Abe Foxman

Just as many CEOs of major corporations manage to increase their compensation despite miserable profits and stock performance, so it is with the leaders of the largest and most influential American Jewish organizations. The Forward, earlier this month, reported the compensation  of many of the most prominent among them. Here are some of them (latest salary information is for 2010 unless otherwise noted and in a few cases I have updated information to include full compensation including benefits, if the Forward didn’t):

Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman
$690,000  (2009)

American Jewish Committee’s David Harris
$736,000

Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Rabbi Marvin Hier
$760,000

Aipac’s Howard Kohr
$581,000

Republican Jewish Coalition’s Matt Brooks
$482,000 (2009)

Conference of Presidents’ Malcolm Hoenlein
$627,000 (2011)

Jewish National Fund
$410,000 (2009)

Zionist Organization of America’s Mort Klein
$363,000

Birthright Israel
$353,000

The Israel Project’s Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi
$200,000

Most of the salaries listed above are borderline obscene. They place their recipients squarely among the Jewish 1% and distance themselves from the rest of us. This is yet another reason most of the organizations listed above have long passed their Jewish “sell-by” date.

One measure of this (though not the sole one by any means) is their fundraising. The two of the three highest paid executives on my list, Harris and Foxman, run organizations whose fundraising has dropped dramatically over the past several years. The ADL’s has declined by over 30% between 2006-2010. AJC’s funding levels dropped by a similar amount in the same period. Their executives’ salaries, of course, have not. While we shouldn’t make the mistake of judging a non-profit’s ongoing relevance solely by it’s fundraising prowess, it is one indication of how much excitement there is for the group’s mission among donors and other funders.

I would maintain that these groups have lost their way and their relevance to all but the oldest members of the community. While times have changed, they have not. They continue to attempt to be all things to all Jews, which actually means being nothing to anyone but the alter-kockers.

I also don’t buy the explanation/excuse offered by the groups themselves for the declines registered. They say it’s because donors want more control over their donations and no longer are willing to give unrestricted gifts. The more likely reason is that as Jews become more integrated into American life, with attendant higher income and social status, they are sought after as donors and directors to local, regional and national non-profits outside the Jewish sphere. Jews now give extensively to the colleges and universities they attended, museums, symphonies, operas, political parties, social justice and environmental groups than they ever did in the past. This is money that in previous generations would’ve gone directly to Jewish causes. Now, it’s gone and there is very little money from the younger generation to replace it. All this means that the general interest Jewish groups are in the midst of an inexorable decline. I’d predict that even the single-interest pro-Israel groups mentioned below will be effected by this decline eventually.

All of which means that as these groups lose funding, their missions will also suffer. The good deeds and projects that benefited the Jewish community, plus the positive values they represented (long ago, though less so now) will gradually disappear. I don’t know what, if anything, will take their place. All this could lead to an inexorable decline in the quality of American Jewish life.

The groups that have thrived in this environment have been the single issue, largely pro-Israel ones like Aipac (+30% over past five years), The Israel Project (+30% from 2008-2010), Stand With Us (+40% between 2007-2010), and J Street (its funding increased by 300% from 2007-2008, the J Street Education Fund increased 400% from 2009-2010, and the J Street PAC increased by 200% from 2008 to 2010). These statistics are an expression of the increasing fragmentation of the Jewish community and its realignment largely around a single issue: Israel. There seems little that holds much of the organized community together except the state formally-known as the Homeland of the Jewish People.

Partially, this reflects a certain impoverishment in Jewish identity. Partially, it represents a major error made by American Jews and their leaders of putting all their eggs in Israel’s basket. When Israel crushes these eggs, then what is left for Jews to believe in?

We need an identity that includes Israel, but is not limited to it. We need to jettison the single issue Jewish identity hawked by fat cat ideologues like Michael Steinhardt and Sheldon Adelson. Their Jewishness is a dead-end. Those who are fooled into following these Pied Pipers will discover in the long run that they’ve made a fool’s bargain. They may have fat coffers, but they will stand for nothing, or at least nothing that will nurture the next generation and offer it something substantial and value-based as sustenance.

Mendel Beilis, victim of a real blood libel

How does Sarah Palin demean Jewish suffering?  Let me count the ways.  Today, she comes forth with the absolutely disgusting, outrageous claim that those who accuse her of creating an environment of hate that fed Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting commit a “blood libel” against her:

“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” Ms. Palin said in a seven-and-a-half minute video posted to her Facebook page. “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

I swear, my jaw dropped when I heard that.  Her statement is so noxious, so self-serving, so self-pitying, I simply don’t know where to begin.

