© NIR LEVY/SHUTTERSTOCK reprehensible by civilized standards. standards. by civilized reprehensible nonetheless is behavior its isn’t, it if even that, thinks opinion elite of segment considerable equally an while is, it that thinks opinion world of segment considerable A rights? human of abuser foremost world’s the Israel Is States. United the as many as third a times, 60 mere a cited was Korea North 183. at Burma and 209 at Congo the of Republic Democratic the 280, at Sudan were runners-up The 635times. than fewer no condemned half was - not Cairo’s metropolitan of that population its - Israel tiny 2008, March and 2003 January Between alleged). or (real violation rights or human- for that or this country that this condemning reports and decisions resolutions, Nations United of all tally running a keeps eyeontheun.org site Web The perception. more for than counts reality that proposition the test to continues Israel birth, its after years Sixty reserved. rights All &Company. Jones © Dow 2008 6, May Journal, Street Wall Stephens, Bret by Written Israel’s 60-Year Test Jewish the Pursuing PeaceSecuring State While Israel Among The Nations: progressive sympathies? sympathies? progressive of least the gets values progressive to sympathetic most is that country the that it is why So East. Middle the in else nowhere and Israel in exist that rights are These authority. parliamentary on checks judicial conscience, and of speech freedom appeal, to and trial fair a to rights the rights, gay women’srights, in believes that segment progressive same the is This progressive. itself opinion calls that public of segment that among unpopular become has Israel mysterious, and telling both reasons For of emergency. state perpetual a imposing in justified been have ago long would government its that existence its to threats goes double in by a so beset so constantly country many That citizens. own its of liberties civil the consistently preserved so any has nor enemies, its of provocations the against force using in circumspect so been has country other no that opposite: the argue would I F rom Modest Beginnings to a Vibrant State State Vibrant a to Beginnings Modest rom civilian casualties. civilian of greatest the cause to terrorists Palestinian by targeted commonly were Jerusalem in market open crowded this as b r L nex an Ashkelon bus stop. bus Ashkelon an at attack suicide Hamas a in injured was she after Ashkelon in Hospital Barzilai in a woman visiting Peres Shimon peace treaty. peace Jordan Israel the signing after shore Galilee of Sea the on confer Jordan of Hussein King and Rabin Yitzhak ef i elow: gh t t page: : t Prime Minister Minister Prime : Prime Minister Minister Prime Places such such Places

