New York Friends Seminary school hosts concert featuring Holocaust denier Gilad Atzmon

According to an editorial by Alan Dershowitz in the New York Daily News (read here: Gilad Atzmon, vile anti-Semite, makes new Friends), Holocaust denying sax player Gilad Atzmon gave a concert last night at New York's Friends Meeting House. Atzmon was reportedly invited to play there by the Friends Seminary, a K-12 private school affiliated with the Quakers. [I have thus far been unable to find any other news reports on this. If readers know of any, please forward them to me here at adamhollandblog@gmail.com]

According to the school's mission statement posted on their website:

We want to foster a community that addresses the challenge of valuing difference and making every individual feel welcome, supported, and safe: a community in which each person is asked to make the rigorous commitment to recognize the Light within every other, to hear that piece of truth each person brings to the continuing dialogue which is the foundation of our community. We want our daily interactions to demonstrate that maintaining respect and pursuing the hard work of understanding difference creates strength as we work to define and move toward common goals.

The school should clarify how hosting a bigot like Gilad Atzmon could possibly "foster a community" which "value(s) difference" and "make(s) every indvidual feel welcome, supported and safe".

UPDATE: (Jan. 13, 2011 11:00 AM)

Atzmon has confirmed in a blog post that he did perform at the Friends Seminary concert last night. He writes that he was invited to perform at the concert a year ago. Based on the fact that the concert was held in comemeration of Martin Luther King Day, Atzmon counters Alan Dershowitz' editorial as follows:

(O)ne particular Zionist ethnic-cleansing advocate, seemed a little less than happy. Just hours before the event, the infamous Alan Dershowitz decided to destroy the party. In shame and desperation he attempted to pressure the organizers to cancel this concert. Perhaps the Hasbara mouthpiece truly believed that destroying a Martin Luther King Memorial was good for Israel and/or the Jews.

It might be argued that preventing a bigot from participating in an event in honor of Martin Luther King is the opposite of trying to destroy the event.


UPDATE: (Jan. 14, 2012 9:00 AM)

I have been able to find (via Facebook) a poster for the concert on which Atzmon's name does not appear. It's possible that he was invited to participate by the event's musical coordinator as a member of an ensemble, but did not play as a solo act. It also seems possible that the school's administration had no awareness of his history or even his participation.

I've put in a call to Friends Seminary to give them an opportunity to comment. If they choose to do so, I will add their comment to this post.


UPDATE: (Jan. 15, 2012 10:00 PM)

The principal of Friends Seminary has issued a statement indicating that the school's administrators were unaware of Gilad Atzmon's political beliefs in general or his bigotry in particular prior to Alan Dershowitz' column in the Daily News. He also writes that Atzmon a) was invited to perform by the musical director of the event on the basis of his musical ability and not his politics, and b) Atzmon did not distribute offensive political literature to students at the school.

He writes:

In his op-ed, Dershowitz refers to a visit by Atzmon to classrooms and the distribution of an essay from his website to students. We have confirmed that Atzmon visited one class, a jazz ensemble class, where, according to the instructor, he spoke about listening and ear training and not politics. I want to emphasize that at no point did Atzmon engage our students in the questions or scenarios detailed in the Dershowitz op-ed.

Friends Seminary does not endorse anti-Semitism nor Gilad Atzmon's political beliefs . . . Please be assured that the School will not tolerate expressions of anti-Semitism, bigotry, or hateful speech of any type. 

While the facts about Atzmon's being invited to perform and lecture at the school are still not entirely clear, I do find the school's disavowal of Atzmon's hate-speech to be a positive development and very much in the spirit of the man whose spirit the concert was intended to remember.
__________________________________________________

NOTE: I apologize for the editorial problems with this post. Editing it on the fly, I made two cut and paste errors which inadvertently put the deliberately offensive words of Gilad Atzmon outside quotes, making them seem to be mine. I apologize to anyone who was offended and thank the readers who informed me of the problem.

Intemperate, rancorous reactions to Obama endorsements

Emory University Professor Deborah Lipstadt, who has endorsed Barack Obama for the presidency (read here), has a blog post detailing the venomous attacks she's received from Republicans in response (read here).

I have been inundated with emails that are replete with all sorts of idiocy. They are, by and large, too stupid to recount. There is a sense of real hysteria in them. There may be good reasons to support McCain but these people are off the wall.

I have been told that Obama is: pro-Muslim, anti-American,pro-Farrakhan [that Farrakhan is a close associate of Obama], anti-Israel, (and) a Manchurian candidate [this from a nameless person who was described as a top U.S. analyst in DC... ].

I have been told that I have spun and skewed, engaged in major distortions, shown a lack of critical scholarship,offered arguments with no intellectual credibility [all of the above came with no examples of how I did so... just the charges], am a self-hating liberal Jew, (and that I) don't know Jewish law.

Then today these folks really hit bottom: they sent an email out contending that the O people form with their two hands [it is akin to the three fingers people used to hold aloft as a sign of support for George W.] is the same as a Hitler salute..... This is hardly worth comment... are they suggesting that Obama and Hitler were in cahoots? Maybe they don't know that Hitler had been dead 15 years when Obama was born.... that neo-Nazis are behind his campaign?

Finally, many of these emails repeat [in exactly the same language... as if it came out of a mimeograph machine... if you remember what that is] that I told people to vote for Obama because he is Black. Give me a break. Anyone who can read that into my last paragraph smells to me like a latent racist or maybe like someone who can't read.

Jews have prospered in this country in countless and unimaginable ways. America has given us tremendous opportunities. While no one should vote for Barack Obama because he is black, the fact that a black man is a nominee for the highest office in the land constitutes an affirmation of the fact that at long last, some of the final barriers of discrimination are crumbling. For Jews it is yet another reminder of the blessings this country has offered them and other minorities.

I wonder if these folks will say the same thing about Gen. Powell's statement this morning on Meet the Press

And I can't deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud--not just African-Americans, but all Americans--that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it'll electrify the world.

* * *

Professor Lipstadt need wonder no longer whether General Powell will be similarly slandered. Here's historian Judith Apter Klinghoffer writing at George Mason University's History News Network (read here):

Do you believe that Colin Powell would have endorsed a WHITE DEMOCRATIC Candidate for president? Me neither. Do you believe Colin Powell would not have run for president had he been WHITE? Me neither. Do you believe that Barack Obama would have offered Powell or any other black man who failed to endorse him a seat at the table? Me neither.

To be honest, I never liked the man. He struck me as a coward. Yes, he was a general but he let fear of assassination prevent him from running for the presidency and he betrayed those who gave him a seat at the table in ill timed books.

Well, the two man deserve each other. Honor, gratitude and loyalty are not values familiar to either of them. Throwing old friends under bus is a common sport for them. All we can hope is that the American people will see through the media hype and give them their just dessert. A defeat in the polls.

Disgusting.

Klinghoffer's intemperate statement stands in sharp contrast to General Powell's thoughtful, well-reasoned one (view here). Klinghoffer is unable to mount a coherent argument against General Powell's endorsement of Obama, so instead slings senseless insults. On the other hand, in his statement, General Powell details the strengths of both McCain and Obama, explains why he supports Obama, and explicitly disavows the sort of racial bias Klinghoffer imputes. He also explicitly condemns the rancor of the Republican campaign. Klinghoffer, in her angry response, senselessly calls General Powell "a coward" in spite of his distinguished record of service in combat. Equally senselessly, she calls Powell "disloyal" in spite of his loyalty -- excessive loyalty, in fact -- to the Bush administration, who, it must be said, used him very badly indeed. Most senselessly of all, Kilinghoffer also tells us, as if we should care, that she "never liked" Powell. Her ad hominem argument (such as it is -- it's more invective than argument) tells me that, in addition to having a problem with anger management, she's also a very poor judge of character.


This blog has received a comment similarly accusing General Powell of being motivated by racial bias to endorse Obama. Here's part of my response:

(W)hy are you suspicious when one African-American supports another? Are you similarly suspicious of whites supporting other whites, or do you take that for granted? You need to examine your own racial bias. I believe that psychologists call what you're doing "projection".

