Abe Foxman is taking it on all sides for calling on the University of St. Thomas to reinvite Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

The Zionist Organization of America issued a statement slamming the ADL leader.

At the same time, some of Foxman’s Jewish critics on the left who accuse him of attempting to stifle criticism of Israel, are giving him zero credit. For example, here are a few quotes that NYU professor Tony Judt gave to JTA reporter Ben Harris:

“Life is complicated. And sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reasons.”

“It doesn’t mean I think he’s a completely reformed man.”

“This is a very particular case. To be seen to be censoring Desmond Tutu is to put yourself on the wrong side of history.”

The response of the National Jewish Democratic Council to the latest Ann Coulter controversy is a campaign calling on news networks to stop inviting her on their shows.

The NJDC may want to rethink that strategy, judging from this article by Richard Baehr, political director of American Thinker and a leader of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

His basic point: Her TV rants may help sell books, but hurt the conservative cause at the same time. …

In my opinion, Coulter has never been a big help to the effort to build a conservative and Republican majority. Her most recent comments on the relationship of Christianity to Judaism, made on the CNBC show “The Big Idea” with Donnie Deutsch on Monday of this week, may prove particularly damaging.

I say this in part based on the number of emails I have received today from Jews, many of whom I have been working with for years to consider switching to the GOP, given President Bush’s very strong record of support for Israel, and the much stronger commitment to national security on the GOP side of the aisle. …

At a time when party affiliation is fraying and a third of Americans consider themselves independent, to build a majority of 50% plus one requires persuasion. Independents will not accept all parts of either party’s platform or approach but will choose a candidate for office based on which issues matter to them, and whether one or the other party connects with them on those issues. It is a skill to disagree at times without being disagreeable. Ronald Reagan had it, and it is one of the reasons he became so popular and patched together a large winning coalition. Coulter has decided there is no economic advantage for her in this approach.

It is clear that not only Jews may be repelled by Coulter’s most recent comments. …

Big vote tonight in Lexington, Massachusetts, as Armenian-American activists and their Jewish allies press ahead with their campaign to get municipalities to sever ties with the Anti-Defamation League.

Much more on this later (both a JTA story and some blog posts).

At this point, however, I’d like to focus on the wider geo-strategic fallout if Nancy Pelosi acts on her vow to bring a resolution to the floor that would use the term genocide to describe the World War I-era massacres of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire.

Jewish groups have been warning that the resolution could damage U.S.-Turkish relations, Turkish-Israeli relations and endanger the Turkish Jewish community. Armenian activists and their Democratic allies in Congress have scoffed at or essentially ignored these concerns.

Now that the resolution has been approved by the House Committee of Foreign Affairs, Turkish officials are bouncing off the walls. Turkey has recalled its ambassador to the U.S. for “consultations” and is seeking parliamentary approval for raids into northern Iraq against Kurdish forces accused of carrying out terrorist attacks.

But Pelosi and the resolution’s other Democratic backers are standing firm.

The irony here is that usually it has been many of these very same Democrats criticizing President Bush for failing to let practical concerns temper his ideologically driven foreign policy. The Bush administration, critics love to say, was naïve and blind when it came to the realities of Iraq, thinking American forces would be greeted by flowers rather than an insurgency and a sectarian civil war.

Well, now, even as Turkish officials ratchet up their threats, Democrats are still taking a “what me worry” approach.

Pelosi: “This isn’t about the Erdogan government. This is about the Ottoman Empire.”

Tom Lantos: “The Turkish government will not act against the United States because that would be against their own interests.”

For my taste, it sounds a bit too much like “The Iraqis will greet us with flowers and let all use their oil money to pay for everything.”

Is it too much to ask that lawmakers supporting the measure at least say something like: “We are supporting this measure even though it could damage ties with Turkey and spark some sort of military action in northern Iraq.”

The Anti-Defamation League and American Jewish Committee are out with statements condemning Ann Coulter’s recent interview on CNBC with Donny Deutsch. Both groups focus in on her assertion that Jews should be “perfected” by dumping Judaism and becoming Christians.

But the real zinger, I think, came a few moments earlier in the interview, when she responded to a question about her “dream” American, by saying: “It would look like New York City during the [2004] Republican National Convention. In fact, that’s what I think heaven is going to look like. … People were happy. They’re Christian. They’re tolerant. They defend America.”

So Ann Coulter is a Christian who thinks Jews should become Christian. That’s her religion. Fine. It’s not as if she’s launched a conversion crusade. Watch the interview, and it’s clear that Deutsch was the one pushing to get to the religion point, not Coulter.

Her comment about the GOP convention, however, was not just about her own personal theology. It speaks more directly to her understanding of America and the contemporary Republican Party. She essentially described the GOP convention as an all-Christian club (guess she missed then-RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman).

Again, the irony with all of the fuss over this Coulter outrage is that this time around it was really Deutsch pushing her toward controversy (usually she has her own offensive agenda item that she’s pushing — i.e, Democrats are traitors).

Deutsch says he wants to know what she hopes America will look like. First she says she wishes everyone was Republican. Deutsch pushes. Then she wishes that all of the Democrats would be like Joe Lieberman (!?!). Deutsch pushes some more. Only after a few more prods does she find religion.

Judge for yourself…

I had a similar take watching the video of John McCain’s “America is a Christian country that needs a Christian president” interview.

To my eye he seemed stilted and contradictory the whole way through. He wants a president who will uphold Judeo-Christian values. He wants a Christian, not a Muslim. Well, maybe a Muslim would be okay. But maybe not. Mormon, that would be just fine.

All that said, it’s hard to see how Coulter’s or McCain’s remarks could be interpreted as a “Non-Jews welcome” sign. And it’s hard to ignore that its supporters/lawmakers of the party with no blacks and just three Jews in Congress who keep saying these sorts of things (yes, yes, Democrats have their own patterns to worry about, but that’s for another post).

Senate GOPers are tripping over themselves to run out Larry Craig, but what about his fellow Idahoan over in the House of Representatives, Bill Sali. Here’s a quote of his from last summer:

“We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes — and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The principles that this country was built on, that have made it great over these centuries were Christian principles derived from Scriptures. You know, the Lord can cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike.”

Throw in the fact that the Hindu in question was actually heckled (see video) during his prayer, and you’d think this sort of talk might be a bit higher on the agenda of congressional Republicans than Larry Craig’s wide stance.

Sali tried to backtrack from the impression that he was saying Muslims shouldn’t be congressmen. But he wasn’t the first Republican to wander into such territory.

After Ellison’s victory in 2006, a Republican House member from Virginia, Virgil Goode, sent a letter to constituents complaining about the Minnesota Democrat’s decision to take his private oath on the Koran:

“I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.”

Jeez, even Iran has a token Jew in its parliament.

If Columbia Univeristy officials ever figure out who hung the noose on Professor Madonna Constantine’s office door, they will probably expel the culprit.

Unless of course it turns out he’s a Holocaust and homosexual denier, who has a hand in killing American troops, a desire to see Israel disappear and an appetite for nuclear weapons.

In that case, they’ll invite him to deliver a public lecture.

The Professional Leaders Project is planning a big conference — dubbed ThinkTank3 — at the end of October for future Jewish bigs in their 20s and 30s.

From a news release on the event: “The typical profile of [a conference participant] is having an advanced degree from one of nation’s top schools, being of high net worth, and having the drive and talent to improve and lead society.”

Wonder where the meeting is being held for potential Jewish leaders with state-school degrees and middle-income jobs.

Did you ever wonder what would happen if you put Tony Judt, John Mearsheimer, Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein in the same room? Find out this Friday at a conference in Chicago being put on by an outfit called the “Depaul Academic Freedom Committee.”

The significance here is the coming together of fringe and respected left-wing critics of Israel and Jewish organizations. Pro-Israel activists can say what they want about Judt and Mearsheimer, but a few years ago few people would have lumped them with career critics of Israel/pro-Israel lobby like Chomsky and Finkelstein. Now they’re voluntarily jumping into the same boat.

Stay tuned for more details (JTA’s hoping to have a writer on the scene).

In related news from the other side of the coin … this year’s CAMERA conference, set to take place in New York on Oct. 21 …

Back in August I moderated a panel discussion at the 92nd St Y titled “The Evolving Landscape in ‘New’ Jewish Media.” My favorite moment came when I asked Rebecca Wiener of Heeb if it was fair to say that her magazine had made its mark by pushing the envelope on sex.

She blushed, and seemed genuinely perplexed over why I would think such a thing.

Well here’s the latest cover (that’s a tube of K-Y Jelly in Jonah Hill’s hand)…

Hey, Rebecca, what do you call that? Pushing the envelope on bagels?

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The real shanda over at Heeb is that the offices there (so we hear) were closed for Columbus Day, but staffers needed to use vacation days to take off for Rosh Hashanah.

Both my wife and mother were quick to weigh in with a big thumbs up for the New Yorker’s Larry Craig-inspired Ahmadinejad-at-Columbia cover.

What strikes me is that the image seems to suggest genuine surprise or confusion on Ahmadinejad’s part when confronted with a real-life example of homosexuality. Compare that approach to the infinitely less nuanced, childish and equally, if not more, funny approach of Saturday Night Live.

In short…

New Yorker: Ahmadinejad has no gay-dar.

SNL: Ahmadinejad needs to come out of the closet.

Democratic presidential hopeful U.S. Senator Chris Dodd recently wrote an op-ed for JTA pegged to the release of his new book, “Letter From Nuremberg,” a collection of correspondence from the time his father, Thomas, played a lead role in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals.

In his JTA op-ed, Dodd argues that his father’s letters underscore that the Bush administration has much to learn from the triumph of principal over power at the Nuremberg trials.

Wonder what the senior Dodd would make of Jewish organizations taking a lead role in pushing for a hard line against Iran. Check out this passage from a Sept. 25, 1945, letter:

“You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge — you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial — for their own sake. For — mark this well — the charge ‘a war for the Jews’ is still being made and in the post-war years it will be made again and again. The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge. Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things. They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads. I do not like to write about this matter —it is distasteful to me — but I am disturbed about it. They are pushing and crowding and competing with each other and with everyone else.”

In an interview with Providence Journal columnist M. Charles Bakst, Dodd the son said that when he reads this letter, “I first of all cringe a little bit because I wonder what he’s driving at.”

Bakst added:

As provocative as the passages may seem, [Dodd] suggests it’s also important to note that his father specifically said he deplored anti-Semitism and, in fact, had close Jewish friends. So, the senator says, “I tried to understand it in the context, knowing who he was, knowing what he cared about, what his own history was. And there were those, the [Charles] Lindberghs and others, that made the case that…Roosevelt got us into this war because of Jewish issues.”