➤

peace pursuing while state jewish the 113 securing 114

israel among the nations ISRAEL A Israel Lobby,” is the product of a great deal of effort. of effort. deal of Lobby,” agreat Israel product the is “The like copiously books in mendacious ingeniously and footnoted presented Israel, demonic of image the because not, think I laziness? it Is made. rarely is through them think to effort the Yet facts. complicated not are These 35-1.not have been would fatalities male-to-female of ratio the Palestinians, against violence indiscriminate of guilty been had Israel If population. the half also are Females a noncombatant. being of indicator reliable fairly a is female be To or 25 percent. fatalities, female were 126 (including 138 and soldiers policemen), there Palestinians by killed Israelis 496 the of contrast, By female. were percent, 37,2.8 of or total grand a whom of - Israelis by up.had killed turned been At the 1,296 time, Palestinians interesting something data, the into down drilling But neck. the it in were getting who ones really were the Israelis, Palestinians against daily ambushes perpetrated roadside and lynchings bombings, suicide the despite that supposedly, evidence, - conflict the in killed been had Israelis as Palestinians many as times three that fact ones. the of Israeli media Western the in for made being then was Much sources Israeli and numbers Palestinian for Palestinian casualty figures, sticking to Palestinian sources and Israeli reviewed I height intifada, al-Aqsa the called at so the of 2002, May In concerned. are foes its as far as be in it its domestic politics, is but nothing bloody-minded may Israel as democratic as that is said, is it answer, The T 60 formula by which Israel’s next 60 years may be assured. assured. be may years 60 next Israel’s by which formula It’s that defiedperception. set of the realities unfolding only an yielding assertion, of acts improbable and through courageous mainly survived has [Israel] years, 60 For fail. someday it may which test, endless to an itself puts it, simply its than assert rather right to demonstrate exist, to need the feels constantly that nation Yeta perceived. of how it is mindful uniquely to disavow),been has Israel U.N. a of born resolution was (which that the U.N. state a has never for since ceased trying surprisingly not Perhaps “legitimacy.” as known also is This acquiescence the with of which is ofin others, a turn perceptions. their function ultimately rests exist to right Israel’s that is insidious, but benign seemingly notion, sibling A was practiced. than rather conferred Jewishness something if as Sartre, Jean-Paul said Jew,” the makes anti-Semite “The unworthy. is it unloved, being that, fear the by beset is Israel Ahmadinezhad, Mahmoud for future nuclear a spinning centrifuges Iranian of number ever-growing the and River Jordan the of west numbers Arab and Jewish between competition the beyond Hezbollah, beyond Hamas, Beyond morality effect. its had Israel’s has on assault constant the is, it whatever But or homophobia. sexism of racism, of allegations in the face used what is usually than stricter considerably is today judged is bigotry anti-Jewish which by standard the since it, suggest not dare One anti-Semitism? it Is ◆ weekly column. weekly a wrote also He divisions. editorial and news paper’s the for responsible was he Post the At 28. age at assumed he position Post Jerusalem The of editor-in-chief was Mr. Stephens 2004 October to 2002 March From board. editorial Journal’s The of amember is He paper. the of editions Asian and European the in published also is and U.S. the in Tuesday every runs which affairs, foreign on column View Global Journal’s The writes Mr. Stephens stephens bret www.ict.org.il Terrorism: Counter- for Institute Policy International terrorism-info.org.il (C.S.S.): Studies Special for Center the at Center Information Terrorismand Intelligence www.jcpa.org Affairs: Public for Center Jerusalem www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng Minister: Prime the of Office www.mfa.gov.il/MFA Affairs: Foreign of Ministry RES W EB OUR C Es: , a ,

OHAYON AVI AND SA’AR YA’ACOV, © GPO-ISRAEL NATIONAL PHOTO COLLECTION HILLEL SALUTES ISRAEL AT 60

C

M Queens College Hillel, 1947 UCLA Hillel, 1967 San Diego Hillel, 2003 Israeli students participate in Hillel activities.

Y

CM

MY

CY Hillel: e Foundation for Jewish Campus Life supported the creation of the State of CMY

K Israel and has been an unwavering friend ever since, oen in the face of Israel’s detractors. In addition to its pro-Israel education eorts on college campuses and in communities across North America and around the globe, Hillel has nine centers in Israel, providing meaningful Jewish experiences for Israelis and study-abroad students alike.

Hillel Israel’s Steering Committee Edgar M. Bronfman Chairman, International Board of Governors Mr. Yossie Ciechanover Mr. David Kulitz Mr. Eyal Arad Hon. Nachum Langental Julian Sandler, Mr. Igal Brightman Mr. Dov Lautman Chairman, Board of Directors Mr. Adam Bronfman Mrs. Michal Modai Mr. Avrum Burg Hon. Yaakov Neeman Wayne L. Firestone Hon. Ram Caspi Mr. Shlomo Nehama President Mr. Ami Ginigar Mrs. Suzi Proper Prof. Boleslav Goldman Prof. Itamar Rabinovitch Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life Hon. Tzvia Gross Amb. Zalman Shoval www.hillel.org Mr. Yair Hamburger Mr. Shmuel Slavin

