RJCHQ.org :: RJCHQ Inbox

It`s Time To Take Our Campuses Back

Liz Berney, Esq. — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:32:20 GMT

Twenty-eight years ago, intending it to be a joke, the members of a fraternity at the University of Pennsylvania dressed up as Ku Klux Klansmen, in white sheets. The university's president was so outraged by this that she closed down the fraternity house, forcing all the fraternity's members off campus.

Fast forward almost three decades: This coming weekend, the very same University of Pennsylvania is hosting a major national three-day "Penn BDS" (boycott, divestment and sanctions) conference aimed at dismantling the State of Israel. Speaker after speaker will spew non-stop anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hatred. From Friday morning (February 3rd, 2012) through Sunday evening (February 5th, 2012), a veritable "who's who" of anti-Semites, including radical Muslims, Israel-bashing and Jew-bashing bloggers, far left professors, and some self-hating Jews, will depict Israel as an "occupation" which has no right to exist, falsely accuse Israel of "ethnic cleansing," and urge participants to wage economic war (boycotts, divestment & sanctions), "lawfare" and other war against Israel. The many featured speakers include "Electronic Intifada" website co-founder Ali Abunimah (an old Obama buddy) and Columbia University Iran studies professor Hamid Dabashi, who accuses Israel of "global terrorism" and "a half century of systematic maiming and murdering."

And what is the reaction to this of the University of Pennsylvania's president, Amy Gutmann? So far, she has just made excuses for doing nothing.

Great Neck's brave Jeff Weisenfeld recently attempted to contact President Gutmann. A college official wrote back, babbling about recognizing "student groups," being "content neutral" and the "free exchange of ideas." Free exchange of ideas? Since when is a professionally-organized 3-day hate-fest filled with the world's leading anti-Semites an acceptable event at an academic institution? There is a big difference between the "free exchange of ideas" and a nationally orchestrated barrage of outright false propaganda to incite hatred against Jews. Can you imagine the outcry if a university hosted a conference to delegitimize, boycott and ostracize black-owned businesses, or gay-owned businesses, or any other country in the world? Of course, it would never happen. Even a tasteless joke that was hurtful to a racial group was stopped. Yet, declaring open season on Jews and Israel is apparently no problem.

As Mr. Weisenfeld wrote to University of Pennsylvania's officials about the Penn BDS conference: "This is a corruption of academia based on pure and unadulterated anti-Semitism which would not be tolerated against any other ethnic group."

Sadly, the University of Pennsylvania is not the only campus where hate-filled weekends (and week-long) anti-Israel "conferences" have been taking place. Anti-Israel activities on college campuses, organized by national radical Muslim groups, are rampant. A few recent examples: UC Berkeley's "Israel apartheid week"; the "occupation" of a campus building in "solidarity" with Gaza at the University of Rochester; and Brandeis University's "Israeli Occupation Awareness Week."

In addition, the same radical Muslims and their co-conspirators who run anti-Israel events also violently stop Jewish and pro-Israel campus events and speakers. Apparently "free speech" does not apply when pro-Israel students and speakers try to say something. This all creates a dangerous and extremely uncomfortable atmosphere for Jewish students studying at the University of Pennsylvania and at other universities throughout the country.

It's time that we start taking America's campuses back from the anti-Semites and Israel-bashers. Jews have given hundreds of millions of dollars to the University of Pennsylvania. If a university allows anti-Israel boycott events, perhaps the university should be "boycotted" when the university asks for more contributions. I hope that readers of this article and their friends (especially the many University of Pennsylvania alumni in the local area) will cut their contributions off to U of Penn (and let President Guttman know why), and will contact the University of Pennsylvania to demand cancellation of this weekend's outrageous, malevolent national "Penn BDS" conference. We all know the consequences of silence in the face of hatred.

Oh, Mr. President? Economic questions that should be asked.

C. Scott Litch — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:44:06 GMT

Economic questions that should be asked
(if President Obama ever held regular press conferences)

According to a recent Crain’s business report, 5 of the top 6 employers in your home town of Chicago were government agencies: federal government (55,000+ employees), Chicago public schools (39,000+), City of Chicago (31,000+), Cook County government (21,000+), and state government (15,000+). Do you think this is the right mix of public vs. private sector employment for a major U.S. city?

Your home state of Illinois dealt with its significant budget deficit by raising individual and corporate income taxes without addressing the cost of public sector union entitlements. Since their deficit is still quite high, Moody’s recently downgraded their bond rating to the lowest of any state in the nation. At the national level, how will your plan to raise taxes, but not address entitlement reforms, help America reclaim a higher bond rating?

Should government be an employer of last resort, even if it means increased taxes for individuals and businesses?

Do you have in your mind a maximum percentage of an individual’s annual personal income that should go to the federal government as taxes, even for millionaires or billionaires? Do you believe there is a threshold rate beyond which would negatively impact productivity and investment?

Since you want more private sector workplaces to be unionized, based on your recent NLRB appointments, can you identify 2 or 3 high performing corporations with great customer service, great products or services, good growth, and solid stock market performance that have a predominately unionized workforce? Oh, and before you suggest GM, one that has not received a massive government bailout in order to remain in business.

The TSA now has almost 55,000 employees. Their union representative suggests more are needed. When evaluating staffing needs in federal agencies, how does your administration determine if such a claim is true? Are you aware that many Americans see the bevy of agents at airport security checkpoints, some apparently not doing much, and have nicknamed the TSA “Thousands Standing Around”?

You promised in your State of the Union remarks no favoritism. Is this consistent with federal subsidies to “green firms” such as Solyndra? Is this an exception because you believe the worst doomsday global warming scenarios? If so, why didn’t you mention this in your speech? Are there other industries where it is ok for the federal government to show favoritism?

Did you mean to imply that Warren Buffet, who apparently still owes billions in federal taxes, pays the same dollar amount in taxes as his secretary? Even if everyone paid the same tax rate, wouldn’t more be collected from a billion in annual earnings vs. $40,000?

Would you consider yourself to be a supporter of the Keynesian economic theories? If so, how do your reconcile your support for raising taxes in a period of slow recovery from a recession, when Keynesian theory would suggest this is a time to reduce taxes?

You said when running for President that you were “this close” to bucking the teachers’ unions and supporting innovation in public education such as performance-based pay and school vouchers? Given your call for a U.S. economy built to last and requiring a very smart workforce, are you any closer today to changing your mind on these issues?

With Florida debate remarks, Romney and Gingrich clarify the stakes for pro-Israel voters

Matthew Brooks — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:34:26 GMT

The two front-runners for the GOP nomination had the opportunity to speak about Israel and their ideas about Middle East peace and security at last night's CNN debate in Jacksonville and their remarks crisply distilled the critical differences that will separate our party's eventual nominee from President Obama.

Here's the relevant portion of the transcript excerpted from CNN's full transcript:

[Wolf] BLITZER: Let's take another question from the audience. Please give us your name and tell us where you are from.

QUESTIONER: Abraham Hassan from Jacksonville, Florida.
How would a Republican administration help bring peace to Palestine and Israel when most candidates barely recognize the existence of Palestine or its people? As a Palestinian-American Republican, I'm here to tell you we do exist.
BLITZER: All right. Let's ask Governor Romney, first of all.
What would you say to Abraham?
ROMNEY: Well, the reason that there's not peace between the Palestinians and Israel is because there is -- in the leadership of the Palestinian people are Hamas and others who think like Hamas, who have as their intent the elimination of Israel. And whether it's in school books that teach how to kill Jews, or whether it's in the political discourse that is spoken either from Fatah or from Hamas, there is a belief that the Jewish people do not have a right to have a Jewish state.
There are some people who say, should we have a two-state solution? And the Israelis would be happy to have a two-state solution. It's the Palestinians who don't want a two-state solution. They want to eliminate the state of Israel.
And I believe America must say -- and the best way to have peace in the Middle East is not for us to vacillate and to appease, but is to say, we stand with our friend Israel. We are committed to a Jewish state in Israel. We will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally, Israel.
This president went before the United Nations and castigated Israel for building settlements. He said nothing about thousands of rockets being rained in on Israel from the Gaza Strip. This president threw --
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: I think he threw Israel under the bus with regards to defining the '67 borders as a starting point of negotiations. I think he disrespected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
I think he has time and time again shown distance from Israel, and that has created, in my view, a greater sense of aggression on the part of the Palestinians. I will stand with our friend, Israel.
BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Speaker Gingrich, you got into a little hot water when you said the Palestinians were an invented people.
GINGRICH: It was technically an invention of the late 1970s, and it was clearly so. Prior to that, they were Arabs. Many of them were either Syrian, Lebanese, or Egyptian, or Jordanian.
There are a couple of simple things here. There were 11 rockets fired into Israel in November. Now, imagine in Duval County that 11 rockets hit from your neighbor. How many of you would be for a peace process and how many of you would say, you know, that looks like an act of war.
You have leadership unequivocally, and Governor Romney is exactly right, the leadership of Hamas says, not a single Jew will remain. We aren't having a peace negotiation then. This is war by another form.
My goal for the Palestinian people would be to live in peace, to live in prosperity, to have the dignity of a state, to have freedom. and they can achieve it any morning they are prepared to say Israel has a right to exist, we give up the right to return, and we recognize that we're going to live side-by-side, now let's work together to create mutual prosperity.
And you could in five years dramatically improve the quality of life of every Palestinian. But the political leadership would never tolerate that. And that's why we're in a continuous state of war where Obama undermines the Israelis.
On the first day that I'm president, if I do become president, I will sign an executive order directing the State Department to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem to send the signal we're with Israel.
(APPLAUSE)

Governor Romney's forcefully delivered and substantively excellent remarks elicited a typically over-the-top reaction from DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who seemed not to realize that the United Nations speech Romney was referencing was the one Obama delivered in 2009, when the President was pushing hard to implement his plans for the region and not the 2011 speech, when he was forced to deal with the consequences of those same policies' massive failure. Unfortunately, Romney was correct to note that when Obama had the diplomatic initiative, he criticized Israel very explicitly regarding 'settlements' and carefully avoided assigning Palestinians blame for the thousands of rockets launched at Israel from Palestinian territory.

Speaker Gingrich wisely pivoted from the question, which seemed formulated to revive controversy over the origins of the concept of 'the Palestinian people,' to the question of substance facing voters, which is: How can we advance the cause of peace for our ally given the hostility of the area's Arab people and governments? Gingrich made it clear that, like Romney, he has his sights set on the goal of peaceful co-existence and self-determination for all the region's people. But he also made it clear that any meaningful hope of progress toward that goal requires something that is currently lacking - a real commitment to peace from the Palestinian leadership and from the region's other regimes.

Democrats' responses to this part of the debate betrayed anxiety. They know that Jewish Americans - and other Americans concerned with Israel's security - overwhelmingly believe the U.S. should pursue a peace strategy that is hard-headed and unashamedly pro-Israel. They know that President Obama pursued a very different sort of strategy and that the resulting failure has increased insecurity. We've already seen that in their desperation, they'll distort, mislead and attempt to divert.

But based on what we saw last night, I'm more confident than ever that they will not succeed in their efforts. President Obama will be held accountable for his record of naivete and failure. The GOP and its standard-bearer will see to that.

Here's video of the audience question and Romney's response:

And here's video of Gingrich's response to Wolf Blitzer's follow-up question:

What anonymous `Pentagon sources` can`t do

Noah Silverman — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:47:52 GMT

If you followed last night's GOP presidential candidates debate on Twitter, you may have noticed President Obama's defenders flipped out when Newt Gingrich charged that President Obama had canceled a scheduled joint military exercise with Israel.

National Journal quotes Gingrich as follows:

The Iranians are …. actively taunting us… so he cancels a military exercise with the Israelis so as not to be provocative? Now, dictatorships respond to strength-- they don’t respond to weakness... I think there’s a very grave danger the Iranians think that in fact this president is so weak they could close the Strait of Hormuz and not suffer substantial consequences.

In calmer tones than some in the excitable twittersphere employed to express disagreement, National Journal charged that Gingrich's statement was "wrong" because the decision to cancel or delay the exercise was made at Israel's request. Their proof?

A senior defense official told The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta amid concerns the Israelis did not have the resources in place to carry out the drill. “Panetta, according to these Pentagon sources, was concerned that the Iranians would interpret the scrubbing of the exercise, well, the way it's currently being interpreted, as a sign of American wavering in the face of Iranian threats,” Goldberg writes. “He told Barak that he would not agree to a cancellation, as Barak was suggesting, but only a postponement.”

Apparently, when there's a Democrat in the White House, 'mainstream' journalists' vaunted skepticism about claims made by government officials wanes to the vanishing point. It makes for a striking contrast: During Republican administrations, contentions made by anonymous sources within the Pentagon are not typically treated as authoritative and dispositive.

Is there any special reason to be skeptical about such claims in this instance? Is there ever! Goldberg's Pentagon sources only piped up after two Israeli news sources, Channel 2 and Ha'aretz, had reported the following rationale for the decision:

According to an Israeli defense official, Washington wants to avoid causing further tensions in the region, especially in light of the sensitive situation that has been generated after various reports in the international media that the U.S. and Israel are preparing to strike Iran's nuclear facilities.

So National Journal notwithstanding, it's not at all clear that Gingrich's characterization of events surrounding the decision to change plans for the exercise was "wrong." Glenn Kessler notwithstanding, Gingrich was not 'repeating a rumor' when he offered a characterization of events that echoed what well-regarded Israeli news outlets reported in the decsion's immediate aftermath. And it's just silly, albeit revealing, when Obama partisans like NJDC and Jeffrey Goldberg rage that the former House Speaker was 'fabricating' or 'lying outrageously.'

Interestingly, Yahoo! News's Laura Rozen had already reported that American officials denied the Channel 2/Ha'aretz claims, but her report also recounted a sequence of events suggesting that the discord over how to publicly characterize the decision revealed a notable degree of dysfunction in the working relationship between the two nations' national security leadership teams.

Israel's Ministry of Defense and the U.S. European Command had been preparing to jointly issue a statement on the decision to postpone the war games--called "Operation Austere Challenge 12"--in order to portray the delay as a mutual decision and routine, an Israeli official told Yahoo News Sunday.

But because the decision to postpone the war games leaked first in Israel, plans for a joint statement didn't materialize Sunday, and rumors subsequently abounded about what explained it. Was the United States distancing itself from Israel's hawkish stance towards Iran, some Iran watchers wondered. Is it plausible that Israeli budget cuts could explain why the massive exercise--to involve thousands of American and Israeli troops--was being postponed from April until the second half of 2012--since it would seemingly cost just as much to conduct the drill a few months later?
... Publicly, various Israeli officials, including Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and a spokesman for the prime minister, said Monday that the United States and Israel had mutually decided to postpone the exercises in order to not further inflame heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf.
"The thinking was it was not the right timing now to conduct such an exercise," Mark Regev, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said Monday, the Associated Press reported, which added that Regev declined to further elaborate.

"Speaking Monday on Israel Radio, Mr. Lieberman cited 'diplomatic and regional reasons, the tensions and instability' as factors in delaying the exercise," the New York Times' Isabel Kershner reported.

Thus, even if one is inclined to take the claims of anonymous Pentagon sources on faith, there's no denying that the episode contradicts the apologists' usual narrative about how 'unprecedented' the level of cooperation between our nations on national security is under President Obama. As Rozen notes,

Observers of the awkward efforts to explain the war-games postponement can't help but wonder at the fact that an exercise that was supposed to show unprecedented mutual cooperation between the United States and Israel with an eye toward Iran has instead revealed signs of strain and apprehension in the two countries' defense relations.

Anonymous leaks do nothing to erase such impressions. The bad feelings this episode stirred up are unquestionably part of the record voters dedicated to Israel's security will hold President Obama accountable for.

Obama blames his adversaries instead of acting in America`s best interests

Scott Feigelstein — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:26:29 GMT

There have been reports in the press recently that the U.S. State Department and Secretary Panetta have warned Israel not to take military action against Iran, even as the Iranians continue seeking nuclear weapons grade uranium and long range delivery capability that will threaten Israel’s existence.

Purportedly, the rationale offered is that Israel needs to wait in order to let sanctions take hold that supposedly will cripple the Iranian economy and thus force the Iranian Mullahs to change their nefarious ways.

Yet, the Obama Administration, which has been given more effective tools via legislation sponsored by Senators Mark Kirk and Robert Menendez to curtail the Iranian Central Bank from functioning, has decided not to employ this measure and has pressed for a waiver affording it the ability to wait. The question is wait for what?

President Obama cannot ask Israel to continue to face mortal danger based on mere wishful thinking that Iran will “see the light,” when all evidence is to the contrary.

In fact, the Iranians have threatened the West with an oil crisis by closing off the Straits of Hormuz should additional sanctions take place.

The President has also decided not to allow the building of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would help greatly in reducing our energy dependence from foreign, hostile sources, while creating thousands of new jobs as well.

This President, who has accused Republicans of placing partisan political interests ahead of country and the national interest, has once again tried to blame his political adversaries for the exact behavior he is employing!

Security for Israel, energy independence, private sector job creation, and countering an existential threat to the West in Iran are all issues we will need to remind the electorate about come November 2012.

A Rigorous Civics Education - The First Step To True National Security

Michael Hayutin — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:21:44 GMT

I have been active in the movement to awaken Americans to the threat posed by radical Islam for about 3 years as San Diego chapter leader for Act! For America. Much of what we do involves informing, organizing and educating the uninitiated about the nature of the threats, both “stealth” (legal, economic, cultural, educational) and violent.

Our message is often a hard sell, especially during difficult economic times. Most Americans are busy raising families and struggling to make ends meet. They know little about Islam, radical or otherwise. It is not easy to communicate the rather complex, multifaceted and global nature of radical Islam’s poisonous tentacles.

The threat can’t be isolated to one nation, group, region or army. The war can’t be confined by predictable time constraints. Many of the descriptions of the negatives about Islam come off as bigoted to those who hear about sharia and jihad out of context in the mainstream media. Much of that reporting is done in oversimplified terms and draws its stories from the sensational rather than the sensible. And of course there are marginal kooks within the movement who are bigoted and draw a disproportionate amount of attention.

I have concluded that there is a more basic and fundamental way for the American people to be receptive to our description of the Islamist threats. We start by teaching about of the wonderment of America - our good fortune. Then we present the facts about Islam in a dispassionate fashion. People will be much more likely to draw the correct conclusions about threats to their American liberties if they understand the source and evolution of those liberties.

It is critical that we emphasize the nature of our responsibilities as American citizens. Young people are in the streets demanding X, Y and Z. Their time is spent screaming about what they say they are owed, with little clue about the source and fragility of the rights they exploit. They show a troubling lack of appreciation. I suggest that this gratitude gap can be traced to the failure of a solid civics education. And it is that absence of appreciation that conditions people to discount our message.

The essence of the radical Islamic threat is the radical’s demonstrated rejection of core American values. Those source becomes crystal clear upon reading the objectionable passages in the Qur’an. And yes there are tolerant passages as well.

In isolation those intolerant and violent imperatives would pose little threat to us. But when those values are linked to a religious ideology that would impose religious mandates on non-believers by coercion, we confront a grave problem. And this threat becomes particularly ominous when those passages motivate millions around the world who are funded by terrorist nations with petro-dollars.

Liberty, pluralism, religious freedom, women’s rights, self-criticism, a free press and secular governance are among the distinguishing American values sourced to the Judeo–Christian principles that founded America. Radical Islamists reject all of these political and religious values. There is a gaping civilization gap between western values as practiced uniquely in America and Islamists values as practiced by a variety of groups, individuals and nations around the world.

Americans are not fully informed about the uniqueness of the founding principles that are emblematic of our side of that gap. We are the exception, the anomaly. This historical reality is not taught as a boastful enterprise but as a vehicle to engender gratitude and nurture civic responsibility. Teaching our history is designed to instill a sense of purpose and direction, not as an ego boost or form of jingoism. That which we don’t appreciate we will surely lose.

For decades many of our elementary and high school students have been denied essential civics education. They must be taught the nature and sources of the incredible opportunities and prosperity that is their sacred legacy. The failures in our educational system that have discounted this kind of civics as a necessary ingredient of national preservation have created a generation lacking the prerequisites necessary for the appreciation that will nurture a defense of those values and principles. Civics education is an essential part of national security

If Americans don’t see what they have as exceptional, precious and fragile, then they will be less prepared for our input about Islam. This is exacerbated by the fact that too many Americans have been taught that other traditions, cultures and nations are on par with America. If they are all the same, some good and some bad in every culture, then we are no better and our values and founding principles are not superior.

If and when our educators decide to teach patriotism based on the miracle of our founding, not merely as an accumulation of rights to be exercised, our young people will be much more likely to conclude radical Islam is a serious threat. They will also be far less likely to label our message Islamophobic.

Just as recognizing the threat of National Socialism as implemented by the Nazis was not anti-German, understanding and pointing out the problems in Islam is not a form of religious bigotry. Most of the Germany people were not uniformly fascist. Some accommodated the Nazis, some enthusiastically supported the Nazis and some lived in a fairytale of denial about the nature of that evil. That is how a nightmare comes to pass. Great evil does not require massive popular support to succeed.

Broad and enthusiastic Muslim support for the Islamists is not necessary for the Islamists to succeed. On the other hand, an aggressive, public and broad-based movement among Muslims for a reformation of Islam could pull the legs out from under the radicals. That would be the most profound way they demonstrate their faith. Unfortunately, there is no indication that this will occur.

So it is up to us to step in and do what so many schools are failing to do. Teach the truth about this American miracle (including our failures), with great pride so our young people will be prepared to understand the preeminent threat of the 21st Century.

Groups that demonize Israel place themselves outside the tent

Natan Nestel — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:40:00 GMT

U.C. Berkeley's Jewish Student Union's decision to deny membership to J Street U created controversy. Opponents of the decision claim that J Street is pro-Israel, no Jewish group should be excluded, and that any exclusion is undemocratic and alienates students. Yet those who oppose J Street's inclusion have good cause for concern. Consider some of the groups and speakers that J Street has brought to U.S. campuses:

• Breaking the Silence is a fringe Israeli group touring U.S. campuses defaming the Israeli army for "war crimes." This New Israel Fund-supported group claims that Israel commits "crimes against humanity" and "ethnic cleansing" and "violates human rights." BTS is quoted 27 times in the infamous Goldstone report, which Goldstone himself has disavowed. BTS still promulgates it.

This is the same BTS that Students for Justice in Palestine, which leads the delegitimization campaign against Israel on campuses, lists on its website as an advocacy group for its anti-Israel campaign.

• J Street U arranged talks by John Ging, former director of UNRWA in Gaza. He is known for promoting political warfare against Israel and supporting the pro-Hamas flotillas.

• J Street U promotes the NIF-funded Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement. The Jewish Agency describes the SJSM as "opposing the idea of Israel as a Jewish homeland and promoting an anti-Zionist agenda." The group collaborates with the anti-Israel global BDS movement, and defames Israel as a "fascist state." They talk about victories over "cowardly Zionists who are perpetrating an apartheid state and ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem," and urge liquidation of the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund.

• J Street U also presents the NIF-funded B'Tselem, which is quoted 56 times in the Goldstone report. The chair of B'Tselem's board, Oren Yiftachel, has called for "effective sanctions" against Israel during the war against Hamas in Gaza, and supported the Palestinian "right of return," which means the destruction of the Jewish state. Their CEO, Jessica Montell, justifies calling Israel an apartheid state. She said: "I think the word apartheid is useful for mobilizing people because of its emotional power." SJP lists B'teselem on its website as an advocacy group.

What's common to J Street U events is not a balanced, thoughtful discussion of Israel - it is the defamation of Israel, spreading of falsehoods and one-sided attacks.

Alan Dershowitz says: "J Street has harmed Israel more than any American organization" and its pro-Israel claims constitute "fraud in advertising" and "it has made a generation of Jews ashamed to be pro-Israel, and has made it politically correct among young people to single out Israel to a double standard and for fault." J Street is already entrenched at Berkeley's Hillel and the JSU. The group Kesher Enoshi, a member of Hillel and of the Jewish Student Union, is J Street's proxy there.

This year, Kesher Enoshi, along with J Street U, brought the founder of the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement to speak at Hillel. He demonized Israel, proclaiming, "Jerusalem is a symbol of evil." Berkeley's Hillel director argued that this was "within the framework of national Hillel's Israel policy." However, national Hillel guidelines explicitly state that "Hillel will not partner with, house or host organizations, groups or speakers that delegitimize, demonize or apply a double standard to Israel."

Hillel also funded its members to go to J Street's national conference in Washington, D.C.

The toxic consequences of Kesher Enoshi's Israel-bashing events - organized in the last three years under the guise of "progressive Israel activism" - demonstrate why groups that demonize, or collaborate with demonizing-groups, should be excluded.

In the year preceding the Spring 2010 anti-Israel divestment bill at U.C. Berkeley, Kesher Enoshi, which lists events on the Hillel website and is also listed on the Hillel website in the "Get Involved" category, organized Israel defamatory events in collaboration with Students for Justice in Palestine. These events laid the groundwork for the SJP initiated divestment bill.

Kesher Enoshi and SJP organized the Breaking the Silence event, promoted by Hillel as "testimonies by Israeli soldiers about human rights abuses committed by the Israeli Military."

They organized the Shministim, a group of Israeli draft dodgers who defame the IDF and Israel. Their U.S. tour was organized by the delegitimizing/BDS Jewish Voice for Peace.

Along with SJP, the Muslim Student Association, JVP, Middle East Children's Alliance and other delegitimizing groups, the Hillel group Kesher Enoshi sponsored an event that compared the IDF to the Nazis.

At the Berkeley student senate meetings, formerly pro-Israel Jewish students - who were co-opted by exposure to Kesher Enoshi's demonizing events - were conspicuously active in advocating the adoption of the divestment resolution.

Many of the co-opted students are joining the larger delegitimizing/BDS movement. For example: Avital Aboudy, who signed pro-Hamas ISM petitions calling for divestment from Israel, and Eyal Mazor, who is involved with the delegitimizing/BDS JVP and Code Pink. Eyal's younger brother, Alon, became a leader of Kesher Enoshi, and is actively trying to get J Street U into the JSU. Many Jewish students now avoid Hillel because of its demonizing events.

Would people who advocate the inclusion of demonizing groups, under the guise of promoting a "big tent," welcome a Kahanist group or Jews for Jesus?

In "Is J Street in the tent, or out?" in the Jerusalem Post, Daniel Gordis, a regular columnist for the Post, observed: "It's one thing to put ‘pro-Israel' in your tagline, and another to be ‘pro-Israel' ... Even a big tent, though, has its limits."

Hillel leaders should enforce national Hillel guidelines forbidding Israel-demonizing events and groups. Demonizing groups and events place themselves outside the tent.

Shoshana Bryen joins Jewish Policy Center

Matthew Brooks — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:28:14 GMT

Shoshana Bryen, former Senior Director for Security Policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), has joined the Jewish Policy Center as Senior Director. She will focus on national security and defense issues, while expanding the JPC's influence among policymakers and in government.

"Shoshana has more than 30 years of experience as an analyst of U.S. defense policy and Middle East affairs," said JPC Executive Director, Matt Brooks. "We are thrilled to have her onboard at this crucial time as the Jewish Policy Center's reach continues to grow."

RJC leaders visit soldiers in northern Israel

Harris Vederman — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:58:54 GMT

A group of RJC national leaders is in Israel this week on a solidarity mission. They are meeting with leading government officials, defense and security experts, and business leaders.

Yesterday the group visited with Israeli soldiers in the north for a security briefing and to meet the young men who defend Israel's border with Lebanon.

Our thanks to Friends of the IDF for hosting this event.

RJC leaders with IDF soldiers near the Lebanese border

RJC leader Diana Mitzner with a soldier in the north of Israel.

Ending crony capitalism is a great campaign theme for the GOP in 2012

C. Scott Litch — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:32:00 GMT

It would be odd to find any common ground between the grungy leftist anti-capitalist creed of Occupy Wall Street and Republican candidates in 2012, but oddly enough there is a common issue that the GOP must not only endorse but make the forefront of their 2012 efforts: an end to crony capitalism at all levels of government. The left may call it corporate welfare, but it’s the same thing and it ought to offend any principled conservative.

There are plenty of examples to highlight. One great federal case is the Obama administration’s $500 million loan guarantee to the now bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyandra. This expensive effort at crony capitalism overlooked that Solyandra had a more nimble, less expensive rival. However, what Solyandra did have was wealthy investors who gave to Obama’s campaign and had inside connections at the White House. That, my friends, is what crony capitalism is all about. Interestingly, the president’s re-election campaign will likely tout his bail-out of the U.S. auto industry. However, the GOP must point out that consumer preferences rather than federal bailout dollars should determine which companies do better in that marketplace. Smaller, leaner, broken-up U.S. auto companies could still thrive if they built appealing cars. And despite the federal efforts at “green” crony capitalism, it is my understanding that sales of souped-up muscle cars like the Dodge Charger or Chevy Camero (not to mention SUVs and trucks) dwarf that of the electric (and tax-subsidized) Chevy Volt. We don’t need a presidential car salesman-in-chief, or a president who believes that a union job in Detroit that could only exist because of a bail-out is preferable to a non-union job building Toyotas and Hondas elsewhere in the country.

A good state-level example of crony capitalism comes from the President’s home state of Illinois, where the Democratic Governor and legislature are busy piecing together a tax sweetheart deal for the Sears corporation to keep them from leaving the state. Of course, increased state taxes caused the threatened corporate flight in the first place. Rather than simply enacting reasonable corporate and personal income tax rates, state Democrats would favor one large company over any smaller competitors. Conservatives certainly don’t hate Sears or WalMart or Best Buy or Target or any other large company. We simply hate government subsidies for them at the expense of smaller, local businesses and taxpayers overall.

Crony capitalism ought to offend all Americans’ fundamental notion of fairness. What if your business or the company you worked for was a solar panel competitor to Solyandra? What if you are a local appliance sales company trying to go national against Sears? For that matter, what if you are building Toyotas and Hondas in plants in the U.S. in non-union states? It’s hardly fair competition when your competitor benefits from special government subsidies.

This theme should be repeated over and over. Republicans favor fair and reasonably regulated capitalism, but NOT crony capitalism. If the president insists on decrying the influence of businesses and special interests, he should be called to task for overlooking the fact that while all have a Constitutional right to be heard in the legislative process, unfair influence and power is always going to be on sordid display when the government insists on providing grants, loan guarantees, tax breaks and other goodies to politically favored companies. The government should set the tone for a good business environment, but should not attempt to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. We should abhor allowing government to guarantee or subsidize one competitor over another or one industry over another. While not inherently biased against large corporations like the Occupy Wall Street mob, we do recognize that large corporations often seek to influence federal policy and receive favorable regulatory and tax treatment to their advantage (and to the disadvantage of their competitors). This is wrong and the GOP should remind folks that it’s a concern that goes all the way back to Adam Smith -- who called it mercantilism. Our vision is business competition rather than government protection or subsidy (via special tax treatment, direct dollars or regulatory protection) for the largest corporations. We understand that as companies become large, they naturally desire to prevent smaller businesses from gaining market share. If they do so fairly and squarely, good for them. If they do so via preferential government treatment, shame on us. The principled conservative should speak out boldly against all sorts of crony capitalism/corporate welfare so it will be crystal clear we are not the cheerleading section for big business.

Finally, the GOP should point out the Democrats’ utter hypocrisy concerning Wall Street, which after all gave far more money to Obama in 2008 than to McCain, in the mistaken belief Obama was a moderate. The recent collapse of Jon Corzine’s investment banking firm once again illustrates that Democrats prefer crony capitalism and inside contacts that allow individuals to flow seamlessly from political power to Wall Street and back again. There are also plenty of examples of Democrats, like current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who made quick big bucks on Wall Street trading on their access to political power before returning to public service. This seamy aspect reflects the real motive for many Democrats’ embrace of crony capitalism. It is often an easy way to enrich themselves, their friends, and their political supporters. This is a far cry from someone like Mitt Romney who built a venture capital firm from scratch through his own hard work and direct management responsibility.

There is no doubt that President Obama and other Democrats will repeat the tired and false theme of the GOP being in bed with big business and Wall Street. As argued here, the GOP needs to boldly fight back and explain our vision of fair competition and government “of the people,” not the powerful.