First, let’s explain that the term “blood libel” derives from the anti-Semitic charge by Chrisitian Jew-haters that Jews stole Christian children and used their blood (hence that term) to make matza for Passover.  Many Jews were persecuted, even arrested and imprisoned under such claims, most notoriously Mendel Beilis in 1913.  This was one of the first times that Jews worldwide fought back against the charge and campaigned vigorously to defend the victim.  In short, Jews died over the charges of blood libel.  That’s why we take the phrase seriously and refuse to allow a cheap politician like Palin to demean it.

That being said, the subtext of what Palin is charging is that her detractors have fomented hatred and violence against HER (and not the other way around).  When you think about it, this is an absolutely heinous and brilliant manuever to turn the tables on her attackers.  Instead of being the perpetrators, she becomes the victim.  How can you attack someone who claims she’s become the victim or persecution?

Not to mention that Palin has also introduced an element of religious devotion and imagery into the debate as another subtext of this monstrosity is that she’s calling on her followers to rally around her to defend her from this attack.  As a devout radical evangelical, the imagery of Jewish persecution invoked by blood libel would resonate deeply with her given similarly imagery regarding Jesus’s suffering and those of later Christian martyrs.

We must not allow Sarah Palin to appropriate the blood libel or any other Jewish symbolism or suffering to which she is not entitled.  This is simply an outrage.  She cannot do this.  She must pay a price for smearing the memory of Mendel Bailis and all those who suffered for their religious beliefs.  Again, if anyone is guilty of political blood libel here it is Palin and her followers.  They are the ones who use violent political rhetoric.  They are the ones who express their rage all too easily on their enemies.  They are the perpetrators, not the victims.

I am outraged. This is a hillul ha-Shem (“desecration of the Divine Name”).

Abe Foxman issued a tepid slap on the wrist in which he said he “wished” she hadn’t used the term.  C’mon Abe.  Do you only wield the big guns against liberals and Democrats like Ted Turner when they misuse Jewish suffering?

Mayor Bloomberg deftly seals fate of Islamic cultural center by appropriating America's symbol of tolerance (Seth Wenig/AP)

In the realm of the impossible is the following statement from Abe Foxman upon learning that Fareed Zacharia, noted Newsweek columnist and Muslim-American, would be returning an ADL award and honorarium in protest of the ADL’s position opposing the Cordoba House Muslim Cultural Center near Ground Zero:

“I am not only saddened but stunned and somewhat speechless by your decision to return the ADL Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize, you accepted in 2005,” ADL National Director Abraham Foxman said in a letter to Zakaria. “As someone I greatly respect for engaging in discussion and dialogue with an open mind I would have expected you to reach out to me before coming to judgment.”

Foxman added that the League “did not oppose the right for an Islamic Center or a mosque to be built” but rather “[made] an appeal based solely on the issues of location and sensitivity.”

“Somewhat speechless?”  Abe Foxman?  Not on your life.  He’s just nonplussed that as a master PR tactician, Zacharia has upstaged and embarrassed him.  The leader I’ve called a “Jewish dinosaur” made political calculations that the Center could be killed and that he’d score points with Republican neocons by joining their crusade.  But when Mayor Bloomberg and even New York Orthodox rabbis took him to task, he was left looking mighty foolish, not to mention like the Islamophobe he is.

Foxman is chagrined Zacharia didn’t “reach out” to him before returning the award–did Foxman reach out to Zacharia before insulting him and his co-religionists by taking his stand on behalf of bigotry?  In claiming he supports the Center, just not the location, Foxman is trying to have it both ways.  As Center supporters like Mayor Bloomberg have made clear, the location of the new building is part of the critical strength of its mission to bridge differences and encourage dialogue among religious traditions.  Sure you could put the project in the middle of the East River or Governor’s Island so as not to offend anyone, but what would be the message you’d be imparting?  That we respect Muslims as long as they don’t rock the boat and get in our way.  As long as they retire someplace out-of-the-way they’re OK.

Cordoba House, NYC Muslim cultural center

Abe Foxman, one of American Jewry’s leading Islamophobes, announced the ADL opposed Park51, the new Muslim cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero.  The project, also known as Cordoba House, has the strong support of Mayor Bloomberg and all the appropriate community planning boards and agencies.  But “outside agitators” (cf. Republicans) have weighed in and turned the issue into a national political football.  This is ugly.  Truly ugly.  It shows the worst face of America.  The face of bigotry, fear and ignorance.

The N.Y. Times coverage of the ADL announcement was far too breathless for my taste and accorded the group far too much respect.  But what really bent me out of shape was this comment from Foxman:

The issue was wrenching for the Anti-Defamation League, which in the past has spoken out against anti-Islamic sentiment. But its national director, Abraham H. Foxman, said in an interview on Friday that the organization came to the conclusion that the location was offensive to families of victims of Sept. 11, and he suggested that the center’s backers should look for a site “a mile away.”

“It’s the wrong place,” Mr. Foxman said. “Find another place.”

Asked why the opposition of the families was so pivotal in the decision, Mr. Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, said they were entitled to their emotions.

“Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational,” he said. Referring to the loved ones of Sept. 11 victims, he said, “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

Let’s think about this for a second.  Foxman attempts to make the serious argument that because someone has endured unspeakable horror this entitles them to be a racist.  But does it?  What possible reasoning can justify such nonsense?  Is morality so relative that it is imperative only for those who have not survived a trauma like 9/11 or the Holocaust?  And if survivors are permitted to be bigots, what level of suffering is required?  And why can’t anyone who has suffered anything at all come along and claim Abe Foxman said it was OK to be a bigot because I suffered as much as people who survived 9/11?

The actual ADL statement against the Center noted that Muslims have the right to build at the site, but that it isn’t right because it would cause pain to families of survivors.  What I’d like to know is where this stops.  How much control do we wish to give to a group of survivors and the Republican Party over major decisions like this?  Will our guilt at their suffering force us to accede to every wish no matter how irrational?  Paul Krugman has called the ADL’s position “Shameful — and stupid.”  Time’s Joe Klein said:

…The Anti-Defamation League has gone “from beacon of tolerance to slightly potty geyser of toxic foolishness.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Let us call this campaign for what it is: it is out-and-out Islamophobia.  It is vile.  It is racist.  It should be impermissible.  I don’t know what the victims of 9/11 would say about the cultural center project.  But my idea of a perfect memorial is to show New York and the world that Islam can, should, and must co-exist in America with all our major religions.  And what more fitting place for a tolerant Islam to take root than where a tragedy was wrought by the most hateful forces of radical Islam?

What are we afraid of?  Why shouldn’t there be Muslims at (or near) Ground Zero?  Do we really believe that every Muslim believes as does Osama bin Laden?  If so, can there be any hope of ever living alongside Muslims in peace?  There are those strident propagandists who answer “No” to this question.  But most Americans know this is the wrong answer.  Let’s not give in to hate or to Abe Foxman.

We should stay strong in support of this project.  It deserves to be at Ground Zero.  My concern is that Mayor Bloomberg’s support will crumble in the face of this onslaught of fear.  This is what happened to in the case of the Khalil Gibran Academy and Debbie Almontaser, which he supported till he didn’t.  Stay strong, Mr. Mayor.  Don’t waver.

My Muslim blogging friend, Aziz Poonawalla has written a defense of the project.

Abe Foxman is now shillin’ for Sarah Palin.  Many of you know that just a few weeks ago Sarah Palin’s church, with her in attendance, welcomed the director of Jews for Jesus into its midst.  In his sermon he said, among other hurtful things, that Israelis killed in terror attacks died because of God’s judgment against them for not accepting Jesus.  After listening to this hateful nonsense, the Church took up a collection for the group’s deceitful proselytizing among Jews.

Palin’s handlers have told JTA that while she was there when he spoke that she didn’t agree with his sentiments.  I wish Ben Harris had asked the handlers whether Palin chipped in when the collection plate came around.  Did she give to Jews for Jesus?  Apparently, for the campaign, this denial is sufficient and they think the issue will go away.  But I’d like to know why she attends a Church whose pastor believes that Jews for Jesus actually does Jews a favor by providing them an opportunity to return to the embrace of “Our Lord and Savior?”

…We wish to extend your grace back to your [Jewish] people. And we pray and we ask that as a result of this time here, and as a result of this offering [for Jews for Jesus], there will be people among the Jews today who come to say the name ‘Jesus’ with faith.”

And why does she belong to a Church which believes that gay people can be turned back into heterosexuals?

Equally disturbing, was Abe Foxman’s hypocritical dismissal of the danger of such evangelical proselytizing:

The Anti-Defamation League, which has been deeply critical of Jews for Jesus…said it had no problem with Palin’s membership in a church that supported efforts to convert Jews.

The ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, told JTA that Protestant evangelizing to Jews was entirely different from Catholics praying for Jewish conversion, which the ADL has sharply criticized.

“They did not have the Inquisition. They did not go on a Crusade. They did not kill Jews for 2,000 years,” Foxman said. “They have a belief; they’re entitled to their belief.”

Besides, he said, there is no evidence that Palin shares Brickner’s views.

“If you could tell me that she approves of this guy, she invited him, I’m not aware of any of that,” Foxman said. “The fact that she belongs to a church that believes in it, I don’t have a problem.”

Somebody ought to read Abe his own organization’s press release criticizing Jews for Jesus as being “deceptive and offensive.”  How can he criticize the group and then turn around and say that evangelical churches that host Jews for Jesus are doing nothing wrong?

And how ignorant can one be in dividing up Christianity into good and bad?  Protestants have been just as anti-Semitic historically as Catholics.  The only difference is that Protestantism has existed for a shorter time and thus been able to do less damage.  Martin Luther, who turned against the Jews when they didn’t convert en masse as he hoped, wrote The Jews and Their Lies.  And does one need to remind Abe that plenty of German Protestant pastors endorsed Hitler’s murderous policies?

Clearly, Abe’s covering for Palin and trying to deflect legitimiate criticism from Palin and her church.  Let it not be said that the ADL is a non-partisan operation.  Somehow Barack Obama’s black church was anti-Semitic and the candidate had to take personal responsibility for the hate spoken there; while Palin is treated to an entirely different standard.

Abe must’ve been persuaded that Palin is a friend of the Jews by the state’s Chabad rabbi who called her a great friend of Israel.  On what basis?  She signed a bill recognizing Israel’s 60th anniversary!  I kid you not:

Gov. Palin signed a resolution in June of 2008 recognizing Israel’s 60th anniversary and the unique relationship between Alaska and the Jewish State, especially the fact that Alaska Airlines played a critical role in the rescue of 40,000 Yemenite Jews in 1948 and 1949.

All I can say is that if this is enough to convince the good rabbi that Sarah Palin loves us, he’s a very cheap date.

I wonder if Abe is at all concerned with Sarah Posner’s report that as governor, Palin signed a bill recognizing Alaska Christian Heritage Week.  So much for separation of church and state.  One wonders whether there was an Alaskan Jewish Heritage Week.  Or why a state should recognize any particular religion’s heritage.

On a slightly different note, remember all that “executive experience” Palin touted in her convention speech?  Well, if you read longtime Wasilla neighbor Anne Kilkenny’s long critique of Palin’s career, you’ll find that she tried to fire the town librarian for refusing to ban books, for which she was nearly recalled.  Seeing the handwriting on the wall, the librarian later quit her job and moved to Fairbanks.  Palin also successfully fired the town’s police chief, who sued for wrongful termination, and several other senior town staff hired by the previous mayor, a Democrat.  While she won the court case, the price was that a town of 5,000 had to hire a professional administrator to run the town because her “executive” decision-making was so deficient.

It can’t be any wonder after firing Wasilla’s police chief that she went after the state’s chief law enforcement officer after she became governor.  All because he rightfully refused to fire her brother-in-law who was in the middle of divorcing her sister.

What becomes clear in Kilkenny’s assessment is that Palin has no strong ideological identity.  She is not wedded to any particular philosophy.  She throws an idea out and if the public embraces it she takes credit.  If not, it was somebody else’s idea.

But her politics are very personal.  Anyone who has ever crossed her becomes an enemy for life (I guess she hasn’t heard about Christian forgiveness).  Kilkenny even muses that she will pay a price for her candor in writing her e mail.  But because of her disenchantment with Palin it is a price she is willing to pay.

In the spirit of Christian forgiveness, perhaps Sarah would now like to nominate Mary Ellen Emmons, Wasailla’s librarian (yes, the one she tried to fire) for the I Love My Librarian Award.

Today, Barack Obama made his required political stop at the Yad Vashem Museum to memorialize the six million victims of the Shoah.  While there he recommitted himself to ensuring the survival of the State of Israel invoking the phrase “Never Again.”

It’s unfortunate that a slogan first popularized by Meir Kahane has been absorbed into the American political discourse and embraced by both McCain and Obama, but that’s a different story than the one I want to tell today.

John McCain’s campaign made the unpardonable gaffe of impugning Obama’s commitment to prevent genocide.  But not genocide against Jews.  Rather genocide against…Iraqis.  That’s right.  Here’s the McCain attack:

“Today he says ‘never again.’ A year ago stopping genocide wasn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. Doesn’t that strike you as inconsistent?”

Does anyone believe that a comparison of the six million killed in the Shoah compares to preventing Iraqi Shia, Sunni and Kurds from slitting each other’s throats?  The respective causes of hostility and the magnitude of the suffering pale in the comparison.  Besides, McCain is comparing a genocide that actually occurred with one that has not yet occurred, and which we’re not even sure would occur.  This is a base, shallow and treif attack that abuses one of the central historical events of Jewish history to smear a presidential candidate.

The ADL makes a point of attacking (largely) liberals who abuse the Holocaust for political gain.  But you won’t hear any geshrei‘s from Abe Foxman this time since he and McCain are likely on most excellent terms.

Jeremy Ben Ami of J Street had no such divided loyalty and accused McCain of:

shamelessly exploit[ing] the sacred memory of six million victims of the worst crime in human history to score political points in the heat of a partisan election campaign.

I’ve been following Adalah’s energetic, months-long campaign against Russo-Israeli diamond baron Lev Leviev with great interest. Not so much because I agree with Adalah’s politics regarding the I-P conflict, but because I find Leviev’s political, commercial and religious interests to be so odious. Through an imaginative, tenacious campaign they have nipped at Leviev’s heels all over the globe where he maintains commercial interests. Most recently they persuaded Dubai to refuse to allow him to open a new jewelry outlet there.

But Adalah’s greatest coup thus far has been persuading UNICEF to refuse to accept future gifts from Leviev. An activist from the human rights group noticed that Leviev’s website boasts of his sponsorship of a Cannes gala whose proceeds went to the charity. That prompted a letter to UNICEF director and (ironically) former Bush cabinet officer Ann Veneman, and a long deliberation process which included a UNICEF delegation visiting the Palestinian villages, Jayous and Bilin, most damaged by Leviev’s settlement building activities. The final result was this letter (pdf) to Adalah:

UNICEF will not consider partnerships–direct or indirect–with Mr. Leviev of any of his corporate entities, and will not accept financial or other support that we know is from him or his corporate entities.

This in itself is a significant achievement as it puts Israeli companies which profit from building settlements on notice that they risk becoming pariahs in certain circles for their support of the Occupation.  But just as important has been Adalah’s provocation of the that lumbering Jewish dinosaur, Abe Foxman, who has come to Leviev’s defense with a blistering, and error-filled attack on UNICEF.  When you provoke Abe Foxman’s ire you know you’ve really poked the Israel lobby in the eye:

The ADL…urged…UNICEF to reconsider its decision to reject donations from a Jewish philanthropist…”The decision not to accept assistance from Mr. Leviev smacks of selective political discrimination,” said Abraham H. Foxman…”This decision only gives legitimacy to those who would seek to promote a boycott of the State of Israel and its supporters.”

Ah, the dreaded creature, The Boycott, rears its ugly head yet again.  It seems to be the shibboleth of the moment for the Israel lobby.  There’s only one problem.  UNICEF has an Israel chapter and gladly accepts funds from Israeli donors.  Hmm, Abe, you’ll have to do better next time.

Abe utilizes another tried and true Israel lobby tactic: the “double standard:”

…The [ADL]…not[ed] that the fund has a history of accepting aid from other questionable partners, including the International Islamic Relief Organization [IIRO], which was designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2006 because of its links to Al Qaeda.

Abe is sloppy regarding this charge as well.  IIRO was NEVER designated a terrorist organization by the U.S.  One Saudi official of the group and two of its affiliates (in Indonesia and Philippines) were so designated.  Besides, if we keep in mind the Justice Department’s recent failed prosecution of the Holyland Foundation for being an alleged supporter of Islamic terror, the Bush Administration’s judgment of what is and what is not a legitimate Islamic charity is a tad suspect.  In addition, IIRO doesn’t contribute to UNICEF.  It is a UNICEF partner in delivering care to Saudi children.

Even the Bush Administration, hardly a supporter of Islamic terror, seems to understand the distinction as reported in the Jerusalem Post:

The U.S. government also noted the distinction between the head office and the international branches.

“We are monitoring the situation closely, but we also understand the difference between the IIRO main headquarters and its branches,” Carolyn Vadino, deputy spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., wrote…

“It is the two branches in question that are designated and have ties to terrorists and at this time we have been assured that they are separate entities,” Vadino wrote.

Not surprisingly, Foxman has harvested a lot of these specious charges from right-wing pro-Israel sites like IMRA. This is yet another example of how the extremist wingnuts of Jewish life insinuate themselves into mainstream political discourse. Abe Foxman is the militant pro-Israel wingnuts’ best friend.

But this oblique slap in the face from Abe is what should have Adalah supporters smiling:

“At a time when children around the world are in desperate need of food, medical care, education and other aid, it is a sad day when UNICEF has to create unnecessary, arbitrary and discriminatory guidelines in a bid to satisfy the demands of an outside group with little vested concern in improving the lives of children,” said Mr. Foxman.

So what Abe would have UNICEF do is accept support from anyone who wishes to provide it: armaments manufacturers, cigarette companies, alcohol purveyors, and settlement builders.  Undoubtedly, this is the path that the ADL follows in accepting contributions for its activities.  Fortunately, UNICEF has determined that some donations are tainted with the stain of exploitation of children.  The charity has ethical standards for which the ADL sees no need.

Interesting that Foxman describes Adalah as having “no concern for improving the lives of children.”  Cleary, Adalah’s concern for the villagers of Bilin and Jayous confirms their dedication to the welfare of the children of these communities, many of whose families can no longer afford to send them to school because the new Separation Barrier has cut these farmers off from their fields and destroyed their livelihoods.

Perhaps what Foxman really means to say is that Adalah cares about Palestinian children, but they don’t count as legitimate objects of UNICEF’s concern.

For anyone wishing to see how the European glitterati flaunt their wealth, you can see a video of the Gala Magazine party which Leviev sponsored and which raised funds for UNICEF.

I haven’t written yet about this video which features a Leviev address to a large Chabad gathering.  In it, he speaks of his wealth as God-given and a sign that the Lord approves both of him and his actions.  In light of Leviev’s willingness to impoverish Palestinians in order to enrich himself, one has to question God’s judgment in pouring His favor on someone like Leviev.

Thanks to David Bloom for providing some of the research on which this post is based.

Just about everyone knows about Abe Foxman’s one track mind. Well, maybe two tracks. One track is anti-Semitism and the other is his conservative pro-Israel politics. In a JTA essay, Abe has tried to branch out into new territory with disastrous results. The result should embarrass Abe as well as JTA, though I doubt it will. I call it JTA enabling Foxman’s fictions and follies.

In his piece, Foxman attempts to cast aspersion on Switzerland’s recent energy deal with Iran. He claims that the former has broken with the international community in its effort to isolate the Persian supposed nuclear state-in-the-making.

The only problem with Foxman’s argument is that Israel too has energy dealings with Iran, albeit ones it tries to disguise as best it can. Writing in the Swiss newspaper Sonntag, Shraga Elam reveals (in German) that Israel purchases large amounts of Iranian oil through European third parties. With Shraga’s cooperation I reported his story at Comment is Free last week. In European ports like Rotterdam, the oil’s paperwork is changed so that it can be imported into Israel without any markings indicating its real origin.

This oil trade takes place through a joint Iranian-Israeli company established during the Shah’s reign and now controlled by Israel. Iran has demanded the return of the firm’s assets and claimed they were worth $5-billion as of 1998. You can imagine how much more the firm is worth ten years later. This sum is an indication of the size of Israel’s oil trade with Iran.

So come off it, Abe. What are you and Israel complaining about? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And may I ask Abe to explain this statement by Israeli energy minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer defending the oil trade (followed by Elam’s summary of the foreign ministry’s attitude toward the dealings):

“Every attempt for contact with an enemy state that serves Israeli business and economic interests, strengthens the stability of the region.” And from the Israeli foreign ministry one could hear that it is not their business to inquire where the oil comes from.

Ben Eliezer has no problem buying Iranian oil. The foreign ministry casts a blind eye. But Abe Foxman is in high moral dudgeon over it. Where does Abe get off being holier than the Pope on this?

Such Iran-Israel trade is technically legal since Iran is not defined under Israel law as an enemy country. However, it smacks of the utmost hypocrisy for Israel and the Israel lobby to be complaining about the Swiss when Israel itself can’t get rid of its sweet tooth for high-quality Iranian crude. I should add that Iran itself displays equal hypocrisy because it has imposed its own boycott of Israeli trade which it is violating.

Next, Foxman really goes to town on the Swiss for their extraordinary temerity in advocating for Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Geneva Accords are the focus of Abe’s wrath:

[Swiss foreign minister] Calmy-Rey has also tried to undercut Israel’s diplomacy. Brazenly disregarding Israel’s sovereignty and democratically elected government, Switzerland sponsored negotiations between private Israeli and Palestinian individuals, known as the Geneva Accord.

Unlike the Oslo negotiations, which were backed by the Israeli government after the first couple of private meetings, the Swiss project was officially rejected by Israel and the Swiss ambassador summoned to receive a protest.

Regardless of the content of the resulting document, the Swiss action represented an inexcusable intrusion by a foreign government in the peace process and an end run around the “road map” that reflected the will of the international community and demanded an end to Palestinian terrorism as a condition of further Israeli steps.

Foxman is really off the deep end here. Instead of welcoming any nation’s sincere efforts at advancing the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace, Foxman sees Geneva and the Swiss involvement in it as intended to harm Israel’s interests. It doesn’t matter that former Israeli and Palestinian government ministers participated in the talks. They were still, to Foxman’s mind, hostile to Israel. This is beyond far-fetched.

You knew that Abe couldn’t leave this subject without his other bete-noire, anti-Semitism, rearing its ugly head. Because Switzerland trades with the Iran and hosted the Geneva Accords this means they are somehow continuing their tacit historic support for Nazism and anti-Semitism:

In the battles against the Nazi regime during World War II and communism during the Cold War, Switzerland pursued its narrow self-interest by professing neutrality.

Today the Swiss appear to be taking the same approach in the current global war against the radical Islamist threat, spearheaded by Iran, which menaces Israel’s existence and the security of the West.

But let’s get to Foxman’s fictions. Anyone who follows the Israeli press accounts of the incident in question will immediately smell a rat:

In one egregious example, Israel’s raid on a Jericho prison in 2006 was denounced for “violat[ing] the principle of proportionality.” In that incident, Israeli soldiers had surrounded the prison, which five armed terrorists, including the assassins of an Israeli government minister, had taken over.

One prisoner and one prison guard were killed in an exchange of fire…

Here’s what really happened: several Palestinian militants associated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine were imprisoned for their involvement in the assassination of Israeli minister Rehevam Zeevi. They were guarded by British and U.S. personnel. When those nations decided their security guards were not receiving the protection they expected they withdrew them. The PA (then controlled by Hamas) made noises about releasing the prisoners, though it did not do so. Ehud Olmert, then in the thick of an election campaign, decided to take advantage of the situation by orchestrating what I called a “jailbreak in reverse.” He sent massive amounts of firepower to Jericho, bulldozed the jail, arrested (“kidnapped” might be a better word for it) the PFLP prisoners, spirited them back to Israel. The Palestinian prisoners were paraded in their skivvies before a world audience to their utter humiliation. Israelis loved the spectable and Olmert promptly watched as his poll numbers skyrocketed.

Contrary to Foxman, Haaretz reports that three PA security guards were killed. By the way, these guards were supervising the prisoners. At no time were the latter either armed or in control of the prison as Foxman claims. No prisoners were reported killed as Foxman claims.

You can see that Foxman’s description is nothing like what actually happened. But he relies on his readers’ implict trust that what he purveys is truth when it is at best slanted and at worst lies. Which leads one to question his credibility in general. I’ve written extensively here about JTA errors involved in its Israel reporting. The last time I wrote about one, JTA even issued a correction (but only after another journalist picked up on my post). In this case, the error is only secondarily that of JTA since it merely enabled Foxman’s falsehoods by publishing them without properly vetting them. But it’s still a shoddy piece of journalism whatever way you look at it.

Thanks to Sol Salbe for his usual eagle eye in spotting this story.