Rabbi Yossie Goldman Managing Director, Hillel Israel 116

israel among the nations ISRAEL AT 60 as the Annapolis process that reinvigorated talks talks reinvigorated that process Annapolis the as such region, the in progress Despite Israel. criticize unfairly them of quarter a – consensus by adopted are resolutions annual 250 its of majority the – year each Assembly General the at upon voted resolutions 80 roughly the Of East. Middle the approaches Nations United the that manner the in than pronounced more been cynicism and hypocrisy the has Nowhere of Israel. treatment to its standards apply those to failed consistently has it rights small,” and equal large of nations “of principle basic the under operates Nations the United Although Israel. for maligning into platforms on for where deteriorated issues global forums discussion emerged gradually campaign discrimination systematic a years, the Over treatment. differential to subject still is it years, 60 nearly for Nations United the of member a been has Israel Though right. were friends my extent, certain a Torosy. entirely is relationship Israel-UN the that mean not does pride internal this surely,Yet, mankind. all of benefit the arts, sciences, technology, and culture for the greater in contributions and have rights, significant made human and by people, who to a are democracy special committed that we high, knowing country, a represent built wonderful held our heads with day every and each building Nations United the enter We Israel. with relations diplomatic establish to yet have that countries of ambassadors with relationships developed even I Personally, delegations. most with relations good very has Mission our and Israel is not unfounded. boycotted at the United Nations, largely proved fears these that say can I later, years Five (“shmum,” dismissive). aHebrew meaningless is Hebrew) (“Oom”in U.N. the that quip Gurion’sfamous Ben- citing Shmum!” “Oom cry, would Others Israel.” hates U.N. the knows “Everyone say. would they there,” over you to talk will one “No Nations. United Representative the to Permanent Israel’s being of task seemingly the impossible accepted I why asked family and friends ago, York New for five over todepart years just prepared I As U.N. the to Israel of Ambassador Gillerman, Dan by Written Nations for United and Israel the A Blueprint Automatic Majority the Breaking acceptance of the State of Israel, strong-arms the rest of rest the strong-arms Israel, of State the of acceptance their precludes orientation political whose comprised is countries of core the at which States, Member of majority is not so much the confounding but message the An messenger. so automatic Israel of condemnation makes what Yet obligations. own their with of comply cause to incentive no alleged Palestinians the offer – the to “justice” service lip mere Palestinians, the for support international perceived ensuing the them from and – resolutions of litany The violence. and terrorism curb to responsibility no with determination self- of rights the to entitled wholly are Palestinians the while itself, defend to rights any without Palestinians the vis-a-vis responsibilities with saddled is Israel where discourse a propagate They conflict. the of narrative one-sided a perpetuate also resolutions annual The Israel. blaming some for of addiction insatiable the feed to rhetoric serve they theatrical as Worse, ground. the on reality the ignore year, Authority each and every these leadership, resolutions, regurgitated Palestinian moderate the and Israel between New York. New in session sixty-third its of President the of election the during Assembly General the of meeting ab www.eyeontheun.org U.N.: the on Eye www.unwatch.org Watch: U.N. israel-un.mfa.gov.il U.N.: the to Mission Israel R W ove: ES E The plenary plenary The B O URC Es :

© U.N. PHOTO BY PAULO FILGUEIRAS © U.N. PHOTO BY PAULO FILGUEIRAS happens here Toof happens without the States. will Member put it The isUnited the Nations clearly sum of Nothing itsparts. majority. their automatic of the will and whims to throw the weight would normally who many were resolution the for voted that countries the Among entirely). abstained states Arab (the against none and favor in votes 147 overwhelming an with adopted eventually was resolution While Goals. of history the space the does process, nota detailed permit Development Millennium the in envisioned as hunger, and poverty extreme alleviating facilitates thereby and nations, developing to appropriate, where and sharing, transfer technology agricultural encouraged resolution The issue. socio-economic a on resolution General the of first its introduced Israel session 2007, December in Assembly, recent the during Similarly, the Holocaust. anddeny politicize some by to efforts of spite in Israel, things all on majority automatic the of opposition knee-jerk the transcended occur again never and desire such that to ensure from atrocities history learn the Ultimately, victims. its of honor in day international an of and establishing memory the Holocaust the eternal preserving resolution sponsored Israeli an consensus by adopted Assembly the end of the General the Holocaust, after years 60 2005, In majority. automatic the break to the potential demonstrate Recently, initiatives two major competence. own its within those particularly and conflict,” the “beyond issues on itself position to ways sought creatively has Israel system, Nations United wider the with cooperation for possibility the on up give than rather Hence, East. Middle the in role meaningful and honest an play to majority, unable be will Nations United the immoral this by controlled is the as Assembly long so General turn, In majority. automatic the of stamp the on conditioned potentially is community international the with engagement political Israel’s starters, For Nations. United the at Israel for challenge a presents majority Assembly’s automatic General the Strategically, else. on everyone imposed are few select a of interests the and faith, good than important more becomes points political scoring Instead, wayside. the by fall commitments those Nations, United the of theatre multilateral the 162in with nations, relations diplomatic and region’s Thoughbilateral hasIsraelproblems. healthy the all for state Jewish the blaming into membership the not about to start now. to start not about it’s and adversity, from away backed never has Israel But vu. déjà with dizzy us make can Nations United the of political are notchallenges the minor, and repetitive the daily politics True, world. the around people of issues burning real the development, social and economic like issues key on leader a become and strength of position a toward march can Israel or majority, pressures automatic the the of from retreat in cower can Israel choices: two itwhich gives Israel, bluntly, against are the stacked cards economic cooperation within the region. the within cooperation economic further to trying leaders Arab and Palestinian with talks in engaged intensively been has and process peace the of aspects economic the in involved deeply been also has economy. He market afree and liberalization economic towards Israel steer to helping in role aprominent played has Gillerman Ambassador Organization). Business World The – Commerce of Chamber International (The ICC the of board the executive of member a being as well as Council, Business Israel-British the of Chairman and Organizations, Economic Israel’s of Council Coordinating the of Committee President’s the Council, Social and Economic National Minister’s Prime the on served also has Gillerman Ambassador entities. public and private of boards other numerous as well as Israel, of Bank Central the and Leumi Bank of Director a Israel, of Bank International First the of board the of member a as served also has He Commerce. of Chambers Israeli of Federation the of Chairman as served has he 1985, Since Ltd. Agrotechnology and Ltd. Nagum of CEO the been had Gillerman Ambassador appointment, his to Prior 2003. 1, January on post his assumed and 2002 July in Nations United the to representative 13th Israel’s appointed was Gillerman Dan Ambassador gillerman dan ambassador ◆ From From M odest odest B eginnings to a Vibrant Vibrant a to eginnings Question of Palestine. of Question the of consideration the during York, New in Assembly General the of session sixty-second the addresses Nations, United the to Israel of Representative Permanent below: Dan Gillerman, Gillerman, Dan

S

tate tate

peace pursuing while state jewish the 117 securing ISRAEL AT 60

Israel and the NGOs Preparing for Durban II Written by Gerald M. Steinberg

The 2001 United Nations World Conference on Racism (generally known as the Durban Conference) was a declaration of war against Israel and the Jewish people. This was the political accompaniment to the Palestinian terror campaign and was designed to exploit the language of human rights as a weapon in preventing Israelis from defending themselves against terrorism. The Diplomatic Forum of the Durban Conference, from which the Israeli and U.S. delegations walked out when they realized that by Palestinian and other Arab NGOs (many of which above: A typical mass the vicious anti-Israel theme would remain dominant, was were funded by the Ford Foundation and by European protest at Durban in 2001. accompanied by a non-governmental organization (NGO) governments, as detailed in reports by NGO Monitor). Forum, which was even worse, and created the framework for demonization and boycotts. These NGOs, often accompanied by the discredited but still active United Nations Human Rights Council, moved to Over six difficult years have passed since Durban, and implement this strategy during and after the meeting. A few Israel and its supporters have gradually woken up to months later, after a series of horrible suicide bombings led the dangers of this strategy, and been able to fight back Israel to take military action in Jenin and elsewhere, Kenneth and limit some of the damage. But now, the promoters Roth (head of HRW) and Irene Khan (from Amnesty) of this demonization are preparing a Durban Review led the chorus with false claims of “war crimes” directed at Conference to be held sometime in 2009, where the goal Israel. These organizations published false reports – using is to reinforce the themes of the 2001 catastrophe, and claims from “eyewitnesses” – to condemn Israel for trying take the process further. to prevent rocket attacks from Gaza, and then joined in the demonstrations promoting boycotts, divestment and professor While the first round of the Durban process came as a sanctions against Israel. These and other NGOs were at the gerald m. surprise (although the warning signs should have been forefront of the campaign to have the Israeli security barrier, steinberg clear), there is time to prepare for 2009 and to end the which has saved hundreds and perhaps thousands of lives, Professor Gerald M. exploitation of human rights as a weapon. In January, denounced as illegal under international law so that the Steinberg is the chair the Canadian government became the first to denounce sanctions could be increased under the façade of the United of the political studies Durban as anti-Semitic and to announce a boycott of Nations. And they used the same strategy in condemning department at Bar Ilan the 2009 meeting, unless the direction is reversed. In Israel obsessively and without justification during the 2006 University in Israel, the United States, Israel, France and elsewhere, political Lebanon War, and more recently, over responses to Hamas and executive director leaders have announced similar intentions, although none attacks from Gaza. of NGO Monitor have been as clear as Canada. As a result, in looking toward the 2009 Durban Review The most important aspect of the 2009 conference will Conference (whose location has yet to be determined),

he nations WEB be the behavior of the powerful NGOs. In 2001, many the major question is whether the NGO attacks can RESOURCEs: of the 4,000 delegates from 1,500 organizations claiming be prevented or defeated. Some donors to HRW have to promote universal human rights hijacked the NGO realized that their money is being used to undermine For more information on the Forum for use a platform for anti-Semitism. Powerful human rights (and unfairly condemn Israel) and have NGO community groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty attempted to change the direction of this powerful el among t please visit: International went along with – and in some cases played NGO. And a few American officials of Amnesty www.ngo-monitor.org

isra an active role in – this travesty, which was orchestrated International (which is based in London) have expressed © NGO MONITOR

