Black rabbi in Chicago seeks to bridge racial divide

"I have made it my point, on a personal level, to involve myself in the Jewish community," Funnye said. "I've worked for Jewish organizations. I've graduated from Jewish institutions. My children went to Jewish day school."

All of that and the Jews still don't or won't accept you. Really, Rabbi Funnye, don't you realize that Blacks, or any Goyim for that matter, can never REALLY be Jews? You see, it's not just a religion after all. And, oh yea, if you and your congregation are thinking about relocating to Israel in the future, I suggest you discuss your plans with the "Jews" from Ethiopia first - get their opinion on how Blacks are treated by "God's Chosen People." I think you will find their comments interesting. But, it's not like the Zionists are racist or anything like that...

Related Resources:

WELCOME: A look at Funnye's shul (Video)

HOME PAGE: The Beth Shalom Web site

Op-Ed: Israeli occupation: Injustice in our name

by Amanda Gelender - Nov 5, 2007

I am Jewish. I state that at the beginning of this op-ed so that when you read it, you will not immediately discount me as anti-Semitic. For those of you unfamiliar with the rhetoric of Middle Eastern affairs, this frightening and overtly racist phenomenon occurs whenever human rights activists like myself hold Israel to the same international standards as we hold all other nations; non-Jews are delegitimized as having an innate prejudice against Jewish people. But you don’t have to worry about that, because, as I previously stated, I am Jewish.

In fact, I write this op-ed on behalf of the Jewish Committee on Human Rights (J-COHR), formerly Jews for Justice in Palestine. We are socially conscious Jews who have joined Students Confronting Apartheid by Israel (SCAI) to create a united front of students, alumni, staff, faculty and community members to persuade Stanford’s Board of Trustees to divest from corporations violating international law and supporting human rights abuses in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Some of you may wonder, “Why do you focus on Israel? Aren’t there lots of human rights abuses that deserve our attention?” It’s true, there are many human rights abuses occurring across the world, including violations in our own country. All of these injustices merit recognition, and Israel is no exception. We single out Israel for the same reason that others single out Darfur or Burma: because there are atrocious human rights abuses occurring in a specific socio-political context. But more importantly, we focus on Israel because it is the number one recipient of US foreign aid, most of which is in the form of military grants. As American citizens and taxpayers, a better question might be: “Why not focus on Israel?”

Americans have a unique culpability for Israeli injustices, as the U.S. supports Israel’s occupation of Palestine with more than $7 million in foreign aid per day, totaling $108 billion over the last 50 years (Source: “Washington Report on Middle East Affairs,” 2006). While Israel comprises one tenth of one percent of the world’s population, the U.S. gives Israel approximately one-third of our foreign aid budget, totaling more aid for Israel than Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined if aid to Egypt and Colombia is extracted from the total (Source: “Washington Report on Middle East Affairs,” 2002).

Given this tremendous sum of U.S. aid coupled with its appalling human rights record, Israel deserves our criticism and consideration just as much as other nations; subjugation in other countries does not negate that which occurs in Israel. As Desmond Tutu has said, “Divestment from apartheid South Africa was certainly no less justified because there was repression elsewhere on the African continent.”

"But what is Israel doing that is so wrong?” you may wonder. According to B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, since September 2000 the Israeli military has killed 4,267 Palestinians (861 of whom were children) and demolished 4,170 Palestinian homes. The Israeli military subjects Palestinians to hundreds of military checkpoints within the Palestinian territories, effectively obstructing their ability to access employment, education and medical care. Israel has detained more than 15 percent of the total Palestinian population in the territories since 1967 (Source: Palestine Monitor). Israel confiscates Palestinian land to build Jewish-only settlements which strategically annex agricultural and water resources from Palestinian civilians.

As Shulamit Aloni, the former Israeli Minister of Education, stated, “...through its army, the government of Israel practices a brutal form of apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp.”

There are people on this campus who want you to believe that this criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. There are people on this campus who want to shut down debate on these issues by claiming that it is offensive to the Jewish community. As rational individuals, we must reject and surpass this empty rhetoric, demanding serious examination of Israel’s human rights abuses and our own culpability in sustaining them.

Our group, J-COHR, emerges from a rich history of solidarity in social justice movements: men who stood by women in their demand for reproductive freedom; white people who fought with African-Americans against segregation; straight people helping the queer community oppose institutional heterosexism. We are Jews standing with Palestinians in their demand for education, healthcare, economic opportunity and basic human rights.

Police: Jewish GW Student Admits Putting Swastikas On Her Door

Now, I wonder why she would want to do that?

NBC4 News - Nov 6, 2007

WASHINGTON -- George Washington University officials said a Jewish student who complained about swastikas showing up on her door put them there herself.

