This is a Leader?

Woody Allen -
- We were married by a reformed rabbi in Long Island. A very reformed rabbi. A Nazi.

First of all, I never knew that the reform movement had a leader. Second of all, once I discovered that fact by reading this article reprinted in the Detroit Jewish News, I began wondering who decides who our "leader" is. I was never consulted, nor was I given the opportunity to vote. Third of all, until now, I wouldn't have cared whether or not there was a reform leader.

After reading about Rabbi Jacobs (who I am not comparing to a Nazi, more on that later), I care. Over the course of the past week, I've reread the article a number of times. I get angrier each time I read it. Rabbi Jacobs talks a good game about how he supports Israel. His actions show a disconnect.

I don't believe that all Israel supporters or members of the Jewish community have to walk in lock-step to prove our "Jewishness" or our loyalty to Judaism or to Israel. We are an opinionated, stiff-necked people, and we are going to disagree with each other. I can live with that. I cannot accept as a leader, however, one who allies himself with organizations, who, no matter how much they deny it, are working solidly, hand in hand, with the worst of Israel's enemies.

After joining in protest sponsored by Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity, Jacobs attempts to comfort us by stating,

he disagrees with 99 percent of what the movement, which has been described by the Jewish Agency for Israel as anti-Zionist, stands for.

One of the complaints of Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity is

Two settlements have been established in the heart of Jaffa in recent years with the declared intent of Judaizing the town.

We can't have cities in Israel being "Judaized" now, can we? And does Rabbi Jacobs support the term "settlements" to describe areas of Jews building in Israel? Gaza is judenrein, and Fatah is demanding the same of their proposed state in Judea and Samaria, where the dehumanizing terms "settlements" and "settlers" are used to describe Jewish neighborhoods and neighbors. But to approve of those terms within Israel? And they're honored by J Street, one of those other rabid - ahem - cough -"pro-Israel" - cough - gasp - choke - organizations.

Speaking of J Street, Fatah's Jewish voice,

“I support the goals and visions of J Street, but I’m not defined by it,” Rabbi Jacobs said,

And this means exactly what? We are supposed to mollified because he ONLY supports J Street, who claim,

Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories have, for over forty years, been an obstacle to peace. They have drained Israel’s economy, military, and democracy and eroded the country’s ability to uphold the rule of law.

Continued settlement growth undermines the prospects for peace by making Palestinians doubt Israeli motives and commitment, and by complicating the territorial compromises that will be necessary in final status talks. The arrangements that have been made for the benefit of settlers and for security – checkpoints, settler-only roads, the route of the security barrier* – have all made daily life more difficult for Palestinians, deepening hostility and increasing the odds of violence and conflict. A majority of Israelis have recognized this reality and oppose settlement expansion, yet their views have been outweighed by a small, vocal pro-settlement minority.

If this is a pro-Israel stand, the Manson family took a solid pro-Tate, LaBianca stand. And Rabbi Jacobs doesn't even pretend to be against 99% of what J Street stands for.

He said he wholeheartedly supports the work of the New Israel Fund, a group dedicated to civil rights and religious pluralism in Israel.

Maybe I'm not seeing the same things Rabbi Jacobs or the NIF is seeing, but from what I've been reading and seeing, these people would spend their time more productively in promoting civil rights and religious pluralism in the nations surrounding Israel. But in what must be a concerted effort at self-blindness, NIF says, on Goldstone's retraction of his report,

When the Goldstone Commission began its work, the organizations then called on the government to cooperate with the Commission, out of belief in the importance of transparency, and out of concern for Israel's international image. The government's refusal to set up a commission of inquiry, and then its refusal to cooperate with the Goldstone Commission, altered the findings of the Goldstone Report, with negative results.

So NIF joins Goldstone in blaming Israel for the bit of blood libel that bears his name. History has proven, when in doubt, blame the Jews, or in this case, the Jewish state. This gets the wholehearted support of Rabbi Jacobs. But I suppose it doesn't define him.

Just to show what an actual Israel supporter writes like, read Melanie Phillip's take on Goldstone's mendacity. Unlike Rabbi Jacobs, Phillips is not afraid to take sides and does not use weasel words to hide her feelings or her politics.

On the issue of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, he said he strongly opposed global BDS, which seeks to eliminate the Zionist state, but drew a distinction between such efforts and those who boycott products made in Jewish communities in the West Bank.

He said the Reform movement has not taken a position yet on the boycott of West Bank settlements but that “we do take positions on the hardest issues.”

Oh, I get it. He doesn't want to eliminate the the Zionist state, he merely wants to weaken it and insure that Judea and Samaria are ethnically cleansed in order to become Islamic terror states unpolluted by infidel Jews. But the Reform movement hasn't taken a stand. I'm not waiting for the Reform movement to tell me how to think. I will fight against BDS without making distinctions.

Getting back to the Woody Allen quote - as I said, I'm neither calling nor comparing Rabbi Jacobs to a Nazi. That line is from one of Allen's 1960s stand-up routines. That was a time when Jews were able to breathe a sigh of relief and ridicule their former unlamented, deceased tormentors. Israel was firmly established. Jews in the United States were taking advantage of their freedom to excel in a multitude of fields. Even in Europe, things seemed to be improving.

Woody Allen, Lenny Bruce, Mel Brooks' The Producers - the list goes on of humor made at the expense of the Seven Year Reich. There was a freedom to laugh out loud and publicly. It came from an absence of fear. And we are still laughing.

As time passed, Jews grew more secure, and in spite of its enemies, Israel grew stronger. We became complacent. Complacency led to a willful blindness so complete that a rabbi who openly colludes with our current genocidal enemies (even though he is against 99% of what they stand for) is being chosen to "lead" the Reform movement.

I don't have to explain our Islamo-Nazi enemies to anyone who has rejected this willful blindness, and it's useless to explain it to those who have accepted it.

During our Passover seders, we remind ourselves that, in every generation, a new enemy arises. Did Rabbi Jacobs and his followers skip this portion of the Haggadah? Do they really not get it?

If Rabbi Jacobs truly doesn't understand that taking both sides of the argument is not leadership, he isn't fit to lead.

If he doesn't understand that he can't stand up to our enemies while standing with our enemies, he's not fit to lead. And if he can't even recognize those enemies, he's dangerous.

If he doesn't understand that a leader must have the fortitude to take a strong stand, or he will only lead his followers into the abyss, he is not fit to lead.

Where Rabbi Jacobs is leading, I have no interest in going.

by Cowznofski

Mazel Tov Temple Beth El for Showing the Way! When Will Other Synagogues Follow?

"For organizations genuinely dedicated to Israel's well-being to welcome such individuals and groups - caricatures and travesties of pro-Israel efforts - within the tent of Israel's supporters, to lend them that legitimacy, is a betrayal of the cause of the Jewish state's survival and security" -- Kenneth Levin, author "The Oslo Syndrome"

Finally, an antidote to the Jewish wasting disease. An important breakthrough of Jews not afraid to be Jews and not afraid to support our Jewish homeland.

Yasher Koach to Temple Beth El and Charles Greenberg for signing on to a petition of Reform Jewish congregations (see above) reaffirming solidarity with Israel. Under the banner, "Reform Jews Who Want the Reform Movement to Stand with Israel," the signatories to this letter representing Jews Against Divisive Leadership (JADL) are entreating the Union for Reform Judaism to reconsider the appointment of its nominee for president, Rabbi Richard Jacobs. Rabbi Jacobs, the signers, agree:

"does not represent the pro-Israel policies cherished by Reform and American Jews. He does not represent us."

The petition cites Rabbi Jacobs' membership on J Street's Rabbinic Cabinet and the consistently "hostile" positions J Street has taken against Israel, loudly condemned by outgoing Reform Movement head Rabbi Eric Yoffie. Yoffie called J Street's position on Israel's retalliatory Operation Cast Lead in Gaza "morally offensive and appallingly naive."

Liberal Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY) recently divorced himself completely from the George Soros- and Arab-funded J Street. Said Rep. Ackerman: “I’ve come to the conclusion that J-Street is not an organization with which I wish to be associated … The decision to endorse the Palestinian and Arab effort to condemn Israel in the U.N. Security Council is not the choice of a concerned friend trying to help. It is rather the befuddled choice of an organization so open-minded about what constitutes support for Israel that its brains have fallen out.”

Rabbi Jacobs also has served on the board of the New Israel Fund, at the forefront of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) campaign against Israel. This is completely at odds with the position articulated by ARZA, the Zionist Arm of the Reform Movement, now dedicated to educate the Reform Jewish community in America about the BDS efforts to delegitimze Israel and "brand Israel as an apartheid state."

Talking Tachlis congratulates Temple Beth El in Bloomfield Hills for standing up to proudly represent mainstream American Jewish support of Israel as the sovereign Jewish homeland.

As pointed out in a recent column dubbed "American Jewry's Fight," the Jerusalem Post's widely read Caroline Glick points out incontrovertible survey evidence demonstrating US Jewry's support for Israel

"According to mountainous survey evidence, the American Jewish community writ large remains deeply supportive of Israel. Two surveys released last year by the American Jewish Committee and Brandeis University's Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies showed that three quarters of American Jews care deeply about Israel and that Israel is an important part of their Jewish identity. The Brandeis survey notably showed that young American Jews are no less likely to support Israel than they were in the past.

In fact, American Jews under 30 are more hawkish about the Palestinian conflict with Israel than Jews between the ages of 31-40 are."

Where are the names of Detroit's other Reform Jewish temples on this letter? Don't they share Temple Beth El's affinity for Israel? Aren't they likewise concerned that the appointment of Rabbi Jacobs, with his anti-Israel associations, is inimical to the cherished Zionist roots and principles of Detroit's Reform temples.

It is especially important for Detroit area Reform synagogues to challenge the appointment of Jacobs, given the alarming hostility to Israel demonstrated in the media, on campuses, in some churches and by many local Muslim organizations, particularly those aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Talking Tachlis encourages our readers to contact the synagogues with which you are affiliated and inquire where they stands vis-a-vis Israel. Please let us know what you learn by emailing Talking Tachlis at talkingtachlismichigan@gmail.com

It's time for our synagogues to come forward and proudly reaffirm their support for Israel at a time when Israel is under siege worldwide and when its very existence is threatened on virtually every front. Ironically, with the rest of the Middle East in turmoil, it should be patently clear to the world that Israel is the only pluralistic, stable democracy in that vitally important region. Israel is America's only dependable ally in the Mideast and the free world's proxy.



Posted by MT Beadle and The Mole

Jewish 'Leadership' --- The 'gift' that keeps on giving

"Throughout Jewish history, under whatever conditions of assault, there have inevitably been some Jews who embrace elements of their adversary's indictments, however bigoted and divorced from reality, in the hope that by doing so and pushing accommodating reforms they will mollify enough of the attackers and win relief" -- Kenneth Levin

Like an iceberg calving, what had once been considered the colossal force of the organized Jewish community is being riven by unleashed furies. Powerful masses of Jewish intellect and influence are breaking away from the elemental control of the Jewish establishment in America. In the wake of this release of pent-up discord is the birth of new Jewish energy, defiantly challenging the broken-down status quo and setting its own agenda asserting for Jewish pride, identity, welfare and security. For Israel. For America. And for worldwide Jewry.

We told you about the break-away new Jewish organization a matzo ball’s throw away in Indianapolis. Ditto for renegade groups in New York and California. And we hear rumblings of disaffection with failed Jewish leadership are shaking other communities as well. After Talking Tachlis posted about these developments, readers emailed asking for more information.

Please take the time to read the three salient pieces below, calling out Jewish weakness and betrayal, and standing up for Jewish strength. Talking Tachlis applauds such groundbreaking efforts to gird our people against the onslaught of threats we don’t even realize are upon us, or worse, that we are aiding and abetting.

Talking Tachlis admires the work of Kenneth Marcus, former director of the US Commission on Civil Rights, in exposing the escalating anti-Semitism on college campuses. Marcus, who has come to Michigan to meet with university administrators and to brief the community on this growing threat, exposes another threat that looms just as large -- the failure of traditional Jewish organizations to actively confront this danger. In the piece below, he calls out the AJC's resident expert on anti-Semitism for undercutting the legal rights -to-redress of Jewish students and faculty on campus:

"...given the failure of many administrators to confront anti-Semitism with the same seriousness that they devote to other forms of prejudice. The administrators’ reluctance is understandable given that campus anti-Semitism is often associated with progressive and Muslim organizations and students and is therefore politically touchier on liberal campuses. This has led some activists,out of frustration with college administrators, to file formal complaints.Rather than holding these administrators accountable, however, Nelson and Stern criticize the activists who are urging them to confront anti-Semitism more firmly."

In the second critical read, Kenneth Levin, author of the "Oslo Syndrome," lays out a stinging indictment of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the national umbrella for the local JCRCs across the country. He collapses the 'Big Tent' philosophy of the JCRCs for providing a seat at the table to organizations hostile to Israel and actively promoting boycott of Israel. Here is an excerpt from Levin's compelling piece:

"Israel is under siege by people calling for her dissolution. This goes beyond the genocidal agenda promoted in the media, mosques and schools of much of the Arab world, including those of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. It extends to delegitimization of the Jewish state, and a propaganda assault aimed at her demise, in major media, on university campuses, and elsewhere across Europe and, to a lesser but still troubling extent, in the United States as well.

Under these circumstances, some in the Jewish community are inexorably drawn to embrace the position of the latter camp without looking too closely at its dangerous anti-Israel distortions. One reason is the allure of wishful thinking that this camp's stance entails: the false promise that peace can be had if Israel would only make sufficient concessions. Another reason is that those who are open-eyed and honest about Israel's predicament, who recognize and publicly declare it is Arab refusal to reconcile to Israel's existence, and not the settlements, that is the crux of the conflict, are widely smeared and reviled for their candor. The prospect of espousing that candor and being subject to such attack is too disconcerting for many Jews. In addition, some convince themselves that by signing on to the "settlements are the key" camp they are not only joining a more popular, and therefore more comfortable, constituency but are also strengthening a stance that is a viable counterweight to the exterminationist camp -- to those dedicated to Israel's destruction.

Throughout Jewish history, under whatever conditions of assault, there have inevitably been some Jews who embrace elements of their adversary's indictments, however bigoted and divorced from reality, in the hope that by doing so and pushing accommodating reforms they will mollify enough of the attackers and win relief."

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=51873&pageid=16&pagename=Opinion

The Cutting Edge
Monday April 25 2011
reaching 1.4 million monthly

Campus Hate Back to Opinion

The Wrong Statement on Campus Anti-Semitism
Kenneth L. Marcus April 22nd 2011



On April 20, Cary Nelson and Kenneth Stern issued a widely discussed but troubling statement in response to recent allegations that anti-Semitism has gotten out of hand at three universities: the University of California, Berkeley, the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Rutgers. See it at http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/pres/let/antisemitism.htm.

On each of those campuses, activists have alleged a pattern of intimidation and harassment of Jewish students who support the State of Israel. These two authors carry weight because Nelson is president of the American Association of University Professors and Stern is the top anti-Semitism expert at the American Jewish Committee. Having spear-headed the federal government’s work on campus anti-Semitism for several years, I am pleased that these two figures are turning their attention to the topic, but I am disappointed that their statement is more critical of activists who are fighting this problem than of the perpetrators who have created it or the administrators who tolerate it.

Let’s start with the positive in Nelson and Stern’s letter. Nelson and Stern are right to highlight campus anti-Semitism, which has become a real and ugly problem involving harassment, intimidation, vandalism, threats, and occasional violence. Contemporary campus anti-Semitism is difficult to address because in many cases it is intermingled with criticism of Israeli politics, which is protected by both the First Amendment and the doctrine of academic freedom.

The problem is that many incidents go well beyond Israel-bashing to include anti-Jewish harassment, vandalism or violence. Given Nelson’s reputation as a champion of academic freedom, it is entirely welcome to see the AAUP president endorsing the use, for at least some higher education purposes, of the internationally recognized European Union Monitoring Center’s Working Definition of Antisemitism. http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf As Nelson and Stern observe, this definition “while clearly stating that criticism of Israel in the main is not anti-Semitic, gives some examples of when anti-Semitism may be in play.” At my recommendation, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights adopted the EUMC definition in 2006, and the U.S. State Department has adopted it too. Nelson commendably joins Stern – a co-author of the EUMC Working Definition – in insisting that it “is entirely proper for university administrators, scholars and students to reference the ‘working definition’ in identifying definite or possible instances of anti-Semitism on campus.” This is a big deal, because some university administrators continue to deny that there is any connection between anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism.

At the same time, it is also welcome to see Nelson and Stern emphasize the stringency of existing standards for establishing the existence of a hostile environment under federal civil rights law and the importance of respecting the protections of the First Amendment. When I served as head of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, I insisted that the freedom of speech be emphasized in any training or public education that OCR provided on the subject of harassment. Given Stern’s reputation as a champion in the fight against anti-Semitism, it is commendable for him to join Nelson in emphasizing that federal civil rights laws, such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, should be used as a weapon of last resort in countering anti-Semitism or other forms of bigotry. Most offensive statements do not rise to the level of civil rights violations, and there are many ways to combat bias short of filing lawsuits.

Nevertheless, Nelson and Stern are on weaker ground when they criticize those activists who have brought complaints against three campuses where serious problems have been identified. Specifically, Nelson and Stern provide no basis for their charge that “many” of the “recent allegations” of campus anti-Semitism “simply seek to silence anti-Israel discourse and speakers.” This unfounded claim is especially worrisome given the failure of many administrators to confront anti-Semitism with the same seriousness that they devote to other forms of prejudice. The administrators’ reluctance is understandable given that campus anti-Semitism is often associated with progressive and Muslim organizations and students and is therefore politically touchier on liberal campuses. This has led some activists, out of frustration with college administrators, to file formal complaints. Rather than holding these administrators accountable, however, Nelson and Stern criticize the activists who are urging them to confront anti-Semitism more firmly. Singling cases at Berkeley, Rutgers and Santa Cruz, Nelson and Stern warn that the Title VI litigation approach is “not only unwarranted under Title VI, it is dangerous.” In fact it is not the complaints but Nelson and Stern’s criticism which is not only unwarranted but dangerous.

The problem with Nelson and Stern’s analysis can be seen when the three cases are considered separately. In the Berkeley case, undergraduate Jessica Felber sued the university alleging that she was violently rammed with a heavily laden shopping cart because she was both Jewish and a supporter of Israel. Nelson and Stern are right to insist that federal law should not be used to silence anti-Israel discourse. In the Berkeley case, though, it is not speech that is at stake but the safety of college students. Moreover, Felber did not sue under Title VI, choosing instead to charge the university for failing to meet its legal duty of due care to provide for the security of its students. In the Rutgers case, the Zionist Organization of America has asked the university president to address a discriminatory environment in which, for example, Jewish students were allegedly charged an admission price to attend an event that was open to the public free of charge. Even Nelson and Stern concede that such conduct could violate Title VI. Finally, in the Santa Cruz case, lecturer Tammi Rossman-Benjamin alleges that her university created a hostile environment for Jewish students by tolerating an environment in which anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments are persistent and pervasive. It is not clear what criticism Nelson and Stern have of Rossman-Benjamin’s complaint, but Rossman-Benjamin certainly alleges more than the “individual remarks” which they rightly insist “do not rise to the level of creating hostile environments.”

The fundamental problem with Nelson and Stern’s analysis is that it fails to distinguish satisfactorily between the three separate questions that are raised whenever anti-Semitism is claimed on university campuses. The first question is whether the incidents are truly anti-Semitic. For these purposes, the Working Definition can provide an excellent guide. The second question is whether it is a violation of Title VI or other civil rights laws. This is a separate question, because single-incident harassment is typically insufficient to state an actionable claim in the education context. If an incident is anti-Semitic in the sense of the EUMC Working Definition, then one can infer that it is both discriminatory and objectively offensive. Under federal law, though, one must also ask whether the conduct is severe and/or persistent. The final question is whether the use of “censorship” or regulation of expressive conduct is justified. This is a separate inquiry because, as Nelson and Stern correctly acknowledge, there are many ways that university administrators can address hate and bias incidents short of punishing the perpetrators, such as by exposing bigotry, challenging it, and condemning it when appropriate. These are difficult questions, and the analysis is not well served when establishment figures aim their criticism against the few people who are trying to address the problem rather than the many who are allowing it to persist.

Kenneth L. Marcus is Executive Vice President of the Institute for Jewish & Community Research and author of Jewish Identity & Civil Rights in America (Cambridge 2010). He previously headed the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (2003-04) and was Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2004-08).


http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/israeli_settlements_jewish_boy.html


April 24, 2011
Israeli Settlements, Jewish Boycotts, and 'The Tent'

By Kenneth Levin

Should Jewish groups that boycott settlements be included within the tent of American Jewish organizations that join together to -- among other communal objectives -- defend Israel against assaults on her legitimacy and right to exist?

An answer was offered recently by Martin Raffel, senior vice president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the national umbrella organization of local Jewish Community Relations Councils across the country. Raffel also wears another hat. Last fall, the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America created the Israel Action Network and charged it with "stand[ing] up against anti-Israel initiatives... and actively promot[ing] a fair and balanced picture of the Middle East among key constituencies." Raffel serves as the IAN's project director. A few weeks ago, Raffel opined:

...[W]hat to think about Zionists on the political left who have demonstrated consistent concern for Israel's security, support Israel's inalienable right to exist as a Jewish democratic state, and consider Israel to be the eternal home of the Jewish people -- but have decided to express their opposition to specific policies of the Israeli government by refraining from participating in events taking place in the West Bank or purchasing goods produced there? I vigorously would argue that such actions are counter-productive in advancing the cause of peace based on two states that they espouse, a goal that we share. But this is not sufficient cause to place them outside the tent.

Raffel's formulation is a bit disingenuous in that the groups in question do not merely "refrain from participating" in events in the West Bank or from purchasing goods produced there. Rather, they actively exhort the public to join their boycott. If this were not so, few would be aware of their stance, and the question of letting them in or keeping them outside the tent would not arise.

In addition, while Raffel characterizes those he has in mind as having "demonstrated consistent concern for Israel's security," how is he measuring this? The statement assumes that boycotting West Bank communities can be congruent with defending Israel's long-term well-being.
It is clear why some would like to believe this without examining the question too closely.
Israel is under siege by people calling for her dissolution. This goes beyond the genocidal agenda promoted in the media, mosques and schools of much of the Arab world, including those of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. It extends to delegitimization of the Jewish state, and a propaganda assault aimed at her demise, in major media, on university campuses, and elsewhere across Europe and, to a lesser but still troubling extent, in the United States as well. At the same time, many others, including leaders of European governments and our own President, declare their dedication to Israel's well-being but -- against overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- insist that the settlements are the major obstacle to peace, and that if only Israel would abandon the settlement project and retreat essentially to the pre-1967 armistice lines the door to peace would open.

Under these circumstances, some in the Jewish community are inexorably drawn to embrace the position of the latter camp without looking too closely at its dangerous anti-Israel distortions. One reason is the allure of wishful thinking that this camp's stance entails: the false promise that peace can be had if Israel would only make sufficient concessions. Another reason is that those who are open-eyed and honest about Israel's predicament, who recognize and publicly declare it is Arab refusal to reconcile to Israel's existence, and not the settlements, that is the crux of the conflict, are widely smeared and reviled for their candor. The prospect of espousing that candor and being subject to such attack is too disconcerting for many Jews. In addition, some convince themselves that by signing on to the "settlements are the key" camp they are not only joining a more popular, and therefore more comfortable, constituency but are also strengthening a stance that is a viable counterweight to the exterminationist camp -- to those dedicated to Israel's destruction.

Throughout Jewish history, under whatever conditions of assault, there have inevitably been some Jews who embrace elements of their adversary's indictments, however bigoted and divorced from reality, in the hope that by doing so and pushing accommodating reforms they will mollify enough of the attackers and win relief.

But to assess properly whether vocal opposition to and boycott of settlements are indeed consistent with support of Israel, community leaders, and community members more generally who are truly dedicated to the Jewish state's well-being and survival, must look beyond what is comfortable -- what is popular opinion in various media and political circles in Europe and America -- and consider the reality on the ground. One must consider the origins of the settlements and their current significance in the context of Israel's well-being and in the search for a genuine, sustainable peace.

The cornerstone of the quest for Arab-Israeli peace is UN Security Council Resolution 242, unanimously adopted a few months after the 1967 war. The resolution calls for negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors and for "secure and recognized boundaries" to be agreed upon through such negotiations. The resolution does not call for Israel to return to the pre-war armistice lines, and the resolution's authors stated that this omission was intentional, that those lines were an invitation to further aggression against Israel and the future borders ought to be elsewhere. Lord Caradon, Britain's ambassador to the UN at the time and the person who introduced Resolution 242 in the Security Council, told a Lebanese newspaper in 1974:
It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them, and I think we were right not to...

Lyndon Johnson, then President, stated that Israel's retreat to its former lines would be "not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities"; and he advocated new "recognized boundaries" that would provide "security against terror, destruction, and war."
The Israeli government at the time informally defined areas of the captured territory that it believed were vital for the country to retain in order to diminish the nation's earlier strategic vulnerability. These included the sparsely populated Jordan Valley, the main invasion route for hostile forces coming from the east; the heights dominating the valley as well as the heights overlooking the coastal plain, home to the great majority of Israel's population; and an enlarged Jerusalem together with its environs, in order to render the city more defensible.
The stance of the Labor Party, which led Israel for the decade following the 1967 war, was to push for an agreement that would have Israel keep these vital strategic areas while returning the balance of the West Bank, including areas home to the vast majority of the territory's Arab population, to Arab control.

The Labor government also embarked on construction of settlements in those areas it believed crucial for Israel to retain, in order to establish facts on the ground to reinforce Israel's claim to those areas. In a few instances, it also allowed reestablishment of a Jewish presence in locations of historic, religious importance to Jews. For example, it permitted the rebirth of a Jewish community in Hebron, which had been Judenrein since the Arab massacre of many of the town's Jews in 1929. Some political leaders who endorsed Labor's views on division of the territory nevertheless supported several such communities outside the boundaries of what they regarded as essential for defensible borders. They did so because they believed that, just as Arabs constituted what was then close to 20% of Israel's population, some Jews should be allowed to live in areas that would revert to Arab sovereignty, particularly areas of historic and religious significance to Jews.

The right-of-center Likud won control of the government in 1977 and for the next fifteen years either led the government or was equal or senior partner in governments of national unity. Likud party policy towards the West Bank eventually evolved into a plan for Arab autonomy under Israeli sovereignty, and Likud sponsored expansion of the settlement project both within and beyond the areas construed by Labor as necessary for defensible borders. But even during the years of Likud ascendancy, the great majority of Israelis, including much -- evidence suggests a majority -- of Likud's constituency, supported a division of the territory along the lines advocated by Labor.

In the 1992 election campaign, Labor, and its leader, Yitzhak Rabin, ran on a traditional party platform that emphasized the necessity of Israel retaining key strategic areas in the territories. At times, Rabin distinguished between security settlements and "ideological" settlements, suggesting the latter -- largely established under Likud -- were in areas not vital to the defense of the nation. But he repeatedly returned to the importance of Israel's retaining the former in the context of maintaining defensible borders. In his last speech in the Knesset, shortly before his assassination in November, 1995, Rabin declared:
The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.

And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:
A. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev -- as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.
B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.
C. Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the ‘Green Line,' prior to the Six Day War.
D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria...

If a significant number of Israelis were, during the Oslo years, less convinced of the need for defensible borders, those numbers have dramatically shrunk during the last decade, as Israel has been painfully reminded of the strategic realities of its predicament. The terror war launched by Arafat, after his rejection of concessions made by Ehud Barak at Camp David and further concessions proposed by President Clinton -- a war that cost Israel about a thousand dead and thousands more maimed -- woke many from their delusional slumber. Of those that continued deluded, more were finally forced to reconsider their wishful thinking in the wake of the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and the aggression that has been the fruit of that territorial concession.

In any case, what grounds are there for considering Israel's strategic predicament, and its need for defensible borders, to be significantly different from what they were when Security Council Resolution 242 was written and unanimously adopted? Has the topography of the region changed? Does Hamas's call, in its charter and in its mosques and media and schools, for the murder of all Jews, reflect a more benign political environment? Or does Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority -- with its similar use of media, mosques and schools to denigrate all Israelis and Jews, to deny Jewish historic connection to any part of what was Mandate Palestine, to characterize Jews as usurpers whose presence must be expunged, and to glorify terrorist killers of Jews as models whom Palestinians should strive to emulate to rid the land of the Jewish state -- reflect some hopeful change that makes the need for defensible borders less vital? And what of the current upheaval in the Arab world, the turmoil in Egypt, the challenges to Jordan's government, the strengthening of Hezbollah in Lebanon? Is any of this to be construed as diminishing the importance of defensible borders?

Given the obvious threats, does anyone genuinely concerned with Israel's well-being believe there is any substitute for Israel's continued control of strategically vital areas? A UN presence? We've seen the fecklessness of UN troops around the world, not least on Israel's borders with its neighbors -- from the UN's abandonment of its peacekeeping role along the Egyptian-Israeli border during the lead-up to the 1967 war, to the failure of the UN's force in Lebanon to fulfill its mission of preventing the rearming of Hezb'allah in Lebanon and reestablishment of Hezb'allah's strongholds in Lebanon's south. Precedent likewise weighs strongly against any other foreign presence being more promising and not, rather, presenting its own dangers to Israel's well-being and survival.

In view of all this, what does it mean to condemn and boycott settlements? In essence, those who do so support forcing Israel back to the pre-1967 cease-fire lines while offering no realistic plan for how the nation could defend itself within those lines. In fact, they do not even acknowledge the strategic threat.

Consider, for example, J Street, its stance on settlements, and its moral bankruptcy regarding the threats confronting Israel. While asserting it "will not participate in targeted boycott or divestment initiatives," the organization also "note[s] positively that some promoting BDS tactics are trying to narrow the scope of boycotts or divestment initiatives to oppose simply the occupation and not Israel itself." In addition, "We oppose the occupation of the West Bank and the expansion and entrenchment of settlements there. We also oppose encroachment on Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem which must be part of a future Palestinian capital if a two-state outcome is to be achieved." Clearly, J Street's agenda is to promote Israel's withdrawal virtually to the pre-1967 lines.

And on the issue of how Israel is to defend itself within those lines? J Street essentially denies there is a threat. It recently opposed a Congressional letter calling on President Obama to take stern steps against Palestinian incitement to violence in the wake of the Itamar massacre. J Street complained that the letter was too one-sided as it failed, for example, to address Israeli incitement. But, of course, there is nothing comparable on the Israeli side to the Palestinian Authority's rejection -- in its media, mosques and schools -- of Israel's right to exist and its indoctrination of Palestinians to the cause of killing Israelis and destroying their state. The J Street call for evenhandedness is simply an effort to trivialize and dismiss the problem of Palestinian incitement.

J Street similarly seeks to trivialize and dismiss the physical threats to Israel presented by its enemies and, in addition, to indict those who take the threats seriously. Such people are ridiculed as paranoiacs mentally scarred by past assaults on the Jews and simply projecting that past onto a relatively benign present. J Street has opposed stronger sanctions against Iran, and the organization's leader, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has characterized as irrational anyone who would construe the threat presented by Hamas or Hezb'allah or Iran so great as to justify a military response. Ben-Ami went on to observe, in a New York Times interview, "... there's their grandmother's voice in their ear; it's the emotional side and the communal history..."

Israel faces genocidal enemies, nations and groups openly dedicated to its annihilation. The country has a right to defend itself and to retain the capacity to do so. Yet there are Jews and Jewish organizations demanding concessions from Israel that would compromise its defense. They call for pressures to force it to accept such concessions, condemn the nation for resisting, and do so without addressing the threats faced by the nation. There are Jewish individuals and groups that ignore the threats, and the long and continuing history of assaults upon Israel by her neighbors, and cast Israel's insistence upon defensible borders as land grabs, as rejection of peace, as colonial expansionism. Such people are defaming the Jewish state and making common cause with those who would destroy her.

For organizations genuinely dedicated to Israel's well-being to welcome such individuals and groups - caricatures and travesties of pro-Israel efforts - within the tent of Israel's supporters, to lend them that legitimacy, is a betrayal of the cause of the Jewish state's survival and security.

Kenneth Levin is a psychiatrist and historian and author of The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People under Siege (Smith and Kraus Global, 2005; paperback 2006).

--Posted by The Mole and MT Beadle

What The World Is Saying About Dearborn and Terry Jones

Talking Tachlis has been following the Dearborn story as it unfolds and is written about around the country and the world. Below are some of the best blogs on the topic and worth reading.

Atlas Shurgs - Jailed Jones Prosecutor "Un-Worthy's" Alliances

Atlas Shrugs - Pamela Geller, Big Government: Islamic Law Comes To Dearborn

and from the Dearborn Underground

Yes, We Have No Sharia

Wanted Minority Report

Detroit JCRC - The New Nazis

It may sound harsh to some people to refer to a recognized Jewish organization as Nazis. But after the actions of Richard Nodel, the JCRC President this past Thursday, that may actually be kind words. For in this writer's humble opinion, when you, as a Jew and the head of a Jewish organization, consort, support, and stand in solidarity with those who are known to wish the Jews dead or subjugated, Israel gone, and support Hizbollah and other terrorists, then you have just put yourself several rungs below the Nazis.

On Thursday, Mr. Nodel (who has been written about previously on Talking Tachlis when this small minded KAPO assumed that the shooter of Rep. Giffords was a member of the political right( see here )stood representing the "Jewish Community" with Al-Qazwini (read about Qwazini here) in solidarity against the freedom of speech, Constitutionally guaranteed rights of Rev. Jones. read more here.


Shame on Richard Nodel, shame on the JCRC. Exactly how ignorant are our Jewish community's "so-called" leaders? When our free speech, whether it be that of Terry Jones, or the Nazis in Skokie, is limited, we all lose - an none more than the Jews. Shouldn't they just know better? It was Hitler and the Nazis who limited speech so that what happened to 6 million Jews and 6 million others was "not spoken about."

Is Mr. Nodel so blind that he can't see that he has just handed the Jihadists and those who wish to enforce Sharia Law in our country their first victory on the road to silence those who would speak out about the realities of Islam. And how ironic, that that victory would be handed to them by a Jew.

It is time for us to disband and remove the JCRC, Nodel, Robert Cohen its Executive Director, from the Detroit Jewish landscape. We cannot afford their dangerous antics because these antics will surely result in only more pain for our people or at minimum the subjugation of future generations to the will of Islam.

And where is Mr. Nodel and the JCRC speaking up when the Islamists burn churches, urinate on Jewish graves, destroy centuries old temples, MURDER babies like the Fogels, pave the roads with the gravestones from Jewish graves? They are NO WHERE...yet when a Koran "may" be burned, they stand in solidarity with those who have applauded these disgusting acts against Jews and Christians.


Our counry's glorious history has always allowed for free speech, whether we like what that free speech says or not. As Jews, as the Jewish community, it is our sacred responsibility that we stand up for that speech. Anything else will lead to our demise.

Posted by Aerie

P.S. Kudos to the ACLU on this topic. They must be applauded for coming forward and offering to support Rev. Jones' right to free speech.

Freedom of Speech - Muslims - Yes! The Rest of Us - No!

The recent successful assault on the First Amendment in the trial of Pastor Jerry Jones in Dearborn surely illustrates to what lengths many will go in order to bow to Muslim “sensitivities” in the spirit of tolerance. The verdict was based upon the premise that his peaceful, but perhaps misguided demonstration would have incited violence. The question is who would be doing the violence? It would certainly not be the handful of people participating in his gathering. I watched the video of the in-your-face vitriolic insults hurled at him and his partner after the trial. Where were the Dearborn police when that angry pack belligerently crowded around the defendants? Why did they not intercede to keep the mob at a distance?

Unfortunately, what seems to have been overlooked in all this is the attendance of certain rabbis and Christian clergy meeting at the mosque in solidarity with Muslim clergy to promote understanding and tolerance. Surely, before joining in solidarity, these “let’s all get along” clergy first must ask those Muslim clergy to disavow the many intolerant, hateful, and odious passages in the Koran and Hadith being taught in the mosques and Islamic schools. Space does not permit listing all the passages, so here are three samples (read the books yourself, they are not out of context):
• Quran 9:5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters [non-Muslims] wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
• Quran 5:51: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
• Bukhari-Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, #176: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ”O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Are the “reach-out” clergy simply ignorant of the content of those religious documents, or do they willfully overlook them? It is time for concerned Jews to speak out and question their rabbi’s position on this.

The Winds of Change Are Headed to Detroit

The winds of change are blowing over the Midwest....and the East Coast and across the country. Many Jewish Detroiters have the same misgivings about our JCRC as those in Indianapolis whose pent-up frustrations led them to create a break-away organization.

Talking Tachlis applauds lansmen in a neighbor state who created a new model to better reflect their Jewish priorities and realities on the ground. How novel -- how refreshing -- to see Jews who stand up tall and strong for our own.

Indeed it was out of a sense of exasperation with the unsustainability of the "same old, same old" lame old SOP of our Jewish establishment thinking, that we developed this blog. Indications are that Indianapolis is by no means the anomaly. A group of New Yorkers had the 'chutzpah' as New Yorkers are wont to have, to start what they have cleverly nicknamed, JCCWatch. Read about Challenging the Leftist Domination of the Jewish Community, from this week's American Thinker.

"In October 2010, the Jewish American Affairs Committee of Indiana (JAACI) (http://www.jaaci.org/) was born out of many years' worth of frustration with Indianapolis' Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC).

The JCRC, in their own words, "is the public affairs advocacy and intergroup relations arm of the Indianapolis Jewish community." Their stated mission is to "1. safeguard the rights of Jews here, in Israel, and around the world, and in order to accomplish that, to 2. protect, preserve, and promote a just American society, one that is democratic and pluralistic."

And in communities elsewhere, as the inimitable Caroline Glick points out in an important column she penned at the beginning of the month, unapologetic Jews and Zionists are making waves and proving that the shahh-still affliction is not congenital.

"In light of these overwhelming levels of support, it is disconcerting to see that across the US, Jewish communities are failing to prevent anti-Zionist Jews from hijacking communal funds and facilities to finance anti-Israel activities." Read the rest if the article here.

We are welcoming a very strong gust blowing across the landscape of Metro Detroit as well.

Goldstone's Mea Culpa Too Late to Undo the Hate

Justice Richard Goldstone's stunning repudiation of his infamous report attacking Israel for its military reprisal into Gaza comes too late to undo the international community's vicious isolation of Israel that his report fueled. With Israel's back against the wall -- condemned as a pariah state on the world stage and being set up for a UN vote this fall granting statehood for the Palestinians -- Justice Goldstone's contrition leaves a lot to be desired.

If his chest-thumping is sincere, he must retract his flawed report publicly before the United Nations, the very same body whose imprimatur made the biased findings so lethal for Israel. Executioner Goldstone must act NOW, before the UN carries out its death sentence against Israel. Mort Klein, president of The Zionist Organization of America, issued a statement late Monday, calling for Goldstone to

"do the only other respectable thing left to him, by actively working to try and undo the delegitimization and demonization that he has caused by working to have the United Nations rescind his report and withdraw all support for its use in any UN forum.”

Goldstone Promises to Recant -- but he can't

Goldstone will try to do just that "after the dust settles" and is also, according to reports late Tuesday, planning a trip to Israel to tour the southern communities hardest-hit by Hamas'rocket pounding. The invitation to Goldstone from Israel's interior minister, Eli Yishai lifts the nation's blacklisting of the South African Jew after he issued his report.

Despite Goldstone's pledge to nullify his report made to Yishai and Danny Gillerman, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN, Cedric Sapey, spokesman for the UN Human Rights Council that commissioned the report, is quoted by the UK Guardian as saying: "The UN will not revoke a report on the basis of an article in a newspaper. The views Mr Goldstone expressed are his own personal views." A move to change or withdraw the report would either require a formal written complaint from Goldstone, backed unanimously by his three fellow authors, or a vote by the UN general assembly or the human rights council, Sapey said.

Hamas crimes aimed at civilian targets "intentional;" Israel did not "intentionally" target civilians

Talking Tachlis agrees with the New York Sun that Goldstone's retraction, published this past Friday in the Washington Post is indeed "galling." As the Sun notes, Goldstone now says that it “goes without saying” that the “crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional” in that “its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.” Moreover, what he calls the “allegations of intentionality by Israel” were, he now says unfounded. Big-time bungle for Inspector Clousseau! In a sharp about-face, the South African Judge admits that “that civilians were not intentionally targeted" by Israel "as a matter of policy.”

Goldstone's blood libel has earned a place in infamy next to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. As noted by the NY Sun:

"it is all too common that accusations made against Israel, when followed by sober investigation, turn out to exonerate the Jewish State. It happened in respect of the massacre at Jenin that turned out not to have taken place. It happened with the shooting of Muhammad al-Durrah."

How tragic that Goldstone's slanderous report powered a global tsunami of Israel-bashing and gave license to Hamas to attack Israel with impunity. By condemning Israel as the perpetrator of war crimes, the world has seemed to justify and excuse away Hamas' stepped-up campaign of terrorism. With his 'tale' between his legs, Goldstone tearfully confesses:

“At minimum I hoped that in the face of a clear finding that its members were committing serious war crimes, Hamas would curtail its attacks. Sadly, that has not been the case. Hundreds more rockets and mortar rounds have been directed at civilian targets in southern Israel. That comparatively few Israelis have been killed by the unlawful rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza in no way minimizes the criminality.”

Goldstone is now requesting that the U.N.’s Human Rights Council condemn Hamas’s “heinous acts in the strongest terms” and also condemn the “inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.” Fat chance! More likely that the UN would screen "Obsession" in its august chambers. Or, as the Sun correctly observes:

"For Mr. Goldstone to suggest, even by implication, that the U.N. Human Rights Council has any concern whatsoever for truth in respect of Israel simply asks the world to lend credence to a body that would be best disbanded."

The ZOA must-read statement on the Goldstone fiasco rightly calls out the media and other institutions for failing to give Goldstone's retraction the same long-play, blaring exposure as they did the original 2009 report.

Our area has seen an alarming escalation of anti-Israel programs at the universities and in the community, some premised exclusively on the fraudulent Goldstone report. We at Talking Tachlis won't hold our breath for such Israel demonizers as Jewish Voice for Peace, Norm Finkelstein, Mondoweiss blogger Philip Weiss, the International Anti-Zionist Jewish Network and others of their sorry ilk to exonerate Israel now that Goldstone has reprised his report.

Goldstone Report Poisoned Academia

The ZOA and other organizations committed to supporting Israel need to follow up these important statements with action that will have traction. The need is especially great on our college campuses, where a toxic anti-Israel climate now prevails in the aftermath of the Goldstone Report Big Lie. In the intervening two years, rabidly anti-Israel professors and lecturers have capitalized on the Goldstone Report's falsehoods to demonize Israel with abandon.

The ZOA, StandWithUs, Hillel, AIPAC and others should now demand equal time to set the record straight. Wayne State and University of Michigan, for example, have given speakers platforms to spew virulently anti-Israel polemics based on the Goldstone Report's spurious findings. Now, in the interests of academic integrity and restoring any semblance of balance, the campus should roll out the welcome mat to those best qualified to deprogram the students subjected to unrelenting anti-Israel indoctrination.

It was just last week that the Arab American News ran an article assailing the "Wall of Lies" ad placed in the U-M Dearborn student newspaper by the David Horowitz Freedom Center in response to Israel Apartheid Week on campus.

University of Michigan-Dearborn Vice Chancellor Stanley E. Henderson was quoted by the Arab American News as saying "Intolerance is a cancer; it sucks the vitality, the glow, even the life out of good people as surely as a tumor. A one-sided view such as the 'Wall of Lies' ad does not present a path for peace in the Middle East and it does not represent the core values of our campus," he added.

Never mind that the temperate vice chancellor did not see fit to apply the same standards to the malignant hate-inspiring Israel Apartheid Week. Never mind that Horowitz's 'Wall of Lies' is a straightforward expose of the libels against the Jewish State which, Horowitz claims, neither the vice chancellor nor the Arab American News could refute.

Given Palestinian activist Ann Wright's recent guest speaking engagement at the University of Michigan's main Ann Arbor campus (co-sponsored by the Arab Student Association along with the Ford School of Public Policy and the Barger Leadership Institute of Organizational Studies) at which she reportedly solicited funds for the next Gaza-bound flotilla, the university's own standards would compel it to counter such a "one-sided view" which surely "does not present a path for peace in the Middle East" nor "represent the core values" of the university.

Talking Tachlis can't help but wonder if the I Love Hamas production staged at the Ann Arbor campus late last year with university support represented the "core values" of the university? Surely not the core values of its generous Jewish donors!

--MT Beadle and The Mole

Wednesday Program to Feature Humanitarian Hero and Israel Advocacy Icon Charles Jacobs

COME HEAR LEGENDARY CHARLES JACOBS

THIS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6

7:30 PM AT CONGREGATION SHAAREY ZEDEK, SOUTHFIELD

Come meet a true "tzadik" in the flesh this Wednesday night when ZOA presents humanitarian icon and Israel advocacy giant, journalist and Harvard Phd Dr. Charles Jacobs. He was honored by the Forward as one of the nation's top 50 most influential Jewish leaders.

Dr. Jacobs is just back from the Sudan, whose genocide he was among the first to expose in such publications as the New York Times two decades ago. He has been to the Sudan many times to secure the freedom of more than 2,000 slaves and to chronicle the slaughter, torture, rape, and other human rights abuses suffered at the hands of the North Sudan Arab and Darfuri slavemasters. His account of his previous trip in January to free hundreds more slaves and to document the historic vote of South Sudan to secede from the North was featured in the Wall Street Journal.

A film crew also recorded his interviews with the slaves in this stirring YouTube Video .

Jacobs was honored by Coretta Scott King and the Mayor of Boston for first ever Boston Freedom Award for his abolitionist work and was invited to the White House for signing of Sudan Peace Act.

Though his name unfortunately isn't a household word, American Jewry has benefited greatly from his genius and his commitment to our people. Jacobs, along with Andrea Levin, co-founded CAMERA, the pre-eminent watchdog of media reporting on the Middle East which exposes and redresses media bias against Israel. In response to the alarming escalation of anti-Israel hostilities on our college campuses, Jacobs founded the David Project to arm students and train teachers how to most effectively rebut anti-Israel polemics in the classroom and on campus.

Jacobs's work has had a direct impact on our Detroit community. Not only have local educators and students attended David Project training seminars, Jacobs sent a coach to advise U-M students challenging the faculty-initiated divestment drive a few years ago. He also sent a research analyst to brief residents of Franklin on the individuals and organizations behind the Huda School and their worrisome ties to the North American Islamic Trust and the Muslim Brotherhood. Jacobs was among several prominent individuals who challenged the Islamic Society of Boston and exposed its radical ties.

It was about at this time that Jacobs founded, along with Dennis Hale and Sheikh Ahmed Mansour -- Americans for Peace and Tolerance. APT works to expose and challenge radical Islamic organizations and to support moderate Muslims in America. Dr. Mansour is an Al Azhar-educated reformist Islamic scholar who fled his native Egypt after persecution by radical Islamists and imprisonment by Egyptian authorities. He is the spiritual leader of a reformist movement of Islam called the Quranists. He was a fellow at Harvard’s Scholars at Risk program and is a member of the Free Muslims Coalition. Dr.Dennis Hale is a lay eucharistic minister in the Episcopalian Church and a professor of political science at Boston College, where he was Chair of the Department of Political Science for eight years.

Jacobs was key to helping secure the testimony for Rep. Peter King's recent hearings on homegrown terrorism of Melvin Bledsoe, an African-American Baptist father whose son, Carlos, an all American boy, converted to Islam, went to Yemen to train as a jihadist, and returned to bomb a rabbi's home and kill a young US marine at the Little Rock, Arkansas recruiting center. Here is the link to the trailer of the forthcoming documentary APT will be releasing, "Losing Our Sons."

“Losing Our Sons” is a documentary film that, according to its press release, " reveals how radical Islam dominates the leadership of the Muslim American community in Nashville; and how misguided government and university officials, the media, as well as civic and religious leaders failed to acknowledge, intervene, or report clear indications of Islamist radicalization in the community

"APT has been working with grassroots community groups in support of local efforts to educate the public about the threat to American civil society from the radicalization of America’s historically moderate Muslim community. This effort includes empowering truly moderate Muslims to reclaim their community."

Jacobs has been at the forefront of the crusade to awaken and educate the Jewish community about the threats posed most immediately to us by the Muslim Brotherhood and the critical importance of rigorous due diligence by Jewish communal leadership prior to engaging in interfaith dialog and partnerships.

Talking Tachlis admires the courage and principled outspokenness of this inspiring, ennobling tzadik. We have featured Dr. Jacobs' commentaries here on the failure of Jewish organizations to support students on campus who are facing untenable anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

For more information on his organization, Americans for Peace and Tolerance, check out his website.