118 © ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE remaining moral credibility. credibility. moral remaining any lost have will they fail, they if But Rights. Human of Declaration Universal the in restoration the embodied in values the step of important an mark will this succeed, they If learned. been have lessons the that demonstrate and course reverse to community, NGO the as well as rights, human about care actually that governments the for opportunity rare a provide will 2009 Durban policies. destructive such end to pressed be also must initiatives,” rights “human and radical of dozens for ofNGOs banner Peace” under the “Partnerships false for funding the of bulk the provide this pledged, which have governments, will a European major have impact. they as 2009, in used being from funds If Ford repetition. to act consistently leaders prevent their a prevent to designed are that guidelines published and participants virulent most the of some funding for responsibility of accepted investigation) threat congressional (under Foundation Ford the Durban Forum, 2001 NGO the Following support. off cut funders the if harder be will this but anti- 2009, in the demonization Israel continuing of intention every have East Middle the and Europe in based NGOs other the of Many 2009. in recurrence its to prevent pledging and process Durban the of anti-Semitism the denouncing of statement NGO leaders the sign to the refused have But groups both strategy. Durban the in and 2001 in organization their of role the with discomfort some ◆ 2006. 18, July MI, Dearborn, in arally at Nazis to r le top: D.C., April 20, 2002. 20, April D.C., Washington, in a rally 2005. 6, York NY, New May City, in arally at exist to right i g f h t: t: Comparing Israel Israel Comparing Denying Israel’s Israel’s Denying Protestors at at Protestors each other that the Jews are making accusations of anti- of accusations making are Jews the that other each to saying privately are many elsewhere and Europe that in officials believe I because out, comes it delighted always I’m as intended a the is challenge, question While usually anti-Semitism? is Israel of criticism any that you suggesting Are us: ask then will official European the inevitably, almost point, some At toward Jews. attitudes on impact its and country particular the in activity anti-Israel perceived of level the about concerns raises side our which in place take to seems ritual certain A agenda. on the high is of Israel State toward the attitudes to connection its and anti-Semitism of subject the Ministers, Foreign or Ministers Prime European with are meetings the when particularly years, recent In Yorkto New session. the for come who world the around governments the of leaders andorganizationsrepresentativesJewish American of it convenes between is fall, an for occasion every meetings Nations United the of Assembly General the When Foxman H. Abraham by Written Anti-Semitism? it or is Legitimate it Is of Israel Criticism From Modest Beginnings to a Vibrant State State Vibrant a to Beginnings Modest From consider good and others others and good consider could people fair-minded that policies has Israel policies. its for criticism beyond not therefore is and country other any like country a is Israel First, elements. three requires view, my in question, the to response The clarification. without continue to thinking such allow not and open the in out it get better of Israel. criticism In otherlegitimate words, as a way Semitism to stifle

➤

peace uing rs pu ile h w tate s sh jewi e h t ing r ecu 119 s 120

israel among the nations ISRAEL A This is a mark of something more than mere criticism. John John criticism. mere than more something of mark a is This of problems solely to the behavior. are region attributed Israeli the all when Israel, of demonizing the is there Second, by Jews. the motivated against animus an obviously seems This was Auschwitz. Ramallah than in worse behavior Israeli that saying Saramago Jose writer Portuguese as such Nazis, the of that to behavior Israeli comparing Therehave accusations alsobeen repeated “blood Jews. the against ancient charge the libel” to this link to imagination no takes it the blood press, of of Palestinians, Sharon Ariel drinking as they did Similarly, appeared, in when the images Arab example. one such is Intifada, the at the height of cartoon newspaper in Italian an appeared which Jesus, of death the for responsible being Jews of accusation historic the to Palestinians the of treatment to should be that anyone. clear ofTheIsraeli comparison intent anti-Semitic revealing themes several are There anti-Semitism acceptable. which become and to occur in moreis likely environment an creates least, the at or, itby that is to anti-Semitism motivated reason believe is there that way biased a such in Israel treat or Israel of criticism into themes anti-Semitic classic inject either that critiques of kinds the are us disturbs what Rather, We difference. the know perspective. of our distortion gross a is Israel of criticism anti-Semitism legitimate about prevent order in questions raise we that suggestion Any time. the all criticism with replete is life media and political internal own Its good. so be not may that T 60 ago, when as President of Harvard he faced a divestment divestment a faced he Harvard of President as when ago, years few a said Summers Larry as hand, other the On of Israel. criticism legitimate simply not is argument divestment the – view clear in world the around exist offenders rights human its by Clearly, --Israel when greater one-sidedfar against outrage moral groups. community or university, religious, by whether Israel, against efforts divestment of matter the in complicated more little a gets element third The States. United of the interests the against Israel country” “bad this of interests the serve to policy East Middle American distorting and controlling for Jews American blame to leap large a not is it that, do they once that surprising hardly is It Israel. party: guilty one to eventhe mostconflict, down complex,and boil responsibility Arab-Israeli the in event major every lobby,take Israel the Walt,and Stephen in paper and Mearsheimer book their on unchecked. goes anti-Semitism if happen can what illustrate to Jerusalem Yad at Vashem, Names of Hall the in memorials lasting as preserved are Testimony of Pages victims, the of friends or relatives by survivors, Submitted mid-1950s. Testimony P collecting been Yad has Vashem collaborators, their and Socialists National the of hands the at died who Jew individual each of legacy the memorialize to mandate its fulfilling In Yad at Vashem. Museum History Holocaust New the of part Names, D.C., Augsut 12, 2006. 12, Augsut D.C., Washington, in a rally August 12, 2006. 12, August D.C., Washington, in bottom: right: top LEF top T : The Hall of of Hall The since the the since Protesters at at Protesters ages of of ages Sign at a rally arally at Sign

© ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE; © ISRAEL MINISTRY OF TOURISM From Modest Beginnings to a Vibrant State

initiative on his campus, surely not everyone who calls a connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitic abraham h. for divestment against Israel is an anti-Semite -- though attitudes and behavior. foxman undoubtedly a good many are. Abraham H. Foxman On the other hand, anti-Semitic expressions related to is National Director of But, he said, even those who are not, by singling Israel out the conflict with Israel are now far greater in the Arab the Anti-Defamation in this prejudicial way, make anti-Semitism more likely and Islamic worlds. League. He is the and more legitimate by far. author of The Deadliest On the occasion of Israel’s 60th anniversary, there is much to Lies: The Israel Lobby It is this last category that is most prevalent and most celebrate. However, the underlying goal that anti-Semitism and the Myth of Jewish difficult to confront and handle. When the combination would be eliminated once the Jews had their own state has Control and Never Again? The Threat of the of the European media and left-wing intellectuals portray proven to be far more complicated than was ever imagined. New Anti-Semitism. the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in such a way that people in Europe judge Israel as the greatest threat to peace in Israel remains, both practically and psychologically, a the world, ahead of Iran, North Korea, etc., then it is not bastion of Jewish safety and security in the world. At the surprising to find renewed anti-Semitism flourishing in same time, Israel has often become the new focus (not the Europe. After all, Jews are associated with Israel, and in new cause) of anti-Semitism in the world. This highlights many people’s minds, Jews then become fair game. the fact that anti-Semitism is so deeply rooted in the world psyche that not even Jewish independence can eradicate it. We have made some progress in the last few years. Many What can happen, however, is that Israel and world Jewry European governments have stated that there is never can work together to combat this virus and to make sure an excuse for anti-Semitism and have acknowledged that the Jewish people can defend themselves against it. ◆

ADL CELEBRATES

ISR A EL’S ISRAEL IS A FLOURISHING DEMOCRACY AND A LAND OF FREEDOM AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL.

On this 60th anniversary, we stand proud and steadfast with all Israelis – and the Jewish community around the world – in our support for the ongoing miracle of the Jewish state and with our hopes for a true and secure peace. YEARS

TM

For more information on ADL and Israel’s 60th, visit: www.adl.org/Israel60 Glen S. Lewy, National Chair Abraham H. Foxman, National Director K_\A::Dfm\d\ek Z\c\YiXk\j@jiX\cËj -'k_Y`ik_[Xp

A::8jjfZ`Xk`feb\\gjk_\ Z\c\YiXk`fe^f`e^n`k_1

 +,'@jiX\c`j_c`Z_`dXkA::[XpXe[ i\j`[\ekZXdgj  @jiX\ckiXm\cgif^iXdj]fik\\ejXe[pfle^ X[lckjk_ifl^_A::DXZZXY`@jiX\cž  @jiX\c`[\c\^Xk`fejXe[Z\c\YiXk`fef] @jiX\c`Zlckli\XkA::DXZZXY`>Xd\jž Xe[A::DXZZXY`8ikj=\jkž  @jiX\cgif^iXdle`kj]fi[XpXe[i\j`[\ek ZXdgjk_ifl^_K8>1A\n`j_MXcl\j K_ifl^_A:::Xdg`e^ž JEWISH COMMUNITYA

jcc_association_israel60.indd 1 6/13/08 3:05:19 PM