The following is an edited (expanded and updated) open letter, which Seva Brodsky originally wrote to Nancy Kaufman (former Executive Director of Boston’s JCRC, present head of the National Council of Jewish Women ), Alan Ronkin (former Deputy Director of Boston’s JCRC, present Director of AJC’s DC Regional Office ), and Sari Nusseibeh (past and present President of the Al Quds University ). Included in the Cc were Boston Globe’s columnist Jeff Jacoby (who authored one of the referred-to articles), Michael Widlanski (Professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem), and David Bedein (the Bureau Chief of the “Israel Resource Review”).

The following edited open letter now also includes Robert Leikind (former head of New England chapter of ADL and present head of AJC’s Boston office ) and Larry Lowenthal (former head of AJC’s Boston office and presently a lecturer at Northeastern University, one of my alma mater, where he “distinguished” himself yet again). Emphasis in italics is mine. You may find the fact of these “veteran Jewish activists and civil rights leaders” being rotated and recycled through the “network of professional Jews” (i.e., “Jews by profession”) somewhat illustrative and rather typical of this good old boy – and girl – network, which in the process of playing “musical chairs” sucks up a lot of donor money while arguably bringing very little added value.

From: Seva Brodsky
Subject: Al Quds “university”, Sari Nusseibeh, Brandeis University – and you
To: Nancy Kaufman, Alan Ronkin, Sari Nusseibeh, Robert Leikind, Larry Lowenthal
Cc: Jeff Jacoby, Michael Widlanski, David Bedein

Hi Nancy, Alan, Larry, and Robert

You may remember the ill-fated presentation by Sari Nusseibeh, the head of the Al Quds “University,” organized and sponsored by you as part of a JCRC lunchtime series in December of 2004 at 126 High St. in Boston, at which time Nancy was the Executive Director of JCRC, Alan was her sidekick, Larry was the Boston head of AJC, and Rob was ADL’s man for New England.

You may also remember the outrage this caused among some of us who were appalled by your decision, which left you with no choice but to grudgingly agree to allow us to bring in David Bedein and Prof. Michael Widlanski of Hebrew U. to give a proper rebuttal to the soft-spoken lies and propaganda deftly delivered by Nusseibeh to the starry-eyed Kumbaya types at 126 High St. who so desperately wanted to believe him.

And you may also remember, Nancy, the heated discussion you and I had about the whole affair a little later, when you exclaimed in exasperation and desperation, “But who can we talk to if not him?” and my response to you, “Nobody, if there is nobody to talk to.” I tried to explain to you that we did not necessarily have to talk to anyone if “there was no there there,” as has been the case all along with most of the Palestinian Arabs, especially those in power or close to its corridors.

Your inexplicable (at first encounter) desire and need to have someone to talk to “on the other side” – especially given the murderous nature of, alas, so many on the “other side” – was therefore both unconscionable and beyond belief. But I doubt I got through to you back then – your firm belief in prevailing liberal dogmas was just way too strong, as you’ve been drinking the multi-culti Kool Aid for way too long. Incidentally, this is what our enemies count on and so often take advantage of, whether you’re aware of it or not, thereby making you a de facto accomplice, “in effect, if not in intent” (to borrow an apt term from Lawrence Summers, a former Harvard president who had to resign under pressure from leftist, feminist, and anti-Israel extremists for voicing a reasonable, if politically incorrect, hypothesis about gender differences – the truth of which, incidentally, has been scientifically proven very recently ).

I was thinking back then whether there was anything in the world that might have convinced you, Nancy, to change your view of the world (as the rest of us knew it). Alas, “Don’t confuse me with facts, for I have never allowed them to stand in the way of foregone conclusions” still rules the day for the likes of you, I’m afraid. No amount of factual evidence would be enough to shake you out of your cosy, if suicidal, slumber of self-delusion.

Well, time has its own way with history – as the old Chinese proverb (attributed to Sun Tzu) says, “If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by.” I have waited long enough – 9 years, to be exact – so here are the bodies of the proverbial dead chickens that are finally floating home (to roost?):

Brandeis U Severs Ties with Al Quds over Defense of Pro-Nazi Demo
Brandeis Removes Al Quds’ Nusseibeh From Ethics Center
Brandeis U suspends partnership with Palestinian university following Nazi-style protest
Syracuse follows Brandeis in halting ties with Al-Quds
Jeff Jacoby: A pro-terror rally on a Palestinian campus

Looking back at a letter that Larry Lowenthal (no stranger to a scandal ) had written 9 years ago in defense of that notorious Nusseibeh lunchtime presentation, and comparing it to the above three recent articles, I cannot help but quote a few choice lines from Larry’s letter, comment on them, and ask him a few simple questions (thereby engaging in a process commonly known as “fisking ”):

“In my strong opinion, there is hysteria afoot in the Jewish world, and the reaction to our invitation to Nusseibeh is a prime example.”