The student lives in Mitchell Hall, where half a dozen swastikas had shown up on her dorm room door in the past several weeks.

University police set up a hidden camera. They said the girl admitted responsibility Monday.

News 4 interviewed the student last week after the fifth swastika was discovered. She did not want to be identified.

"It's a big story," said Jake Sherman, GW Hatchet editor. "Thirty percent of GW students are Jewish"

Reporters at the GW Hatchet newspaper have been following the story since it began. They said they learned on Monday morning that the alleged victim would likely be implicated.

They said they spoke to her twice by phone.

According to reporters at the newspaper, the student said, "I wasn't looking to create this sort of insanity. I wasn't looking to become a media darling. I was just looking for acknowledgment from the university that someone drew a swastika on the door."

The student now faces disciplinary action from the school and could face criminal charges.

Jews, and only Jews, for hire

JCC in Lancaster, Pa., which won a lawsuit that allowed them the right to dismiss an employee over her participation in a Jews for Jesus event.

by Jacob Berkman, Jewish Telegraphic Agency - November 2, 2007

Court backs Jewish Community Center's right to fire employee over Jews for Jesus link
A federal court ruling that allowed a JCC to fire an employee who attended a Jews for Jews event could serve as a broader legal guide for Jewish institutions that want to reserve the right to hire only Jews for various positions

Some Jewish institutions may have their own "road map" on hiring practices after a U.S. federal court ruled that a Pennsylvania JCC had the right to dismiss an employee over her participation in a Jews for Jesus event.

Linda LeBoon, an Evangelical Christian, had sued the Lancaster JCC claiming that she was fired in 2002 as its bookkeeper for attending a Jews for Jesus event.

The JCC, LeBoon argued, was a center for Jewish culture and therefore did not qualify for the exemption in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that allows religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion when it comes to hiring.

But last month the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold a lower-court decision that the JCC is indeed a "religious corporation, organization, or institution" and had the right to dismiss an employee over his or her religious activities.

"If they would have lost this case," said Marc Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, "it would have meant that someone from Jews for Jesus could have come into a Jewish organization and could have had a prominent position, and you couldn't have done anything about it legally. That would have been a catastrophe."

In addition to ensuring the right to dismiss employees over affiliations with Messianic groups, the ruling could serve as a broader legal guide for non-synagogue Jewish institutions, like JCCs and federations, that want to reserve the right to insist on hiring Jews for top leadership posts and other jobs.

"This case provides a road map for other JCCs and organizations that have some preference for hiring Jews in particular positions to qualify for this exemption," Stern said. "It has not always been self evident that they have the right to do so."

While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, Section 702 of the act states that parochial schools and houses of worship are exempt and may hire based on religion.

There has long been a debate about whether organizations affiliated with religious groups, such as camps, nursing homes, social service agencies and community centers, were afforded the same right to discriminate in hiring.

LeBoon argued that because the Lancaster JCC had non-Jewish members, rented space to other religious organizations and held generally secular activities, the institution was not a religious institution. Further, she argued, the JCC was not financially or administratively tied to a synagogue.

The appeals court in Philadelphia ruled, however, that the JCC was entitled to the exemption because "during the period under scrutiny, its structures and purposes were primarily religious."

Drawing on precedents, the court compiled a list of nine criteria to help determine what constitutes a religious institution. Among the questions were: Is the institution a not for profit? Does it offer a secular product? Does it have a stated religious purpose? Does any religious entity participate in its management? Does it include religious instruction? Is it made up of coreligionists?

In LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Community Center Association, the court determined that the JCC did have a Jewish mission -- to "enhance and promote Jewish life, identity and continuity." And based on the other eight criteria, it determined that the JCC was working to follow through on that mission.

The court noted that the rabbis of the city's three synagogues were honorary non-voting members of the JCC board whose input played a key role in the firing and hiring of the institution's top professionals, helped with the fund raising and provided religious programming.

In addition, the court said the JCC organized Jewish holiday events, had mezuzahs affixed to its doors, maintained a kosher kitchen and, despite its gloomy financial situation, decided not to rent out its facilities on the Sabbath.

"These characteristics clearly point to the conclusion" that the JCC was "primarily a religious organization," the majority opinion stated.

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Marjorie Rendell argued that the only relevant question is whether the JCC was funded or controlled by a religious group. The JCC, she said, "was not run by a synagogue but by a board independently elected by the center's members."

Both sides claimed that their approach would avoid forcing the courts into the unconstitutional role of arbitrating on religious questions.

The national arms of local JCCs and Jewish federations did not comment specifically about the case. Observers, including Stern, say the decision allows for installing safeguards against proselytizing groups trying to infiltrate Jewish organizations.