* * *

Harvard University Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz, a notable supporter of Israel, and, like Professor Lipstadt, a backer of Hilary Clinton's run for the Democratic nomination, has also come out in support of Barack Obama (read here). He has subsequently come under attack from the left.

Blogger Richard Silverstein, whose idealistically titled blog Tikkun Olam has a reputation for being harshly combative (especially behind the scenes), is especially harsh in his critique of Dershowitz' endorsement statement (read here).

Though Dershowitz is a nominal Democrat, I still find it odd and off-putting that he’d endorse Obama. He’s clearly far out of sync with Obama’s world view. Dersh endorsed Hillary in the primaries and certainly seems much more comfortable with her hawkish, slavishly pro-Israel line.

Hardly "out of sync" with Obama, here's what the life-long Democrat Dershowitz actually said in his endorsement:

I support (Obama) on policies unrelated to Israel, such as the Supreme Court, women's rights, separation of church and state and the economy. But I also prefer Obama to McCain on the issue of Israel ... because I think it is better for Israel to have a liberal supporter in the White House than to have a conservative supporter in the oval office. Obama's views on Israel will have greater impact on young people, on Europe, on the media and on others who tend to identify with the liberal perspective. Although I believe that centrists liberals in general tend to support Israel, I acknowledge that support from the left seems to be weakening as support from the right strengthens. The election of Barack Obama -- a liberal supporter of Israel -- will enhance Israel's position among wavering liberals.

For Silverstein, a harsh critic of Israel with no interest in enhancing Israel's position among liberals, that's a bit too much. Silverstein, who refers to Dershowitz as "Dersh" (maybe he's using the Norman Finkelstein style guide), claims without any evidence or supportive argument, that the timing of the Dershowitz endorsement was cynically based on a desire to be on the winning side. In a moment of venting, he admits his bias, stating "I can’t tell whether I despise Marty Peretz or Alan Dershowitz more," and questions why Harvard would allow Dershowitz on its faculty.

Silverstein appears to be operating under the misimpression that Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are at opposite ends of a political spectrum, the nature of which he does not spell out. If he truly believes that Clinton and Obama disagree so completely about Israel (or, for that matter, about the economy or globalization or a wide range of other issues), I'm afraid that it's Silverstein and not Dershowitz who's in for a severe disappointment should Obama win.

By the way, Silverstein has already been disappointed by Obama's support for Israel. Silverstein advocates divesting stock in corporations doing business in Israel, and earlier this year supported a deceptive anti-Israel divestment referendum aimed at the Seattle municipal employee pension fund (read here) -- a referendum which was subsequently struck down by a Washington State judge as illegal (read here). When Obama gave his well-received speech at AIPAC in June of this year, Silverstein accused him of "pandering to his audience's prejudices", without specifying what he thought these prejudices were. Silverstein then complained that Obama linked anti-Israel divestiture (which Silverstein supports) with anti-Israel boycotts (which Silverstein claims to oppose). (Read here.) It seems to me that Obama's inclination to connect divestment and boycott is entirely rational, while Silverstein's attempt to differentiate between the two is either salesmanship or wishful thinking.

Something tells me that Silverstein and others on the left are in for more severe disappointments if they're hoping for Obama to demonize Israel.

Dershowitz: Obama Should Repudiate Brzezinski

Yesterday, I posted then took down a piece on controversy on Obama's foreign policy advisers' views on Israel. I was essentially defending Obama's choice of Samantha Power as an adviser and defending her against what I initially thought to be excessive criticism of remarks she made in 2002 concerning Israel and domestic political concerns. I found problems in both sides of the argument with respect to inflated tone and emphasis on rhetorical issues. Frankly, I have mixed feelings concerning the merits of both sides of the argument over Obama's foreign policy staff and need a little more time to research the facts and digest the issues.

