Thanks to research provided by reader RM for this post.
Sarah Posner’s article in Jewish Week goes the farthest so far in directly connecting Aish HaTorah to Clarion Fund, which has been a thesis I’ve been promoting for a few weeks now. Also, this is the first time that any Jewish publication has run a full-length expose of the subject. So kudos to Jewish Week and editor Larry Cohler Esses.
In her piece, she connects for the first time in any MSM article billionaire Rabbi Irwin Katsof, the founder of the Aish HaTorah’s Jerusalem Fund, to production of Obsession. My anonymous researcher holds out strongly for Katsof being the funder of the multi-million dollar production and promotion campaign for Obsession and Third Jihad. While this is a credible hypothesis, at this point, we only can confirm that an evangelical source has acknowledged that Aish HaTorah contributed lavishly to their efforts to promote the film. The fact that another evangelical source referred to Clarion Fund as funder of the same project indicates that the two groups are, for all intents and purposes, interchangeable:
[Judeo-Christian View publisher Gary] Cass was vague as to how his publication acquired DVDs for the mailing. He said they came from Clarion but declined to say if they were purchased or contributed. Referring to Clarion, he said, “Let’s just say we have a good working relationship with them.“
Here’s what Posner has to say about Katsof:
Formal or informal, the ties between Aish HaTorah and the production of the films appear to date back to the launch of the media watchdog group Honest Reporting by the founder and former executive director of the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah, Irwin Katsof, in 2001.
Honest Reporting, also a tax-exempt organization, released “Obsession” in 2005…The group now denies any involvement in the production of “Obsession.” But its Web site promoted it as an Honest Reporting project in 2005, the year it was first released. It listed “Obsession: The Movie” as an “affiliate” on its Web site in 2006. “We had nothing to do with it,” said a person answering the organization’s New York telephone number.
Katsof, who founded the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah in 1995 in Los Angeles, claims on his Web site to have launched Honest Reporting in 2001. Honest Reporting, known initially as Middle East Media Watch, stated on its Web site that it was started “at the initiative of the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah.”
According to both organizations’ tax returns, Katsof was the president of the Jerusalem Fund and executive director of Middle East Media Watch when the Jerusalem Fund lent Middle East Media Watch $158,000 in 2001. Honest Reporting’s tax returns also show it received a $48,000 grant from Aish HaTorah in Jerusalem in 2002.
Reached by phone, Katsof would only describe himself as a “real estate developer.” A spokesperson later said that Katsof had not had worked for Honest Reporting since 2001, and had not worked for the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah since 2004. But Honest Reporting’s 2004 tax return lists Katsof as the organization’s unpaid executive director. Like the Clarion Fund, Honest Reporting currently shares an address with Aish International, Inc., the fundraising arm of Aish HaTorah, and the Aish HaTorah Jerusalem Fund in New York.
It hasn’t yet been reported that Katsof founded the non-profit, Words Can Heal, drafting Hollywood celebrities and D.C. politicos (including John McCain) around the milquetoast mission of ridding America of bullying and promoting civility in national discourse. Apparently though, the group’s mission only includes Judeo-Christian citizens and doesn’t extend as far as Muslim-Americans. Otherwise, one wonders how Katsof can justify the hate spewed against them in Obsession and Third Jihad. Is this Katsof’s idea of civility?
Here’s a few suggestive passages which reveal the utter hypocrisy of the group:
According to Irwin Katsof, Co-Executive Director for WordsCanHeal.org, “In the post-Columbine era we need to reduce gossip and verbal abuse that is behind so much pain in our society…”
Says Katsof, “the first step is for people to acknowledge that gossip and verbal abuse has real consequences. Words can cause real pain…”
The Washington campaign coincides with the proposal of a “WordsCanHeal Day,” an effort led by Senators Harry Reid, Sam Brownback, Tom Daschle and John McCain.
Print ads aimed at bringing a new tone to American politics will begin this week…
When we recognize that these films have been inserted into the presidential campaign on behalf of John McCain, one wonders what Katsof means by “new tone” unless it’s to sink political discourse even deeper into the gutter than it already is. Not to mention the horrible slurs and racism which characterize the portrayal of Muslims in these films.
Finally, I chuckled at this quotation from Alan Dershowitz, the man who singlehandedly destroyed the academic career of Norman Finkelstein through slurs, calumny and character assassination:
Alan M. Dershowitz, says about the book and the campaign “We may have the right to gossip under the First Amendment, but this effort shows us that exercising this right is wrong.”
I wonder whether the Dersh was the best person they could turn to to promote their message?
Will Evans has done some good new research which further documents Aish/Clarion’s entanglement in the extremist evangelical movement as they promote Obsession and Third Jihad.
Finally, I chuckled at this quotation from Alan Dershowitz, the man who singlehandedly destroyed the academic career of Norman Finkelstein through slurs, calumny and character assassination…If I recall correctly, Finkelstein started this fight by accusing Dershowitz of plagiarism. If Finkelstein or anyone else accused me of plagiarism, I would vigorously respond as well
Is this Katsof’s idea of civility?…to be honest, civility isnt your strong suit either. While you are a passionate progressive, what bothers me is the absence of any doubt on your part. Do you ever ponder the possibility that you are wrong? If the answer is no, you might be a mirror image of Rabbi Katsov
@Acai Berri:
First, Finkelstein presented an ironclad case against Dershowitz’s plagiarism. Second, I have no problem with Dershowitz RESPONDING. But I have a very big problem w. him making it his life’s work to destroy Finkelstein’s career.
But Finkelstein can be comforted that he has forever destroyed the credibility of Alan Dershowitz as a political commentator & “expert” on Jewish/Israel issues for everyone except the Jerusalem Post & other right wing media sites.
When there is doubt, I have no problem w. expressing it. When I feel certain about something, I express my views in those terms. If you haven’t read any expressions of doubt in this blog then you don’t read it very extensively or carefully. In fact, I quite carefully circumscribed my suggestion that Katsof might be the funder of this campaign because I simply don’t have anything more than a suspicion about it.
I wouldn’t mind being his ‘mirror image’ if it would provide me a few billion dollars to support projects on behalf of I-P peace.
I think the first commenter made the point extremely well. It’s not that Finkelstein makes a case it’s that he is/was the one who singlehandedly makes it into a gutter spewing assassination fight. He takes pleasure in smighting and assassinating people…
Finkelstein made a case against Dershowitz for plagery, fine. However, he also eagerly sought to assassinate and personally smight him as well. Just one example is the cartoon of Dershowitz appearing at his website – where Dershowitz is pleasuring himself to the idea of Lebanese citizens dying in the Israeli Hezbollah war. Quite a classy discourse.
Only after Finkelstein’s relentless attacks then Derhowitz attacks back – it would seem ironic that you would then state it was Dershowitz “who’s life work was to assassinate and destroy Finkelstein”?
Noone seems to spew the vitriol Finkelstein regularly does at those he chooses to pick out. If your case is strong then why resort to gutter name calling and assassination?
However, if Dershowitz did do the same then it’s rather sad to then listen to Finkelstein complain about getting back a bit of what he regularly serves to others? Further, why does it appear that Finkelstein always gets into hot water with his temperment and demeanor and then it is always someone else fault – usually a conspiracy?
I remember Rashid Khalidi was accused of plagarism a few years ago… however, I don’t remember any of those making the claims against him spewing invectives at him and his person. There were no classless disgusting cartoons and people trying to make a mockery of him?
Yet, it seems regular fare for Finkelstein and his crowd? Why is that?
@Avi Benson:
Oh please. You want to defend Alan Dershowitz? You’ve come to the wrong place. This is a man who claims that Lebanese civilians were perfectly acceptable “collateral damage” in the most recent Lebanon war. There is nothing anyone could do or say about this man that would be too harsh as far as I’m concerned.
If Alan Dershowitz destroyed your academic career I’m sure displaying such a cartoon of him on yr website might be one of the less severe acts you might engage in in response.
Finkelstein did not destroy Dershowitz’s career. But Dershowitz did destroy Finkelstein’s. There’s a big difference which you seem unwilling or unable to concede. Perhaps you’re wearing blinders??
First, if you think Rashid Khalidi’s right wing opponents are sprinkling him with rose petals boy, you have another thing coming. Khalidi is treated very harshly by his enemies. They’d be perfectly happy to ride him out of town on a rail if they could. Second, the idea that Rashid Khalidi commited plagarism is laughable. The idea that Alan Dershowtiz committed plagiarism is unfortunately true.
Re Dershowitz –
I never “defended” Dershowitz per se I was commenting on Finkelstein.
Second, the vile cartoon was on Finkelstein’s website for months – well before – the controversy at Depaul started. Norman not only put it up he gloated about it taking pleasure in it.
The person who destroyed Norman Finkelstein’s career as you say – was Norman Finkelstein. It wasn’t the first time he was “let go” (though he states he wasn’t let go). When your debating style is to viciously and personally attack those you disagree with and smother any dissent/debate its not exactly a “learning” environment.
Show me anything said by anyone with any academic standing that even approaches anything Finkelstein did or has done – regarding Khalidi. The Dershowitz plagarism of lazy sloppy footnoting do appear true… whoever wrote those passages as Finkelstein is likely correct that his tas helped write the book. The Khalidi charge looked pretty suspicious as well and the relevant information was pulled from the web shortly thereafter.
and chose not to publish my reply to you…. so another words engaging you in a debate is not something worth doing because you have a strong need to control what is said and apparently get the last word in.
.
Addressing the issue of whether or not he was a spokesman –
It doesn’t matter who believes what – 3 different articles have surfaced from 1976 – 1983 from the NY and LA Times that cite and quotes him as a PLO spokesman.
Also, my comment stated I was more perturbed that in the early 90’s he praised glowingly the organizer of the Munich massacre.
Obama can ‘break bread’ with whomever he likes. The issue was whether or not in a Presidential election your friends and associates is relevant. I indicated that while the press should be careful about such things this was nonetheless relevant. As Richard Silverstein has copiously detailed with a lot more fervor some of John McCain’s associations, etc..
re Shamir and Begin –
The old bait and switch… get off topic put words in someone’s mouth and then demand they reply to that… very logical and professional.
And note – I never denounced Khalidi only indicated some concern about his comments…
@Avi Benson:
I don’t care what anyone called him. I care what he called himself. If you can find any source in which he himself calls himself a PLO spokesperson then we can talk. Besides, this is a meaningless canard anyway. Being a spokesperson for the PLO is neither a criminal nor terrorist act except to right wingers like you.
I don’t have any idea what he said about the Munich Olympic massacre organizer & you’re making a claim without backing it up w. a quote or source is meaningless.
You still refuse to denounce Shamir & Begin’s participation in terrorist acts while denouncing Khalidi for being (if indeed he ever was) a civilian spokesperson for an organization that is currently an ally of Israel and the U.S. Amazing. You’re a piece of work!
If you’re not denouncing Khalidi then why is it so important to you that we acknowledge yr claim that he was a PLO spokesperson??
@Avi Benson:
You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The reasons provided by those who denied him tenure were ridiculous & had absolutely no academic or scholarly basis. Essentially he was denied tenure because he was not deemed “collegial” enough. A preposterous claim on its face & it makes DePaul a laughing stock. Clearly, Dershowitz managed to make it hot enough for the DePaul administrators & board that they decided that discretion was the better part of valor & they folded.
BTW, “debating style” is not a scholarly or academic criteria for denying someone tenure. No one says a scholar has to be a nice person to get tenure. Finkelstein is a pain in the ass. Big deal & too bad. If that was a valid criterion, fully half or more of academia would be out of a job.
Dershowitz is a lying scumbag. He destroyed Finkelstein’s career & no amt. of foolishness fr. you is going to make it otherwise.