Synagogues and Jewish schools have been fairly well protected by Article 702 of the Civil Rights Act and been able to avoid hiring job applicants who belong to groups such as Jews for Jesus, according to the director of Jewish communal affairs for the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, Marcia Eisenberg.

But Jewish groups that fall on the more secular end of the spectrum, like JCCs and even less overtly Jewish organizations, have been susceptible to lawsuits involving discrimination claims.

"This gives some interesting comfort for Jewish organizations in that the definition of a religious institution is actually broader than it was before," said Eisenberg, who helps Jewish groups draw up hiring practices. "This is especially helpful when you have big staffs and a lot of employees."

Stern and Eisenberg said the case should give Jewish organizations reason to go back and reassess their mission statements and practices to see if they line up with what is required in the recent decision to qualify for the religious exemption.

Jewish Math: 6 million minus 2.5 million equals 6 million

The pictures above depict the old and the new memorial plaque for the victims of the former concentration camp in Auschwitz. In 1995, the Polish authorities under President Lech Walesa officially reduced the number of victims from four to one and a half million, without this important change being taken into account by Holocaust believers.

Written by Andrew Winkler, The Rebel Media Group - Oct 26, 2007

The numbers of alleged Jewish victims have always wildly varied from scholar to scholar, from as high as 9 million in the French documentary Night and Fog, which has been shown to millions of students woldwide, to as low as 30,000[1] (out of a total of 69,000) in the official death books. But no matter how high or low the number of victims in the Auschwitz camps, most Holocaust scholars arrive at the same magic six million figure.

Some revisionists suspect that this has more to do with an old Jewish myth according to which six million Jews have to die before the Jewish people can return to Israel.[2] They also point out that claims similar to the ones made after WWII were made at the end of WWI, suggesting that it is more of a symbolic religious figure. Some revisionists go even as far as suggesting the number has to do with the 'Satanic' number 666, referring to allegations of a disproportionally strong Jewish element in Satanic cults.

Our friends over at Nizkor.org, the only Holocaust believers who even bother trying to have something remotely resemblant of a rational debate with revisionists - instead of simply resorting to all sorts of insults or calling for the Kosher Inquisition to punish the heretics with the full force of the law - are struggling to 'debunk' the problem of the shrinking number of Auschwitz victims.

Their solution is to insist that most Holocaust scholars always quoted a number of 2.5 million Auschwitz victims, not four million, which of course still leaves us with a not insignificant discrepancy of one million, which isn't accounted for in the overall six million figure. Nizkor also takes objection to the claims of revisionists that they are being hounded down by some kind of 'Thought Police' if they dare to doubt the official numbers. I suggest they talk to the likes of Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zuendel, who are currently imprisoned in Germany for exactly that 'thought crime', as many thousands before them, for daring to challenge the official narrative.

Mind you, Nizkor isn't any better at 'debunking' any of the other revisionist arguments, and there are hundreds of them. Their technique is the same as that of Popular Mechanics, the government funded 'independent' 9-11 Truth 'debunkers'. They usually pick some minor detail in the revisionist argument and refute it, implying the entire argument of the scholar was flaud. What both Nizkor and Popular Mechanics lack in reasoning, they make up by media and financial support, although some purists in the Holcoaust believer crowd argue that it was too risky even try to debate with 'deniers'. Maybe they are worried that anyone who bothers to think through the arguments on both sides, might come to an undesired result.

Which brings me to the important question why we must be able to freely discuss and research whether or not Nazi Germany had a secret plan to kill all European Jews, and killed as many as four, five or six million Jews in chemical slaughter-houses. The answer is because it makes a big difference, today more than ever, especially to the Palestinian and the German people. To the Palestinians, because the Holocaust is being abused by Zionists as a justification for the creation and continued existence of a Jews-only state in Palestine, and to the Germans, because of the possibility that they might have been ashamed and financially burdened for a crime that never happened. Both consequences are so dire that they cannot simply be ignored for the sake of political convenience or the sensitivities of a minority. And then there was also something called 'Freedom of Expression'. It's supposed to be an inalienable human right.

Footnotes:
[1] The main cause of death of the officially recorded 30,000 was typphus, a disease camp authorities desperately tried to combat through the use of the infamous Zyklon B gas, a defumigant used to kill head lice in prisoner uniforms. Traces of that substance can still be found today in the rooms used for that purpose, but not in the much bigger rooms allegedly used to gas prisoners.

[2] The Holocaust is widely regarded as the most effective Zionist argument for the creation of a Jewish state, apart from the "historic" claim of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, which is obviously nonsense, not only because of the 1900 years time difference, but also because of the fact that 90% of modern Jews are the descendants of ethnic Turks from Mongolia who converted to Judaism a couple of centuries after invading, raping and pillaging Europe as part of Attila's hordes, and their local Germanic rape victims.