In the meantime, let me clearly state that some of Obama's choices are troubling to me. Of particular concern are the presence of Robert Malley and Zbigniew Brzezinski, both of whom are biased against Israel. Obama needs to explain what the presence of these two advisers in key positions on his staff says about his intended policies. I know that this issue will be a key point of the upcoming campaign should Obama be nominated -- as it should be. These are legitimate questions to raise reflecting both on Obama's position on the issues and his judgment with respect to nominees. Obama and his campaign staff have made some very positive statements in support of Israel in response to these questions, but avowals of good intentions are not enough. As a loyal Democrat strongly concerned about the welfare both of the United States and Israel, I want Obama to more fully address these issues now. It's in his interest and in the nation's as well.

I also wanted to use this piece to make the point that neither Democratic candidate is likely to do as much damage to the long-term interests of both the United States and Israel as the Bush administration has by pursuing policies which lower the value of the dollar, raise the price of oil and saddle the United States with excessive debt. This has weakened the United States and strengthened the oil-producing Arab states in ways that will become fully clear over the next several decades. I am much more concerned with that than I am with what Samantha Power said in an interview in 2002.

While I consider my position further, read the following from the NY SUN of September 12, 2007:

Dershowitz: Obama Should Repudiate Brzezinski (BY RUSSELL BERMAN):

Senator Obama may have distanced himself from a book criticizing the Israel lobby, but a prominent Harvard law professor — and Senator Clinton ally — says the Illinois lawmaker needs to go a step further and repudiate his newest foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The Harvard professor, Alan Dershowitz, has emerged as a chief critic of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a new book in which authors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argue that a powerful coalition of individuals and organizations has pushed America into supporting Israel in ways that undermine its national interests.

The book has drawn widespread scorn from the pro-Israel community, and it appears to have divided Mr. Obama and Mr. Brzezinski, a former national security adviser to President Carter who recently joined the Illinois senator's presidential campaign. Mr. Brzezinski will be with Mr. Obama as the candidate delivers a major policy address on Iraq today in Iowa.

Amid a firestorm over an initial working paper Messrs . Mearsheimer and Walt published last year on the Israel lobby, Mr. Brzezinski rose to their defense, even as he demurred on the question of whether he agreed with their central arguments. The authors, he wrote in the journal Foreign Policy, "have rendered a public service by initiating a much-needed public debate on the role of the ‘Israel lobby' in the shaping of U.S. foreign policy."

Mr. Obama's campaign took the opposite route earlier this week when notified that an ad for its Web site appeared on the Amazon.com page of the Mearsheimer-Walt book. The campaign immediately removed the ad, saying its placement was unintentional, and issued a statement saying Mr. Obama believed the arguments in the book were "just wrong." "I'm glad he's done that, but now he has to dissociate himself from Brzezinski," Mr. Dershowitz said in an interview yesterday. He said the Mearsheimer-Walt book was "a bigoted attack on the American Jewish community" and that Mr. Brzezinski's comments in Foreign Policy last year amounted to an endorsement.

Through an assistant, Mr. Brzezinski declined repeated requests to be interviewed yesterday about his views on the book and Mr. Obama. He endorsed the first-term senator last month, praising his long-running opposition to the Iraq war and offering a high-profile boost to a candidate who has struggled at times to combat the perception that he is inexperienced in foreign policy.

Mr. Dershowitz, who has contributed $1,000 to Mrs. Clinton's campaign and is supporting her candidacy, said his criticism of Mr. Brzezinski extended beyond the Mearsheimer-Walt book to what he said was Mr. Brzezinski's broader "anti-Israel" rhetoric in recent years. The former Carter aide was highly critical of Israel during its war last year with Hezbollah in Lebanon, at one point saying its actions amounted to "the killing of hostages."

Mr. Dershowitz said that while Mr. Obama has been a strong supporter of Israel, he "made a terrible mistake" by bringing on Mr. Brzezinski, which he attributed to "naïveté."

In response, the Obama campaign released a statement from one of its top supporters in the Jewish community, Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida. "Barack Obama has been a consistent supporter of Israel and this is an unfortunate case of a fabricated controversy for political reasons," he said. "I speak with him often on Israel policy, and I can tell you firsthand that Barack Obama is opposed to the arguments presented in this book."

UPDATE: ALAN DERSHOWITZ ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENCY...