Commenter Profile

Searching for: outreach (14 results found)

You can also use % as a wildcard: %ondoweis% will match mondoweiss

Showing comments 14 - 1

  • The immaculate conception of Louis Brandeis
    • Rosen probably left it out because, frankly, it's not really very important, and because there's about as much debate over this topic among historians as there is about climate change between scientists. Shapiro's view is an outlier that no one seems to endorse. Shapiro acknowledged that the evidence for the view was weak.

      In any case, Shapiro first made this claim in 1965 in the American Jewish Historical Quarterly; he turned the article into a book in 1971. It was pretty much debunked in 1973 by Stuart M. Geller in the same publication. You can find both articles on JSTOR.

      The claim was presented as an inference, and Shapiro seems to remain almost alone among historians in making it; there's a scholarly debate that's about as one-sided as the scholarly debate over whether climate change is real. Shapiro also quoted selectively from Brandeis's 1910 interview with de Haas; he quoted the portion of the interview where Brandeis rejected hyphenated identities, without including the portion of the same interview in which Brandeis expresses sympathy for the Zionist cause.

      Contrary to your nonsensical assumption here that those who disagree with Shapiro (which is virtually everyone), is motivated by pro-Zionist views, Shapiro himself cited Brandeis's biographer Alpheus Mason's view that Brandeis's involvement in the Zionist movement grew out his mediation of a garment worker strike in 1910. He calls Mason a competent biographer.

      As Shapiro's article concedes, Brandeis had many contacts with Jews and Judaism before 1913, including the garment workers, and those Jewish leaders he met when he campaigned with La Follette in 1912. Shapiro writes that antisemitism from business interests and from prominent Bostonians, and not opposition from Jewish business leaders like Jacob Schiff, was the main reason that Brandeis was denied a cabinet appointment. Though Brandeis generally did not discuss antisemitism in his letter, he was clearly the victim of it as a lawyer and as a confidante of Wilson's. Shapiro's contention is that the antisemitism that mitigated against Brandeis's appointment made the opinion of prominent Jews like Schiff more important.

      But contrary to your claim that strong evidence exists to support your viewpoint, Shapiro himself makes clear that it is "impossible from the available evidence to determine how effective the refusal of these Jewish leaders to stand by Brandeis on Wilson's final decision" not to include Brandeis in his list of Cabinet appointees. Shapiro merely infers that this was the case from Wilson's apparent desire to appoint someone Jewish who would be satisfactory to Schiff and his associates, and the fact that Brandeis began his association with Zionist a few days after he was denied a Cabinet appointment.

      The hypothesis doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Brandeis was well-known as a progressive lawyer and leader. He had support Robert La Follette during the 1912 election. Wilson's attempt to appoint him to be either Attorney General or Secretary of Commerce would have been met with overwhelming opposition by business leaders, and that is the most likely reason for his rejection for both positions, rather than Jacob Schiff's opinion that he was an unrepresentative Jew. Brandeis was also opposed by virtually the entire leadership of the Democratic Party in Massachusetts.

      Indeed, the isolated quote from the Schiff letter to Max Mitchell, which seems to be as much a remark to convey Schiff's annoyance with the assumption that Brandeis needed to be a representative Jew in order to merit a cabinet appointment, is the only written evidence that exists of any campaign on the part of rich German Jews to oppose Brandeis's nomination, and it's very weak evidence indeed; as Geller points out, there is no evidence of such a campaign in Wilson's papers or in the papers of Felix Warburg, who worked with Schiff.

      As Geller also points out, Wilson biographers place no great emphasis on Brandeis's Jewishness as the reason for his appointment to the Supreme Court; rather, they believe it was Brandeis's radicalism, and its contrast with the strict constructivism of James McReynolds, Wilson's 1914 appointment, that represented the reason. Brandeis's appointment, which occurred in the midst of the 1916 election season, was an example of Wilson's outreach to those progressives.

      As far as Taft, there were many reasons for Taft to hate Wilson and Brandeis; both men were Taft's political antagonists, and of course, Taft wanted the Supreme Court appointment that Brandeis got. Geller includes much more of Taft's letter in his piece, and it is clear that Shapiro's quoting was very selective. Taft hated Brandeis's progressivism much, much more than he detested Brandeis's alleged newfound love for Judaism.

      Shapiro's own article undermines his case. Besides telling De Haas of his sympathy for Zionism in 1910, in 1914, soon after he became active in the American Zionist movement, Brandeis told Louis Lipsky, the head of the Federation of American Zionists, that he regretted not being able to do so earlier for lack of time. That would be a much more obvious explanation than scheming on Brandeis's part to achieve an appointment, given Brandeis's demonstrated support for Zionism as early as 1910. Jacob Schiff did strongly support his appointment in 1916, but so did many progressives who were being courted by Wilson, and there is no reason to believe that Schiff's support made the difference then, or in 1912-13.

      I can see why you (and the antisemitic website jewworldorder, which republished this piece of yours), would be attracted to a theory that attributes to Jacob Schiff the power to decide who can and cannot be appointed to the Supreme Court. Theories attributing outsized power to rich Jews seem attractive to you, and to your commentators, like Ronald Johnson, who quotes from Holocaust denier David Irving's website to make an overt Der Sturmer-type antisemitic claim about Jews pushing the United States into World War I.

      This is also the latest example where you've adopted some outlier belief, and have rejected all contrary to that belief as "disingenuous," "dishonest," etc, any opinion contrary to yours is "preposterous," even if it comes from multiple scholars who have far more credibility on the topic than you do; you've adopted a minority scholarly view that accords with your presumptions.

  • Clinton will hold fundraiser in Tel Aviv
    • "Foxman caused Sanders to have to fire Simone Zimmerman as Jewish outreach director."

      Why do you think that Foxman saying something is the reason Sanders suspended Zimmerman. Abe's retired. Do you have any proof that he's the reason she was suspended? Please present it.

      "Notice that the limestone facade of the building has the Bill of Rights’ establishment clause. And meantime Gary Ginsberg, a member of its board, is writing speeches for the leader of a foreign, religious state surely in large part out of religious affinity."

      Just stop with this demagogic bull. Israel is not a "religious state," and Gary Ginsberg has a perfect First Amendment right to write speeches for whomever he wants. I'm sure that President Modi in Indian has close relations with Indian-Americans who advise him, and I'm also sure that Prime Minister Salman of Saudi Arabia, which actually is a religious state, has Saudis and Arab-Americans here helping him.

      " If this were the Christian right, not the Jewish right, it would be a scandal."

      And with that. The Christian right in United States has the power to pass legislation that affects the day-to-day lives of all of us, and they're maybe 25 times the size of the Jewish community, and in no way comparable to Netanyahu, who is not religious, and is a head of state. This comparison is nonsense.

  • Sanders's leftwing base made him take on Netanyahu
    • Here we go with the "he-was-brave" comment, written in the same sentence as "he's-getting-votes-out-of-it comment.

      Plenty of Jews, particularly the liberal Zionists who lay the best claim to Bernie Sanders's views on Israel (and whose views you now co-opt), were happy to hear Sanders criticize Netanyahu, who is a very easy target, and to repeat what Paul Wolfowitz said 14 years ago about having sympathy for the Palestinians.

      As you can also see, Sanders isn't a BDS fan, and the reason he suspended Simone Zimmerman (which almost seems like a plan to promote her more than it does to hurt her, since hiring her as Jewish Outreach Coordinator made no sense in the first place), is probably because she's widely perceived as a BDS advocate (even though she does not advocate BDS).

  • Sanders hires a Jewish critic of Israel, as Clinton gets 'Daily News' nod as 'warrior realist'
    • "what about the fact that her Jewish advantage is way bigger than her white people advantage with Bernie"

      What are you talking about? Her advantage with white voters according to the Siena poll is 49-46 and 49-40 among Jews. That's not "way bigger." That's pretty similar. And you seem to have made the very common, but subtly racist, assumption that all Jews in NY are white. That's certainly not true. And even if it were, it certainly wouldn't show that Jews were more conservative than the average white Democratic voter. It could show many things, including that Hillary is perceived as the likely nominee, that people think Sanders's program is politically unrealistic, etc.

      "Also, the guy who tipped me on that poll said that Simone Z hire shows Bernie isn’t going for the W. "

      Well, it's not a great idea if the purpose is to do general outreach to the Jewish community, but Simone Zimmerman is quite well-connected and has a base in both New York and California, and she seems to know how to organize, and Sanders relies on young voter turnout, so if the goal is to turn out young voters, it makes some sense.

      But I think that the fact that Simone is willing to work for a candidate who proclaims his love for Israel, supports its existence, and has voted for most of the pro-Israel legislation that has come through the Congress during his tenure, may say more about her than it does about him.

  • State Dep't slams Netanyahu's Hitler story as 'inflammatory' and against 'scholarly evidence'
    • "A world leader downplays Hitler’s role in the holocaust.

      And our resident zionist can’t find one word to condemn it."

      Well, first of all, I'm not 100% sure what he was trying to say. If he was trying to say that the Mufti prevented Jews from emigrating, then he's on solid ground. It appears that that was his point, since he's clarified his statement since then. If he's trying to repeat this Barry Rubin thesis that the Mufti came up with the Final Solution or inspired it, then he's being a complete fool and should resign.

      "Are they the Palestinians you meet at your ‘outreach’ programmes?"

      I'm not sure what outreach programs you're referring to. I have met and spoken with Palestinians, and none of them have tried to defend the Mufti's relationship with the Nazis. If you know of some who do defend his relationship with the Nazis, his exhortations to "Kill the Jews," and his work to convince some European Muslims to support the fascists, I'll be glad to be in touch with them.

  • Forgiving the anti-Semites
    • "Huh? Who said that Hophmi? Who? Show me the man, let him show his face! And I will tell him, right to his schnozz: “You listen to me buster, Hophmi doesn’t do “PR”! It’s OUTREACH!!!”"

      It's neither. I'm here for the comedy.

  • Faithwashing: the Muslim Leadership Institute and the academic boycott
    • "so i take it you don’t do real outreach. on account of you getting a kick out of blowing your own horn., albeit anonymously. but you’re still here blowing your own horn."

      You really are a piece of work. You allow Mooser to harass and bully me, and then you do things like this. Just wow. I don't think I know many people who act with this level of bad faith.

    • I'm sorry, I just have to note that no fewer than three times here, in the space of 20 comments, Mooser harps on this point about my affiliation with Jewish-Muslim dialogue groups:

      "Mooser April 8, 2015, 3:59 pm
      ” Good approach for becoming a closed-minded fool.”

      Hophmi, this would be a perfect time to tell us the names of the two “Muslim outreach” organizations on which you say you serve on the Boards of Directors. Anybody can see that, in addition to being the number-one diagnoser of Jewish self-hatred, you are also the Outreach King.
      C’mon Hophmi, show these guys what real outreach looks like."

      "Mooser April 8, 2015, 9:02 pm
      BTW, mentioning “The Phils will Fall Away” and Hophmi’s “Board of Directners of Muslim-outreach” positions sure produces a paucity of Hophmis.

      What a modest fellow."

      "Mooser April 9, 2015, 10:33 am
      Thanks, Walid, for linking to that. Ever heard of a guy who is on the Boards of Directors of two Muslim-outreach organizations, but can’t tell us his name, or the name of the organizations? Must be a ‘covert outreach’ thing."

      So in the span of about 30 hours, three separate comments, none substantive, all personal attacks on me that violate the comment rules and are meant to harass me and have me reveal personal details about my life, were put through by the moderator. I think there's something wrong with the moderator who allows this cyberbullying to go on, and with the person who feels the needs to obsessively harass me like this.

    • Mooser: Real outreach is not something people involved tend to talk about publicly, because Jews like me face harassment from people like you on the radical left and from Zionists on the radical right and Muslims involved in outreach face harassment from similarly radicalized people in their own communities, and if they live in the Middle East, they often face serious danger at home. Although there are exceptions, in my experience, the people who do real outreach are not the kinds of people who love to blow their own horns. And no Mooser, I am not the "outreach king." There are many, many Jews and Muslims involved in outreach of some kind.

      Because you're so interested in my personal life: My participation in Muslim-Jewish outreach is with Muslim communities in New York. I am on the board of a new organization called the Jewish-Muslim Volunteer Alliance, which does joint Jewish-Muslim volunteering and holds an annual Iftar dinner each year, and I also sit on the board of an institute within the American Jewish Committee that does Muslim-Jewish outreach, and has done work with Imam Khalid Latif of NYU, mentioned above. Many of the Muslims we work with tend to be people who came from South Asian families, but there are a significant number of Arab Muslims involved as well.

      I also have close friends involved with the Muslim-Jewish Conference, an international organization based in Europe that brings young Jews and Muslims from around the world together each year in Europe, often at great risk to the Muslims, who are often afraid to talk about it in their home countries, and the NYU Building Bridges program, which is a joint program between NYU Rabbi Yehuda Sarna and Imam Latif, who are the chaplains of their respective communities at NYU. Despite what you may read here, not all Muslims are on board with the idea of avoiding working with Jewish organizations, and not all Jewish organizations restrict their institutional work with Muslims to those who are "Arab Zionists" or some brand of disgruntled Muslim apostate. Perhaps you can simply get it through your heads that Jewish organizations like AJC and ADL are really much bigger than their position on Israel, and that there is a huge range of perspectives within the Jewish communal world on all of this stuff, rather than taking the myopic view that everyone thinks the same in the American Jewish community and Israel advocacy is somehow all they do because this is all that you're interested in because this is the only thing you see on TV. It's always funny how all of you criticize the MSM, and then fail to consider how you yourselves might be negatively affected by its proclivities.

      Some of my friends, who know some of the MLI participants, are horrified by the way people in the Muslim community and in the BDS movement have smeared them for political purposes. These are good people, who simply reject the idea that they should live their lives by the dictates of Palestinian NGO's, radical Western activists, and other Muslim NGO's who wish to segregate Muslims from most Jews, whether they sympathize with the Palestinians or not (and most do). As usual with this conflict, it seems impossible for people to criticize an idea without trashing the people who may disagree with them.

      Donald: "I’m not sure why anyone needs to go to Israel in association with a group that supported the bombing of Gaza. One can learn the various Israeli points of view without giving legitimacy to people who are comfortable applauding for war crimes."

      I don't think so, Donald. I don't think anyone can fully appreciate the various Israeli points of view without actually visiting Israel and speaking to people there (because you might just learn why people who have to run to bomb shelters every five minutes might support military action against people who fire rockets at their countrymen), and regardless, I certainly don't think that people deserve to be harassed and smeared if they choose to go. Perhaps you can think for a second and recognize the irony of saying that people shouldn't affiliate with an organization that supported the bombing of Gaza when the BDS movement has repeatedly failed to condemn Palestinian terrorism. All you're doing is guilt-by-association, and the truth is that your problem is with these guys visiting Israel at all, not with their visiting on the Hartman Institute's dime.

      "If MSM is what one reads/watches then ALL they hear is the Israeli pov~ from Israelis, American Zionists, CUFIs, US politicians, newspeakers and editors."

      Yeah, that's a nice well-worn cop-out, but it's nonsense; hearing government officials or American advocates is not a substitute for talking to actual Israelis just like hearing Iranian officials on TV is not a substitute for talking to Iranian people and listening to American officials on TV is not a substitute for talking to actual Americans. As I said, the same MSM focuses on Israel obsessively, which leads people here to think that large Jewish communal organization focus on Israel and nothing else, when the reality is that Israel advocacy is a small part of their work.

      Walid: The people in MLI are not "Arab Zionists." The people you're talking about are generally apostates, some of whom converted to Christianity and now work for Christian evangelical organizations as Pablo Christiani types. The people involved in MLI are Muslim leaders who are interested in seeing things for themselves in Israel. You're just going to have to come to grips with the fact that not every Muslim, and this is particularly true for Muslims outside of the Middle East, practices the same brand of politics as you do. The way people like you are treating MLI participants is exactly the way you accuse the Jewish community of treating Jews who are either liberal Zionists or non-Zionists.

      Perhaps, Mooser, you can detail your outreach work for us now.

  • Inflammatory posters at UCLA call Students for Justice in Palestine 'Jew haters' (Updated)
    • Yes and yes, which is why I've been merciless on people in my community that engage in it, why I supported the Park 51 project, why I've posted several dozen screeds on social media taking on people like Pamela Geller and why I participate in Jewish-Muslim outreach.

  • Why I confronted Gregor Gysi
    • "Radical coverage of the actions of Arabs/Muslims encourages haters to engage in violent activity against Arabs/Muslims around the world. I support your opposition to such radical coverage."

      I'm not sure what constitutes "radical coverage," (I assume you mean the Pamela Geller variety) but I've long been a vocal opponent of Islamophobia, and Islamophobic coverage of the Muslim community, and I am on the board of multiple organizations that do Jewish-Muslim outreach.

  • 'NYT' piece on Israel coexistence singer leaves out his latest gig: AIPAC
    • I am responding to it. It's nonsense. It is based, first of all, on the completely false assumption that everyone who goes to the AIPAC conference is a right-wing fanatic. That's nonsense.

      Some of us still believe that being a peace activist involves actually making your case, rather than talking amongst yourselves. Broza obviously understands that part of peacemaking is convincing those who care about Israel that things need to change. That's much harder than the Ira Glunts approach of writing screeds for far-left blogs where he's sure to find support amongst fellow travellers.

      And of course, the notion that Broza performed at AIPAC out of "tribal loyalty" and that Rudoren wrote about him for the same resaon, is a smear. It's also a stupid one. Plenty of non-Jews attend the AIPAC conference. Broza plays many different audiences, Jews and non-Jews.

      Similarly ridiculous is the idea that anyone who works in the territories must obey any rules the BDS movement sets down for them, and it's highly patronizing to assert that the Palestinians Broza works with would feel differently about him if they knew he also did outreach to American Jews who are pro-Israel; a large number of Palestinians still believe in dialogue with Israelis, even if comfortable leftist Westerners like Ira Glunts do not.

  • 'Haaretz' says many Orthodox are taught to see non-Jews as 'not quite human'
    • "You keep trying to portray the teachings of a couple of million Hassidic and Haredi groups as if they are a national secret that only a traitor or bigot would openly discuss."

      Not at all. I think I've made crystal clear that I am harshly critical of all of this stuff. The only point I've made is a broad point about judging people as individuals, rather than through the lens of liberal smugness. Thus my suggestion that people actually visit Williamsburg. I'd make the same point about Islam; there are all kinds of exclusivist beliefs in Islam (and globally, these views have had much more dire consequences than the views of a few million ultra-orthodox Jews), but I surmise that most people living in the places where these beliefs emanate are decent people, and I would recommend visiting their countries with an open mind.

      "But these groups run their own websites and publishing houses and are openly discussing their beliefs on the Internet everyday."

      As I said, I'm not a supporter of their views.

      "Some of them, like Aish, run the Hasbara Fellowsips and bring thousands of Jews to Israel for indoctrination every year."

      Aish is your example? I don't think you'll find very much on Aish's website in the realm of gentiles-are-less-than-human. Your one cite is to a brief answer from a rabbi addressing the issue of reincarnation. As the rabbi who answered it said, Jews are not the only people who believe in reincarnation, and aside from these rabbis who sometimes say these things, it's not a very big issue in the haredi community, and does not have anything to do with Gentiles, as far as I can tell.

      Aish itself is an organization that focuses on outreach to secular Jews, usually by providing opportunities for Jewish learning, much of which is of the pop-psychology variety.

      "Many of these works I’m talking about cite the Babylonian Talmud or the Shulchan Aruch as a proof texts for these doctrines. Those works are available online in English and their discussions regarding the rules governing relations or the legal status of Gentiles strike most modern readers as racist.
      link to
      link to
      link to"

      I'm sure they do. The Talmud was written around 1500 years ago. It reflects the mores of 4th or 5th century Babylonia. And yes, in this very, very long compendium, it is not hard to find stuff that is exclusivist and anti-Gentile, though a good deal of it was removed by Christian censors. For the record, the Talmud also says plenty of nasty things about women, and plenty of nasty things about, well, Jews. It's a 73-volume compendium of lecture notes. It's not a holy book.

      By the way, I would recommending upgrading from the Soncino edition you use. The Soncino is a very literal translation of the text, which really cannot be understood without Rashi, which is how religious Jews have understood it for the last several hundred years. Most people who study Talmud in the English speaking world today use Artscroll, which reflects a certain Haredi bias; the best edition out there is probably the new Koren edition, which is quite a literary and aesthetic achievement, and incorporates the work of both academic scholars and rabbinical authorities, and the translation of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz.

      You've cited to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, a work compiled in the 19th century. That's sort of the Shulchan Aruch Cliffnotes. A good deal of the full Shulchan Aruch is available in English on Wikisource. It's not the only source of Halacha, but it is a major source.

      "They say that Gentiles, with the exception of a few predestined converts, lack any manifestation of the Divine spark of a Jewish soul and that their spark has become so separated and darkened that it is only enough to sustain their existence. So for all practical purposes they are completely evil. These Gentiles, the bulk of humanity, are second class creatures."

      Yes, Hostage, some people hold retrograde views like this, just like they believe that the Earth really is around 5,700 years old. But no matter how many times you point this out, it has not much to do with the political conflict in the Holy Land, or more accurately, about as much to do with it as the anti-Jewish views of Islamic fundamentalists in the West Bank and Gaza. Both play some role, but these views are amplified by partisans on either side to distract from the political shortcomings of the protagonists.

      "It’s pointless for you to suggest that no one is actively teaching or promoting these doctrines, just because they weren’t part of your own Orthodox upbringing:"

      I'm not suggesting that at all. I was merely responding to those who suggested that Modern Orthodox Jews teach these things. That's the educational upbringing that I had.

      You've posted some Chabad links. I don't see eye to eye with Chabad on politics or theology. But they provide a fairly good example of a community where these ideas, whatever role they may play in the educational process (and I cannot speak to the issue having never been to a Chabad school) mean little in the real world. The Chabadniks interact plenty with the Gentile world, whether it's with their African-American neighbors in Crown Heights, where they've been at the center of reconciliation efforts since the early 1990s, or with the many communities in foreign countries in which they serve. I've been around Chabad rabbis enough at this point; I have never once heard any one of them talk about Gentiles in this way, and frankly, I cannot imagine any of these guys doing so; it's just not who they are. I mean, it's easy enough to ask them these questions point blank. I'm sure there are Chabad rabbis in Kansas to whom you can place these theological questions, rather than reading one of the rebbe's sichot and simply assuming that everyone thinks this way or cares about this issue.

      By the way, in this whole discussion of Hillel, people here may not know that Hillel's biggest competition these days is Chabad, which has been aggressively expanding on campuses across the country, much to Hillel chagrin, I'm sure. They're not using the opportunity to teach these kids about how Gentiles are bad. They're using it to give them Friday night meals and a place to celebrate Jewish holidays.

  • Smarting at Israeli's reception, Florida school says students must not interrupt a 'lawfully invited' speaker
    • " In all honesty, you believe that the hypothetical pro-israel demonstrators would be sent by the university to a hamas or islamic jihad re-education centre in the US to learn about their perspective on the conflict and Islamaphobia."

      The university hasn't sent the kids to an ADL re-education center, and ADL is not the moral or political equivalent of Hamas or IJ, but thanks for playing:-)

      The only reference to "re-education" was that made by the students who were punished. The attempt of this website and EI to present that opinion as "fact", and your buying it, is part of the propaganda campaign that goes on here.

      If you'll notice, there hasn't been one word about what the ADL program is, not a word about its details, not a word about what the students were actually taught there. No, you saw ADL and figured that you had no responsibility to actually check your facts on whether the program constituted re-education or what the program actually was.

      In fact, the program is the ADL's anti-bias program for campus. There isn't a word about Israel in it. It is a general anti-bias program.

      So this is really what happened. A group of students violated school rules on assembly and targeted a speaker solely because of the country he came from. The school, probably long a user of the widely used ADL anti-bias curriculum for their students and their faculty, asked them to attend anti-bias training, and since the ADL is one of the country biggest providers of such training, they asked them to do it through the ADL anti-bias program.

      The students saw that the ADL was a Jewish organization, and felt insulted that they, as Muslims, were being asked to take part in a program administrated by a Jewish organization. So, without going through the program or examining what the program actually was, and knowing that there is a contingent of people out there who will see ADL and draw certain conclusions, put ADL and reeducation in the same sentence, and Phil Weiss and Mondoweiss bought it hook, line and sinker.

      Now, I challenge Phil to do his job as a journalist, call anyone who works at the ADL, and find out what people actually learn in the anti-bias program, and then, to publish a correction if he learns that Middle Eastern politics have nothing to do with the program. That would be an improvement over being a weasel, and being played by the antisemites down at FAU who can't follow basic rules.

      You can request an information packet about the "A Campus of Difference" program here:

      And, as always, I invite those of you who work at Muslim organizations to learn from the ADL's work and devise your own anti-bias programs instead of complaining like small children about ADL program you clearly know nothing about.

Showing comments 14 - 1