Posted By on December 16, 2016

Initiated by the Jewish Museum of Florida, with the effort led by Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and enacted by the 109th Congress, President George Bush signed a resolution in 2006 that each May would be Jewish American Heritage Month (JAHM). Like other group’s months, JAHM is the time to celebrate the contributions of American Jews to the fabric of our nation’s lives. America has been both a haven and a home to Jews. Many arrived as immigrants seeking escape from persecution, and in finding freedom, tolerance and opportunities here, have given back in all areas to enrich our national culture. Each May, the President of the U.S. issues a Proclamation for JAHM. For more information on JAHM please visit

“This month, we remember that the history and unique identity of Jewish Americans is part of the grand narrative of our country, forged in the friendships and shared wisdom between people of different faiths.” – President Barack Obama.

At the Jewish Museum of Florida-FIU (JMOF-FIU), visitors can see a copy of the Presidential Proclamation that Jewish astronaut Garrett Reisman brought into space in May 2010. While he was the first Jewish crew member on the International Space Station, Reisman notes that he is one of many in a “long line of Jewish Americans who have been deeply involved in the space program” and pointed to David Wolf, the first Jewish American to be part of the Russian-American crew on the space station MIR, and Judy Resnik, who he called a “pathfinder.” After the Proclamation was returned from space, JMOF-FIU donated the original to the National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia where it is on display in Independence Hall.

See original here:
Jewish American Heritage Month –

Myths & Facts: Archived Online Exclusive | Jewish Virtual …

Posted By on December 11, 2016

The Palestinian Authority held a free, democratic election in 2005. Israel is building the security fence as part of a land grab to control the West Bank and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. The demographic threat to Israel posed by Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza is overrated and therefore Israel need not make territorial compromises. Israel is killing Palestinians with radiation spy machines. Unlike other Arab women, Palestinian women are not killed for dishonoring their families. Israel has moved the border so it will not withdraw completely from the Gaza Strip. Hamas should be permitted to participate in Palestinian Authority elections. Israel’s disengagement from Gaza was a victory for terror. Israel is obstructing Palestinian elections. Academic freedom means any criticism of Israel is permissible in a university. The Palestinian Authority held a democratic election and Israel and the rest of the world must accept that Hamas was the victor. Israel is digging under the Al-Aksa mosque and intends to destroy it. Israel is responsible for disparaging cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The Palestinians have maintained a truce and ceased terror operations against Israel. The PA is entitled to international aid because Hamas was democratically elected and the Palestinian people should not be made to suffer because Israel doesnt like the election outcome. Saudi Arabia has ended its boycott of Israel. Israel is knowingly desecrating a Muslim holy place in Jerusalem by building a museum on top of a cemetery. Hamas is a threat only to Israel. Palestinians have the right to sell land to Jews. Israel has no justification for withholding tax monies due to the Palestinian Authority. If Israel ends the occupation, there will be peace. Israel deliberately targets Lebanese civilians. Israel should exchange Arab prisoners for soldiers kidnaped by Hamas and Hizballah. The media is fairly and accurately covering the war in Lebanon. Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians during the war instigated by Hizballah. A unity Palestinian government will reinvigorate the peace process. Saudi Arabia has proposed a new formula for a comprehensive peace. A new report proves Israeli settlements are built on Palestinian land. The overwhelming majority of casualties in the war with Hizballah were civilians. Abbas is helpless to stop the terrorists. Israel is obstructing progress toward a Palestinian state. Israeli Arabs are unpatriotic. Women are not recruited to become suicide bombers. Palestinian terrorist groups are committed to a cease-fire. Israel is damaging the Temple Mount and threatening Islamic shrines. Palestinians are moderating their views toward Israel. The Arab peace initiative reflects the Arab states acceptance of Israel. Israel is denying health care to Palestinians. The Hamas takeover of Gaza poses no threat to Christians. Lebanon has abided by UN Resolution 1701 and poses no direct threat to Israel. Israel is once again expelling Arabs from Palestine. The occupation has sapped Israel’s morale as reflected by the decline in Israelis willing to serve in the IDF. Israel has nothing to fear from a nuclear Iran. Israels presumed nuclear capability is stoking an arms race. Irans nuclear program threatens only Israel. No state in the world connects its national identity to a religious identity. Arab participation in the Annapolis conference signaled a new attitude toward Israel. Palestinians prefer to live in a Palestinian state. Israel and the Palestinians agree a future Palestinian state will have an army. Gaza settlers greenhouses have bolstered the PA economy. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is Israel’s fault. Israel’s actions in Gaza were disproportionate and unprovoked. Israel’s enemies must recognize the Jewish state’s right to exist. Palestinians are driven to terror by poverty and desperation. Israel must negotiate with Hamas. Mahmoud Abbas has rooted out the corruption in the Palestinian Authority . Hizbollah is a resistance movement whose only interest is fighting Israel. Palestinian terrorist groups agreed to a cease-fire to advance the peace process. Olmert’s resignation means the end of peace talks with the Palestinians. Arabs cannot vote in Israel. Israel is intolerant of homosexuality. Hamas will not break a ceasefire. Arab states’ sincerity in promoting their peace initiative is reflected in their positions in international forums. Charles Freeman was the right choice for chair of the National Intelligence Council and the Israel lobby was responsible for his not being appointed. Arab states support Iran. Netanyahu is not an advocate for peace. The United States missed an opportunity to address the issue of global racism in its non-participation in Durban II. Abbas is ready to accept a Jewish state in the framework of a two-state solution. Khaled Meshaal seeks peace, not the destruction of Israel. The popes trip to Israel shows that issues between Israel and the Vatican have been resolved. Obama and Netanyahu have irreconcilable visions of peace. Netanyahu’s government refuses to honor past agreements on settlements. There is urgency to resolve the Palestinian-Israel conflict. Palestinian leaders are committed to peace. Fatah’s Sixth Congress proved the party’s rejuvenated committment to peace. Saudi Arabia is on the path to normalizing relations with Israel. The Goldstone Report proves Israel is guilty of war crimes in Gaza. In exchange for a settlement freeze, Arab states are offering overflight rights as a peace gesture to Israel. Jews were responsible for the defeat of Egypt’s candidate for UNESCO. The enemies of Israel will not misuse the Goldstone Report. Amnesty’s water report fairly portrays Israel. The threat Hizbollah poses to Israel has diminished. Syria is ready for peace with Israel. Settlements are an obstacle to negotiations. Egypt’s blockade of Gaza has provoked international criticism. George Mitchell threatened Israel. The U.S. is maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge. The Israelis and the Palestinians share equal blame in creating recent obstacles to peace. Israel is an apartheid state. Israels Inclusion of Rachels Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs as Jewish Heritage Sites is an attack on Palestinian sovereignty and Islam. The re-dedication of the Hurva Synagogue is an affront to Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority promotes a culture of tolerance and peace. The flotilla bound for Gaza was on a humanitarian mission. The naval blockade of Gaza does not affect Hamas and only hurts innocent civilians. UNIFIL has kept the peace in southern Lebanon. Palestinian Authority leaders have a mandate from the people to pursue peace. Ending the moratorium on settlement construction is designed to torpedo peace negotiations. Renewed settlement construction in the West Bank proves Israel is uninterested in peace. Israel has instituted a racist loyalty oath requiring immigrants to pledge allegiance to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. The Palestinians can pressure Israel into negotiating on their terms by unilaterally declaring statehood.” Israel cannot be both a democratic state and a Jewish state. The UN helps preserve Jewish holy sites in the Palestinian Territories. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is a moderate interested in compromise. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that feels threatened by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “Saudi Arabia is an ally of the West in the war on terror.” The viability of a future Palestinian state is severely hampered by the continued construction of Israeli settlements.” Israel illegally demolished a Palestinian national landmark in East Jerusalem.” Israel is required by international law to supply goods and services to Gaza – its blockade is collective punishment.” Israel must accept the demand of Palestinian refugees to ‘return’ in order for there to be peace.” The Egyptian revolution has no impact on Israel’s security. Turmoil in Egypt is a result of the failure to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. America’s veto of a UN Security Council resolution condemning settlements undermined peace talks. American media coverage of Israel is proportional with coverage given to the rest of the Middle East. ‘Israel Apartheid Week’ promotes peace. Palestinian terrorism is a byproduct of the ‘cycle of violence’ perpetuated by Israel. Israel unnecessarily maintains checkpoints to control and humiliate the Palestinians. Rockets shot from Gaza at southern Israel do not cause enough damage to justify military retaliation . Justice Goldstone remains convinced that Israel committed war crimes documented in the Goldstone Report. The Iron Dome Missile Defense System negates the need for Israel to engage in military operations against Hamas in Gaza The targeted assassination of terrorist leaders is a counterproductive military strategy Hamas-Fatah reconciliation paves the way to peace negotiations with Israel. Israel unjustly responded with violence to the protests of Nakba day. Israel must withdraw to the June 4, 1967 boundaries. “Gaza does not receive necessary humaitarian supplies due to Israel’s blockade.&l’s blockade.” “Palestinian protestors staged non-violents demonstrations on the Israeli-Syrian border.” “The ‘Flotilla 2’ is intended solely to relieve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” “The United Nations repudiated the claim that Israels naval blockade of Gaza is legal.” “A Unilateral Declaration of Independence is the Palestinians only avenue to advance the Peace Process.” “Palestinian leaders claim that the future Palestinian state will welcome Jews and Israelis.” “Mahmoud Abbas is working toward reaching peace with Israel.” “Due to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel’s economy has been suffering.” – “Gaza does not receive necessary humaitarian supplies due to Israel’s blockade.” – “The ‘Flotilla 2′ is intended solely to relieve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” – “The United Nations repudiated the claim that Israels naval blockade of Gaza is legal.” – “A Unilateral Declaration of Independence is the Palestinians only avenue to advance the Peace Process.” – “Palestinian leaders claim that the future Palestinian state will welcome Jews and Israelis.” – “Mahmoud Abbas is working toward reaching peace with Israel.” – “Time is not on Iran’s side vis-a-vis its acquiring the atomic bomb.” – “Due to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel’s economy has been suffering.” – “Of the Palestinian prisoners released in the Shalit deal, most who have spoken out say they will renounce terror.” – “Israel’s proposed rebuilding of the Mugrabi Gate leading to the Temple Mount is an act of religious war.” – “The Palestinian leadership wants to normalize ties with Israel.” – “The Palestinians agreed to negotiate with Israel without preconditions.” – “Palestinians terrorism is no longer a threat to Israel.” – “Israel no longer faces any threats from Gaza.” – “The rights of Palestinian women are protected in the Palestinian Authority.” – “Palestinians are talking about peace with Israelis in Jordan.” – “Terrorism against Jews is limited to attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories.” – “Israeli democracy is threatened and Americans need to speak out to save it.” – “Iran is the only Muslim nation in the Middle East seeking to develop nuclear technology.” – “Women do not have equal rights in Israel.” – “Israel’s policy of targeted killings is immoral and counterproductive.” – “Israel does not support humanitarian development and sustainablity in the Palestinian territories.” – “Israel is whitewashing history to promote the judaization of Jerusalem.” – “The State Department knows the capital of Israel.” – “Israeli policy has caused an exodus of Christians from the West Bank.” – “The United States is committed to ensuring a complete halt to the Iranian nuclear program.” – “Israel’s new unity government reduces the prospect for continued peace negotiations with the Palestinians.” – “Palestinians no longer object to the creation of Israel.” – “Mahmoud Abbas has rooted out corruption from the Palestinian Authority.” – “The rise of Islamists in Egypt’s government does not pose a strategic threat to Israel.” – “The Palestinian Authority promotes a culture of tolerance and peace toward Israel.” – “Egyptian-Israeli security cooperation is at it weakest point in years.” – “Israel is culpable in the 2003 death of American activist Rachel Corrie.” – “Intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program may be as faulty as the information about Iraq’s.” – “We will know when Iran has a bomb and can take action at that time.” – “Iran should be allowed a nuclear weapon since Israel has one.” – “Anti-Semitism is on the decline around the world.” – “Iran does not believe it can win a nuclear war.” – “Iran wants to control its nuclear stockpile and would never give a bomb or nuclear material to terrorists.” – “We are seeing accurate media coverage from Gaza.” – “Israel is deliberately targeting the media.” – “Israel’s war in Gaza was immoral because more Palestinians died than Israelis.” – “The Israeli construction plan called the E1 project threatens the two-state solution and the contiguity of a future Palestinian state.” – “Israeli policies are obstructing peace.” – “If Iran has a bomb, it can be deterred the way the U.S. deterred the Soviet Union.” – &#8220Israeli settlements are an obstacle to Mideast peace. – &#8220The Palestinians are now ready to make peace with Israel. – &#8220Attacking Iran will create more instability in the Middle East. – &#8220If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was solved, the Middle East would be at peace. – &#8220Israel has created separate bus lines to segregate Jews and Palestinians. – &#8220The European Union has no reason to name Hezbollah a terrorist organization. – &#8220Non-lethal Palestinian rocket attacks have no impact on Israel’s civilian population. – &#8220Israelis overreact to harmless rock-throwing by Palestinians. – &#8220The Palestinian Authority is committed to reforming Palestinian society. – &#8220Now is a good time to revive the Arab peace initiative. – &#8220Syrias chemical weapons pose no threat outside of Syria. – &#8220Israel has refused to discuss a compromise on the future of Jerusalem. – &#8220’Nakba Day’ has nothing to do with the peace process. – &#8220An Israeli attack on Iran would endanger U.S. interests in the Middle East. – &#8220The United States helped Israel defeat the Arabs in six days in June 1967. – &#8220The election of Hassan Rouhani eliminates the Iranian nuclear threat. – &#8220The U.S. must be involved in any successful peace process between Israel and her neighbors. – &#8220Israel ‘occupies’ the West Bank. – &#8220Palestinian leaders enter peace talks with Israel sharing a common desire for democacy. – &#8220Israel must make concessions for the peace process to succeed. – &#8220Christians are a protected minority in the Middle East. – &#8220Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is disinterested in peace with the Palestinians. – &#8220Palestinians support the boycott and divestment movement against Israel. – &#8220Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei issued a fatwa against producing nuclear weapons. – &#8220Iran is isolated because of the international sanctions regime. – &#8220Israel is responsible for expelling the Arabs of Palestine during the 1948 War of Independence. – &#8220The Palestinians have made concessions to advance the peace process; Israel has remained uncompromising. – &#8220A third intifada will erupt if Israel does not satisfy Palestinian demands. – &#8220The negotiated compromise with Iran removes Tehran’s nuclear weapons threat. – &#8220The Iranian government is committed to fulfilling the terms it agreed to in the Geneva nuclear deal&#8220


The Palestinian Authority held a free, democratic election in 2005. top


Elections are not synonymous with democracy. Several Arab countries hold elections, including Egypt and Syria, but they have only one candidate, and there is no doubt about the outcome. The dictators are always reelected with nearly 100 percent of the vote. In those nations, no one seriously claims the elections are democratic.

In the case of the Palestinian Authority (PA) elections held in January 2005, the standards were higher. These were advertised as an example of democracy and, compared to other Arab states, the voting was a considerable advancement toward free elections.

Still, the election could hardly be called competitive as the outcome was never in doubt. Seven candidates ran for president, but the only question was the size of Mahmoud Abbas margin of victory. He won with 62.3 percent of the vote. His nearest challenger was Mustafa Barghouti with 19.8 percent.1

The election had a much lower turnout than expected (62 percent), and supporters of the Islamic terrorist organizations largely boycotted the vote, as did Arabs living in east Jerusalem. Thus, Abbas was conservatively estimated by al-Jazeera to have received the support of only about one-third of the eligible voters.2

The election process went smoothly and, despite Palestinian predictions of Israeli interference, international observers reported that Palestinians were not obstructed by Israel from participating in the election. In fact, Palestinian and Israeli officials were said to have worked well together to facilitate voting.3

Free elections can only take place in societies in which people are free to express their opinions without fear.

Natan Sharansky4

Immediately after the election, however, 46 officials from the PA Central Election Committee resigned, confirming suspicions of voting irregularities and fraud. The Committee had come under pressure from Abbas staff to extend the vote by an additional two hours and to allow non-registered voters to cast ballots to guarantee a larger turnout and improve Abbas chance of a landslide victory.

The day of the election, gunmen stormed the Committee offices to demand that Palestinians who were not registered be allowed to vote. The deputy chairman of the Committee, Ammar Dwaik, said he was personally threatened and pressured and confirmed that some voters were able to remove from their thumbs the ink that was supposed to prevent double voting.5

While Abbas is now seen as a legitimately elected leader by most Palestinians and the international community, the PA has no history of democratic institutions, so it remains in doubt whether the various terrorist groups will also accept his leadership, and whether the security services will enforce the presidents will.

Natan Sharansky observed that It is important that these elections took place, because it important that the new leadership comes, or will come, not through violence. That can be the beginning of the process of democracy.6 To move closer to true democracy, Abbas will also have to remove his predecessors restrictions on the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, and the press. Then perhaps the next election will be truly free and democratic.


Israel is building the security fence as part of a land grab to control the West Bank and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. top


The purpose of the security fence is the prevention of terror. Its route has been carefully plotted to maximize the security it provides to the citizens of Israel and minimize the inconvenience and harm to Palestinians. The route of the fence must take into account topography, population density, and threat assessment of each area. To be effective in protecting the maximum number of Israelis, it also must incorporate the largest communities in the West Bank.

After the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the government had to more carefully balance security concerns and harm to the Palestinians, the route of the fence was adjusted to run closer to the Green Line. When completed, the fence will now incorporate just 7 percent of the West Bank less than 160 square miles on its Israeli side, while 2,100 square miles will be on the Palestinian side.

If and when the Palestinians decide to negotiate an end to the conflict, the fence may be torn down or moved. Even without any change, a Palestinian state could now theoretically be created in 93 percent of the West Bank (and the PA will control 100 percent of the Gaza Strip after the disengagement is complete). This is very close to the 97 percent Israel offered to the Palestinians at Camp David in 2000, which means that while other difficult issues remain to be resolved, the territorial aspect of the dispute will be reduced to a negotiation over roughly 90 square miles.


The demographic threat to Israel posed by Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza is overrated and therefore Israel need not make territorial compromises. top


A study was recently published that suggested the assumption that Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza pose a demographic threat to Israel has been exaggerated because the actual population in the territories is significantly lower than what is reported by Palestinian Authority (PA) officials. According to a study by a team of independent researchers, the 2004 Palestinian-Arab population was closer to 2.4 million than to the 3.8 million cited by the PA.7

The independent study comes up with its figures largely by deconstructing PA statistics, but Israel’s leading demographer, Professor Sergio DellaPergola of Hebrew University, has challenged the result, saying his estimate of 3.4 million Palestinians is based on Israeli data (the CIA estimates the population for the West Bank and Gaza at 3.6 million). According to DellaPergola, 4.7 million Arabs now live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River out of a total of 10,263,000. The Jewish proportion of this total is 51 percent. DellaPergola argues that because of the higher rate of birth in the Arab community, they have the demographic momentum, and that by 2020, the proportion of Jews is likely to drop to 47 percent and could fall to 37 percent by 2050.8

Even if the new study is more accurate, it only has a minimal impact on the demographic reality. According to Israeli census figures, the population of Israel today is approximately 6.8 million. If we add the 2.4 million Arabs the new study says live in the territories, the total population from the river to the sea would be 9.2 million (including about 1.3 million Israeli Arabs). The Jewish population is roughly 5.2 million or 57 percent, slightly better than DellaPergolas estimate of 51 percent.

These overall statistics also distort the debate over the disengagement from Gaza where the demographic picture is crystal clear. According to the new study, the Arab population there is more than 1.07. The Jewish population, according to the State Department, prior to the evacuation was 7,500, which means the the percentage of Jews in Gaza was a fraction of 1 percent.

The independent study focuses solely on discrediting the PA statistics and does not address the crucial issue of future trends, which DellaPergola shows are clearly in the Arabs favor. The new report argues that the growth rates in Israel and the territories have been lower than previously forecast (though they use figures for only the last four years), but even the new figures show that the growth rate for the Arabs remains higher than that of the Jews, so the proportion of Jews should continue to decline.

Recent data from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics suggests the situation may be even worse. The Bureau said that the proportion of Jews within the current borders of Israel is expected to decline from the present figure of 78 percent to 70 percent in 2025 because of the higher birth rate among Israeli Arabs. According to Industry and Trade Ministry data released in March 2007, Jewish women in Israel on average have 2.69 children each and give birth to the first at age 30. Muslim women have an average of four children and give birth to the first at age 27.9

Many proponents of territorial compromise argue that these demographic trends make it impossible for Israel to remain both a Jewish and democratic state if it holds onto the West Bank and Gaza. If a majority of the population of Israel, or even a significant minority, were non-Jews, then the Jewish character of the state would likely change. In fact, the new report states that As in 1967, Israel faces a very real issue on the status of a large minority population in the West Bank and Gaza (emphasis in the original). Extremists have suggested that non-Jews could be prohibited from voting, but this would make the state undemocratic. Since no Israeli leader even those labeled as right-wing fanatics who dream of Greater Israel have found a way to square this circle, Israel has never annexed the West Bank and Gaza. And now one of those hardliners, Ariel Sharon, was moved by the demographic reality to initiate the disengagement plan.

Many people argue that it is impossible to predict the future, and that most past projections were proven inaccurate. Earlier doomsday predictions were upset by large influxes of immigrants, and many Israelis still believe this will be their demographic salvation. After more than one million Jews from the former Soviet Union arrived in the 1990s, this view was temporarily vindicated, however, there only about 8 million Jews in the entire world outside Israel, and a large number would have to decide to move to Israel to offset the demographic trend. This is especially unlikely given that roughly 75 percent of the Jews outside Israel live in the United States from which very few emigrate.

The demographic issue is still only one variable in the Israeli political calculus related to territorial compromise. The other principal concerns are whether Israel can have greater peace and security without controlling some or all of the territories. That is a matter of great debate within Israel. For now, the majority of Israelis have come to the conclusion that withdrawal from Gaza and part of Samaria is in Israels best interest.


Israel is killing Palestinians with radiation spy machines. top


Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels was the master of the big lie tactic in which a lie, no matter how outrageous, is repeated often enough that it will eventually be accepted as truth. It is a propaganda tool the Palestinians have repeatedly tried to use to tar Israel. Past examples have included specious claims that Israel massacred 500 people at Jenin,10 infects Palestinians with the AIDS virus,11 and drops poison candy for children in Gaza from airplanes.12

The latest calumny from the Palestinians is the claim that Israel is using a radial spy machine at checkpoints, and that the device killed a 55-year-old Palestinian woman.13The charge is apparently related to the Palestinian Authoritys decision to close a checkpoint on their side of the border in Gaza to protest Israels use of advanced radio-wave machines for searching Palestinian travelers.14

The device is the SafeView Millimeter Wave Radar, an American-made portal system that uses millimeter a safe wave holographic technology to screen travelers from Egypt for weapons and explosives. Unlike metal detectors, this system is capable of detecting virtually any man-made object, regardless of the type of material, by transmitting ultra-high frequency, low-powered radio frequency waves as people pass through the portal. The waves penetrate clothing and reflect off of the persons skin and any items being carried. A sensor array captures the reflected waves and uses a desktop computer to analyze the information and produce a high-resolution, 3-D image from the signals.15

Since the allegation is coming from the official Palestinian media, it represents a violation of the Palestinian Authoritys commitment to end incitement against Israel.


Unlike other Arab women, Palestinian women are not killed for dishonoring their families. top


Maher Shakirat learned that one of his sisters was thrown out of the house by her husband for an alleged affair. Shakirat strangled his sister, who was eight months pregnant, and forced two other sisters he accused of covering up the affair to drink bleach. One of those was badly injured but escaped, but the third sister was also strangled by her brother.

Palestinian women who bring dishonor to their families may be punished by male family members. The punishments may range from ostracism and abandonment to physical abuse to murder. Honor killings may be carried out for instances of rape, infidelity, flirting or any other action seen as disgracing the family. By killing the woman, the familys name in the community is restored.

Women are usually not allowed to defend themselves; they are considered minors under the authority of male relatives, and may be killed based on a family members suspicions. An allegation of misbehavior is sufficient to defile a mans or familys honor and justify the killing of the woman. Men who carry out these murders in the Palestinian Authority typically go unpunished or receive a maximum of six months in prison.16

Because these crimes often go unreported, it is difficult to determine the actual number of victims in honor killings, but the Palestinian Authoritys womens affairs ministry reported that 20 women were murdered in honor killings in 2005, 15 survived murder attempts, and approximately 50 committed suicide, often under coercion, for shaming the family.17

According to a June 2005 poll, 24% of Palestinians said that if a family discovered that one of its daughters was involved in a case of family disgrace (e.g., adultery), the family should kill the daughter to remove the disgrace.18


Israel has moved the border so it will not withdraw completely from the Gaza Strip. top


Mohammed Dahlan, the Palestinian Authoritys Minister of Civil Affairs, has claimed that Israel moved the northern border of the Gaza Strip about 1.2 miles, and that Israel’s disengagement will not be complete unless it withdraws to the 1949 armistice lines.19 By suggesting that Israel is holding onto a piece of Gaza, the Palestinians are threatening to create a Shebaa Farms issue that could undercut the prospects for peace created by Israel’s courageous decision to evacuate all its citizens and soldiers from the area.

Substantively, Dahlans claim is inaccurate. The border of Gaza was originally determined during the 1949 Rhodes Armistice negotiations with Egypt. A year later, Israel agreed to move the border southeast, creating a bulge in the southern part of the Gaza Strip. In exchange, Egypt redrew the border in the north, moving it more than a mile southwest. According to Israel’s National Security Council chief, Giora Eiland, the border was reconfirmed in the Oslo accords.20 Today, Netiv Haasara, a community of 125 families, many of which were evacuated from settlements in the Sinai as part of the peace treaty with Egypt, is located in the area Dahlan wants included in Gaza.

In the case of Shebaa Farms, the Lebanese terrorist group, Hizballah, has speciously maintained that Israel did not fully withdraw from Lebanon, despite the UN’s verification that it has, and used Israels presence in the Shebaa Farms area as the pretext for continuing its terror campaign against Israel. If the Palestinians adopt a similar policy toward the sliver of land they claim to be part of Gaza to perpetuate their image as victims, and to try to win propaganda points by claiming to still be under occupation, they will once again demonstrate that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

If the Palestinians continue terrorist attacks against Israel, and make claims to additional territory, rather than focusing on state-building within Gaza and meeting their road map obligations, Israel will have little interest in pursuing negotiations regarding the West Bank.


Hamas should be permitted to participate in Palestinian Authority elections. top


The second Oslo agreement (Oslo II) between Israel and the Palestinian Authority prohibits the nomination of any candidates, parties or coalitions that commit or advocate racism or pursue the implementation of their aims by unlawful or non-democratic means (Annex II, Article II).21 Under this agreement, Hamas, a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians alike, cannot legally participate in Palestinian national elections. The Covenant of Hamas says nothing about democracy or elections. It does say that when enemies (the Jews) usurp some Islamic lands, Jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims. In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has warned that Israel will not cooperate with the Palestinian Authority during elections if candidates from Hamas are allowed to participate. An armed organization doesn’t become democratic once they participate in the election, Sharon said.22

Yossi Beilin, the leader of the Meretz-Yahad Party, and one of the architects of the Oslo accords, said that recognizing Hamas as a legitimate political entity is a gross violation of the Israeli-Palestinian interim agreement, and that in the global struggle against terrorism, it would be surprising indeed if Israel, paradoxically, were to acquiesce in the legitimization of a terrorist organization under its very nose.23

The United States has left it up to the Palestinians to decide who can participate in the Palestinian Legislative Council; however, National Security Council spokesperson Frederick L. Jones II said the U.S. would never have diplomatic relations with candidates from a terrorist organization.We do not believe that a democratic state can be built when parties or candidates seek power not through the ballot box but through terrorist activity, Jones said.24


Israel’s disengagement from Gaza was a victory for terror. top


Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank was applauded by the international community as an important and painful step toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even the United Nations, which rarely has anything positive to say about Israel, praised the determination and political courage shown by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon25 in implementing the disengagement plan peacefully and successfully.

In an effort to bolster their standing with the Palestinian public, groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad claim it was their terror campaign that forced Israel to withdraw.26 In fact, the terrorist groups did nothing but bring death and destruction to the people of Israel and their fellow Palestinians. Israel was not driven from the territories, it made a calculated decision to leave based on its own interests.

The 8,000 civilians who lived in Gaza were viewed by the terrorists as targets, and Israel had to devote a great deal of its human and material resources to protect these innocent people. In addition, Sharon agreed with those who concluded it would make no sense for Israel to hold on to an area with a Palestinian population exceeding one million. By withdrawing, Israel’s security has been enhanced, and the Palestinians have been given the opportunity to govern themselves and demonstrate whether they are able and willing to create a democratic society that can coexist with Israel.

At the time of the disengagement, Israel had dramatically reduced the level of terror, and the security fence around Gaza had a nearly perfect record of preventing the infiltration of suicide bombers. Israeli forces had severely damaged the terrorist infrastructure and killed or jailed most of the leaders of the major terror groups. The disengagement took place after Israel won the Palestinian War the Palestinian Authority had instigated in 2000, and the withdrawal took place from a position of strength, not weakness.

Palestinian extremists can claim whatever they want, but even they know the truth. As Zakariya Zubeidi, the leader of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terrorist group observed, Not only was the intifada a failure, but we are a total failure. We achieved nothing in 50 years of struggle; we’ve achieved only our survival.27

And the Palestinian people are not fooled by the rhetoric of the terrorists, as is evident by this comment by Mohammed Ahmed Moussa, a grocer in Jabaliya, who said, Let’s be frank. If Israel didn’t want to leave Gaza, no one could have forced them out. Those who claim the rockets and attacks made them leave are kidding themselves.28


Israel is obstructing Palestinian elections. top


Israel is a democracy and believes in free elections as the best means of insuring representative government. Consequently, Israel has been supportive of the idea of democratic elections in the Palestinian Authority. In the 2005 presidential election, international observers reported that Israel made no effort to impede the vote. To the contrary, it took a number of measures to facilitate the election.

Similarly, Israel has no intention of interfering in the upcoming legislative elections in the PA. While there is some dispute about whether and how Palestinians living in Jerusalem may participate, a similar issue was resolved before the last election.

The Jerusalem issue, however, is being used as a smokescreen by the Palestinians to obscure their internal divisions. Palestinian officials have been talking for months about delaying the elections scheduled for January 25 because of chaos and disorder throughout the PA, and because of fears that they will lose power and that Hamas will take seats from the dominant Fatah party.

Many Palestinians also legitimately fear the election will not be fair. With just three weeks to go before the election, the Palestinian election commission resigned because the commissioners said Prime Minister Ahmed Korei was interfering with their work. After the last election, 46 officials from the PA Central Election Committee resigned to protest voting irregularities and fraud.

The problem for the PA today is not any Israeli interference in their affairs, it is the Wild West climate that now dominates the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank. So long as the PA is unable to insure the safety of its residents, it will be unable to hold a free democratic election.


Academic freedom means any criticism of Israel is permissible in a university. top


The one place in America where anti-Semitism is still tolerated is in the university, where academic freedom is often used as a cover to sanction anti-Israel teachings and forums that are anti-Semitic.

In an address on the subject of academic freedom, Columbia President Lee Bollinger quoted from a report that described a professor as someone whom no fair-minded person would even suspect of speaking other than as shaped or restricted by the judgement . . . of professional scholars. He also spoke about the need for faculty to resist the allure of certitude, the temptation to use the podium as an ideological platform, to indoctrinate a captive audience, to play favorites with the like-minded, and silence the others.

Many faculty, however, do not resist temptation; rather, they embrace their position as an ideological platform. Those who abuse their rights, and insist they can say what they want, hypocritically denounce others who exercise their right to criticize them. To suggest that a professors views are inappropriate, or their scholarship is faulty, is to risk being tarred with the charge of McCarthyism.

Legality is not the issue in evaluating the anti-Israel, sometimes anti-Semitic speeches and teachings of faculty and speakers on campus. No one questions that freedom of speech allows individuals to express their views. The issue is whether this type of speech should be given the cover of academic freedom, and granted legitimacy by the university through funding, publicity or use of facilities.

For the last several years, for example, an anti-Semitic forum has been held at different universities by the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM). In 2004, the conference was held at Duke University. Organizers were asked to sign an innocuous statement before the event calling for a civil debate that would condemn the murder of innocent civilians, support a two-state solution and recognize the difference between disagreement and hate speech, but refused to do so. By hosting a group that could not bring itself to object to the murder of Jews, Duke gave their views legitimacy and tarnished the universitys academic reputation. The 2006 PSM conference is being held at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

It is sometimes suggested critics seek to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. There is a clear distinction, however, between criticism of Israeli policy, which you can read in any Israeli newspaper, and anti-Semitism, in which the attacks against Israel challenge its right to exist, or single Israel out among all other nations for special treatment, as in the case of the PSMs call for the end to Israeli occupation in all of Palestine and divestment from Israel.

A related question is whether the presentations are in any way academic or scholarly. Few people would claim that a conference in which anti-black, anti-gay, or anti-woman sentiments were expressed would be protected by academic freedom, and yet that is the shield used to permit attacks on the Jewish people.

Palestine means Palestine in its entirety – from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, from Ras Al-Naqura to Rafah. We cannot give up a single inch of it. Therefore, we will not recognize the Israeli enemy’s [right] to a single inch.

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar29


The Palestinian Authority held a democratic election and Israel and the rest of the world must accept that Hamas was the victor. top


Winston Churchill said that Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. It was a step forward, then, for the authoritarian Palestinian Authority to hold elections that by all accounts were conducted fairly. Nevertheless, so long as the Palestinian people continue to be denied by their leaders the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly and the press, the election cannot be considered truly free and democratic.

While democratic outcomes are preferable to the alternatives, the rest of the world is not obligated to have a relationship with elected leaders whose policies and views are dangerous. Adolf Hitler was elected by the German people, but few people would suggest today that the rest of the world should have ignored his genocidal views and treated him as an equal just because he emerged from a democratic process. Similarly, the current Iranian president was elected and is still widely viewed as a pariah because of his threats to destroy Israel and to pursue nuclear weapons in defiance of the rest of the world.

The Palestinian people chose to elect members of an organization whose avowed purpose is the destruction of Israel by violent means. Hamas is recognized throughout the world as a terrorist organization. Since the election, Hamas leaders have reaffirmed their commitment to the Hamas covenant calling for the liberation of all of Palestine and they have made clear it they have no intention of disarming.

Israel now has on its borders a quasi government run by people who oppose negotiations and compromise. Hamas can now take over all of the security services and weapons that have previously been given by Israel and others to the Palestinian Authority to keep the peace. The institutions that were bound by agreements to stop the violence, confiscate illegal weapons, end smuggling and cease incitement are now controlled by the very people most responsible for terror, gun running, and the use of the media and schools to demonize Israel and Jews.

Most of the world understands that Hamas is not a partner for peace and that it is a terrorist group that threatens the stability of the region. The United States and other countries rightly have said that it must recognize Israel and renounce terror before any diplomatic or economic support can be given to the PA. Of course, we went through a similar exercise in 1993 when similar demands were made of the PLO. Yasser Arafat made the necessary commitments in a letter to then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, but he never matched the words with deeds. The world will be wise not to make the same mistake with Hamas.

Myths & Facts: Archived Online Exclusive | Jewish Virtual …

MetLife Stadium – Wikipedia

Posted By on December 9, 2016

MetLife Stadium is an American sports stadium that is located in East Rutherford, New Jersey. It is part of the Meadowlands Sports Complex and serves as the home stadium for two National Football League (NFL) franchises: the New York Giants and the New York Jets. The stadium is owned by the MetLife Stadium Company, a joint venture of the Giants and Jets, who jointly built the stadium using private funds on land owned by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority. The stadium opened as New Meadowlands Stadium in 2010. In 2011, MetLife, an insurance company based in New York City, acquired the naming rights to the stadium. At a construction cost of approximately $1.6 billion, it is the most expensive stadium ever built[8] and is the second-largest stadium in the NFL in terms of seating capacity.

MetLife Stadium is the only NFL stadium shared by two clubs: the Giants and Jets. It and Staples Center in Los Angeles, California, home of the National Basketball Association (NBA)’s Los Angeles Clippers and Los Angeles Lakers, are the only current facilities to house two teams from the same sports league in the United States.

As Giants Stadium approached 30 years of age, it was becoming one of the older stadiums in the NFL. The Jets, who had been the lesser tenants at the stadium (which was called simply “The Meadowlands” for Jets games), sought to have their own stadium built in Manhattan proper, the proposed West Side Stadium. Originally intended to be the 85,000-seat main stadium for New York’s bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics, it was designed to be downsized to 75,000 seats for the Jets. However, the West Side Stadium would have required significant public funding, which collapsed in 2005. The Jets then entered into a partnership with the Giants to build a new stadium in which the two teams would be equal part.

Construction on MetLife Stadium, as seen in 2007 (top) and 2008 (bottom) near Giants Stadium

The stadium is distinguished by an outer skin of aluminum louvers and by interior lighting capable of switching colors, depending on which team is currently playing; blue for the Giants and green for the Jets.[9] This idea originated at the Allianz Arena in Munich, Germany, which is shared between the city’s two major soccer clubs, Bayern Munich and 1860 Munich. Unlike Giants Stadium, MetLife Stadium can easily be converted from a Giants game to a Jets game or vice versa, within a matter of hours.[10] The total linear length of louvers is exactly 50,000 meters (50 kilometers) or 163,681 feet (31.1 miles).

Front row 50 yard line seats are 46 feet (14m) away from the sideline, which is the shortest distance of all NFL stadiums. To change the field decorations, two 4-person crews take appx. 18 hours using forklifts and other machinery to remove the 40 sections of FieldTurf which make up the teams’ respective endzones.[11] Unlike most NFL stadiums, the NFL’s logo is painted at midfield, instead of the logo of one of the teams, also shortening the transition time. The replaceable team logos at midfield were removed in August 2010, after Domenik Hixon tore his anterior cruciate ligament at a practice at the stadium during training camp.[12]

Unlike a number of other new NFL venues, MetLife Stadium does not have a roof, as proposals to include a roof failed, over a dispute for funding.[13] Thus, indoor events such as the Final Four cannot be held at the facility, which runs counter to the original aims for a new stadium in northern New Jersey.[14]

20 giant high-definition-ready light emitting diode (LED) pylons, located at the north and east entrances, display videos of the team currently in-house. The pylons measure approximately 54 feet (16m) high by 20 feet (6.1m) wide. Inside, are four 30 feet (9.1m) by 116 feet (35m) high definition video displays, and hang from each corner of the upper deck.[15]

The new stadium has seating for 82,500[2] people, including 10,005 club seats and approximately 218 luxury suites, making it the second-largest NFL stadium in terms of total seating.[16]

MetLife Stadium includes a total of four locker rooms: one each for the Giants and Jets, as well as 2 for visiting teams. The home teams have locker rooms on opposite ends of the stadium with a visitors’ locker room adjacent to it; the unused visitors’ locker room is used for spillover by the home team, on game days.[16][17]

The two teams formed the New Meadowlands Stadium Company, LLC (now MetLife Stadium Company), a 50/50 joint venture, to build and operate the stadium. The two teams leased the parcel of land on which the stadium stands from the NJSEA for a 25-year term, with options to extend it which could eventually reach 97 years. After the 15th year of the lease, and every five years, hence; one of the 2 teams may opt out of the lease after giving the state 12 months notice. However, if one team leaves for a new stadium, the other team would have to remain for the remainder of the lease. Based on the teams’ histories, this clause presumably allows the Jets to eventually decide they want to play in their own stadium and leave if they can find a way to finance it. However, the high cost of building and relocating to a new stadium makes this very unlikely (although the Jets have relocated their facilities to Florham Park, New Jersey). The teams also get parking revenue from the Meadowlands’ western parking lots year round, even when there are no events at the stadium (this would occur when other parts of the Meadowlands host events).[18]

Allianz, a financial services and insurance company based in Germany, expressed interest in purchasing naming rights to the stadium. The proposal was for a period of up to 30 years,[19] and was estimated to be valued at between $20 million and $30 million USD. However, it sparked protests from New York’s Jewish community (the largest outside of Israel) and the Anti-Defamation League, which opposed the move due to close ties in the past between Allianz and the government of Nazi Germany during World War II. However, Rabbi Jay Rosenbaum, secretary general of the North American Board of Rabbis, agreed that although survivors’ sensibilities are understandable, a naming deal is legitimate. “I have found Allianz to be receptive, to be sensitive and a friend of the Jewish people today,” he said.[20] Allianz sponsors the venue that inspired the color-change technology for MetLife Stadium: Allianz Arena in Munich. No agreement was reached and talks between Allianz and the teams ended on September 12, 2008.[21]

On June 27, 2011, it was reported that insurance company MetLife entered discussions to purchase naming rights to the stadium.[22] The new name, MetLife Stadium,[23] became official when all parties signed a 25-year deal on August 23.[24][25][26]

In June 2009, the New Meadowlands Stadium Corporation and the EPA signed a memorandum of understanding that outlines plans to incorporate environmentally-friendly materials and practices into the construction and operation of MetLife Stadium. The agreement includes strategies to reduce air pollution, conserve water and energy, improve waste management, and reduce the environmental impact of construction. The goal of the agreement is to save the emission of nearly 1.68 million metric tons of carbon dioxide during the stadium’s construction and its first year of operation. Under this agreement, the stadium construction must use around 40,000 tons of recycled steel, recycle 20,000 tons of steel from Giants Stadium, install seating made from recycled plastic and scrap iron, and reduce air pollution from construction vehicles by using cleaner diesel fuel, diesel engine filters, and minimizing engine idle times. Other goals of this agreement include providing mass transit options for fans and replacing traditional concession plates, cups and carries with compostable alternatives. The New Meadowlands Stadium Corporation is to report the progress on its goals to EPA every six months. Based on the reports, the EPA has stated it will quantify the benefits of the venue’s environmental efforts.[27][28]

MetLife Stadium is accessible via Exit 16W on the western spur of the New Jersey Turnpike and is also located adjacent to Route 3 and Route 120. Coach USA provides bus service between the stadium and the Port Authority Bus Terminal.[29]

The Meadowlands Rail Line operates on event days between the newly constructed Meadowlands Station and Hoboken Terminal via Secaucus Junction, where there is connecting service to Pennsylvania Station (New York City), Pennsylvania Station (Newark), and other New Jersey Transit rail operations. The line opened to the public on July 26, 2009.[30]

On May 25, 2010, it was announced that Super Bowl XLVIII was awarded to the stadium, the first time a Super Bowl would be played in the New York metropolitan area, and the first time that a non-domed stadium in a cold-weather city would host it.[43]

The Seattle Seahawks defeated the Denver Broncos 438 for their first Super Bowl victory, when MetLife Stadium hosted Super Bowl XLVIII on February 2, 2014.[44] The NFL requires that a Super Bowl hosting stadium must have an average temperature of 50 or higher in February or be held in an indoor climate-controlled facility. However, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell waived this requirement. The stadium was allowed on the ballot because of a “unique, once-only circumstance based on the opportunity to celebrate the new stadium and the great heritage and history of the NFL in the New York region”.[45][46]

On April 7, 2013, WWE’s 29th annual flagship event, WrestleMania 29 was held at MetLife Stadium. It drew 80,676 fans, it is the third highest attended event in the history of WWE after WrestleMania III and WrestleMania 32

The main event was John Cena challenging WWE Champion The Rock. Also featured was CM Punk versus The Undertaker. The penultimate match was Triple H versus Brock Lesnar in a no-holds-barred match.

WrestleMania XXIX garnered 1,048,000 PPV buys, 205,000 fewer than the previous year’s event.[47] The event set a new record for the highest grossing live event in WWE history, grossing $72 million.[48]

The first international exhibition match was between Mexico and Ecuador on May 7, 2010 in front of 77,507 fans. The stadium hosted another international exhibition soccer match between the United States and Brazil on August 10, 2010. Brazil won 20 in front of a near-sellout crowd of 77,223; the game was played on a temporary grass field.[63][64] The stadium hosted another international friendly, between the United States and Argentina on March 26, 2011, which ended in a 11 draw and was played in front of a sellout crowd of 78,926.[65] Another exhibition match in preparation for 2014 FIFA World Cup was played on November 14, 2012 between Colombia and Brazil, with Brazil acting as the local team despite a higher affluence of Colombian fans.

On June 26, 2016, the stadium hosted the Copa Amrica Centenario Final, a special 100th anniversary edition of the Copa Amrica, organized jointly by CONMEBOL and CONCACAF, hosted by the USA, and the first to take place outside South Amrica. Chile beat Argentina 4-2 on penalties after a 0-0 draw after extra time to claim their second consecutive Copa Amrica Championship.

On August 3, 2016, MetLife Stadium hosted a 2016 International Champions Cup match between Real Madrid and F.C. Bayern Munich. Real Madrid won the game 1-0.

