The Times of Israel covered B'nai B'rith International's reaction to President Trump's State of the Union address. While commending the president for his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and for his disapproval of the Iran deal, the statement expressed concern with the impact of tax cuts on key social safety net programs for seniors. The statement also stressed the need for a bipartisan deal on immigration.

US Jewish organizations on Tuesday offered mixed reactions to US President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, with many praising him over his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and for underlining the danger posed by Iran, while criticizing his stance on immigration, tax cuts, healthcare, and religious liberties.

B’nai B’rith issued a statement saying it “salutes President Donald J. Trump for his steadfast support of Israel during his State of the Union address,” adding that “the refusal of the global community to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s rightful capital has long been objectionable.”

“Israel is the only country in the world whose choice of a capital is not internationally recognized. We commend this administration for its unequivocal support of Jerusalem and for reviving the US-Israel relationship,” it said, referring to the US president’s December 6 declaration.

However, the organization expressed “disappointment” with Trump’s tax cuts and the administration’s efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act healthcare program, known as Obamacare, saying the act had “done a commendable job of keeping health care premiums for older people somewhat in check.”

In his 80-minute address, Trump vowed to pursue immigration policies that focus on the “best interests of American workers and American families.”

“Americans are dreamers too,” Trump said.

His remark came as 700,000 immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children, the so-called “Dreamers,” risk losing their protected status while the White House and Congress square off over their fate.

On immigration, B’nai B’rith called for “both parties to agree on a plan for comprehensive immigration reform.”

But other Jewish groups expressed strong criticism of Trump’s rhetoric around the need for immigration reform, including the US president’s equation of immigrants with criminals and economic tension and call on a packed joint session of Congress to enact hardline restrictions.

Trump lamented that for decades, “open borders” had allowed “drugs and gangs to pour into” the United States, and again called for the construction of a border wall that remains unfunded in Congress.

“The United States is a compassionate nation,” he said, “but as president of the United States, my highest loyalty, my greatest compassion, and my constant concern is for America’s children, America’s struggling workers, and America’s forgotten communities.”

The Hebrew Immigration Aid Society (HIAS) tweeted that “closing our doors on those seeking refuge or in need is not what we stand for. It is NOT the American way.”

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) expressed similar sentiments.

“Justice delayed for immigrant youth is justice denied,” it said in a tweet. “Congress must take action to pass the #DreamActNow. Our children deserve a future where equal access to the American dream is embraced.”

Jewish organizations were particularly irked by Trump’s statement that his administration was “totally defending our Second Amendment” and has “taken historic actions to protect religious liberty.”

The ADL tweeted that Trump’s administration “should not be making it harder for people to access services under the guise of ‘religious freedom.‘ They should be enforcing anti-discrimination protections, not enabling discrimination.”

The organization was referring to a program by the Department of Health and Human Services designed to regulate “activities that violate conscience,” which it said could potentially make it “easier for healthcare providers to discriminate against women, LGBTQ people and others in the name of religion.”

Rabbi Jack Moline, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said in a statement that the US president “clearly doesn’t know what the words ‘religious liberty’ mean if he thinks he’s taken historic action to protect it. His actions in his first year as president have in fact significantly undermined the rights of people of faith whose beliefs don’t align with the president’s allies in the Religious Right.”

Meanwhile, some American Jewish organizations voiced support for Trump’s reiteration of his tough stance on Iran and opposition to the 2015 nuclear deal signed between Tehran and world powers.

“We agree with the president’s assessment that the Iran nuclear agreement is not a good deal,” said B’nai B’rith, adding that “the global threat posed by Iran’s access to nuclear weapons cannot be overstated.”

The ADL, meanwhile, said it urged Trump and Congress to “pursue legislation which targets Iran’s support for terror, and continue working to ensure that the regime does not engage in illicit nuclear activities.”

The president of Guatemala was honored with an award from an international Jewish organization for his decision to move his country’s embassy to Jerusalem and for his unwavering support of Israel.
Jimmy Morales received the Human Rights Award from global and regional B’nai B’rith officials during a ceremony Thursday in Guatemala City.
“We praised Morales for his courage and determination for the embassy announcement and for recognizing that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,” said B’nai B’rith International Director of Latin American Affairs Eduardo Kohn. “Additionally, B’nai B’rith reiterated our commitment to human rights, the fight for democracy and our relationship with Guatemala.”
Morales said that moving the embassy to Jerusalem is “the right action to take legally and historically.” He added that Guatemala is “the United States’ strongest ally” in combating and preventing terrorism in America.
“The Jewish people will always be grateful to Guatemala for its crucial role in Israel’s birth, and for the great roles then-Ambassador Jorge García Granados and then-President Juan José Arevalo played in recognizing the Jewish state,” added B’nai B’rith Latin America Vice Chair Marcelo Burman, who gave the Central American leader a shofar and a plaque highlighting his country’s record of defending human rights.
B’nai B’rith International advocates for global Jewry and champions the cause of human rights around the world, including combatting antisemitism and bigotry. Founded in 1843, B’nai B’rith International describes itself as the oldest Jewish service organization in the world.
Morales announced the embassy move on Dec. 24. In a Facebook post, he said that he had instructed his country’s chancellor “to initiate the respective coordination so that it may be.” The decision followed a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The announcement was made in front of an image of Guatemalan and Israeli flags fluttering side by side in the wind. The leaders, Morales said, spoke about “the excellent relations that we have had as nations since Guatemala supported the creation of the State of Israel.”
Days before, the U.N. General Assembly passed a nonbinding resolution rejecting any recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in reaction to President Donald Trump’s pronouncement on Dec. 6 that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and begin taking steps to move its embassy there from Tel Aviv.
Morales, who enjoys a large base of conservative Christian support, visited Israel in November 2016, to mark the 69th anniversary of the Partition Plan for Palestine vote in the United Nations. Shortly after his election in 2015, Morales visited a synagogue in Guatemala City, met with members of the Jewish community and declared his desire to visit Israel.
Guatemala is home to about 1,000 Jews out of a population of 15 million.

Under federal regulations proposed last week, a hospital aide could refuse to wheel a patient to her car after she receives an abortion. A hospital clerk could choose not to process the paperwork of a patient who had her tubes tied after giving birth.

The Trump administration created a new division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) called the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division last Thursday. It would ensure that health care providers and their agents would not be penalized for refusing to perform such tasks based on religious or moral objections. Hospitals that refuse to comply could lose their federal funding.

The draft regulations are 216 pages long and came as a surprise to many, according to Jody Rabhan, director of the Washington operations at the National Council of Jewish Women.

“HHS issued them without anyone knowing about it,” she said. “Staff and relevant agencies were caught off guard.”
The department did not reply to an email query seeking further explanation about the proposal.

There is now a 60-day comment period after which there will be a review of comments and then a rule issued.

David Barkey, religious freedom counsel for the Anti-Defamation League, said that although the ADL and other “Jewish groups strongly advocate for reasonable accommodation of religious objections, there can be no infringement on the rights of others — which is the case here. And it allows others with no connection to medical procedures to opt out without any penalty.”

The new regulations, he added, would cover those who “assist in the performance” of a medical procedure — “as long as the person is part of the staff. Thus, a receptionist could refuse to provide the phone number of a clinic that performs abortions. And what if you are applying for an HIV program — it opens the door to not treating anyone who is gay. … It undermines the treatment of women and the LGBTQ community and does not balance religious freedom with other civil rights.”

Work places are permitted to accommodate healthcare providers’ religious and moral beliefs as long as they do not present an undue hardship to a third party. But Rabhan said the new proposed regulations “appear to sanction discrimination. … The rules are incredibly broad and are another notch in the administration’s belt as it goes after abortion and transgender rights — trying to deny them what is available under the law.”

She pointed out that last October the Trump administration issued regulations that permitted for-profit businesses to claim a moral or religious objection to providing no-cost contraceptive coverage under their employee health insurance plan.

“This is an attempt to take the teeth out of what we have in the current law regarding providing reproductive health care for women and for transgender folks,” Rabhan said. “What they can’t do legislatively they are doing through regulations, new divisions and executive orders. We’re seeing a clear trend of enforcement policy towards a complete denial of care to those who are most in need. There is no doubt about it.”

Rabhan noted also that last fall the Department of Education rescinded an Obama administration directive and said that schools no longer have to allow transgender students and staff to use the toilet of their choice.

Eric Fusfield, director of legislative affairs for B’nai B’rith International, said it is too early to know how the new regulations will be implemented.

“We’ll monitor the situation and see how it develops,” he said. “Will it work to balance the religious and conscience beliefs of medical professionals with the rights of patients who require services and with employers whose function it is to provide the services? Or will the office legitimize discrimination against women and LGBTQ people? That is the question.”

He noted that the Trump administration has “already taken protections away from transgender students, military personnel and employees, and the concern is that this is another area of transgender life where transgender people might be impacted. Gender reassignment surgery, for example, and the medicine they require. That is the fear.”

B’nai B’rith International’s longstanding policy, Fusfield added, is that the “rights of employees should not supersede the rights of patients who need treatment. … If a pharmacist objects to dispensing birth control pills, the pharmacy must assign a co-worker to dispense the medication in his place because the woman who needs it must be able to receive it. We would like to see legislation that would guarantee the balancing of rights.”

Nancy Kaufman, CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women, noted in a statement that under the proposed rule, HHS “would initiate audits of federally-funded programs (including state programs), mandate new recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and ‘use enforcement tools otherwise available in civil rights law to address violations and resolve complaints.’ That HHS could seek to void state-level protection is unconscionable.”

David Bernstein, president and CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, voiced similar sentiments and observed in a statement that health care professionals are currently allowed to refuse to carry out certain procedures for religious reasons.

“It is critical that any new policies do not lead to discrimination or interfere with a patient’s right to make informed decisions about what is best for them,” he said.

The Jewish Democratic Council of America said in a statement: “Religious freedom should not be confused with a license for hatred and discrimination. Only an unprecedented and partisan understanding of religious liberty could lead one to think conscience protections cover the right of individuals acting in a professional context in non-sectarian institutions to refuse care to patients based on their identity.’

Rabbi Jack Moline, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance, which is dedicated to protecting the boundaries between religion and government, called the proposed rules “a travesty and a complete inversion of the protections of the constitution.”

“It is the rule of law in this country that counts and not the personal objections of any individual, no matter how strongly felt,” he said. “If there is a Supreme Court ruling or if a piece of federal legislation allows certain medical procedures to take place, and if the provider – a hospital or a practice – is willing to provide other medical services that are legal, selectively withholding medical care on the basis of personal preference is the opposite of the rule of law. … That is anarchy. It does not matter how passionate an individual is about his beliefs, you don’t get to say: ‘I am exempt from the requirements of the law.’”

Rabbi Moline compared this to the county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple. The couple sued and won and was issued a marriage license by another clerk.
​
“The stakes are higher here, but the principle is the same,” the rabbi said.

בגיל 98, עדיין באיטליה – המדינה שבה נולד, חי כל חייו, נלחם בנאצים והציל את בני עמו היהודים, זוכה אנצו קאווליון להכרה רשמית בפועלו: "אות המציל היהודי". מאות פליטים יהודים – למעלה מאלף במספר – קיבלו סיוע ומסתור מקאווליון לאחר ההכרזה על שביתת נשק בין איטליה לבעלות הברית.

ואף שהוא עצמו יהודי והיה חבר המחתרת הפרטיזנית "איטליה חופשייה" – החליט קאווליון לא להציל את עצמו, כי אם לסייע לאחיו. האות שקיבל אתמול (יום א') מהמרכז העולמי של "בני ברית" והוועדה להוקרת גבורתם של המצילים היהודים בשואה, נועד למעשה לתקן את הסברה הרווחת המוטעית כאילו יהודים לא עסקו בהצלת אחיהם היהודים בשואה.

קאווליון, אז בשנות העשרים המוקדמות לחייו, היה אחד מ-14 חברים שהקימו את הקבוצה הפרטיזנית "איטליה חופשייה", בראשות עורך הדין המקומי האנטי-פשיסט, דוצ'ו גלימברטי, ביום שבו נכבשה קונאו על ידי הדיביזיה אס-אס הגרמנית. חברי הקבוצה יצאו לפעולות שונות ממקום המסתור שמצאו - מנזר מדונה דל קולטו, 18 קילומטרים מערבית לקונאו. אנצו ואחיו הצעיר, ריקרדו קאווליון ז"ל, נשארו עם הקבוצה עד אוקטובר 1943, ואז נאלצו לעזוב כדי לעזור למשפחותיהם להימלט ממעצר בקונאו.גנב תעודות זהות ממשרד ראש העירבנוסף לקרבות נגד הגרמנים והפשיסטים באיטליה, קאווליון ואחיו הצעיר ריקרדו סייעו לפליטים היהודים לחמוק מהכוחות הנאצים שפלשו לאזור צפון איטליה לאחר נפילת משטר מוסוליני, תוך סיכון אישי רב. מעל לאלף יהודים התגוררו בכפר הצרפתי סנט מרטין וסובי המרוחק, שהיה נתון לכיבוש האיטלקי. היהודים נמלטו עם כניסתו של הצבא הגרמני לאזור.

הקרב האחרון של ניצול השואה:
"סבא נאבק להשבת הציורים"
טלי פרקש
אדית יוריך בת ה-28 יצאה למסע מתועד בעקבות מלחמתו של ניצול שואה, אז ילד בן 10, להשבת התמונות שהיו תלויות בבית סבתו, ושוויין מיליונים. הילד הזה הוא סבא שלה, ז'ורז' יוריך. "עבורו החזרת הציורים הייתה סגירת מעגל והשלמה עם זוועות העבר אחרי 73 שנה"
גברים, נשים, ילדים וקשישים טיפסו את הרי האלפים במסע רגלי מפרך שארך כשלושה ימים וחצו את הגבול הבינלאומי לאיטליה, רק כדי לגלות שהגרמנים הסתובבו גם שם. כ-300 מהם נתפסו ונשלחו לאושוויץ. ה-700 הנותרים מצאו מקלט בקרב האיכרים המקומיים בסיוע אנצו וריקרדו אחיו, שמצאו עבורם מקומות מסתור, סיפקו להם מסמכים והסתירו אותם ברכסי ההרים מפני הנאצים.

אלפרד פלדמן, ניצול שואה, העיד בספר זיכרונותיו One Step Ahead: A Jewish Fugitive in Hitler's Europe כיצד גנבו ריקרדו ואנצו תעודות זהות ממשרדו של ראש העיר ויגנולו (Vignolo), שזויפו לאחר מכן וחולקו לחלק מהפליטים. אנצו פעל למרות הסכנה שריחפה מעל ראשו."בני ברית" מילאנו, המרכז העולמי של "בני ברית" והוועדה להוקרת גבורתם של המצילים היהודים בשואה העניקו לקאווליון את האות בביתו – ולאחר מכן ערכו טקס בבית הכנסת בקונאו, שבו נשאו דברים בנו, ההיסטוריון פרופ' אלברטו קאווליון, אלן שניידר מנהל המרכז העולמי של "בני ברית", ועוד.

למעלה מ-200 יהודים כבר זכו באות"אות המציל היהודי", שנוסד בשנת 2011, הוענק עד כה לכ-200 מצילים שפעלו בצרפת, הונגריה, יוון, גרמניה, סלובקיה, יוגוסלביה, רוסיה, פולין, אוקראינה והולנד - ועכשיו גם איטליה.

"זו זכות להעניק לך את 'אות המציל היהודי' ועל ידי כך להמשיך במאמץ בן 20 השנים שלנו לתקן את הנרטיב ההיסטורי, כאילו יהודים לא פעלו להצלת יהודים אחרים בשואה", אמר לקאווליון אלן שניידר, מנהל המרכז העולמי של "בני ברית".

בטקס עלו דמעות בעיניו של קאווליון, כשנזכר ביהודים שפגש בצד האיטלקי שלרבים מהם סייע. לאחר המלחמה המשיך קאווליון להתגורר באיטליה והחזיק במשך שנים רבות חנות שטיחים עם אחיו, ריקרדו.

On Sunday, January 14, 2018, HNDGS Chief, Admiral Evangelos Apostolakis HN met at the Officers Club in Athens, with a delegation of the American Hellenic Institute (AHI), American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association (AHEPA) and American Jewish Organizations (B'nai B'rith International & Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations). The aforementioned delegation visited Athens as part of their tour in Greece, Cyprus and Israel from 14 to 19 January 2018.
The HNDGS Chief during the meeting noted:

• The modern security environment, emphasizing the geopolitical developments in Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East and Balkans.
• The role of stability Greece and Greek Armed Forces play in the wider region.
• The participation of Greece in the EU-NATO framework.
• The excellent level of bilateral cooperation with US and Israel Armed Forces, as well as the initiatives undertaken by the Greek side to promote military cooperation with Balkan, North Africa and the Middle East countries.
• The violations of Hellenic territorial sea and airspace, by Turkish Armed Forces units.

On Tuesday, January 16, 2018, the delegation will visit HNDGS where they will be briefed on national defense policy as well as units of the Greek Fleet at the Salamis Naval Base.

U.S. President Donald Trump did the right thing when he recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Jerusalem has been central to the Jewish people for 3,000 years and the capital of the State of Israel since 1949. And it will remain the capital of Israel under any peace agreement, even if the definitive boundaries of the city are subject to negotiation.

Trump was also complying with US law, as the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 called for the relocation of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In addition, last June, the US Senate unanimously passed a resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem that called upon the president and all US officials to abide by the provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act. Therefore, this was a legitimate, sovereign decision by an American president. In this regard, the UN General Assembly resolution adopted on December 21 that opposed this decision was presumptuous, to say the least.


An analysis of Latin American and Caribbean votes, though, shows an important number of countries did not oppose the US decision.

In fact, of 19 Latin American countries, nine did not support the resolution: Guatemala and Honduras voted against; Argentina, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Panama and Paraguay abstained; and El Salvador was suspiciously absent.

With regard to the 15 members of the Caribbean community, also known as CARICOM, seven did not support the resolution: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Jamaica, Haiti and Trinidad and Tobago abstained; and St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Lucia were absent.

Before the General Assembly vote, both Trump and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said the US would cut off financial aid to any countries that voted in favor of the resolution. This message was heavily criticized by the press and in diplomatic circles.

After the vote, many commentators said the strategy did not work. When it comes to Latin America and the Caribbean, this is not quite true. Let’s analyze each case: Guatemala and Honduras, which voted against the UN resolution, both have long-standing relationships with the State of Israel that have become even stronger in the last few years. Guatemala’s President Jimmy Morales, it is worth noting, recently announced his decision – which could be followed by other countries in the region – to follow the US example and move the Guatemalan Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The abstentions of Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Paraguay, on the other hand, can be mainly explained by the general worldview of these governments and their fairly good relations with Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s efforts to strengthen ties with Latin America and his recent historic trip to the region – in which he visited Argentina, Colombia and Mexico and met with Paraguay’s president while in Argentina – could have had an impact, too.

But there is no doubt the administration’s message had an impact on the Dominican Republic and El Salvador, two countries that have consistently voted for every anti-Israel resolution at the UN CARICOM members that did not to support the resolution against Trump’s Jerusalem decision – with the exception of Haiti – usually vote at the UN against the US position on Israel. The fact that they were either absent or abstained from this resolution is striking and shows the administration’s message had a strong effect on this group of countries.

Guatemala’s vote last month against the United Nations resolution opposing the Trump administration’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, has since earned the South American country little but opprobrium — and worse — from the Palestinians, their supporters and a host of others.

The secretary-general of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Saeb Erekat, vowed that the Palestinians would “punish” Guatemala for its vote. The Palestinian Authority termed the vote a “shameful” act, with its comrade-in-arms, Bolivian president Evo Morales, charging Guatemala with “having sold its dignity to the empire [the United States] to not lose crumbs from USAID.” Hamas, not to be outdone, called Guatemala’s action “a grave offense against our people,” and a “flagrant violation … of our rights.”

Eight other countries, led by the United States, voted against the resolution; 128 voted for it, 35 abstained, and another dozen were absent for the vote, which took place on December 21. Headlines around the world called the vote a “repudiation,” a “condemnation” and a “dramatic rebuke” of the Trump administration.

Still other critics wrote off Guatemala’s vote as being influenced only by President Jimmy Morales’ evangelical Christian faith.

The fact that 128 countries supported the resolution — many of which, like Germany, France and the United Kingdom could have, at the very least abstained — doesn’t make it right.

Guatemala’s vote, which is being characterized by Evo Morales and many others as simply a play to curry favor with the Trump administration, is unfounded. Guatemala’s record as a friend of Israel dates to the very founding of the Jewish state. Seventy years ago, Guatemalan Ambassador to the United Nations Jorge Garcia Granados assembled a group of Latin American countries to back the UN partition plan.

His commitment was on full display when, at one of the debates at the UN Special Committee on Palestine, he said: “The Jewish state is the reparation that humanity owes to a people that, for 2,000 years, without guilt and without defense, have suffered humiliation and martyrdom.” Indeed, Granados cast the very first vote for the establishment of the state of Israel, and Guatemala was the first Latin American country to recognize Israel after her statehood was declared in May 1948.

In 1956, Guatemala became the first country to open an embassy in Jerusalem (with Granados appointed as its first ambassador). Guatemala and Granados are already memorialized in Israel; a number of cities, including Jerusalem, have streets named after them.

While Guatemala did move its embassy to Herzliya in 1980, in the midst of the oil embargo and intense pressure from the United Nations and the Arab world, it has now announced the relocation of the embassy back to Jerusalem.

With the UN Human Rights Commission (now Human Rights Council) zeroing in on Palestinian-inspired one-sided resolutions against Israel some 20 years ago, it was Guatemala’s ambassador to the UN, Antonio Arenales, who consistently resisted immense pressure and voted against those measures, often together with the United States and a few other countries.

Arenales also represented Guatemala at the infamous 2001 Durban Conference on Racism, where Israel was the subject of an unprecedented hate fest.

Between 2006 and 2014, reflecting changes at its foreign ministry, Guatemala did an uncharacteristic diplomatic U-turn and was supportive of the Palestinian narrative at the UN, and in other international forums. That changed in 2015, and has been on a positive track since then.

No doubt, with its December 6 vote on Jerusalem, and with its embassy move in sight, bilateral relations between Israel and Guatemala will surely take another leap forward. Cooperation in many fields has long marked relations between the two countries. In the 1960s, an Israeli cousin of mine — a veteran kibbutznik — served as an agricultural advisor in Central America, based in Guatemala.

Clearly, even the 35 countries that abstained on the vote had misgivings about endorsing a resolution that blasted Israel’s right to name its own capital. After 70 years, it was the right thing to do.

At the UN General Assembly, Guatemala did not only what was diplomatically correct, but what was morally correct, as well. Guatemala has been a good friend of Israel, and has stood against the tide of political correctness and the usual herd mentality at the United Nations. It has now come under unjustified, withering criticism and bullying for doing so.
​
Instead, Guatemala should be thanked for its contribution to sanity and decency in the community of nations, a group woefully short on both.