Dd German Edition March 3, 2009

GERMAN EDITION March 3, 2009 Dear Friends: With this edition you will see a slight upgrade in viewing with the addition of a few graphics and/or pictures. While I am not a computer wizard, I thought that if I could make the newsletter easier on the eyes (and get a few more “subscribers” to actually read it) if I could learn how implant graphics in DuBow Digest. So, I experimented and taught myself how to do it. I hope my efforts will encourage you to be a bit more interested looking into in happenings in the American Jewish Community. Let’s get down to the news… THE ISRAELI ELECTIONS Tzippi Livni’s centrist Kadima party won the most Knesset seats but by only one. Parties on the right, Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu, were close behind. President Shimon Peres, feeling that the right bloc had a better chance of forming a coalition asked former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Likud to form a government. He has 6 weeks in which to do it. Normally, the American Jewish community mixes out of the formation of an Israeli government. However, in this case, with Yisrael Beiteinu likely to be part of the coalition a great problem has arisen. The leader of YB, Avigdor Lieberman, has some very extreme view especially as to how Israeli Arabs (they make up 20% of the Israeli population) should be treated. In The Jewish Week David Harris, the American Jewish Committee’s Executive Director and his Executive Assistant, Doug Lieb have voiced what I think the majority of American Jews feel about Lieberman’s views. Their article follows: Avigdor Lieberman has a point. It is beyond outrageous for Israeli public officials, whether Arab or Jewish, to actively support the enemy during a war. And, in Israel or elsewhere, citizenship should impose certain obligations of connection to the state. Majority-minority relations in Israel are more challenging than in most other democracies. After all, many Israeli Arabs have ethnic, religious, and even familial ties with Israel’s hostile neighbors. They may feel understandably distanced from the Jewish state, whose character and symbols do not reflect their traditions. And yes, some might even wish Israel’s disappearance.

These are difficult questions. The problem is that Lieberman has promised easy answers — packaged in glib campaign slogans — that seek to exploit Israelis’ fear and uncertainty. First, Lieberman says he objects only to “violent speech that forms a clear and present danger.” If that were the case, it would be sufficient to simply prosecute incitement. Even America’s expansive First Amendment does not protect speech that poses a clear and present danger. Instead, Lieberman proposes a loyalty oath, shifting the presumption from innocence to guilt. It would define an entire class of Israelis as suspected traitors. And it would chill Israel’s democratic political debate. After all, some Israelis, from anti-Zionist Jewish religious leaders to post-Zionist intellectuals, do not believe the state should have an officially Jewish political character. How far down this slippery slope is Lieberman really willing to go? Second, Lieberman says that Jewish as well as Arab citizens will be subject to the test of loyalty. But the tone of his campaign left no doubt that Israeli Arabs, painted with a broad brush, are the true target. How else are we to understand campaign ads with the tagline, “Only Lieberman understands Arabic”? Regrettably, this crude slogan is consistent with some of Lieberman’s other statements about Israeli and non-Israeli Arabs. In 2003, he suggested drowning Palestinian prisoners in the Dead Sea. In 2008, he menacingly said that a new government would “take care of” Arab members of Knesset, whose presence in Israel was “temporary.” Last month, he advocated that Israel avoid reoccupying Gaza by fighting Hamas “as the U.S. did with the Japanese in World War II” — that is, with a nuclear weapon. These words may score points in a political street fight, but they are deeply irresponsible at best, especially from an elected leader. And they cannot be overlooked simply because Lieberman’s party, Yisrael Beiteinu, admirably placed a Druze candidate near the top of its list. Third, Lieberman’s article tellingly omits one of his central proposals — the physical exclusion of some Israeli Arabs from Israel. Lieberman has advocated an agreed-upon population swap with a future Palestinian state, but he has also, at times, suggested the expulsion of those who do not swear their loyalty. Israel is a Jewish democracy, and must remain so. The best way to preserve and honor its unique character is by working to integrate, not exclude, its Arab citizens. Even if it seems unrealistic at times, the fullest inclusion of all Israelis should be a fundamental goal of each new Israeli government. Having said all that, we shouldn’t act as if the sky is falling. Lieberman has

served in high office before, and Israeli democracy has more than survived. But, in presenting a positive message, his essay does not own up to the views he has expressed elsewhere, or, no less important, to the ugly words he has chosen to express them. To establish the productive ties he seeks with the Obama administration0, which will continue to be essential to Israel’s well-being, Lieberman may need to fully embrace his Jewish Week identity — and leave his political stump speech behind. HOLOCAUST DENIER WILLIAMSON Holocaust Denier Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson continues to be in the news. I think he may be feeling very sorry that the Pope lifted his excommunication. In his ex-communicated state he had a nice position in Argentina probably living a nice quiet life. Once Williamson’s views became public because of his re-instatement into the Church, the Argentine government, sensitive to charges of anti-Semitism themselves, decided to kick him out of the country and he was forced to return to his native Great Britain. In order to quiet the furor, the Bishop decided to apologize for causing such media frenzy and hurting the feelings of some – but he did not change his views. Therefore, the Church rejected his apology. The JTA story follows: The Vatican dismissed as insufficient Bishop Richard Williamson's apology for making comments minimizing the Holocaust. Williamson expressed regret for making the remarks but did not recant his views. "The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy," Williamson said in a statement published Thursday by the Zenit Catholic News Agency. Pope Benedict XVI sparked a furor last month when he reinstated Williamson and three other excommunicated bishops, all members of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, just days after Williamson told Swedish TV that he believed "that the historical evidence is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler." He said no more than a few hundred Jews died in Europe during World War II. This week, Williamson expressed regret for making the remarks.

"Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them," he said. Williamson concluded, "To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologize. As the Holy Father has said, every act of injust violence against one man hurts all mankind." The Vatican said Williamson's apology "does not seem to respect the conditions" for readmission into the Catholic Church as a clergyman, a Vatican spokesman said Friday, because it does not apologize for the Holocaust denial itself. The founding chairman of the International Network of Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, Menachem Rosensaft, also called Williamson's apology unacceptable. “Williamson’s disingenuous apology cannot close the book on this chapter,” Rosensaft told JTA. “Williamson in no way recanted his denial of the Holocaust. Instead, he merely expressed regret that his public expression of his noxious views called attention to Pope Benedict XVI’s ill-advised attempt to rehabilitate him." Williamson left Argentina this week after authorities there expelled him for violating the conditions of his work visa. He returned to his native Britain; the London Times this week published an email exchange between Williamson and David Irving, a Briton who has served prison time in Austria for his own Holocaust denial. Irving advised Williamson on legal strategies to avoid arrest upon his return. Britain does not ban Holocaust denial, but under European Union agreements it may extradite deniers to countries where they may face charges. Stay tuned! I don’t think the Williamson saga is yet finished. DURBAN II The Durban Review Conference, to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, 20-24 April 2009, will evaluate progress towards the goals set by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. The problem is that the 2001 conference became a stage for anti-Semitism, anti-Israelism, anti-Americanism among a lot of other “anti’s” as well. I think terming it a disgrace would be kind. It was the United Nations at its worst. Anne Bayefsky of the Hudson Institute has written,

… the U.N. launched a two-year plan which will culminate in a full throated antiAmerican and anti-Israel world conference on racism in 2009. Modeled on the notorious 2001 Durban “anti-racism” conference, Durban II similarly promises to attract terrorist sympathizers and anti-Semites from around the globe. The spectacle of last week’s planning session might be described as the theater of the absurd, except that the check handed to the American taxpayer for 22 percent of the costs was very real. The event is the brainchild of the U.N.’s lead human-rights body — the Human Rights Council. The Council is doubling as the preparatory committee (PrepCom) of Durban II. On the first day of the session the PrepCom elected Libya as its chair, Cuba as rapporteur, and Iran as a member of its executive — to plan a conference about human rights. Like a fixed boxing match, the European Union went a few rounds, talking tough early on about refusing a long list of demands from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Meanwhile, everyone understands that the OIC is in charge, since it holds a majority of seats on each of the African and Asian regional groups, which in turn hold the balance of power on the CouncilPrepCom. The EU strategy on U.N. territory is, therefore, to join consensus instead of voting against anything it can’t win — after a few struts it collapses. Its rationale is to avoid the appearance of weakness that comes with losing votes, and to fool large numbers of Europeans into thinking the U.N. is a happy harmonious place where the EU is numero uno. Unbeknownst to the Europeans, the OIC is on to them. And over the course of the negotiations they unveiled an audacious wish list for Durban II: adopting objectives far beyond the original idea of a “Durban review conference”; creating another U.N. committee to prepare for Durban II; issuing special participation invitations only to the U.N. investigators (rapporteurs) on racism and Islamophobia, and freedom of religion; adopting new rules of procedure especially designed for the Conference; introducing vetting for a pre-conference questionnaire that might have asked potentially intrusive questions of states about actual protection from discrimination; paying for the Durban II preparations from the U.N.’s regular budget (that is the West); and allowing every NGO that participated in Durban I to participate in Durban II unless objections were made in just 14 days.

On every demand the EU capitulated. They didn’t even argue about the decision to schedule the first substantive session of the preparatory committee for a U.N. global conference on racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance such that it coincides with almost the entire 2008 Jewish Passover. The writing for this latest U.N. “anti-racism” initiative is clearly already on the wall. The NGOs now lined up to participate have qualifying credentials that include referring to Israel only in quotation marks. One U.N.-accredited NGO that will be entitled to join the action is the International Islamic Relief Organization. The IIRO branches in Indonesia and the Philippines, incidentally, were recently put on the U.S. Treasury Department's Specially Designated Nationals List for "facilitating fundraising for al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups." The U.N. rapporteur on freedom of expression will not be issued a specific invitation to participate in Durban II. The thinking behind this decision was best expressed by Iran: “The special rapporteur on freedom of expression … is not acceptable.” The investigator may squeeze in through a crack in the rules for “others.” The objectives of Durban II will include anything the OIC considers “contemporary manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” Pakistan was unabashed about what’s now on the agenda: “‘contemporary forms’…allows for exhaustive discussion, to find ways to fight new forms to fight against racial profiling in the name of the fight against terrorism.” Egypt — speaking on behalf of the 52 members of the African regional group — spelled it out even further. Their greatest concern is that the “aftermath” of 9/11 "saw a new and dangerous phenomenon in incitement to racial and religious hatred…[T]he highly defamatory cartoons published by a Danish newspaper…deeply hurt over a billion Muslims around the world, and threatened social harmony and peace, both nationally and internationally.” In other words, the U.N.’s Durban II has been created to increase mass hysteria over allegations of global Islamophobia perpetrated by those fighting terrorism or publishing cartoons in an obscure Danish paper. Far from reducing racial, ethnic, and religious terrorism, it is guaranteed to exacerbate it. As U.N. human-rights authorities Iran, Libya, and Cuba now gear up for the inevitable clash between civilization and its antithesis, it is well to remember that this is not a harmless shouting match. Durban I ended three days before 9/11. Fictitious and feverish allegations of racism fan real flames. The U.N. — created to realize peace and security and protect human rights — has veered far off course and squandered our trust. As we move into the primary season, the role of today’s U.N. in shaping American foreign policy ought to be a central issue. An organization which provides sustenance to anti-Semites,

terrorists, and anti-democratic forces, is not the right address for winning allies and defeating enemies. Israel & Canada have both announced that they will not be attending Durban II. Given the cast of characters, the agenda and the history of Durban I I’m pretty sure not much good can come out of this conference. Now, Bayefsky might be hard on the EU in her article but the pre-ordained outcome with Libya, Cuba and Iran in the driver’s seat tells me that, at least, nothing good can come from it. The Obama Administration has also opted out. The JTA reported late last week, “The State Department sent a delegation, including a senior staffer from the American Jewish Committee, to this month's preparatory talks. The delegation's conclusions were that the anti-Israel and anti-Western tendencies were too deeply entrenched to excise. Now that the United States is withdrawing from the conference, European nations are expected to follow. C’mon Germany! Do what’s right!