Jew Ambassador to Belgium it's O.K. if you're a Muslim and anti Semitic

[mord]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4156355,00.html  






     

'Jew-hate stems from conflict'

US ambassador in Belgium provides controversial explanation for Muslim anti-Semitism

Menachem Gantz
Published:    12.03.11, 08:29 / Israel News
   

BRUSSELS – Growing global anti-Semitism is linked to Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians, the American ambassador to Belgium told stunned Jewish conference attendants in Brussels earlier this week.

 
Speaking Wednesday at a Jewish conference on anti-Semitism organized by the European Jewish Union (EJU,) Howard Gutman told participants he was apologizing in advance if his words are not to their liking. He then proceeded to make controversial statements about his views on Muslim anti-Semitism, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Friday.

 
 
Full story
A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, Gutman said. He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.

 
The American envoy, a lawyer by training, is Jewish and played a major role in fundraising for the Democratic Party. He was appointed to the post by President Barack Obama.

 
'The so-called Israel critic'

The conference was attended by Jewish lawyers from across Europe. The legal experts at the event were visibly stunned by Gutman’s words, and the next speaker offered a scathing rebuttal to the envoy’s remarks.

 
“The modern Anti-Semite formally condemns Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust and expresses upmost sympathy with the Jewish people. He simply has created a new species, the “Anti-Zionist” or – even more sophisticated – the so-called ‘Israel critic,’” Germany attorney Nathan Gelbart said.

 

“The ‘Israel critic’ will never state ‘Jews go home’ but is questioning the legality of the incorporation of the State of Israel and therefore the right for the Jewish people to settle in their homeland. He will not say the Jews are the evil of the world but claim that the State of Israel is a major cause for instability and war in the region,” he said. “There is no other country, no other people on this planet the ‘Israel critic’ would dedicate so much time and devotion as to the case of Israel.”

 
“For no other country he would criticize or ask to boycott its goods or academics. And this for one simple reason: Because Israel is the state of the Jewish people, not more and not less,” Gelbart said.

 
'Muslims appreciate Obama'

Conference attendants received Gelbart’s remarks with loud applause, while the American envoy apologized for having to leave the site as result of prior obligations and departed.

 
Earlier, Gutman also presented participants with a short video clip showing him received with warm applause at a Muslim school in Brussels. While he did not mention what prompted the warm reception, his message was that this is the kind of welcome given to a Jew who supports President Obama’s policy of openness to Islam.

 
Approached by Yedioth Ahronoth, the US envoy was asked whether Obama’s policy did not cause America to lose its influence in the region. Gutman responded by saying that the Arab world appreciates Obama following his speech in Cairo, referring to an address delivered by the president in 2009.  



He bundled some big money for Hussein                     http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/obamas-new-ambassador-nominees.html  










Obama's New Ambassador Nominees Gave Big -- and Bundled Bigger
By Michael Beckel on June 18, 2009 3:33 PM
| More
President Obama announced another 10 names for ambassadorships last week, and in doing so, he awarded another set of big donors and bundlers with plum positions representing U.S. interests abroad. The new nominees for ambassadors to Belize, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Romania and Switzerland — along with their spouses and dependent children — have contributed at least $637,800 to federal candidates, parties and committees since 1989, CRP has found. Nearly that entire sum has gone to Democrats, including $32,775 to Obama himself and $8,300 to former primary opponent and now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. These individuals also brought in at least $1.1 million for Obama's presidential bid as bundlers, and at least another half-a-million as bundlers for his inauguration.

To date, this brings the contribution histories of Obama's ambassador nominees to roughly $1.8 million in donations since 1989. The 19 ambassadors that CRP has found in our campaign contribution database, along with their spouses and children, have given more than $98,200 to Obama personally, bundled at least $3.4 million for his 2008 presidential run and bundled another $1.4 million for his inauguration. See our earlier dispatches about this topic here and here.

Not all of Obama's ambassador picks with political ties connect to the Democratic Party, however. In naming Jon Huntsman, the Republican governor of Utah, to be the ambassador to China, Obama elevated someone who bundled at least $500,000 for his main opponent last fall, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
 
When Obama nominated new ambassadors last week, he specifically promoted the following people with financial ties to his campaign to serve, including a former college roommate:

* Colorado business executive Vinai Thummalapally for ambassador to Belize. Thummalapally has been a longtime friend of the president's, ever since they were roommates at Occidental College. He has also been a longtime financial backer of Obama's, including bundling between $100,000 and $200,000 for his 2008 presidential bid. Moreover, along with his wife and children, Thummalapally has contributed $13,375 to Obama since 1999, of which $11,875 came during the 2008 election cycle. At that time, not only did he and his wife make large contributions but, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission, so did his "not employed/student" children Vishal and Sharanya, who sent contributions of $2,300 and $2,275, respectively, Obama's way.

* Former Virginia lieutenant governor and businessman Donald Beyer for ambassador to both Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Beyer and his wife, Megan, have contributed more than $399,000 to Democratic candidates, parties and committees since 1989, including $9,200 to Obama, $3,000 to Clinton — and $2,000 to 2004 Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean from their "not employed/student" daughter Stephanie. Moreover, they bundled at least $500,000 for Obama's presidential bid. Megan also bundled at least $245,000 for Obama's inauguration committee, according to Public Citizen.

* Washington lawyer Howard W. Gutman for ambassador to Belgium. He and his wife, Michelle Loewinger, have contributed at least $86,150 to Democratic candidates, parties and committees since 1989. Gutman contributed the legal maximum of $2,300 to Clinton's presidential bid, and he and his wife also contributed the legal maximum of $4,600 a piece to Obama's presidential run. Additionally, Gutman bundled at least $500,000 for Obama's campaign committee and another $275,000 for his inauguration committee.

* Mark Gitenstein, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank and a partner with a DC-based law firm, for ambassador to Romania. Gitenstein and his wife, Elizabeth, have contributed more than $128,600 to federal candidates, parties and committees since the 1990 election cycle — with 98 percent of that money going to Democrats. Mark also contributed $2,500 to Hillary Clinton since 2005, while Elizabeth contributed $1,000 to Obama during his presidential bid.

Obama's most recent batch of ambassadorship nominations also includes five career diplomats, with no histories of political contributions. These include Richard J. Schmierer to Oman, Gordon Gray to Tunisia, Pamela J. H. Slutz to Burundi, Martha L. Campbell to the Marshall Islands and John Nay to Suriname. Retired Army General Alfonso E. Lenhardt, who also has no known history of contributions of more than $200 to federal candidates or groups, was also nominated to serve as ambassador to Tanzania.

You can also download an Excel spreadsheet of the political contributions associated with these 19 ambassadors here: Obama_ambassador_Data_090612.xls. (Note: If you do use this data, please be sure to credit CRP. You will find that the spreadsheet has three tabs, one with basic summary information about how much each has contributed and bundled; another with more detailed summary information about the timing of these contributions; and a third with more detailed information regarding the timing and recipient of money from these donors-turned-ambassadors.)

CRP Researchers Douglas Weber, Carolyn Sharp, and Matthias Jaime contributed to this report.

CRP in the News
Obama taps more big donors for ambassadorships (Associated Press, June 11, 2009)

Like his predecessors, Obama appoints fundraisers and friends as ambassadors (Detroit Free Press, June 14, 2009)

Study: 19 Ambassador Nominees Bundled $4.8 Million for President's Campaign, Inauguration (ABC, June 19, 2009)

How to get a job in the Obama administration in a tough economy (Los Angeles Times, June 22, 2009)
Categories:

    Influence & Lobbying,
    OpenSecrets Reports,
    Politicians & Elections,
    Revolving Door
 

Showing 1 comment

    Cary

    For a long time we will damn Obama and Pelosi.
        Like
        Reply
        03/23/2010 03:08 PM
 

 

 
 

[heyuguys]

what a moron... isnt it funny how these complete idiots who are 100% wrong on everything get promoted and put in these highly influential positions? the more wrong u are the more ppl respect u.

[mord]

what a moron... isnt it funny how these complete idiots who are 100% wrong on everything get promoted and put in these highly influential positions? the more wrong u are the more ppl respect u.

The only reason for the him getting the job was his bundling of cash. read this it's better also from him before he was appointed Ambassador                          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-gutman/email-to-a-rabbi-wrong-or_b_95924.html   







Howard Gutman
Posted: April 9, 2008 06:28 PM
BIO Become a Fan
Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index
Email to a Rabbi: Wrong or Wright?
Read More: Barack Obama, Barack Obama Jews, Obama, Obama Jews, Obama Speech, Obama Wright Speech, Reverend Wright, Politics News

0
0
0
Get Breaking News Alerts
never spam
?>

    ?>

Almost as soon as Barack Obama's speech on race in America ended and for days thereafter, the calls came flooding in. Most from Jews; most reacting with admiration and relief after hearing Senator Obama deliver "A More Perfect Union," discussing race, religion and Reverend Wright. But a couple mentioned a draft of an upcoming sermon that was already being circulated and would be delivered at a local temple. Surely, I thought, the congregants and the community deserved better.

And so I wrote:

    From: Howard W. Gutman
    To: Rabbi
    Subject: Your Proposed Saturday Sermon

    Dear Rabbi --

    I am a conservative Jew by upbringing and a reformed Jew by practice. My father was a Holocaust survivor, who spent the entire war uncaptured in Poland, before coming to this country under a phoney Danzig passport and raising two children first in the Bronx NY and then in our "palace" -- a three bedroom, one bath home in Queens NY. (He spent his adult life in the New York garment district before passing away in 1973 when I was 16 years old.) In the interest of full disclosure, let me note that, along with being a lawyer in Washington DC, I am an original member of Senator Obama's National Finance Committee and co-chair of Surrogate Fundraising; I assist with the Jewish community and other communities of faith; and I hold other equally meaningless titles with the campaign. I would hope, however, that I would be writing this same email even were I a long time friend and supporter of Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

    I am writing to urge you to revise the sermon "Sen. Obama... Wright or Wrong," that you plan to deliver this Saturday. The brunt of the sermon asserts that, in his celebrated speech on race, Senator Obama set up a "moral equivalency" between his white grandmother and Reverend Wright. The sermon then proclaims that moral equivalency to be "false" and attacks Senator Obama both for his association with Reverend Wright and for the moral equivalency allegedly outlined in his speech. While the sermon calls Senator Obama's speech on race "eloquent," and "thought provoking," and while in the sermon you assure the congregation that Barack is "patriotic," such compliments come off either as "damning with faint praise" and "setting up for the kill."

    I urge you to revise the sermon not only because I believe it is wrong and unfair -- about which reasonable people of course may disagree - but also because it has the potential to be so damaging and destructive to the cause of racial and religious harmony, when the prospect for meaningful improvement has never been greater. While certain television news commentators may prefer ratings over racial and religious progress, I hope theological and community leaders of every religion and race grasp the opportunity that Senator Obama has now created, acknowledge and give credit for it, and then build upon it -- rather than seek to tear it down.

    Both Barack and the speech deserve no less. Let's look at both.

    Senator Obama

    Senator Obama never sought to run on the issues of "race," "religion," or "racial and religious harmony." He never sought to run as a black man. Instead, the Clinton campaign and certain television commentators chose to make the Obama candidacy about race and religion. Yet, however it reached this point, the Obama candidacy now could not be more important for blacks, Jews and indeed every American. Through his thoughts and words -- but mainly through his honesty and courage -- Barack has brought us all out of the shadows.

    I know of no person -- not Dr. King, not any rabbi I have ever met, and certainly not any other politician -- who would go into an African American church -- Dr. King's Church -- on Martin Luther King Day and devote a significant portion of his speech to acknowledging and then decrying the continuing existence of anti-Semitism in sectors of the black community. That is precisely what Barack did last year. Some might make that speech at an AIPAC convention, but I know of none to do it to an all black congregation. Similarly, in my 51 years, I have heard many rabbis use the story of Passover to talk about religious intolerance against Jews; yet none has lectured on racial and religious intolerance within the Jewish community by forcing us to acknowledge, for example, that the elders at our seders still use derogatory yiddish words for African-Americans. I do not mean to suggest the "moral equivalence" of the language or to argue whether racism in the Jewish or other white communities is more or less prevalent or better or worse than anti-semitism in the black or other non-Jewish communities. They are all worthy of condemnation and most of us know it. But I know of no one -- let alone a politician in a presidential race -- other than Barack to so eschew self-interest and expediency by raising the harder side of the question to the less receptive audience.