How strong is your opinion about it now, Larry? BTW, is the world Jewry’s worry about Iran but another form of such a “hysteria”? Just askin’.

“We jointly invited him to our headquarters for the purpose of open, honest dialogue. If one insists that inviting an Arab to break bread and talk is, in effect, honoring him, so be it!”

“Open” and “honest” “dialogue”? Dear Larry, just how naïve must one insist on being? Have you heard of the term “taqiyya ”? If not, I also suggest you take a look at the following explanatory articles: Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman), Understanding Taqiyya – Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah, and How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War, for example. You – or almost anyone from 126 High St. – have no clue when you are manipulated, misled, or being lied to. Your “liberal” leftist dogmas preclude you from seeing things clearly for what they really are.

Yes, Larry, I agree that “Everyone concerned about the future peace negotiations between Palestinians and Jews should know Nusseibeh [who] has been speaking out for peace and non-violence for 20 years, both publicly and privately” – everyone should know him, for his is the gentle face of a sinister manipulator, one of the best ones out there in the Arab/Muslim world. He has been speaking out (in Arabic) about how the Palestinian Arabs should adopt their tactics to the present situation (but not to alter the ultimate goal). THIS is exactly what makes him dangerous. Like so many Arab demagogues and propagandists, he speaks in at least two tongues – one for external consumption (usually English), and the other for purely internal one (usually Arabic). But even such a liberal institution as Brandeis U has finally caught on to this sinister tactic, requesting that Nusseibeh issue a condemnation in both English and Arabic (which – surprise! – he refused to do).

The fact that you “had him speak at a breakfast meeting about 7 years ago when he was on sabbatical at Brandeis” and “that he is a personal friend of Jehuda and Shulamit Reinharz, and has entered into academic arrangements between Al-Quds University and institutions here in Boston” is no guarantee of anything – especially his sincerity. It only speaks about the leftists’ willful ignorance and dominance of dogmas over facts, as well as about cognitive egocentrism and cognitive dissonance on the Left.

“If Nusseibeh does not fit the title of ‘moderate’ I simply do not know who does.”

He does NOT, Larry, but some do. Except that those other Muslims – honest and brave, but admittedly too few in number – you have purposely chosen to ignore as they do not fit your model of the world.

“If we cannot talk to a man like Nusseibeh then there is not a Palestinian alive worth talking to and we may as well abandon any pretense or hope for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”

Oh, really? Well, how about Khaled Abu Toameh of the Jerusalem Post (and other publications)? Or is he too “right-wing” for your “liberal” taste? Incidentally, there are a few others, too, but you wouldn’t care to know (see above). Besides, the “hope for peace between Israelis and Palestinians” becomes all the more futile as our side keeps engaging in wishful thinking and ignoring the harsh reality.

You chose to disbelieve David Bedein, dismissively calling him “a self proclaimed ‘Bureau Chief the Israel Resource News Agency’,” yet preferring to believe the excuses and explanations given to you by Nusseibeh (“Nusseibeh tells an entirely different story… Nusseibeh was trapped into saying what he said. Under the circumstances, he had no choice…. He related an incident when he took his young sons to a local mosque. The Imam’s sermon was filled with such virulent hate, that Nusseibeh dragged his sons out of the mosque in disgust.”). Why, Larry? Just because your leftist dogma could comfortably coexist with Nusseibeh’s skillful taqiyya, yet simply would not accept the facts presented by Bedein & Co.?

“He made it absolutely clear, however, that he has been opposed to violence against Israeli civilians for many years. He has stated these views repeatedly, and has paid a price as a result. As many of us know, Nusseibeh has been harassed, threatened, insulted, defamed, and physically beaten by his fellow Palestinians because of his anti-violence views. These facts are well recorded by the international media, and need no corroboration.”

True enough, but only to a point, where explanation (if not corroboration) is necessary. Nusseibeh is more of a realist (which makes his taqiyya all the more efficient and dangerous), preferring to win the war against Israel by other, less obvious means. But the Palestinian Arab hotheads wouldn’t hear of it – they want an all-out war, which Nusseibeh knows they can’t win, wisely choosing a more effective tactic – the “gentle warfare” of the “smile offensive” (so characteristic, incidentally, of Rouhani, who has been quite successful in duping much of the West with this tactic). So they beat him up, those not-so-gentle (and not-so-clever) Palestinian Arab thugs. Yet, Nusseibeh did score a number of political victories – you mentioned but a couple of them: “It was Nusseibeh who entered into partnership with Ami Ayalon – at Ayalon’s request…” as well as “Nusseibeh is one of the few Palestinians to repudiate the Right of Return as impractical and futile, and he had the courage to say so in alliance with the former Head of Shin Bet – quite an extraordinary act of courage.” Quite an ordinary act of pragmatism, actually, but since Palestinian Arabs are not so famous for their pragmatism, this made him more of a black sheep of the flock.

“E-mails flooding into our office and the offices of JCRC and ADL, our partners in the Nusseibeh program, have called Nusseibeh a “snake”, a “terrorist”, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”, an “enemy of the Jewish people”. Bluntly speaking, this is sheer lunacy!”

Was it, Larry? Looking at what transpired recently between Al Quds and Brandeis, was this indeed sheer lunacy?

“Nusseibeh acknowledges that Israelis and Palestinians are in a state of war and it is extremely difficult for one side to trust the other.”

Such honesty and bravery on Nusseibeh’s part! Like so much of what Nusseibeh says, this is but a half-truth. Yes, our side does find it extremely difficult to trust the other, given their history of lies, deceptions, and dissimulations, bundled with broken promises, violated agreements, and murderous terror campaigns. Only you don’t want to hear of it, Larry, as it creates such painful cognitive dissonance that you prefer to withdraw into your own make-belief Kumbaya world.

“Nusseibeh stated repeatedly that Palestinians and Jews should enter into dialogue: “we need to get closer to each other.” And he encouraged Muslim/Palestinian-Jewish dialogue in Boston and around America as well.”

That’s right – keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer. The supposed panacea of the much-touted – but somehow always failing – “interfaith dialog” is ridiculous, self-delusional, and therefore dangerously suicidal. But it keeps a bunch of people busy (especially many paid “professional Jews” of the 126 High St. type), so it has become a self-fulfilling (if never succeeding) prophecy.

“In conclusion, Nusseibeh stated, ‘I have been consistent in my quest for peace and non-violence. Palestinian people know exactly what I think and what I feel. I do not say one thing in English and another thing in Arabic. The Internet can spread inflammatory allegations about my position, but those who know me know what I really think and feel.’ ”

Sure, and most of the dupes congregated at 126 High St. swallowed it – hook, line, and sinker. Well, by now even the starry-eyed Brandeis liberals don’t believe that. After all, as a wise Chinese proverb suggests, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Richard Nixon’s infamously desperate exclamation comes to mind: “I am not a crook!”

“The interaction was civil. Hard questions were asked, but Nusseibeh was forthright and disarming. He is quite charming, both in manner and physical appearance, and he undoubtedly had a positive effect on the majority of the audience. Hard core ideologues were not convinced, to be sure, but that was to be expected.”

Exactly! “Nusseibeh was… disarming” indeed (to most of the dupes, anyway), precisely because “[h]e is quite charming, both in manner and physical appearance…” But “forthright”? Spare me, Larry. Sure enough, “he undoubtedly had a positive effect on the majority of the audience” if by “positive” you implied suicidal self-delusion. We, the alleged “[h]ard core ideologues were not convinced, to be sure,” but since “that was to be expected” it could be safely ignored and swept under the rug, right, Larry?

“Flyers were passed around with alleged quotes made by Nusseibeh” – why “alleged,” Larry? They were taken from reliable Arab sources (like TV and print media) and translated from Arabic by reputable organizations. What’s the catch here, Larry?

“[T]he meeting did not allow for a point-by-point discussion” precisely because it was designed that way. This guaranteed that such a discussion – with the subsequent showing that the king was really naked – would NOT take place. Except that even Brandeis now knows better – but do you, Larry?

“I would not be surprised if Nusseibeh has made disturbing comments in the past, but as he clearly asserted, ‘I am not a Zionist!’ I doubt if any Palestinian could pass a “Jewish” test.”

And that, Larry, was supposed to make us forget those “disturbing comments,” right? Oh, how well the “charm offensive” worked on you and your ilk, Larry… Only even Brandeis knows better by now.

“As Rabin once said ‘You make peace with your enemies and not your friends.’ Sari Nusseibeh is the best ‘enemy’ we can hope for under the present circumstances, no matter what Bedein, Naomi Ragen, and others may say.”

How soothing… and how suicidal! After all, what do those monstrous and evil “right-wingers” know, anyway, right? According to Larry, we can’t even call Nusseibeh an “enemy” (that’s why the term was in quotes).

Just to show that people don’t really change, recently “[t]he former President of the American Jewish Committee of Boston, Larry Lowenthal, who is now on Northeastern’s payroll, went so far as to defend the [anti-Semitic Israel-basher Northeastern U.] Professor Sullivan. ”

Nancy, Larry, and Alan, with “friends” like you we don’t really need enemies, as you will surely give away the store, time and time again, at any given opportunity, just to show how much “kinder and gentler” you are than us, the “hard core ideologues.” Your self-gratifying dogmas are more important than reality, which, alas, is all too uncomfortable for the likes of you to face honestly and resolutely.

And so you choose to live in another – rosy, virtual, parallel – reality, which has nothing to do with the cruel world we actually happen to live in. “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth! ” Therefore, yours is a recipe for an endless chain of self-inflicted disasters, with no end in sight. Yet, somehow, magically and almost miraculously, you manage to present such failures as your greatest achievements, moving from one well-paid Jewish-by-profession job to yet another. Apparently, there is no shortage of “blue pills ” in your strange and twisted world.

The truly sad – and even tragic – thing is that the likes of you tend to occupy offices and positions of visibility and influence, as there is really nothing else (tangible and productive) that you’re truly good at. After all, what should one expect from “progressive” Jewish Studies graduates seeking to make a living with their otherwise useless degrees at the feeding trough of the hapless Jewish community?

And so, having been trained as “professional Jews” for the “mainstream organizations” of the “Jewish establishment,” you continue not only drinking your spiked Kool Aid, but, most unfortunately, dispensing it liberally to others, guided by your Supreme Leader’s starry-eyed “Yes, we can” principle, poisoning their well-meaning but naive and ignorant minds with your false idol’s “Audacity of hope,” thereby aiding and abetting our enemies, whilst making your ancestors spin in their graves.

Nancy, given that you are a Brandeis alumnus (having received their Alumni Achievement Award in 2002 ), how do YOU yourself feel about this whole quagmire NOW? Incidentally, there was the following astute comment after the second article by one Louie V. Yadua (posted on November 21, 2013):

“The only strange thing about this story is that people as smart as the ones who run Brandeis University should EVER have had a partnership with that “university” or its leader. The tip-off to how ridiculous this is is that when Brandeis demanded an apology it requested that the apology be made in both English and Arabic. The reason for that demand is clear: we – that is to say, Jewish Press readers, and specifically readers of this reporter’s work – know full well that the enemies of Israel say one thing in English, to the gullible West, and a very different thing in Arabic, to their own brothers and sisters whom they want to motivate to hate israel and attack it. I find it highly revealing that when Brandeis decided it wanted an apology from Nusseibeh, Brandeis knew to cut off this avenue of escape. In other words, it knew that there was a very significant likelihood that Nusseibeh would indeed say one, comforting, apologetic, thing, in English, and something very different in Arabic. People who do that are called “liars.” Probably even in Arabic. So I have just one question: if they knew that, WHAT IN THE WORLD WERE THEY DOING “PARTNERING” WITH SUCH A PERSON IN THE FIRST PLACE???”

As you can see now, Prof. Nusseibeh, more and more people are catching on to you and your ilk. As another old saying goes, “You can fool some people some of the time, but you can’t fool everybody all the time.” It is finally beginning to look as though your number may be coming up, after all.

Sincerely,
Seva

P.S. Giving Nusseibeh the benefit of a doubt for a moment, assuming that the “kind” Professor actually happens to be a straight-talking person, who has never lied to us (yeah, right), then, at best, his views would be utterly irrelevant in the greater scheme of things on the “Palestinian Arab street.”

But if he is indeed so truthful, peaceful, and principled, how come he has NOT come out condemning that anti-Israel hate show at Al Quds U, which he heads? Was he afraid of the Palestinian Arab thugs? But if so, what was the point of talking with him about “ethics” (Brandeis had him in the Ethics Center)? Why then was he beating himself in the chest, trying to prove his “peace” credentials? If he is so afraid, he should just kept his mouth shut. Yet, he wants to have his cake and eat it, too. After all, he has to think of his position, his trips to America, his lifestyle – and his fear for his life.

Thus, at best, Nusseibeh is wholly insignificant, not really representing any significant slice of the Palestinian Arab population, being therefore quite useless; and at worst, he is a skilled and dangerous propagandist with a soft smile.

By now you know my take on him. Will you continue sticking to your guns, proclaiming him to be “a true voice of peace and moderation,” all facts and arguments to the contrary notwithstanding? If so, I happen to have a beautiful old bridge for sale in Brooklyn – and for a good price, too.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR