HHMI Newsgroup Archives

From: Eddie Chumney
To:     heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org
Subject: Orthodox Jewish thoughts on the US Election


      Jewish Press Endorses George W. Bush, Rick Lazio

For The Jewish Press, determining which of the two major-party candidates we wished to see in the White House for the next four years inevitably led to a point-by-point comparison of the positions of Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore on a series of issues of concern to the Jewish community.

Certainly we are mindful of the vigorous, at times acrimonious, debate over issues of such import as the economy, Social Security, Medicare, taxes, health care, military preparedness and, of course, the overriding question of who has the greater potential for leadership in the turbulent years to come.

But, frankly, most of those issues have become buried in such a morass of impenetrable rhetoric and hyperbole that while there may indeed be meaningful differences between the candidates, they are not all that easily identifiable.

However, we do believe that on certain core Jewish concerns there really are discernible distinctions to be drawn. With that in mind, our choice for president this year is George W. Bush.

Of course, Israel is a central concern of ours. As Americans, we are sensitive to our country's national security interests in maintaining a stable Middle East. During the heyday of the Cold War, that region was vital to American strategic planning. Even now, years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. -- as the world's only super power with worldwide responsibilities -- still requires constancy in that part of the world. 

As Jews with a special affinity to the Jewish state, we recognize that a rapprochement between Israel and its Arab neighbors is essential for Israel's well-being. But this recognition is the beginning of the inquiry, not the end. The key question is not whether one favors accommodation between Arabs and Israelis, but how best to secure that accommodation. And this brings us to the positions of Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush.

The stark reality is that the Clinton policy of unswerving support for the Oslo process - despite the clear absence of reciprocity on the part of the Palestinians - has brought the Middle East to the brink of war. Seven years of winking at and overlooking the failure of the Palestinian side to meet its obligations, while at the same time insisting that Israel deliver on what it promised, has led to dangerously unreasonable Palestinian expectations and the notion that at the end of the game the Palestinians will achieve their goals through unilateral Israeli concessions.

Not only has the above scenario allowed Arafat to avoid preparing his people for peace with Israel - which was a central plank of the Oslo Accords - but it also cemented in his mind, and in the minds of Palestinians generally, that there was always something more to be had beyond any Israeli offer. The Palestinian savagery visited upon Israelis , coupled with Arafat' s cynical celebration of the violence, serves as a graphic illustration of what should have been apparent for a very long time.

The twin evils of treating Israel as something less than an ally and pressuring it to make unilateral concessions stand out as the defining mode of Oslo, and in that regard the statements of the candidates are revealing.

Mr. Gore told The Jewish Press that President Clinton "is the best friend Israel ever had in the White House." Questioned about whether he would continue the policy of pressuring Israel, he responded: "What pressure? The president is acting only as an honest broker and in any event, consistent with the wishes of the Israeli government."

In truth, this response is the typical refrain of those in the Jewish community who have championed Oslo. Yet who among us can forget President Clinton's savaging of Prime Minister Netanyahu when the latter insisted on reciprocity? Mr. Netanyahu was regularly disparaged in public statements from the president and Secretary of State Albright on down. And the  president's engineering of the electoral victory of Ehud Barak - among other things, he shamefully dispatched his political pit bull James Carville to aid Barak's campaign - hardly reflects a policy of support for the will of the people of Israel.

And there is another important factor to be taken into account. In recent years, some extraordinarily wealthy members of the Jewish community, major contributors to the Democratic Party, have become part of a cadre of Jewish advisers to President Clinton. They happen to be strong supporters of Oslo, which is their right. But the problem they have created is that they have served to provide cover for the president in his reliance on Oslo to the detriment, we believe, of Israel.

Yet these are the very individuals - one was actually reported to have told President Clinton at a dinner that then-Prime Minister Netanyahu was not interested in peace with the Palestinians - who no doubt will play the same role with a Gore Administration and continue to preclude input from other elements in the American Jewish community.

So with respect to Israel, we fear that a Gore presidency would mean more of the same slavish obeisance to Oslo and more of the same cover provided by "fat cat" Jewish donors. This is not to suggest that Mr. Gore is anti-Israel, only that he seems ready to continue policies that have proven so disastrous.

On the other hand, though we were disappointed that Gov. Bush did not make the Middle East more of an issue in the campaign, we did note that whenever he was asked about the U.S. role in the Middle East, he invariably replied that he believes in "standing with an ally" and in allowing the parties to resolve their differences without having solutions imposed upon them.

A review of the candidates' respective positions on a variety of other issues as well leads us to urge support for Gov. Bush. Soon after he was selected as Mr. Gore's running mate, Senator Joseph Lieberman suddenly changed his stand on a whole host of matters -- including moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem -- doubtless to bring them into line with those of the head of the ticket. Thus he became an advocate of affirmative action, gay rights and outreach to Louis Farrakhan. He no longer opposed late-term  abortions and became more tolerant of Hollywood's vulgar standards. And he became a staunch opponent of tuition vouchers.

When one engages in this sort of analysis, it be comes clear that Gov. Bush  is in sync with many of us in the Jewish community, and it is unfortunate that the advent of Mr. Lieberman seems to
have persuaded Mr. Bush not to actively court the Jewish vote -- a decision reflected in the relatively low level of his poll support among Jews.

We are aware that not everyone in the Jewish community agrees with our views, but we rather think that Governor Bush overlooked a significant source of possible support. Although it is now late, it may not be too late for him to seek more support in the American Jewish community.

All things considered, the prudent choice for president this year is, in our view, Gov. George W. Bush.

Rick Lazio Is Our Choice For U.S. Senator From N.Y.

When Hillary Clinton announced for the United States Senate, the first thing that came to mind was her earlier infamous call for the establishment of a Palestinian state when few in America were speaking along those lines. But, although it was tempting to close the book on her candidacy at that point, we decided to keep an open mind. The last thing we wanted to have happen was for her and her opponent to think that she had no chance with our constituency in the Jewish community, with the result that our issues would never be debated and given prominence.

Indeed, at the outset of the campaign Mrs. Clinton seemed to be moving toward a more conciliatory approach and was indeed reaching out on a variety of issues, including Israel. Of course, we recognized that at the time, New York's Mayor Rudy Giuliani, an unabashed champion of the Jewish State, was still her putative opponent and doubtless spurred her on in this regard. In
fact, however, when the Mayor had to withdraw from the race and was replaced by Congressman Lazio, Mrs. Clinton's efforts in the Jewish community simply dried up. And it was only when the Lazio campaign kicked in with a Jewish focus that the First Lady began to be heard from again on Jewish issues.

In any event, although there were glimmers of hope, Mrs. Clinton never really appeared to strike a resonant chord and never really embraced our community. She was never able to erase the memory of her advocacy of a Palestinian state, nor that of the Suha Arafat incident. Despite the fact that U.S. law required that the American Embassy in Israel had to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem - which would acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel - by May 31, 1999, she steadfastly defended the Clinton Administration's decision to allow the Palestinians to negotiate that question as part of the Oslo process. And to complete the circle, one need only consider that her formal statement in reaction to the recent outrageous U.N. Security Council Resolution condemning Israel for its response to the Palestinian violence, although condemning its one-sidedness, simply ignored the fact that the Clinton Administration abstained in the vote and did not exercise its veto power. It was only when she was asked about it afterwards that she criticized it.

In sharp contrast, Congressman Lazio has taken a far more forcefully positive approach to the Jewish State. He has called for the prompt relocation of the Embassy and, from the outset, condemned the Administration 's abstention vote in the Security Council.

But our support for Congressman Lazio does not arise out of a focus on this or that statement of his or Mrs. Clinton's. When Mrs. Clinton made her statement about the establishment of a Palestinian state, such sentiments had theretofore been limited to the political left/Third World crowd that was uncomfortable with the notion that a Jewish state would be established in the midst of an otherwise Arab Middle East. And the fact that she could say what she did at that time reveals a certain mind-set on such things. We think that episode was of a piece with her outrageous silence in the face of Suha Arafat's calumny that Israel gassed Palestinian children, her visceral acquiescence in a decision not to prevent criticism of Israel in the U.N., and in a refusal to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel - even when the law requires it. It speaks volumes as to what kind of Senator she would be when it came to Israel.

When Rick Lazio came to The Jewish Press, he said something that still resonates with us. He said that in his view, "The security of Jews around the world is directly tied to the security of the Jewish State."

One of the great emerging issues in American politics is the growing power of Arab-Americans and its effect on American support for Israel. In that context, we believe that a Senator Lazio would be a reliable ally whereas a Senator Clinton would not.

*****************************************************************

From:          ABZadok@aol.com
Subject:      Torah Insights, How To Vote In Any Election
To:            rabbi@koshertorah.com


Ruchani Eye On Israel
From www.koshertorah.com
3 Heshvan 5761;  Nov. 1, 2000

How You Must Vote, In Any Election
Torah Insights

By Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok
Copyright  A9 2000 by Ariel Bar Tzadok.  All rights reserved.


As a registered, tax exempt not-for-profit organization, Yeshivat Benei N'vi'im, the parent organization of Koshertorah.com and the Ruchani Eye On Israel, is forbidden by the Tax Codes of the IRS to campaign for or endorse any political party or candidate running for public office in the United States.  Therefore, I have no intentions or desires to do any such thing i n this article.  I do not support any one political candidate or party over another.  This law was adopted to safeguard the American concept of the separation of church and state and to assure that religious figures would no t manipulate or control the American electoral process. 

Some interpret this law as having been adopted in an attempt by secular reformers to keep Biblical morality out of government (and thus to alleviate  themselves of having to held to Biblical standards of personal morality).
 
As  sorry as it is, but American politicians have become the "poster child" of corruption around the world.  Since the days of President John F. Kennedy' s torrid adulterous affair with Marilyn Monroe, American politicians have set the example of hypocrisy and immorality that now all other nations follow.

 In order to avoid the pointing finger admonishing about lies and insincerity, the politicians simply forced the religious leaders of America to shut up, or else lose their tax benefits. 

Maybe due to this financial form of arm twisting, or maybe due to many other causes, nonetheless, American Orthodox Rabbis and lay Jews alike, usually never publicly call for morality on behalf of our elected leaders.  The only ones fighting the social/political battle for politicians and politics to be  moral, honest and sincere are the  fundamentalist Christians.  You know who they are; they are the ones committed to converting Jews to Christianity.
 
While the fundamentalist Christian tries to preserve a level of Biblical  morality in American culture, there are those who work  non-stop to subvert their efforts. 

Unfortunately for us Jews, the ones who are working against a moral America include a large number of secular Jews.  What is worse than this is that t he Gentiles in this country are very well aware of secular Jewish opposition to the "Christian right" and their cause of  returning morality to America.  Most Gentiles mistakenly conclude that all Jews stand for the immoral positions o f the secular and thus anti-Semitism is born.  I, therefore, conclude that we need  more voices of Torah true reason and morality to be heard coming out of our Orthodox communities, speaking to America saying, we too support morality and more importantly, we too condemn immorality and the anti Torah agendas o f the liberal left wing.

For those of my readers who are Americans and thus able to vote in next week's presidential elections, I must emphasize to you all your obligations under Torah Law to vote for candidates who best represent Torah values and morals.  I might add that this obligation is incumbent upon all Jews, everywhere.  Regardless of our nationalities, regardless of whatever elections we will participate in, Jews and Benei Noah (righteous Gentiles) are required to vote only for those candidates who support the moral positions of the Torah.  For whatever irrational reason that be most Jews worldwide, including Orthodox ones, tend to vote for liberal candidates (regardless of the party association) in spite of the fact that they personally and publicly support political agendas and social policies that totally contradict Torah morality and Law.

Liberal political candidates from every party, from every country pledge and support an agenda that encourages the murder of unborn children (abortions), under the false pretext that they are
championing the right of a woman to chose.  They support the propagation of perverse forbidden sexuality (homosexuality), calling it a battle for equal rights for a minority group.  Their radical
pursuit of alleged "freedoms" have come to support all types of social philosophies that have undermined the morality of governmentand society in general.  As Gentiles, these liberal politicians,
regardless of  their party or country, are in violation of the Benei Noah law that requires  them to establish courts and laws of Biblically based justice.

Supporting  anti-Biblical social and political agendas violates this Divine command. 

It is no wonder that the majority of Hollywood media celebrities are left wing liberals.  Their movies, music and television are destroying American  and international morality with their rabid and graphic portrayals of violence and sex.  These Hollywood liberals make millions and billions of dollars with their immoral media productions.  They support the liberal parties and politicians because these individuals and groups are willing to support and protect Hollywood's "rights" of free speech to say and produce whatever filth they want, regardless of the negative effect their material has on the morality of worldwide human civilization.

I know many liberals and their supporters reading my criticism of their politics will be aflamed.  Yet, if we were to enter conversation any and every liberally oriented individual, American or otherwise, that person would have to admit that they do not support a Biblical morality as the foundation of society and culture.  Although it is  written on every denomination of American currency "In G-d We Trust" how many American liberals believe in that or in G-d in general?  Of those who pledge their belief in G-d how ma ny liberals really deliver?  How many liberals really support a Biblical agenda for the nation(s) that claims "In G-d We Trust"?

While I cannot specifically support any one American political party or candidate over another, I still must fulfill my religious duty by informing American citizens, Jews and Benei Noah that their obligations to Torah law require of them to vote for the candidate(s) that best supports Torah views.

The separation of Church and State envisioned by America's founding fathers was never meant to become a separation of the American people from Biblical religion, as it has become today.

We Jews must fight anti-semitism and take a stand against those politicians who stand against Biblical morality.  Even if a political candidate is a Jew himself, this is no guarantee that he/she will
support a Torah agenda.  On the contrary, if the candidate is a secular Jew, it is almost certain that they will support social agendas that contradict Torah law and morality.  Such candidates must be opposed and removed from office.

We must not become so biased and vote for a candidate merely because he/she is Jewish, of a certain race, good looking, has a nice smile, or any other illegitimate reason.  Regardless of our where we live, in what country we reside, we must always support the candidate that will best serve his country and not the one who will merely best serve our individual interest group. 

We  Jews are guided by G-d.  The Holy One, blessed be He protects His people, regardless of who rules over them here on Earth. 

As a rule, we must always choose the candidate who is most moral and most religious.  We must choose the man (or woman) who personally lives according to Biblical standards.  If such a candidate is lacking then we must investigate each candidate's personal life and public positions to ascertain with certainty they if elected; they will seek, with all efforts, to restore morality and justice into public life.  If this continues to be ignored society will eventually erupt in massive violent revolution.
 
This has happened before and it can happen again.  Whenever it does, it is always we Jews who end up on the bottom.  Therefore, in whatever country we are, in whatever elections we can vote in, let us chose our political candidates wit h the best of Torah wisdom and morality.

***********************************************************

The Wall Street Journal Friday Nov. 3, 2000

Hillary and Hamas The first lady has a long record of association with Islamic militants.

BY STEVEN EMERSON

In the spring of 1996, I had lunch with a senior adviser to the Clinton Administration and to Hillary. I asked him if there was any concern over the article I had published in The Wall Street Journal that revealed that both the president and first lady had hosted militant Islamic groups, which had, at the White House, proclaimed their support for terrorism. "This administration believes in a big tent." the adviser responded. "Besides, we've gotten no flak, so why should we back off?" Last week the first lady finally got some flak. As a result, Mrs. Clinton announced at an Oct. 25 news conference that she was returning $50,000 in campaign contributions raised by the American Muslim Alliance, an anti-Israeli group whose leaders have sanctioned terrorism, published anti-Semitic statements and repeatedly hosted conferences that were forums for denunciations of Jews and exhortations to wage jihad. Mrs. Clinton claimed she was unaware that
the group was behind the fund-raiser, held in Boston in June. The first lady also revealed she was returning a $1,000 contribution from Abdulrahman Alamoudi, an official of the American Muslim Council, who has openly championed Hamas and defended other terrorists, including those behind the World Trade Center bombing.

The most telling moment of the first lady's news conference--which has yet to be reported--came in response to a question as to why, she has met repeatedly over the years with other groups that had openly supported Hamas, Hezbollah and other foreign terrorist organizations.

"I think what you're referring to," she said, "is that over the course of the last seven years as part of the administration's efforts to open lines of communication and build bridges with Muslim Americans and Muslim leaders from all over the world, many, many people have been invited to the White House. I have been part of some of those events. I have hosted some of them. I would imagine that some of the people who were invited were members of organizations with whom I would have had serious disagreements about some of the things those organizations have said. . . . So I think that if you want to talk about what the White House has tried to do, what the administration has tried to do to try to promote a framework for peace, it certainly included lines of communication to many different groups and many different individuals."

Well, let's look at the results of that effort to produce a "framework for peace," which, according to White House records and published reports, began in early 1996, when Mrs. Clinton began first began hosting and inviting the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the American Muslim Council (AMC) and the American Muslim Alliance (AMA). What have these groups done since Mrs. Clinton began reaching out to them? On Sept. 16, 2000, at a Washington rally sponsored by CAIR, AMC, and MPAC, the head of CAIR, Nihad Awad, declared: "They [the Jews] have been saying 'next year to Jerusalem', we say "next year to all of Palestine!" (Mr. Awad also dissed Mrs. Clinton's best friends in LA: "Hollywood has shown freedom fighters as terrorists. Hollywood has done the work that Zionists cannot do.")

On Oct. 13, 2000, CAIR and the AMC sponsored a rally outside the Israeli Embassy in Washington where the speakers led the crowd in a chant: Khybar, Khybar, ya, ya Yahood, jesh Mohammed sofa ya'ud. (Translation: "Khybar Khybar, oh Jews, the army of Mohammed is coming for you.") It is a refrain used by Hamas threatening the annihilation of Jews as was done to the Jewish tribe in Khybar, Saudi Arabia, by Mohammed in the year 628.

At another Washington rally, on Oct. 28, 2000, the AMC's Mr. Alamoudi led the thousands in attendance to chant their support for Hamas and Hezbollah. "Hear that, Bill Clinton, we are all supporters of Hamas," he declared. "I wish they argued that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah." (When the New York Daily News asked about these comments earlier this week, Mr. Alamoudi denied making them, telling the reporter: "You better check your Arabic." When the reporter noted that he had given the speech in English, Mr. Alamoudi replied, "It was in
English? Oh my God, I forgot!") 

In 1998 AMC, CAIR and AMA hosted a rally at Brooklyn College where Islamic militants exhorted the attendees to carry out "jihad" and described Jews as "pigs and monkeys." In 1999 these same groups, together with MPAC, sponsored a rally in Santa Clara, Calif., where speakers accused Israel and the U.S. of carrying out "a conspiracy" to "kill Muslims." One speaker called for the death of Jews.

Of course, Mrs. Clinton cannot be held responsible for the views of other people. Or can she? What is her responsibility in hosting organizations that have championed Hamas and Hezbollah?

As first lady, Mrs. Clinton began in 1996 an outreach program to Muslim leaders in the U.S. With America's Muslim population at some six million and growing, an effort to include the community's leaders in the mainstream of American politics is unquestionably a worthy undertaking. But curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations. A review of the statements, publications and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy as "mainstream" and "moderate."

One of the earliest groups with which Mrs. Clinton bonded was the AMC, which she invited to the White House in February 1996, for its first reception commemorating the end of Ramadan. Mrs. Clinton accepted a Koran and told the invited crowd how she acquired an appreciation of Islam through her daughter Chelsea. By the time Mrs. Clinton reached out to the AMC in early 1996, that organization had clearly established a record in support of radical Islam. In a letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer published on Oct. 14, 1994, Mr. Alamoudi stated that the "major Islamic parties in Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Turkey are undeniably moderates." This is plainly false. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, the Jordanian Islamic Action Front, Algeria's Islamic Salvation Front and the Pakistani Jamaat-Islami have all endorsed or carried out violence. Mr. Alamoudi specifically declared in a March 5, 1993, Fox Television interview: "I am for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt."

In the aftermath of the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the AMC emerged as a defender of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, whose followers carried out the attack. Mr. Alamoudi rushed to the sheik's defense immediately after the bombing. On CNN's "Crossfire" (March 5, 1993) he said of Abdel Rahman: "An organizer of terror? No. The man has vulgar language. He might incite other people, but you cannot hold him for [terrorism]." In a letter to the Washington Times, published March 12, 1993, Mr. Alamoudi characterized the blind sheik as a  "theologian" who advocated "democratization of the Egyptian political system." In 1995 Abdel Rahman was convicted of conspiracy and sentenced to life in prison.

AMC served as the headquarters for the American-based offices of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), a fundamentalist organization that is dedicated to toppling the secular government of Algeria and that has carried out a campaign of terror, including beheadings and mutilations. In 1997 Anwar Haddam, the FIS leader who worked out of the AMC offices was arrested by U.S. authorities; he now faces deportation because of his support for terrorism.

Mr. Alamoudi publicly led the defense of Mousa Abu Marzuk, head of the Hamas political bureau, after Mr. Marzuk's arrest on immigration charges at John F. Kennedy International Airport in July 1995. (Mr. Marzuk was deported in 1997.) Quoted in the Washington Post on July 28, 1995, Mr. Alamoudi declared the arrest "a hard insult to the Muslim community." In 1996 Mr. Alamoudi declared on Middle East television that "I am honored to be a member of the committee that is defending Mousa Abu Marzuk in America." Such views should not have been surprising. On the Charlie Rose show broadcast on Nov. 21, 1994, I asked Mr. Alamoudi whether he considered Hamas to be a terrorist group. "No, it's not," he replied.

On May 9, 1996, Mrs. Clinton met with an Arab delegation that included Muthanna Hanooti, public relations director of the Islamic Relief Association (the meeting had been arranged by Rep. David Bonior of Michigan). Although constituted as a nonprofit charity, the Islamic Relief Association clearly has a militant agenda. On April 21, 1996--less than three weeks before the meeting with Mrs. Clinton--the association had held a fund-raiser in Brooklyn, N.Y., where the main speaker was Sheik Abdulmunem Abu Zant, a militant Jordanian cleric. From 1990 to 1998, Mr. Abu Zant was a deputy in the Jordanian parliament and the self-proclaimed leader of the most radical wing of the Islamic Action Front. He is an ardent supporter of Hamas and has
repeatedly called for holy war against Israel and the U.S. During the 1991 Gulf War, Mr. Abu Zant stated that the conflict "is not a war between Iraq and the U.S., but rather one between Islam and the infidels." In August 1990 he gave a sermon, during which he thundered: "May God attack the Jews and those who stand with them. May God attack the Americans and those who stand with them."
*****************************

Return to Newsgroup Archives Main Page

Return to our Main Webpage


©2011 Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by Web Design by JB.