On October 16, 2010, Rutgers hosted Army in the first college football game to be played in the new stadium, with the Scarlet Knights defeating the Black Knights in overtime, 23-20. During the game’s second half, Rutgers player Eric LeGrand was injured on a special teams play, defending a Rutgers kickoff, and paralyzed from the neck down.

The stadium hosted the 12th Siyum HaShas, a celebration of the completion of the Talmud through the 712-year Daf Yomi study program, on August 1, 2012. At 93,000 seats, it was the highest capacity crowd in the stadium’s history, due to on-field seating and a ticket sell-out. The siyum was a Department of Homeland Security level two security event, the most critical short of a presidential visit.[66][67]

On September 7, 2012, the stadium hosted the first New York’s College Classic game, with the visiting USC Trojans defeating the Syracuse Orange, 42-29. Syracuse has relocated three of its home games from the Carrier Dome to MetLife Stadium in New Jersey under the banner of New York’s College Classic, losing all three games; a fourth was played against Notre Dame in September 2014.

Since 2012, the stadium has been the main site of the two-day electronic music festival Electric Daisy Carnival’s stop in the New York Metropolitan Area bringing electronic acts such as Armin Van Buuren, Hardwell, Porter Robinson, Tiesto, and many more.

On September 27, 2014, Syracuse Orange hosted Notre Dame Fighting Irish in their fourth New York’s College Classic, which boasted 76,802 fans in attendance. Syracuse lost their fourth straight classic, 31-15.

Media from the New York Jets and New York Giants:

Continue reading here:
MetLife Stadium – Wikipedia

Calendar of Ethnic Holidays | American Ethnic Studies …

Posted By on December 8, 2016


1 Feast of St. Basil (Christian, Orthodox) 1 Japanese New Year (Japan) 5 Guru Gobind Singhs Birthday (Sikh) 6 Epiphany (Christian) 6 Three Kings Day (Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic) 7 The Nativity of Jesus Christ (Christian, Orthodox) 13 Lohri (Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh) 16 Religious Freedom Day 16 World Religion Day (Bahai) 19 Tu bShvat or Tu BShevat* (Jewish, Israel) 26 India Republic Day


National Black History Month (United States) 2 Imbolc (Wiccan) 3 Chinese Lunar New Year (China, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam) 3 Tet Nguyen Dan (Vietnam) Year of the Buffalo 4 Rosa Parks Birth Anniversary 5 Mexico Constitution Day 11 National Foundation Day (Japan) 12 NAACP Founded 14 Race Relations Day 17 League of United Latin Citizens (LULAC) Founded American 24 Flag Day (Mexico)

March Greek-American Heritage Month Irish-American Heritage Month Spiritual Wellness Month 1 St. Davids Day (Welsh) 2 Mothering Sunday (England) 4 World Day of Prayer 5-8 Brazil, Carnival 7 Lent begins (Orthodox Christians) 8 Mardi Gras (United States) 9 Ash Wednesday (Protestant, Roman Catholic) 17 St. Patricks Day (Ireland, United States) 21 Naw Ruz (Bahai, Persia) 25 Feast of Annunciation (Christian) 30 Purim (Jewish)


6 National Tartan Day (Scottish-American) 6 Organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 8 Passover* (Jewish) 8 Vesak Buddhas Birth (Buddhist) 14 Sinhala and Tamil New Year (Sri Lanka) 16 Emancipation Day (African-American, United States) 17 Palm Sunday (Protestant, Roman Catholic) 19 Passover* (Jewish) 21 Holy Thursday (Christian) 22 Good Friday (Protestant, Roman Catholic) 23 St. Georges Day (English) 24 Easter (Orthodox) or Pascha 24 Easter (Protestant, Roman Catholic) 30 Beltane (Celtic)


Asian Pacific American History Month Jewish-American Heritage Month 4 National Day of Prayer (United States) 1 Yom Hashoah/Holocaust Memorial Day (Jewish) 2 May Day Bank Holiday (United Kingdom) 5 Cinco de Mayo (Mexico) 9 Victory Day (Russia) 18 Isreals Independence Day (Yom HaAtzmaUt) 19 Malcolm Xs birthday (African-American, United States) 23 Declaration of the Bab (Bahai) 25 Corpus Christi (American, Roman Catholic) 29 Ascension of Bahaullah (Bahai)


2 Ascension Day (Christian) 7 Shavuot* (Jewish) 16 Martyrdom Day of Guru Arjan (Sikh) 19 Juneteenth 23 Corpus Christi (American, Roman Catholic) 27 Martyrdome of Joseph and Hyrum Smith


1 Canada Day (Canada) 4 Fil-American Friendship Day (Phillippines, United States) 9 Bon Festival/Feast of Lanterns (Japan) 9 Martyrdom of the Bab (Bahai) 24 Pioneer Day (Mormon) 31 Feast of St. Ignatius Loyola (Spain, Roman Catholic)


1 Lammas and Lughnassad (Britain, Pagan, United States) 1-29 Ramadan (Islamic, Muslim, Moslem) 9 Tisha Bav* (Jewish) 14 Pakistans Independence Day 15 Indias Independence Day 15 Liberation Day (Korea, South Korea) 26 Lailat-Ul-Quadr (Islamic, Muslim) 30 Eid-Al-Fitr (Islamic, Muslim)



German-American Heritage Month National Italian-American Heritage Month Polish-American Heritage Month 8 Yom Kippur* (Jewish) 9 Cirio de Nazare (Brazil) 13-19 Sukkot* (Jewish) 19 Simchat Torah (Jewish) 20 Shemini Atzeret (Jewish) 26-30 Diwali (Buddhist, Hindu) 31 Reformation Day (Christian)


National American Indian Heritage Month 1 All Saints Day (Christian, Roman Catholic) 1 Dia de los Muertos Day of the Dead (Mexico, Latin America) 2 All Souls Day (Roman Catholic) 6 Eid al-adha (Islamic, Muslim) 12 Birthday of Bahaullah (Bahai) 26-Dec 24 Al Hijra Muslim New Year


5 Ashura (Islamic, Muslim) 6 St. Nicholas Day (International) 8 Bodhi Day Buddhas Enlightenment (Buddhist) 12 Virgin of Guadalupe (Mexico) 13 Santa Lucia Day (Sweden) 16-25 Las Posadas (Mexico) 21-28 Hanukkah* (Jewish) 25 Christmas (Christian, Roman Catholic, International) 26 Boxing Day (Canada, United Kingdom) 26 Kwanzaa (African-American Dec. 26, 2009 Jan 1, 2010)

See the rest here:
Calendar of Ethnic Holidays | American Ethnic Studies …

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:

Page 21234..1020..»