Archive for May, 2011

Critics of JADL poorly focused, vicious

Sunday, May 1st, 2011

The advertisement placed by Jews Against Divisive Leadership (JADL), a group of Reform Jews who are opposed to the selection of a J Street activist as President of the Union for Reform Judaism, has created a stir. Friday night, someone came up to me after services at our Reform Temple to say that his mother in Los Angeles had seen the ad and was all for the idea that the Reform movement should support Israel. Such a simple idea!

Of course there has also been plenty of criticism. We expected it — but I, for one, was surprised that the criticism was so poorly focused and even vicious.

For example, on the day before the ad in the Los Angeles Jewish Journal appeared in print, the online version included an op-ed by three distinguished Reform rabbis, attacking it. But it did not dispute any of the content of the ad; rather it impugned the motives and politics of the critics. It accused them of saying that “any demurral from the current party line of Israel’s government is disloyal”  — something that the ad most assuredly did not even suggest — of ‘vilifying’ the candidate, and of having “assaulted Rabbi Jacobs’ integrity”.

Of course, if you read the ad you will see that we did none of these things.

There was also a response from Abraham Foxman of the ADL. He too did not dispute the content of the ad, but rather chose to attack the signers:

It is shameful that some are seeking to divide us at a time when Israel needs the American Jewish community’s undivided attention and support more than ever.

Indeed, he is correct. The problem is that he is wrong about who is dividing the Jewish community — those who wish to maintain our traditional support for the Jewish state, or those who are doing their best to weaken it. The good news is that it’s doubtful that many liberal Jews take Foxman seriously after his embarrassing inability to make an honest statement recognizing the Armenian genocide.

The above is mostly on the poorly-focused side. Now let’s get to the vicious part. Here’s an email from a shtarker claiming to be Alan Warshaw of Palo Alto California,  a member of the Board of Trustees of the URJ:

The kindest thing I can say about your ad is that it has great “chutzpah” –  to think that a small group is representing all Reform Jews.   In fact, I personally am insulted that you would include me as a Reform Jew in your ad.  The title of your group is an oxymoron… it’s your group that is divisive.  And I’m surprised that the signatories are so careless to allow so many inaccurate points with the purpose of discrediting Rabbis Yoffie and Jacobs.   Why do you choose to go around the  Union for Reform Judaism to influence change of policies if you disagree with them?   Instead, you pay for an expensive ad to do exactly what you say you are against:  divisive leadership.

Dozens of smart and knowledgable [sic] leaders of the Union for Reform Judaism thoroughly evaluated Rabbi Rick Jacobs’ credentials before selecting him as the nominee for the next URJ President.   Although I was not part of that process, I can be more convinced of their judgment in selecting Rabbi Jacobs –  than a bunch of mavericks trying to represent themselves as speaking for the Reform Movement.

As Jews (and especially rabbis), you should heed the points that Rabbi David Ellenson (& his HUC colleagues) expressed in his response to your ad.  If you are truly reform Jews, you know that Reform Judaism is a dynamic enterprise, reflecting a demonstrated evolution of Jewish practice and policies.   This evolution, time and again, responds to Reform Judaism by the influences of welcoming inputs from all liberal Jews.  You could be part of the solution and yet you choose to be a problem.   Publishing this ad is not being part of any constructive solution.

It’s one thing to have a healthy debate on Israel attitudes and policies.  It’s another thing to put a blemish on the signatories of this ad with their unfair AND divisive ad.

Your ad and your names won’t be forgotten by myself and others.  Like other Lashaon Hara behavior, your words will reflect on your reputation and will be remembered when you write a paper, present a lecture or look for a position on a committee or employment.

Note that the writer yet again does not dispute the content of the ad. And although he claims that inputs are welcomed, I certainly don’t remember my input being solicited when this decision was being contemplated. And yet he is absolutely furious, enough to threaten that signatories on the ad will be blacklisted!

How positively liberal of him.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Deceptive logic from Jewish branch of Arab lobby

Sunday, May 1st, 2011

J Street is excruciatingly careful in its response to the Hamas-Fatah rapprochement. It’s really a masterpiece of deceptive logic:

Overcoming the split between Fatah and Hamas, and between the West Bank and Gaza, has always been a precondition for final resolution of the conflict. In fact, many who oppose a two-state deal have, in recent years, done so by arguing that divisions among the Palestinians make peace impossible. Obviously, reconciliation reduces that obstacle – but now skeptics of a two-state agreement have immediately stepped forward to say that a deal is impossible with a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas.

The obstacle for those of us who are ‘skeptics’ has not been that the Palestinian Arabs were split. Rather, it’s been that even if it were true that the Fatah/PLO faction was a partner for peace (which I doubt), 40% of the Palestinians are ruled by Hamas, which is explicitly and unrepentantly racist, terrorist and genocidal. The marriage of these groups can only make the situation worse, not better.

We are well aware that there are those in Hamas who are not interested in a two-state solution but who seek the long-term destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish national home. No one should have any illusions about the dangers and risks ahead.

“There are those in Hamas…?” What are the J Streeters smoking? Are there ‘those’ in Hamas who do not seek the destruction of Israel? And what’s this “Jewish national home” stuff? That’s the language of the Balfour Declaration, which was specifically not drawn in terms of a sovereign state (why it is like this is a fascinating historical question, but not relevant here).

In a way, J Street is correct. ‘Some’ in Hamas do accept the idea that a number Jews may be allowed to continue living in the state of ‘Palestine’, tolerated as dhimmis under Islamic rule. Of course, ‘some’ others believe that all the Jews should be exterminated, even outside of ‘Palestine’.  But the illusion they are trying to generate, that there is a ‘moderate’ wing of Hamas with which Israel can negotiate, is absurd.

So what’s their point? It’s this:

The only way to answer the questions raised by these new developments is through engagement and talks. We urge the United States, Israel and the international community to respond to this new development with caution and questions, but not with hostility. Encouraging movement in the right direction through engagement is more likely to lead to a long-term peaceful resolution than responding, for instance, by automatically cutting off aid to the Palestinian Authority.

The only way to respond to someone who wants to kill you is with hostility, not financial support. Here is the Hamas idea of ‘engagement’, article 13 of the Hamas Covenant:

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has represented itself as interested in a peaceful two-state solution, although in fact we know that its definition of such does not include a sovereign Jewish state. But aligning itself with Hamas means that even this pretense is being discarded.

J Street suggests that, for all that, the new Palestinian entity may be moderate:

If indeed this reconciliation deal is implemented – and history does give reason to question whether it will – there are many questions that the new Palestinian leadership must answer in the coming weeks and months. Is the Palestinian Liberation Organization – as the official representative of the Palestinian people – still committed to a two-state solution? Is it willing to reaffirm its renunciation of the use of violence and terror against Israeli civilians? Will existing security understandings be honored? Will rocket fire from Gaza be stopped?

This is one of the sneakiest bits of verbiage I’ve come across in some time, but par for the course for the deceitful J Street. As originally reported by “Eldad Tzioni” and further discussed by me here, it is not at all certain that Hamas will join the PLO although it will participate in a ‘unity government’. The PLO, as we know, pays lip service to the idea of a two-state solution, the renunciation of terror, etc. But Hamas won’t even need to lie about it in order for it to be part of the Palestinian government.

What is important to J Street, in its role as the Jewish branch of the Arab lobby, is that the US should support the PA regardless of its policies.

Technorati Tags: , , ,