Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘republican-jewish-coalition’

‘Follow the Money’ of Jewish Neocons

Thursday, October 21st, 2010

I just came across this Ben Smith Politico post I missed when it came out during the J Street funding imbroglio.  It notes that, at least according to J Street, the IRS was at fault for posting publicly the names of the donors to its 501c4.  Here’s the organization’s statement:

We are also committed to protecting the privacy of our donors, which is guaranteed by law in the case of contributions to our 501(c)(4) and was egregiously violated by the Internal Revenue Service in erroneously and illegally making our donor schedule available to the public.

But there’s something here which doesn’t make sense (at least to me) and Smith notes it.  A 501c4 doesn’t have to report its donor lists to the IRS, so why did J Street?

…A politically conservative Jewish blogger, Jeff Dunetz…turned them [the donor list] up on a search for public form 990s on the Foundation Center’s database…which are the tax returns non-profit groups are required to make public. They are not, however, required to include publicly the pages listing their donors.

Personally, I’ve seen numerous 990s in which non-profits list their donors.  So blaming the IRS for this seems silly.  J Street didn’t need to include the names and it did.  Either it got bad advice from an accountant or it just bungled things.

matt brooks rjc

Matt Brooks, RJC's half-million dollar man

All of this is prologue though for some online digging of my own.  I did this because during my coverage of the Eli Lake-manufactured J Street story (especially in light of the U.S. Chamber’s massive infusion of foreign money into the current Congressional elections), I asked why journalists aren’t doing as much due diligence regarding the reports filed by right wing Jewish groups.  Unfortunately, my search didn’t bring up anything quite as explosive as George Soros’ “secret” gift, but there were a few eye-openers nonetheless.

A peek through Aipac’s 990 reveals that it raised $60-million in 2009 and $92-million on hand at that year’s end.  It paid Howard Kohr, its president, a cool $553,000.  And Richard Fishman, its executive director, $400,000 plus an unspecified “business transaction” totaling $370,000.  It also reveals transfers in the tens of millions to the American Israel Education Foundation, the Aipac arm which finances political junkets to Israel.

The Republican Jewish Coalition took in $6-million in 2009.  Of that, over $2-million went to Jamestown Associates for TV and print ads attacking Democratic candidates.  Ari Fleischer’s outfit made $120,000, a cool bit of change.  RJC paid Matt Brooks, its director, a paltry $500,000.   Some interesting names among its board of directors: Shelly Adelson, Jimmy Tisch, Bernie Marcus, Ken Mehlman, Fred Sands, Martin Selig, Mel Sembler, Ken Bialkin, Ari Fleischer, and David Frum.

The 990 form contains this hilarious RJC lie, which shows how such non-profits make a mockery of the non-profit tax code:

The coalition does not directly participate in political activities.

How Did Eli Lake Get Confidential IRS Documents for his J Street Story?

Sunday, October 3rd, 2010

I said my piece yesterday about Eli Lake’s fake expose on George Soros’ donations to J Street.  But a new question came to me today.  J Street is a 501c4.  As such the IRS does not publicly disclose donors to such groups.  So how did Lake get the names of Soros and the organization’s other major donors?  My money is on a few possibilities: a Republican operative (perhaps in Congress), a former J Street staffer, or someone at the IRS.  But however he got the data, my money is on Aipac, with its active intel capabilities, or the Republican Jewish Coalition (or someone perhaps freelancing who is closely associated with it) as playing a major role in facilitating this.

Think of the timing: there is only a month remaining before the mid-term elections.  Control of the House and possibly the Senate lies in the balance.  Even a few elections in states with large Jewish populations in which J Street could play a major role (think Joe Sestak)–even this could swing the balance from blue to red.  If J Street is wounded.  If its donations dry up at this vital juncture, then those few candidates will have less money to place ads on TV.  Their message will be stifled.  And even if there is only a marginal impact on the campaigns through this fake scandal, then big things could result for Republicans.

I’d guess my money would be on the RJC for that very reason.  They have everything to gain from these revelations.  Their past sleazy behavior has proven that they have little to lose in the scruples or morals department.  So there’s almost no downside for them even if eventually someone (not Eli Lake) discovers that they were involved.  The RJC is built on sleaze.  It thrives on it.  In fact, I bet, if they were involved, that Matt Brooks is high-fiving it up as I write this.

Yes, it’s true, this is speculation.  No smoking gun, yet.  But who knows.  The circle turns.  The joker is sometimes unmasked.

The media is rife with stories about how dirty political media campaigns have become in this election cycle, about how opaque the funding is.  But Lake’s story has proven that there can be a flip side.  If you have a highly motivated, well-funded, and skilled enemy, they can hurt you.  Once again, this proves the stupidity of the Supreme Court’s decision to turn U.S. federal elections into the Wild, Wild West.  It shows the virtue of full transparency in the sphere of campaign funding.  I say force J Street and every other 501c4 including ones financed by the fatcats of Aipac and RJC to publicly name their donors and how much they gave.

And I warn whichever Republican spook secured Lake’s scoop for him: what goes around comes around.  And I hope to God that you, and whatever 501c4 you’re affiliated with, are next.

NOTE: I just read Ron Kampeas’ fabulous blog post on this story.  Among his best lines is:

J Street has a “who am I” problem.

Which is precisely what I write above and have been writing here for a year or more.  Are they for Iran sanctions or agin ‘em (for ‘em now, agin ‘em before they were for ‘em)?  Are they for Goldstone or agin ‘im (a little of both)?  Are they independent and progressive or Obama’s “blocking back?”

Kampeas really nails Lake far better than even I can do, because he swims in the same pool as they do as a Jewish journalist and because Kampeas has far more experience covering this inside the Beltway political zone.  I apologize for including Ron in my challenge of yesterday as to journalists who should digging at this and related stories harder.  But I’d still like to see Ron and other work at unearthing the sugar daddies of the right wing pro Israel 501c4s.

Republican Jewish Coalition: Kampeas, Besser ‘Leftist Propagandists, Weasels’

Friday, February 12th, 2010

The RJC tweet smeared round the world

The RJC may not realize it but if there is any justice in the world they’ve just stepped in a big pile of dog poop and some staffer’s head should roll.

First a little back story: recently 54 members of Congress and major peace groups (among them Peace Now, J Street and B’Tselem) sent separate letters to Pres. Obama urging him to pressure Israel to relieve the siege of Gaza.  The letters were groundbreaking for several reasons. First, I can’t remember the last time a large group of Congress members and Mideast peace groups coordinated any political activity so publicly and forcefully.  Second, never before have members of Congress been so bold as to call outright for the end of the savage suffering inflicted by this illegal siege.  This is yet another nail in the coffin of the Israel lobby and its stranglehold over such discourse in Washington DC.  In the past, publicly advocating a position sympathetic to Palestinians would have been absolute anathema.

I’m proud to declare that Jim McDermott, my House member, drafted this statement and spearheaded it together with the first Muslim-American member, Keith Ellison.  The Forward covered the story.  Here is a portion of the statement directed to Pres. Obama:

Thank you for your…commitment of $300 million in U.S. aid to rebuild the Gaza Strip. We write to you with great concern about the ongoing crisis in Gaza.

The people of Gaza have suffered enormously since the blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt following Hamas’ coup, and particularly following Operation Cast Lead. We also sympathize deeply with the people of southern Israel who have suffered from abhorrent rocket and mortar attacks. We recognize that the Israeli government has imposed restrictions on Gaza out of a legitimate and keenly felt fear of continued terrorist action by Hamas and other militant groups. This concern must be addressed without resulting in the de facto collective punishment of the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip. Truly, fulfilling the needs of civilians in Israel and Gaza are mutually reinforcing goals.

The unabated suffering of Gazan civilians highlights the urgency of reaching a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we ask you to press for immediate relief for the citizens of Gaza as an urgent component of your broader Middle East peace efforts. The current blockade has severely impeded the ability of aid agencies to do their work to relieve suffering, and we ask that you advocate for immediate improvements for Gaza…

The peace groups’ letter is slightly more forceful in addressing the siege:

We urge, therefore, that your administration use America’s unique relationship with Israel to persuade it to lift the closure of its border crossing with Gaza now.

Of course, the counter-attack has been hot and heavy.  Yvette Clark (D, Brooklyn), who is African-American renounced her support when Agudath Israel, the far-right pro-Israel Orthodox group, organized constituents to read her the riot act and publicly humiliated her at a meeting they called.  She obediently announced her capitulation.

Further, the slimeballs at the Republican Jewish Coalition have gotten in on the act.  And when they do you know something really, really dirty will come out of it.  The RJC has done nothing less than accuse two veteran Jewish journalists, Ron Kampeas (JTA) and James Besser (Jewish Week) of being “leftist propagandists and weasels.”

Why?  Because they dared to question the truth and accuracy of claims the RJC made in attacking the Congressional letter.  Kampeas had the temerity to accuse the RJC of telling an “untruth” in this statement:

These 54 Democrats expressed no concern whatsoever about the consequences their ideas might have for Israelis living under the threat of terrorism from Gaza!

Anyone who can read can see from the above passage that the Democrats who signed this letter expressed strong support for the residents of Sderot.

Besser also did something unpardonable: he implied the RJC was being racist and misleading in identifying the letter solely with its Muslim-American co-sponsor, Ellison.  The latter is a convenient target for the Republican Jewish anti-minority machine.  They don’t have much use for African-Americans OR Muslims and Ellison is the ‘daily double’ as far as they’re concerned.

Besser adds this interesting perspective to the controversy about Ellison:

…Everybody wants to blame Ellison, which raises some interesting questions, starting with this one: does being pro-Palestinian automatically mean a politician is anti-Israel? Can someone be friendly and sympathetic to both sides?

…Every time I’ve heard him speak…he’s stressed his belief that both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict need to do more to live up to past commitments and take greater chances for peace. He’s spoken clearly about Israel’s need for security as part of any ultimate settlement.  He speaks the language of compromise – for both sides.

In short, he sounds pro-Palestinian without sounding anti-Israel.

Still, many castigate him  as just another Israel hater, which they seem to find even easier because of his religion.

So I wonder: are pro-Israel forces only interested in working with those who are 100 percent on their side, and defining everybody else as beyond the pale?

So for penning some relatively mild and thoughtful questions for the Israel lobby about why it demonizes everyone it can’t control, you get tarred and feathered and practically called anti-Israel.  Next thing you know they’ll be calling for Kampeas and Besser’s heads on a platter.

I know this is going to sound strange but…in a perverse way this is a good thing.  Yet another example of the lobby overreaching.  They see a chance to go for the jugular and point out the perfidy of Democrats toward Israel.  But by the very nature of their attack they’ve discredited themselves among the lion’s share of American Jewry who are more fair-minded and lucid on these same matters.

So I say: whichever RJC goon tweeted that message about Besser and Kampeas–promote him.  The higher this guy rises to his level of incompetence and pro-Israel fury, the quicker the lobby will be vanquished or turned into something truly pro-Israel.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Obama: Are You Now or Have You Ever Been… in Jimmy Carter’s Company??

Thursday, April 2nd, 2009

The Republican Jewish Coalition is channeling Joe McCarthy.  I swear, where do they come up with this stuff?  Muzzlewatch reports that Matt Brooks and the other neocon hit-Jews over at the RJC are ordering Barack Obama to disclose any meetings he may’ve had with Jimmy Carter.  Apparently, anyone who’s ever had any contact with the former president either will get a contact case of AIDS or sell America’s deepest secrets to Jew-hating scum in Syria or Saudi Arabia (take your pick).

You have to give Brooks credit though, he (or perhaps someone else at the RJC who’s willing to read effete liberal publications like the New Yorker) actually bothered to read a publication other than Human Events, Town Hall, the Washington Times, Jerusalem Post, Wall Street Journal, and the Weekly Standard.

In perusing Sy Hersh’s latest expose they hit neocon paydirt!

A senior White House official confirmed that the Obama transition team had been informed in advance of Carter’s trip to Syria, and that Carter met with Obama shortly before the Inauguration. The two men—Obama was accompanied only by David Axelrod, the President’s senior adviser, who helped arrange the meeting; and Carter by his wife, Rosalynn—discussed the Middle East for an hour. Carter declined to discuss his meeting with Obama, but he did write in an e-mail that he hoped the new President “would pursue a wide-ranging dialogue as soon as possible with the Assad government.” An understanding between Washington and Damascus, he said, “could set the stage for successful Israeli-Syrian talks.”

Omigod.  This is it.  This is the the 57-card-carrying-members-of-the-Communist Party-evidence Joe McCarthy trumpeted in his famous Wheeling, W.V. speech that launched his career as a red-meat loving Commie-hunter.  What further evidence could anyone need that Barack Obama is planning to sell out Israel to Arab-lovers like Carter? Peace with Syria?  Who’s Carter fooling?  We know what Assad wants: the Golan and after that Tel Aviv.

But seriously.  Who are these people fooling?  Despite millions in advertising blitzes and God know how many dirty tricks and cyber-smears, they still only managed to spook 20% of American Jews to vote for John “Aipac is Your Friend” McCain.  But you have to hand it to them.  They’re like a right wing version of the Energizer Bunny.  They never stop trying.  At this rate, sometime in 2050 they might even persuade 21% of American Jews to vote Republican.

Why am I not surprised that only JTA among Jewish publications picked up on this wingnutty story?

Jewish Axis of Evil: Clarion Fund and GOP

Wednesday, November 26th, 2008

Seth Hettena has done some interesting research into Clarion Fund’s 990 report.  He’s discovered that a number of the group’s board members have longstanding and deep ties in partisan Republican circles:

Peter Feaman, a Florida trial lawyer. He’s also the author of Wake Up America! about the dangers of fundamentalist Islam. Feaman has been active in GOP political circles. He has run for the Florida house and serves as the Republican state committeeman for Palm Beach County. He was a delegate to the 2008 GOP convention.

Nina Cunningham, founder of Quidlibet, a legal research consulting firm in Illinois. She has given more than $33,000 to GOP candidates and causes in the past three election cycles, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. She is the Illinois State chair of the Republican Jewish Committee’s women’s committee.

I’ve reported previously here on various Republican connections with Clarion Fund:

  1. the Republican Jewish Coalition mailed free copies of Obsession to every Jewish and Christian clergymember in the U.S.
  2. Clarion hired Republican consultants to arrange screenings of the film in Arizona and Michigan
  3. Clarion distributed 28 million copies of Obsession in the weeks prior to the election, after one of Clarion’s websites derided Obama’s national security experience and praised McCain’s.
  4. Aish HaTorah’s co-founder has extensive business and political ties with Republican national leaders, especially Tom Ridge as well as Ileana Ros Lehtinen and others.

In other words, Clarion Fund is practically a bought and paid for arm of the Jewish wing of the Republican Party.  Aish HaTorah, in turn, as Jeffrey Goldberg has noted, is practically an arm of the rightist settler movement.  All this leads one to believe that a group of far-right Israeli-American Orthodox Jews have teemed up with Republicans in order to kill two birds with one stone.  They can exploit fears of Muslims and Islam to drum up American Jewish support for a pro-settler/pro-Israel political agenda AND flay the Democrats, who allegedly are soft on terror, specifically Muslim terror.

It’s seamy and nasty, but utterly in keeping with the lies and histrionics which characterize the Republican Jewish right and the Orthodox pro-settler right.

Among the dumb concepts that George Bush created (or his speechwriters) was an “Axis of Evil” consisting of three countries.  An axis only has two ends, not three.  So rhetorically what Bush said seems a mangling of the language.  In this post, I originally wanted to include Clarion Fund, Aish HaTorah, the Settler movement, and GOP in my Jewish Axis of Evil.  But that was way too many axes, so I had to slim it down to only two.

Obsession’s Secret Producer Revealed, Republican Jewish Coalition Ties to Clarion Uncovered

Friday, October 10th, 2008

Thanks to investigative reporting of Will Evans and reader Robin McLaren, we’ve uncovered the identity of one of the formerly secret producers of Obsession (you’ll recall that the Clarion Fund listed two producers’ names for the film and both were fake). His name is Erik Werth, and he’s a former Clinton Administration advisor for “homeland security issues” (though there was no such concept in the Clinton Administration) and news producer for NBC’s Dateline.


I don’t understand for the life of me why we didn’t pick up on this earlier. He was publicly named as a producer in the N.Y. Post and other right-wing media. Even stranger is why Raphael Shore, Clarion’s director would feel the need to shield the identity of someone who had already revealed his identity. Now, some enterprising reporter needs to locate Werth and ask him why he was afraid to attach his name to the film or why Clarion is keeping him a secret. Even more important, we need to know from him who the real money (that would be secret producer number 2) behind Obsession and Third Jihad is.

Evans has also dug up Clarion’s application for 501c3 status and it provides interesting reading.  Whether intentionally or unintentionally, Clarion’s lawyer, Eli Greenberg, filed both incomplete and inaccurate information as part of the exemption application.

Here are some of the most interesting anomalies. The IRS asks on page 9 (Section V, 2a):

Are any of your officers, directors or trustees related to each other through…business relationships?

Raphael Shore, Clarion’s president and Rebecca Kabat, its vice-president are both employees of Aish HaTorah.  I’m not sure for IRS purposes whether this constitutes a “business relationship.”

On page 11 (part VIII, 1) Greenberg erroneously answered “No” to the question: “Do you support or oppose candidates in political campaigns in any way?  As reporters have noted, the Radical Islam site (hosted by Clarion) featured an explicit attack on Barack Obama’s national security credentials and an endorsement of McCain’s.

Part VIII, 12a (page 13) asks: “Do you or will you operate in a foreign country?”  To which Greenberg answers “No.”  I would be curious whether Clarion has hosted any screenings of either of their films in Israel.  If so, this should be another violation.  In addition, Raphael Shore lists his address as “Rova, Israel.”  How can he be the director and NOT operate in a foreign country?

Clarion’s application is clearly false in answering this question (page 14, part VIII, 15): “Do you have a close connection to any other organizations?”  Greenberg answers “No.”  Many news reports have documented the overlap of personnel between Clarion and Aish HaTorah.  Since Clarion has a number of employees but lists only one being paid on this application, I have a strong suspicion that Aish is paying the salaries of staff that are doing work for Clarion.  If that doesn’t constitute “closely related,” then the IRS regulations have no meaning.

As part of Clarion’s supplemental IRS filing (page 13) , it offers an enthusiastic endorsement letter from Jeffrey Norwitz, professor of national security studies and John N. Brown Chair of Counterterrorism at the Naval War College.  Personally, I have no idea how these things are supposed to work–but I’m extremely uncomfortable with a professor at a federally-funded military college offering an endorsement of such a hate-filled anti-Muslim piece of garbage like Obsession.  Here is a summary of a few of his encomiums:

…I’ve found it [Obsession] the finest teaching tool yet in educating students about the nature of the threat posed by radical Islamic extremists.

…At the end of course [Norwitz teaches a course on terrorism], nearly every student opines that Obsession should be screened by everyone in uniform.  This includes the Muslim officers from allied navies who also attend the War College.

…Obsession is a necessary corrective to broadcast media’s unwillingness to inform the public regarding the existential threat posed by fanatic elements with Islam.

How does the U.S. military propose to understand the Muslim countries in which it might have to serve or see action if it uses dreck like Obsession as the basis for “understanding” Islam??  And can you believe the chutzpah of this guy recommending that Muslim naval officers should have this film crammed down their throats too?  I think it’s comic and outrageous that he thinks that Obsession will tear the scales off the eyes of Muslims to such a secret and dastardly phenomenon within their own religion.  It’s mighty white of him.

The coup de grace is this post from the Jewish Current Issues blog which heralds the Who’s Who of the Jewish right which turned out in force for the 2007 Republican National Coalition annual dinner.  And he’s got pictures to boot.  If you wanted to diagram the connections between the RJC and Clarion and every other Jewish wingnut outfit, you couldn’t do better than reading this post:

There were some 600 people in attendance at the dinner, including some very prominent people: William Daroff, National Vice President of the United Jewish Communities; Avi Davis of the American Freedom Alliance; Roz Rothstein and Esther Renzer of StandWithUs; Greg Ross of Aish Ha Torah; Erik Werth of the movie “Obsession;” Si Frumkin, longtime Soviet Jewry activist; Doris Wise Montrose, President of Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors Los Angeles; Senior Pastor of Simi Hills Christian Church Kevin Dieckilman; Mark Paredes from the Morman Church community and the American Jewish Congress; Shimon Erem, Gary Dalin and Patricia Johnson of the Israel Christian Nexus; David Justman and Adam Schreiber from JINSA (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs); Michael Warder, Vice Chancellor of Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and Jay Hoffman from the Pepperdine Board; David Horowitz and others from the David Horowitz Freedom Center; and Dan Polisar, President of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem (when Natan Sharansky now works).

Obviously, attending a group’s dinner doesn’t necessarily provide proof that the RJC or its donors are the ones funding Obsession, Third Jihad, and the 28 million DVD mailing to swing state voters (cost=$15-50 million).  But if it’s not the smoking gun, then it’s perhaps the finger that puts the bullet in the gun before firing it.

By the way, if Clarion and all these other alleged 501c3 Jewish groups are NOT supporting or opposing political candidates (remember that IRS exemption application question), then what are they doing at the RJC dinner?  In particular, why is the producer of the film at a Republican-affiliated dinner and being identified with the film in this blog?  Shouldn’t that make an IRS official begin to wonder whether this group is really non-partisan?  And I wonder whether Clarion paid for their tickets?  Wouldn’t that constitute yet another partisan activity?

And the next time you read any of these groups like Clarion, Stand With Us, JINSA or the Shalem Center claim that they are non-partisan, remind them of this passage and then laugh at the joke.

Jewish Forward Defends Accepting RJC Obama Smear Ads

Monday, October 6th, 2008
The Forward claims rejecting this ad amounts to censorship

The Forward claims rejecting this ad would amount to censorship

The Jewish Forward handed the Republican Jewish Coalition a victory today in the latter’s ongoing campaign to sow seeds of hate within American Jews for Barack Obama.  The RJC has published paid advertising in Haaretz, The Forward, JTA and Jewish Week calling the candidate “anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, hostile to America.”  I’ve critiqued the mendaciousness of the ads in posts here earlier.

I had hoped that at least Haaretz and The Forward might reconsider their decision so I wrote to the editorial and advertising staff of each publication.  Today, Andrew Lavin, a PR consultant, e mailed me asking for my phone number.  Later, he and David Drimer, associate publisher, called together to defend the Forward’s acceptance of the ads.  The arguments were odd.  I reminded them that even FOX News has refused ads smearing Obama during this election cycle from right-wing Republican groups.  I couldn’t understand why the Forward wouldn’t perform its own due diligence on political ads.

Drimer replied that it was not the Forward’s role to referee whether an ad was true or not.  He added that refusing an RJC ad would amount to censorship.  To that I replied that refusing ALL RJC ads would be censorship, but rejecting ads that are out and out lies would actually be responsible journalism.

The Forward associate publisher claimed that as the Jewish arm of the Republican Party the RJC and its claims deserved to be heard without a filter.  When I asked him whether that included publishing lies within the paper, Drimer said that the RJC’s claims were “opinion” and not necessarily lies.

Lavin defended the RJC’s calumnies by noting that political discourse in Israel is far more nasty than the content of the RJC ads.  Besides this being America and not Israel, there is far more at stake here in this presidential election than there is when Avigdor Lieberman calls an Arab MK a cancerous growth.

Driver noted that others have complained about the Forward’s acceptance of the ads.  Frankly, I was astonished that the Forward has hired a PR consultant to help them deal with this issue.  It shows they’re running scared.  I think their view is that if they reject the ad they’ll have the RJC screaming bloody murder at them; and if they accept it they’ll have people like me screaming at them.  Who scares them more?  That’s easy.  Shelly Adelson has awfully longer reach than I do.

But maybe the liberal Jewish blogosphere and readers can cause enough of a stink to make Samuel Norich, the publisher reconsider.

Driver attempted to reassure me that my dissenting views of the matter would find a welcome within the pages of the Forward.  I said I would like to publish them there as long as it was an opinion piece and not a letter to the editor.  He urged me to contact Jane Eisner.

Guess what her reply was: we already published a column by Mel Levine on this general issue so your views would be best left to a letter to the editor.  I told her that Levine had not addresses this specific ad in his column; and that his approach was much softer and more diffuse than mine would be.

She replied that while she remained unconvinced that my views deserved a column, I was welcome to write something on spec for Daniel Treiman to review.  Treiman has already been on record in Bintel Brief with a disparaging remark about Tikun Olam.  So I pretty much knew what to expect.  As a writer, you just get tired of writing on spec especially when you’re relatively sure of the negative reception your work will get (despite publishing one short piece there, my work has previously been rejected numerous times).

So there you have it–one of the most liberal Jewish publications is giving a free pass to one of the most hateful Jewish political groups in the land.  And the former doesn’t believe the specific issue of running this ad in their newspaper is newsworthy enough to be discussed in their own main pages.

It should be noted that neither Haaretz nor JTA have even responded to my complaint.

Why Are Jewish Media Accepting Republican Jewish Coalition Smear Ads?

Sunday, October 5th, 2008

This is tonight's banner ad at Haaretz

Banner ad at the Haaretz website


Reader Cole Krawitz reports that now Haaretz, JTA and The Forward are featuring prominently RJC anti-Obama smear ads of the type I reported on yesterday. I have e-mailed the advertising directors of each publication along with the publisher and/or editor to request that they clarify the status of these ads.
RJC ad entitled <i>Obama's Advisors</i>...who aren't

RJC ad entitled Obama's Advisors...who aren't

First, these ads calling Obama “anti-Israel” and “pro-Palestinian” are flat out lies without even a scintilla of genuine evidence. I would like to know what the advertising standards are for these three news outlets. In accepting political ads, do they vet them for honesty as most other newspapers would? Do they ever reject ads as most newspapers have done? If so, what are the criteria for accepting or rejecting an ad?

I understand that media outlets need to accept advertising to support what they do. And I accept that a partisan political organization not only can, but should advertise to promote it’s political perspective. Though I think the RJC is a despicable bunch of Jewish bulvanim, I recognize their right to advocate for their point of view. But my point is that their advocacy must remain within the bounds of truth or at least some semblance of it. I can even accept some stretching of the truth as that happens all the time in politics. But usually political advertising has at least a shred of truth. In this case, the RJC has thrown all those traditional notions to the winds.

I call on all Jewish media to reject any RJC ad unless it adheres to a factual critique of Obama’s record. If any of these publications continue to accept these ads I’d like as many Jewish blogs and readers to make widely known who is running them and demand answers from the editors as to why they are doing so.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE