JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

Interfaith group blasts “Obsession” distributors

By Eric Fingerhut · October 8, 2008

An interfaith group blasted the creators and distributors of a film critical of radical Islam.

At a presss conference Tuesday in Washington, Interfaith Alliance chair Rabbi Jack Moline described the film "Obsession: Radical Islam's War with the West" as a "thinly-veiled call for disparagement and distrust of all Muslims." He added that by "exercising the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution," the film's distributors thave "attempted, by inference and innuendo, to limit the rights of Muslims to enjoy the free exercise of their faith."

Twenty-eight million DVD copies of the film were distributed in swing states by the Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization founded by Raphael Shore – a producer and co-writer of the film. Shore also works for the Aish HaTorah, but that group has said it is not involved in the distribution and that Shore's involvement with the film was in his free time.

While not mentioning Shore by name, Moline said he was personally disappointed by Shore's involvement. "As a board member of the Interfaith Alliance, I promised to turn a critical eye first to my own community," said Moline. "The rabbi whose name appears in the credits of this film as producer and co-writer has a hard repentance ahead of him on Yom Kippur. I will include his actions in my own confession of sins."

4 Comments | Share This | miscellaneous |

Is Sarah Palin Jewish? UPDATED

By Ron Kampeas · October 8, 2008

The short answer is, probably not.

You might have seen the genealogies circulating on the net - here's one - claiming she's a descendant of one Schmuel Sheigam, a Lithuanian Jew.

I've run the info past folks at the National Archives. A search of immigration records shows no Sheigam - or Sheeran, as the Ellis Island transformation would have it, according to these accounts - arriving in 1915. (And yes, all possible spellings were run.) Sheigam doesn't turn up, period.

There is a grain of truth in this, as there often is with urban myths: Records (ship manifests, censuses, property records etc.) show that Sheeran is indeed a common Irish American name, and one that some immigrants, evidently Jewish, adopted upon their arrival.

I asked the McCain-Palin campaign about this, they never got back to me (not that I blame them, I'd also prioritize screwy queries about ancestors low on my to-do list); but it's worth noting that they had earlier confirmed that she had been baptized a Roman Catholic. (She is no longer a Catholic.) That would comport with Irish ancestry, the more common association for "Sheeran."

What's odd about this phenomenon is that I'm getting asked this by Jews, when the myth is being perpetuated by anti-Semites. ("Why do some people dislike Jews" as a hedder is what we call an obvious giveaway; more subtle is the use of the word "Jewess.")

One version of this I saw suggested that John McCain wanted his old pal and fellow U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) as his running mate, and relinquished at the last minute. Again, a grain of truth here - my own reporting confirms this. Where it gets loony is in the why: Joe, apparently, was not simply too moderate for McCain's advisers - he was too clearly part of the Zionist conspiracy. McCain, according to this fiction, was told to go with the stealth Jew. That explanation is echoed in the above website (see under "This would explain a lot.")

None of this means the Alaska governor doesn't have a Jewish ancestor somewhere on the tree - it's not exactly uncommon in immigrant nations; especially in America, which has a wonderful history of welcoming all stripes of newcomer, unlike the sad sacks who run the conspiracy websites.

UPDATE: A number of readers (starting with both commenters below) have pointed out that there's a comprehensive Sarah Palin genealogy here and that it contains nary a Chosen One. Case closed.

7 Comments | Share This | Alaska, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Uncategorized, Veepstakes |

Unsolicited advice to the next president

By Lisa Hostein · October 8, 2008

Both presidential candidates made the requisite references to Israel in their debate last night. As they ponder more thoughtful policies in the Middle East, here comes analyst Martin Kramer with some unsolicited advice: Focus on Iran and the Persian Gulf and don't worry too much about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

1 Comment | Share This | Iran, Israel, Presidential Race |

Political tidbits: Gibbs takes on Hannity, another Jewish pro-Obama video

By Eric Fingerhut · October 8, 2008

• Obama adviser Robert Gibbs took on Fox News host Sean Hannity last night over his use of anti-Semite Andy Martin to make wild claims about Barack Obama.
• The Sun-Sentinel has more on Martin, while the New York Times interviews Martin, who denies being an anti-Semite and says it's a "peripheral" issue.
• And Glen Greenwald in Salon has even more details on Martin and criticizes the ADL for not speaking out about Martin.
• A powerhouse political panel tomorrow at Temple Rodef Shalom in Northern Virginia: Chuck Todd, Matt Brooks and Matt Dorf at the afternoon break in services, reports the Washington Post.
• The Sun-Sentinel has details on Joe Lieberman and Ed Koch stumping for Jewish votes in South Florida.
• Marty Peretz, in the Jerusalem Post, on why there are "so few Jewish Republicans."
• Another pro-Obama video – this time from a Orthodox Jewish mom who lived in Jerusalem for five years.
• The Washington Post finds an article in a newsletter from the U.S. Council for World Freedom that belittles critics of Ronald Reagan's 1985 Bitburg trip. John McCain says he resigned from the group in 1984, but was still on the letterhead in 1986 – and attended the group's dinner in 1985.
• Anat Hakim explains why she schlepped north to convince her family to vote for McCain, in the Los Angeles Times.
• Political pundit Larry Sabato thinks Sarah Silverman's profanity in her Great Schlep video may backfire on Obama – but adds that he still finds Jack Benny funny.
• Two Israeli pro-Obama videos are deemed a "de-schlep-tion" by Abraham Katsman and Kory Bardash in the Jerusalem Post.

0 Comments | Share This | Barack Obama, Ed Koch, Israel, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Presidential Race, RJC, Tidbits |

Get me rewrite: New Israel question needed

By Ami Eden · October 8, 2008

Israel popped up at the end of Tuesday night's town hall-style debate, when one audience member asked:

"If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?"

With all due respect to the questioner, there are much better/more relevant ways to measure each candidate's support for Israel and the willingness to put U.S. troops at risk in defense of the Jewish state (not to mention their general views on securing U.N. authorization before American military action). Now, before I go on, it's only fair to point out that during a previous Democratic primary debate, one of the highly paid professionals – ABC's George Stephanopoulos – asked a similar and equally off-the-mark question to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The pressing question is not what a candidate would do after an Iranian attack on Israel, but what a candidate would do – or permit/help Israel do – to prevent an Iranian attack. For example, both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin have been asked in recent weeks the very relevant question of what an Obama or McCain administration would do if Israel decided to launch a preemptive strike against Iran. Of course, as I noted earlier, they both offered the same implausible answer: The United States needs to defer to Israel on such matters about its own security.

Why implausible? Because the United States controls Iraq's air space and, depending on whom you believe, the fallout will include Iranian strikes against Western and oil-producing targets – so I think it's safe to say that the next president will have some input on the decision-making process, probably long before any attack were ordered.

As for last night's answers, read the transcript (second-to-last question) or watch the video:

If you happen to bump into either of the candidates, or will be posing the questions at the final debate, here's what you can ask with regards to Iran:

* Senator McCain, why, if you favor stiffer international sanctions on Iran, have you not urged your fellow GOP senators to stop blocking such measures from being approved in the U.S. Senate?

* Senator Obama, your surrogates have been suggesting that when you talk about direct high-level talks with Iran, you don't necessarily mean with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's Holocaust-denying president who continues to predict Israel's downfall. Would you meet with him or not?

0 Comments | Share This | Barack Obama, debates, hillary clinton, Iran, Israel, Joe Biden, John McCain, Sarah Palin |

We won’t let the UN stop us

By Eric Fingerhut · October 8, 2008

Both John McCain and Barack Obama said last night that they wouldn't wait for the United Nations Security Council to give its approval before sending troops to Israel in the event of an attack by Iran. Here's the transcript:

Shirey: Senator, as a retired Navy chief, my thoughts are often with those who serve our country. I know both candidates, both of you, expressed support for Israel.

If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?

McCain: Well, thank you, Terry (ph). And thank you for your service to the country.

I want to say, everything I ever learned about leadership I learned from a chief petty officer. And I thank you, and I thank you, my friend. Thanks for serving.

Let – let – let me say that we obviously would not wait for the United Nations Security Council. I think the realities are that both Russia and China would probably pose significant obstacles.

And our challenge right now is the Iranians continue on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons, and it's a great threat. It's not just a threat – threat to the state of Israel. It's a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East.

If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, all the other countries will acquire them, too. The tensions will be ratcheted up.

What would you do if you were the Israelis and the president of a country says that they are – they are determined to wipe you off the map, calls your country a stinking corpse?

Now, Sen. Obama without precondition wants to sit down and negotiate with them, without preconditions. That's what he stated, again, a matter of record.

I want to make sure that the Iranians are put enough – that we put enough pressure on the Iranians by joining with our allies, imposing significant, tough sanctions to modify their behavior. And I think we can do that.

I think, joining with our allies and friends in a league of democracies, that we can effectively abridge their behavior, and hopefully they would abandon this quest that they are on for nuclear weapons.

But, at the end of the day, my friend, I have to tell you again, and you know what it's like to serve, and you know what it's like to sacrifice, but we can never allow a second Holocaust to take place.

Brokaw: Sen. Obama?

Obama: Well, Terry, first of all, we honor your service, and we're grateful for it.

We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it.

And we will never take military options off the table. And it is important that we don't provide veto power to the United Nations or anyone else in acting in our interests.

It is important, though, for us to use all the tools at our disposal to prevent the scenario where we've got to make those kinds of choices.

And that's why I have consistently said that, if we can work more effectively with other countries diplomatically to tighten sanctions on Iran, if we can reduce our energy consumption through alternative energy, so that Iran has less money, if we can impose the kinds of sanctions that, say, for example, Iran right now imports gasoline, even though it's an oil-producer, because its oil infrastructure has broken down, if we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on them.

Now, it is true, though, that I believe that we should have direct talks – not just with our friends, but also with our enemies – to deliver a tough, direct message to Iran that, if you don't change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences.

If you do change your behavior, then it is possible for you to re-join the community of nations.

Now, it may not work. But one of the things we've learned is, is that when we take that approach, whether it's in North Korea or in Iran, then we have a better chance at better outcomes.

When President Bush decided we're not going to talk to Iran, we're not going to talk to North Korea, you know what happened? Iran went from zero centrifuges to develop nuclear weapons to 4,000. North Korea quadrupled its nuclear capability.

We've got to try to have talks, understanding that we're not taking military options off the table.

0 Comments | Share This | Barack Obama, debates, Iran, Israel, John McCain, Presidential Race |