The Algemeiner ran a roundup of reaction from U.S. Jewish groups on Secretary of State John Kerry's speech on Middle East peace and included B'nai B'rith International's statement.

Scroll down to read or check it out on Algemeiner.com.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s Wednesday speech on the Israel-Palestinian peace process was “a failed attempt to defend the indefensible,” a leading US pro-Israel group said.

Contrary to Kerry’s claims, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) said, the anti-settlement UN Security Council resolution that “the administration unconscionably failed to block [last week] was unfair, unbalanced and represented a profound departure from the policies of previous Democratic and Republican administrations for nearly the past forty years.”

Furthemore, AIPAC noted, “Secretary Kerry placed overwhelming, disproportionate blame for the failure to advance peace on our ally, Israel, while neglecting numerous Israeli peace offers and Palestinian refusal to resume direct talks.”

AIPAC went on to urge Congress and the incoming Trump administration to “renounce the recent action taken by this administration and to begin the work of repairing the damage done to the cause of peace and the US-Israel relationship.”

Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper — the dean and associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center – stated, “It is unprecedented for an outgoing administration to make such a draconian foreign policy shift — while simultaneously packing their boxes to leave Washington. Secretary Kerry makes it sound like it’s the apartments and kindergartens built in Jewish communities on the West Bank that are the main impediment to a two-state solution, when he and those diplomats who voted for UNSC 2334 know that it is Palestinian terrorism, and the continued control of Gaza and the largest portion of the Palestinian population by terrorist Hamas that is the main roadblock to a true peace.”

“Get rid of Hamas, its terror tunnels, tens of thousands of rockets aimed at the Israeli heartland, get rid of the genocidal hate brainwashing Palestinian children and the world will see a two state solution rapidly become a reality,” Hier and Cooper continued.

Morton A. Klein — national president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) — said in a statement that Kerry’s address was “filled with anti-Israel vitriol and falsehoods” and “essentially was a proposal for a Hamas-Fatah-Iranian-Palestinian-Arab terrorist state, which divides Jerusalem in two, forcibly evicts Jews from their homeland, and requires Israel’s retreat to indefensible borders.”

Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks stated, “By claiming this speech is a framework for peace in the Middle East, President [Barack] Obama and John Kerry are playing the Jewish community for fools. Their recent actions at the United Nations did nothing more than allow President Obama to take a parting shot at Israel and Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, while at the same time creating new roadblocks to peace. True peace in the region cannot be achieved by isolating Israel in the international community, but rather can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.”

In a statement, B’nai B’rith International said, “Kerry’s speech, at times suggesting equivalence between the Israelis and Palestinians, neglected to describe all the ways in which the US-Israel alliance is deeply in America’s national interest. We regret that the final weeks of the current administration have been overshadowed by unnecessary strain in this relationship, and urge that no further action be taken to weaken it, whether at an upcoming political conference in Paris or at the UN in New York.”

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan A. Greenblatt said in a statement, “While we appreciate Secretary Kerry’s concern about policies and dynamics that may jeopardize the path to a two-state solution, we are deeply disappointed by elements of his speech and cannot separate it from the US abstention at the UN Security Council. Despite Secretary Kerry’s explanation, the US abstention has the potential to set in motion many initiatives that delegitimize and demonize Israel, rather than advancing the peace process.”

J Street, on the other hand, said in a statement it “applauds Secretary of State Kerry’s speech today, which powerfully made the case that the two-state solution is not only in Israeli and Palestinian interests, but in the American national interest as well…We thank the secretary for delivering that message so powerfully and calling urgent attention to the deteriorating reality on the ground that is challenging the viability of the two-state solution.”

TEL AVIV (JTA) — The feeling in this country following the adoption of the anti-settlements resolution in the U.N. Security Council on Friday is more than palpable.

For those who observe Shabbat, there was the knowledge on Friday afternoon that a vote in New York would occur after all had sat down to dinner, with the outcome unknown until early the next evening. For others, Shabbat dinner was served with the TV volume turned up to hear the outcome of the vote.

By Saturday evening, and continuing into the new week, the resolution and its ramifications had become Topic A in cafes, barber shops, supermarkets and offices. The national letdown caused by the American abstention — outrage may be a better word — can be felt everywhere.

Now the conversation is turning to what may come next. There is concern that another shoe will soon drop, possibly a Security Council measure that would outline the parameters of a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a development that would fly in the face of the long-supported notion that only face-to-face negotiations can bring about a lasting peace agreement.

Next month, several new countries will be assuming seats on the Security Council, including Bolivia, Italy, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan and Thailand. The council will be chaired for the month of January by Sweden, whose government has made no secret of its pro-Palestinian bias. Sweden was the first European country to recognize a Palestinian state and its foreign minister, Margot Wallstrom, has essentially signed on as a cheerleader for the Palestinian Authority. Wallstrom blamed Palestinian “despair” for motivating the terrorists who carried out the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher killings in Paris in January 2015. Following the spate of stabbings of Israelis in Jerusalem and other cities, she charged Israel with “extrajudicial executions” of those who perpetrated the acts. On her recent visit to Israel, before which she was told she would not be welcome, no major Israeli political figure would meet with her.

How would a vote on a new resolution look? That’s unclear. Israel in recent years has made important strides in its relationships in Africa. Jerusalem’s ties to Ethiopia are long standing as well. But Addis Ababa is home to the African Union, some of whose members have excellent relations with Israel and some who don’t.

Kazakhstan, the site of a recent visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, also has had ties with Israel going back to the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. So does Italy, which will rotate its council seat with the Netherlands. Both countries are also members of the European Union, which as a member of the Quartet — along with the United States, Russia and the United Nations — has taken upon itself to push for a two-state solution based on direct negotiations.

What does the Quartet position mean in the wake of the settlements resolution? The United Kingdom and France, both currently EU member states, voted for the settlements resolution, much as they did when the matter last came before the Security Council in 2011.

These European members of the council bear a special responsibility toward Israel and the Jewish people. In three of them — France, Italy and the Netherlands — Nazi collaborators (and in the case of Italy, the state) collectively sent over 200,000 Jews to their deaths during the Holocaust. And the U.K., in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, prevented thousands of survivors with tattoos on their arms from entering prestate Israel, sending them to internment camps in Cyprus.

With that in mind, and with acts of anti-Semitism becoming a daily occurrence across the continent, will the European members arbitrarily dictate the security borders of the Jewish state, very possibly leaving it indefensible against neighbors and terrorist organizations?

And finally, what of the United States? With very few exceptions, the consensus view in Israel is that allowing the settlements resolution to be adopted will not bring peace, or any accommodation with the Palestinians for that matter, one day closer. Whatever one may feel about settlements, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel has been re-energized by the resolution’s differentiation clause, which calls on countries to distinguish between Israel and the territories. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority is chomping at the bit to take Israel before the International Criminal Court against Israel. With Palestinian claims to the Temple Mount now buttressed by the resolution, the P.A. can now proceed to the U.N. Human Rights Council in March waving the settlements resolution in support of that body’s infamous Item 7 basket of anti-Israel resolutions.

All of this is enough to conclude that rather than advancing a settlement, the gulf has now been widened.

Enough damage has been done to the cause of peace by the Obama administration’s enabling the settlements resolution. In the three weeks that remain before a change of U.S. administrations, can we turn instead to the tragedy of Syria, of which Aleppo is the symbol? Or to fighting ISIS? Or to calling out Iranian deception regarding the nuclear agreement, its takeover of Lebanon, half of Iraq and half of Yemen, and its support for Hezbollah and Hamas?

Is it possible, for a just a moment, to stop fixating on an issue that calls not for bias and placing one’s ally in an untenable position, but for a solution that leaves the Jewish state in a more secure condition?
Is it possible?
​
(Daniel S. Mariaschin is the executive vice president and CEO of B’nai B’rith International.)

The Hebrew Watchman (Memphis, Tenn.) ran a story on Morris Fogelman, the Fogelman family and their impact on the Memphis Jewish community and the city as a whole. Fogelman has long been an ardent member and support of B'nai B'rith International. 

Scroll down to read the story below. 

WEST HAVEN >> Santa Claus is headed to the West Haven campus of the VA Healthcare System for Christmas Eve.

Harold Miller, president of the New Haven area B’nai B’rith International, a Jewish service organization, said Santa and 30 or so volunteers will spread cheer to patients through Christmas carols, handing out gifts and visiting those who served the country.

It’s a decades-old tradition begun in the mid-1950s, and Miller, who has been involved for more than 30 years, said it’s an amazingly uplifting night for all.

“A lot of these people have no visitors on the holiday,” Miller said. “For lots of them, we’re the only people they’ll see. ... I’ve seen some of them (moved to) tears.”

Miller, an Orange resident, recalls a nurse one year putting it this way: “I know why God made you the chosen people — it’s for all the good things you do.”

Volunteer and B’nai B’rith member Mike Romeo of West Haven — who looks a lot like Santa that night — and spent 30 years in the Navy, said that night is “Probably one of the most rewarding things you can do.”

Romeo said there is a special connection between Jews and veterans because so many rescued relatives from Nazi concentration camps, including his grandfather and his wife’s relatives.

“These guys are the guys that freed them from the camps. How much do I owe them?” Romeo said, adding that his wife, Faith Romeo, bought 250 meals for veterans at the hospital on Thanksgiving.

“There’s no possible way we can repay them,” Romeo said. “They stood between us and those who did us harm.”

VA recreation therapist Cheryl Cresta said the visit from B’nai B’rith volunteers is so uplifting that staff members volunteer to work Christmas Eve so they can be part of it and some veterans are moved to tears because “someone thought of them.”

Crespa, a veteran herself, is there on the big night and like Miller and many others, brings her family to join in the festivities.

“The veterans really enjoy it because to be stuck in the hospital on Christmas Eve is depressing,” she said. Crespa said the group takes their time, entertaining and mingling for about four hours. “It’s an amazing thing.”

Romeo recalled a touching moment on one of the Christmas Eves when, as Santa, he came across a veteran from Afghanistan who had lost both his legs and was visiting with his parents and younger sister. The sister asked her father, “Is that the real Santa Claus?” He said, “Yes,” and so Romeo visited with her and gave her a bag of little gifts. Romeo said the veteran who had lost his legs turned to his mom and said, “This is the best Christmas I’ve ever had.”

B’nai B’rith International is the largest Jewish service organization in the world and community service is at the heart of it, said Miller, who also serves on the national board.

During Passover, the organization’s Project H.O.P.E. provides Kosher food for Passover to needy families in their various communities and for the New Haven region that Miller leads, that translated into 380 families in the region being served last Passover.

The Christmas Eve gig lights up spirits throughout the hospital, including among staff, Miller said.

They pass out gift bags with items donated by various individuals and businesses. This year, among the goodies will be wallets, toothbrushes, crossword puzzle books, chocolate, pens, playing cards. Each nurses’ station will get a donated tray of goodies, as well.

Miller and Romeo said another great part of the night is that the B’nai B’rith youth group also participates, so they are learning to continue the tradition. Miller said on the rare occasions when Christmas Eve falls on Friday, they do their visit on Christmas Day.

Romeo said the night ends for he and some of the other volunteers with a prayer and a cry in the VA parking lot.

There are reasons to be optimistic about the progress of the bilateral relations between Israel and several Latin American states. Changes in the leadership of several countries, as well as a more proactive Israeli policy towards the region, are proving quite promising. On the other hand, it seems that there is still a long way to go when it comes to translating these good relations into changes in the voting patterns of some of these countries at the United Nations on resolutions involving Israel.

Let’s start with Paraguay. From the moment, Paraguayan President Horacio Cartes took office in August of 2013; the relations with Israel (which had already improved during the interim government of President Franco) got a strong boost. The Paraguayan government started to distinguish itself from other voices in the region and took a principled stance every time Israeli actions were judged by other nations. During the latest Gaza war, for example, there was an attempt at a meeting of Mercosur (the economic bloc that includes Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Venezuela) to issue a joint communiqué strongly condemning Israeli actions. Paraguay opposed this measure. And it took similar positions in support of Israel in different international forums. Today, Paraguay abstains on almost all anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations.

An important step taken by Israel to strengthen the bilateral relations with Paraguay was the decision to re-open the Israeli Embassy in Asuncion (which was closed in 2002 for budgetary reasons). This was very well received in Asuncion by both the Paraguayan government and the local Jewish community.

Three key anti-Israel resolutions were put to a vote at the General Assembly a few days ago. These are the resolutions that renew, year after year, the mandates and the funding authorizations for the following entities: 1. the Palestinian Rights Division; 2. the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; and 3. the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People. These resolutions are very important because they maintain a powerful anti-Israel propaganda apparatus that functions under U.N. auspices.
Paraguay kept its abstentions on these three anti-Israel resolutions this year. Even though these abstentions are highly appreciated, it would be desirable for Paraguay to go a step further and cast “no” votes, as abstentions unfortunately do not prevent resolutions from being approved at the General Assembly. Time will tell if Paraguay will be ready to make that positive move, in light of the increasingly close relations between this South American nation and Israel.
Israel’s relations with Peru have also improved in recent years. But Peru’s recent role at UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee was a cause for concern. The Peruvian representative actively supported a draft resolution (when the Committee met in Istanbul last July) that was quite insulting to Jews,  referring to the most sacred places for Judaism only by their Muslim names (it was, of course, insulting to Christians as well). The draft resolution could not be put to a vote because of the attempted coup in Turkey but when it came up again in October, Peru abstained, which clearly showed that the ambassador received instructions in this regard from the new government of Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, who took office in late July. The outlook of the new president, a brilliant economist who spent many years in the United States, and who has Jewish roots, bears well for the progress of the bilateral relations between Israel and Peru.
Peru has abstained on these anti-Israel resolutions at the General Assembly for many years now, and it kept these abstentions this year. As in the case of Paraguay though, it would be desirable for Peru to start voting “no.”
The arrival of Mauricio Macri to the presidency of Argentina in December of 2015, which put an end to the 12 years of “Kirchnerismo,” opened a window of opportunity for improving this country’s bilateral relations with Israel. And the positive signs are many. One of the first things President Macri did when taking office was to nullify the shameful “pact” that the previous government had signed with Iran to “jointly investigate” the 1994 terrorist attack against the AMIA Jewish Center (the worst terrorist attack ever suffered by Argentina or any other Latin American country). The president also promised to guarantee the independence of the judiciary so that the mysterious death of AMIA case Prosecutor Alberto Nisman, and the complaint that he had made against the government, are properly investigated.
Last April, the Executive Board of UNESCO approved a very troublesome anti-Israel and anti-Jewish resolution. The Argentine representative supported it but, when the resolution was taken up by the plenary last October, Argentina abstained. With regard to the three key General Assembly resolutions, since 2004, Argentina voted “for” two of these resolutions and “abstains” on one. Unfortunately, there were no changes this year in this regard.
Since Brazilian President Michel Temer took office last August, the country’s sometimes shaky relations with Israel appear to have entered a new phase. His Foreign Minister Jose Serra is close to the local Jewish community, and the government seems to be determined to get Brazil’s foreign policy a new turn. We still need to see if this will indeed happen, as Brazil’s powerful Foreign Ministry (Itamaraty) has proved over the years to be quite resistant to change. But there has been already a positive sign when it comes to Israel. Even though Brazil supported the troublesome resolution approved by UNESCO’s Executive Board last October, the Ministry issued a communiqué stating that unless the text is revised, Brazil will not support a similar resolution in the future. A small but positive step in the right direction. Brazil, however, supports, year after year, the three important General Assembly anti-Israel resolutions and, unfortunately, there were no changes this year.
Something very interesting happened in Mexico, a country that for many years has consistently voted against Israel at the United Nations and other international forums. President Enrique Peña Nieto traveled to Israel recently and promised that Mexico would not support the biased UNESCO resolution that was going to be put to a vote in October. His decision, however, was never transmitted by the career diplomats in the Foreign Ministry to Mexico’s new UNESCO representative, who happened to be Jewish. He cast a “yes” vote but not without protest. The local Jewish community then made its voice heard and Mexico (after trying unsuccessfully to modify its vote) decided to abstain in the plenary.
In addition, at the General Assembly, Mexico moved from “yes” to “abstain” on one of the three important resolutions, which is a pretty significant step.
Since President Tabaré Vasquez returned to Uruguay’s presidential office in March of 2015, that country’s relations with Israel made a turn for the better. Even though Vasquez belongs to the left-wing Frente Amplio party (the same party of former President Jose Mujica), he is a far more centrist leader and has interesting personal ties to Israel, as he had the opportunity to do post-doctoral studies at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot several years ago.
With regard to Uruguay’s votes at the General Assembly, like Argentina, Uruguay votes for two of the resolutions and abstains on one. There were unfortunately no changes this year.
Guatemala has given us a pleasant surprise this year. After a recent visit that President Jimmy Morales paid to Israel, during which the Israeli government pledged to support Guatemala on a number of areas, the Guatemalan U.N. representative cast a “no” vote on the three key anti-Israel resolutions, something that has no precedents in Latin America. This is a very important development and a strong sign of friendship between the two countries.
The bilateral relations between Israel and Honduras have improved considerably in the last few years. And this change has been reflected in the way Honduras votes at the U.N. This year, even though Honduras has kept its abstentions on two of the three important anti-Israel resolutions at the General Assembly, it cast a “no” vote on one of them, which is quite important.
Colombia continues to have excellent relations with Israel, even though President Santos does not have the same kind of personal ties that Former President Uribe had both with the Jewish community and Israel. Colombia has abstained on the three key anti-Israel resolutions at the UN for a number of years now and there were no changes this year.
Panama was, until now, the only Latin American country that voted “no” on one of the three key anti-Israel resolutions (the Special Committee to Investigate Human Rights Practices). This was a decision made by Former President Martinelli, who had excellent ties with Israel and the Jewish community. This year, Panama’s U.N. representative cast a “yes” vote when this resolution was put to a vote at the General Assembly’s Fourth Committee. A pretty dramatic change as it is unusual for countries to move from “no” to “yes.” The local Jewish community reached out to President Carlos Varela and this is probably why, when the resolution was taken up by the plenary, Panama abstained. Still, this move from “no” to “abstain” represents an important setback in the bilateral relations between Panama and Israel.
The current political environment is certainly favorable for the relations between Israel and Latin America to grow. And there is a lot that Israel can contribute to the countries of the region in the fields of agriculture, technology, security, science, education, etc. But Israel must ensure that the improvement of its ties with several Latin American states has a certain impact in the way these countries vote at the U.N., especially when it comes to resolutions that makes it possible for a powerful and strongly biased anti-Israel propaganda apparatus to operate under the U.N. roof.

The Australian Jewish News wrote an article on B'nai B'rith International President Gary Saltzman's visit to Australia last month, spending time with the ADC AntiDefamation Commission and speaking at the opening of its new headquarters at Shalom College.

IT’S been a momentous month for the NSW branch of B’nai B’rith.

Last Sunday, the organisation’s new headquarters at Shalom College were officially opened by B’nai B’rith International’s president Gary Saltzman, who was guest speaker at the annual dinner that night.

B’nai B’rith NSW president Anna Marks told The AJN, “The new facilities are fantastic – the boardroom can accommodate up to 50 people and the auditorium can seat about 200. It will serve us really well for the future.”
Meanwhile, the 2016 B’nai B’rith Oration – facilitated by the Alfred Dreyfus Unit – was held at Emanuel Synagogue on November 16.

Around 120 people enjoyed a panel discussion, moderated by Macquarie University’s Professor Lucy Taksa, which explored ways in which Australia and Israel are fostering innovation in the 21st century.

Panellists were honorary life president of the Zionist Council of NSW Dr Ron Weiser, Associate Professor John Langdale from Macquarie University’s Department of Security Studies and Criminology, co-founder of 10×10 Philanthropy Laurence Marshbaum, and chief customer officer and former CEO of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce Charles Nightingale.

Langdale said the fact that Israel is in a tough neighbourhood has necessitated that it becomes a leader in innovation and high-tech industries – “otherwise it faces a serious challenge to is own security and existence”.

“The experience Israel has in cybersecurity, for example, puts it in great stead to lead from the front,” he said.

But he said the start-up nation still has challenges it needs to address, such as a brain drain to the USA and Europe and “a temptation to take the money [from selling start-ups] and run, and there’s been a lot of recent discussions in Israel about how to address that”.
​
Nightingale hailed “Israel’s entrepreneurial embrace of ‘chutzpah’ and government policies it has introduced, including tax incentives and support for young entrepreneurs and -start-ups, and a clear strategy of developing high-tech clusters in major regional centres like Beersheba”.