|
Sleeping with the enemy
Why are politically conservative activists and the leading kosher supervision agency aligning themselves with a terrorist-friendly group?
By Evan Gahr
http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
IS the Alliance for Marriage a bit too diverse for its own good?
The ideologically and racially diverse group last week declared holy war on
gay marriage. At a crowded Washington, DC press conference the Alliance
unveiled a constitutional amendment that would restrict marriage to men and
women. This eminently sensible, yet controversial, idea, boasts support from
former DC delegate Walter Fauntroy, Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and such illustrious personages as Vitus Cheng of the Chinese Bible Church of Maryland.
Surrounded by persons of many colors, Matt Daniels, executive
director of the Alliance for Marriage, one of the few whites in front of
the cameras, joked about the under-representation of white folks. He
insisted that "some of my best friends are white." Are his other
friends -- or at least allies in the crusade against gay marriage -- sympathetic
to the terrorist group Hamas?
The Alliance for Marriage board of advisors includes Aly Abuzaakouk of the
American Muslim Council. According to a woman who answered the AMC's phone, "Dr. Abuzaakouk" is "director" of the organization.
Does the AMC sound familiar? Last year, Hillary Rodham Clinton was forced
to return a campaign donation from longtime AMC honcho Abdurahman Alamoudi.
His $1000 contribution was cited by the the New York Daily News when it exposed the pro-Arab fundraising event she attended.
Hillary's campaign collected $50,000 in donations at the fundraiser, which was
sponsored by another Muslim group. George W. Bush's presidential campaign
was also forced to return a contribution from Alamoudi.
Despite the negative publicity, Alamoudi was hardly chastened. At a
Washington, DC rally in late October he reiterated his support for Hamas.
"We are all supporters of Hamas. I wish they added that I am also a
supporter of Hezbollah," the New York Daily News reported. "I want you to
send a message. It's an occupation stupid. Hamas is fighting an occupation.
It's a legal fight."
Between 1994 and 1996, Hamas killed 130 people and wounded some 600 others,
many civilians. But Alamoudi calls Hamas "a freedom-fighting organization."
As this writer noted last year, the AMC officially claims to oppose
terrorism. But, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, that defends on how you define
terrorism. If Hamas is a bunch of freedom-fighters, who precisely are the
terrorists the AMC ostensibly opposes? No matter how you answer those
questions, the AMC undoubtedly has long evidenced a soft-spot for Hamas. In
1995, for example, their newsletter urged Israel to talk with Hamas, not
Arafat, because, the AMC contended, the semi-retired terrorist no longer
represented the Palestinians.
Alamoudi's lawyer, Stanley Cohen, told the New York Daily News that "The fact
is there are millions of people in the Middle East who support Hamas."
Wonderful: the Alliance for Marriage has a huge untapped constituency.
At the moment, though, their high-profile board members include, among others, Father
Richard John Neuhaus, conservative Catholic activist Mary Ellen Bork, Prof. Robert George of Princeton University, Prof. Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard Law School, and Rich Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals.
But Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
shrugged off questions about his alliance with an allegedly pro-Hamas
organization. He said the OU had previously worked with the American Muslim
Alliance to support the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. True enough. On
the other hand, the United States previously worked with the Soviet Union to
defeat Hitler. Does that mean the two countries should have formed all sorts
of post-war alliances to quash homosexuality?
Diament did not respond to follow-up questions emailed to him.
But Rabbi Barry Freundel, known as "Lieberman's rabbi," is also an Alliance for Marriage board member. The spiritual leader of Kesher Israel in Georgetowne, he told this writer last week he was unaware of the AMC connection. He promised to investigate the matter immediately.
This is not a theoretical debate; rightly or wrongly, Hillary was forced to
return the money from the AMC honcho.
Let's have one standard for everyone, please. Under Diament's "logic" did Hillary clearly get a bum rap? If anything, Hillary "only" took money from the AMC orbit; as her contributions from the tobacco rich Tisch family illustrate, money doesn't necessarily buy
influence or an alliance. But Diament, not Hillary, is officially in bed
with the AMC.
Moreover, Diament is not some lone rabbi out in Seattle. The OU is not only a major organization, it is the most respected and recognized kosher agency worldwide. Indeed, Diament's support for the marriage amendment was splashed all over the front page of the July 12 Washington Times. In their mad rush to oppose gay marriage, the OU has stamped the AMC "kosher."
Other Jewish members of the pro-Hamas, pro-marriage coalition either ignored
inquiries or could not be reached for comment.
But Diament's insouciant attitude towards the AMC reeks of the
morally-obtuse politicking which has long infested the left. To borrow
language from another era when folks overlooked the insidious philosophy of
allies whose ultimate allegiance was to a foreign power, is Diament a useful
idiot for the AMC? Already, the AMC has achieved
considerable mainstream credibility. Criticism is deemed anti-Muslim, etc.
Now, the AMC can ask, quite reasonably, why they should be stigmatized if
they are allied with a mainstream Jewish organization on a hot button social
issue. The OU would do well to re-consider its reckless
JWR contributor Evan Gahr is a Washington-based journalist. To comment click here.