    And the character of the man and the importance of his candidacy were similarly reflected in his entire approach to that Tuesday speech in Constitutional Hall. There were more politically expedient ways to deal with the Rev. Wright mess -- the easiest would have been to stand on a stage surrounded by a General and a rabbi and perhaps a hispanic minister and to give a speech focused on the hate words and decrying -- in the most eloquent terms (as we know Barack can) -- just how wrong such language was and why. And ending there.

    Why the heck continue with a speech about the underlying problem of racism that led 8500 African-Americans to cheer Reverend Wright in church? About the problem that leads to offensive statements by older Irish or Italian union members at Christmas dinners or Jewish elders at seders? Why give a speech on the history of race relations, applauding how far we have come but refusing to sugar coat how much further we have to go and assigning blame to us all? How could a politician do something that naive? Something that no matter how honest, how truthful, and how eloquent will of course leave so much for commentators and sermons to attack in the months ahead? Because any such speech -- particularly an honest and eloquent one -- on a problem that divides at every turn and with every word must necessarily leave so much for each "side" to attack. Each "side" always will attack the "moral equivalency" of any analysis, because that is how we got into this mess -- racial and religious divide -- in the first place. How could a politician be so naive to hope to shed light brightly on all and excuse none?

    Because it was the right thing to do. And that is the man I have come to know and will always admire.

    The Speech

    So the decision to actually say something meaningful reflected the character of the man.

    What did his words reflect?

    First, can you imagine that the speech was written by Barack himself? That in a world of speech writers, media men and handlers of every sort, a candidate decides to address the American people on perhaps the most sensitive issue of our somewhat stained history and he picks up his own laptop and writes it himself to tell what he believes? That he taps out the most important speech of a presidential campaign and perhaps of most of the voters' lifetime on a Sunday and Monday night, after putting his two daughters to bed? (I emailed Barack Sunday night and he was writing the speech -- alone.) In thinking about the three remaining choices for leadership in America for the next 8 years, can you picture either Senator McCain or Senator Clinton writing any speech themselves? Or even thinking on their own so deeply about an issue? Even had the speech been flawed, can we afford to attack and find fault with such talented leadership?

    But in fact the speech was far more than the thought-provoking diversion you describe in your sermon.

    The speech as you recognized denounced in the strongest terms Reverend Wright's offensive words and hate speech; established (as it should not have had to do) that Barack of course loves this country as much as and is as patriotic as anyone; and demonstrated again (what I have long witnessed first-hand) that his support for Israel that is second to none. (In Barack's words: " [Reverend Wright's words] weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.").

    And then it dealt with the the history and progress of race relations and the work that remains ahead. It offered NO moral equivalencies and it is unfair to struggle to find them for that was not the point of a sermon. Barack did not address whether Reverend Wright and the 8500 people who were cheering his words were equivalent, better or worse than racists (or in fact those who use yiddish epithets). For that was not the issue, nor should it have been. He had already denounced the offensive words and sentiments in the strongest terms. He had already explained his association with Rev. Wright and the Church:

    "And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

    But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS."

    Rather the point was that those who feel left out of the America dream and cheered Rev. Wright's words, or who cast blame on and harbor prejudice (in union halls or at seder tables ) against other religious or racial groups because they too have been left behind in pursuit of the American dream are all still part of this country and its fabric. As Barack put it: "they are a part of America, this country that I love." A faulty fabric indeed in a country he loves, with enough blame to go around for the deficiencies in the fabric. Barack shielded none from blame. But he proposed no equivalencies. He instead set out the problem of racial and religious prejudice on all sides that still exists in this country.

    And in his honesty in so raising and in dealing with this issue, Barack took a huge leap for us all. Not just in his unmatched eloquence, but in his equally unmatched honesty and insight. A leap that we can and must build on if we are ever going to make progress on this issue. A leap that, as noted above, any could attack in a sermon -- but that all should instead applaud and build upon.

    For Jewish leaders to find fault in a speech, in a man, and in a candidacy that has done so much on this issue -- and who uniquely has the talent, insight and leadership to do so much more -- means that we have chosen to divide when the opportunity to unite has never been closer.

    That would be a shame. And it would be a missed opportunity that has taken us so long to tee up. For no gain.

    I am happy to discuss this issue at any time.

    All the best.

    Howard Gutman

[JTFenthusiast2]

What an ignorant pig!

[maelgwyn]

DITTO!