by Lori Lowenthal Marcus
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/05/07/the-stealthy-legtimacy-of-j-street/
Did you know that J Street – which is, please, let’s acknowledge it
already, a political lobbying organization – is launching a new national
election year initiative? They have plans to train its supporters to
lobby for the candidates they support, and ensure the defeat of
candidates supported by “right-wing Republican” Jews in this year’s
presidential election. Perhaps that doesn’t surprise you, but what if
you learned that some of those political training sessions were taking
place in your local synagogues (Chicago and San Francisco), or Jewish
community centers (Nashville and Minneapolis), or even your local
Federation building (Philadelphia)? A recent email from Carinne Luck,
J Street’s Vice President for Campaigns, announced the launch of a new J
Street initiative, “Future of Pro-Israel.” Luck describes this purely
political, election year initiative as J Street’s effort to drive a new
course in “national and communal politics.” Luck labels it a direct
response to donations by two Jewish millionaires to two political
organizations of Republican candidates for US president. J Street makes
no effort to conceal where donations to counter Republican support are
supposed to go, but let’s spell it out: if you oppose people supporting
Republican candidates, including the man who is the presumptive
Republican nominee, where does one suppose your financial support is
going to go? Here’s a hint: it’s going to an eight letter word
starting with D, and it isn’t Dinosaur. This is a free country, and if J
Street reveals itself honestly as a purely political advocate for
Democratic candidates, they have the right to do so. But J Street is
succeeding in having it both ways, by doing pure politics but cloaking
itself with the hecksher of the official Jewish community – their
buildings, their patina of charity and good works – in order to advance
its purely partisan political goal. When you click on the link to find J
Street’s new initiative in your community, you learn several things:
(1) the effort is solely part of J Street’s lobbying, advocacy and campaign arms, not the one that is bound by the same rules that bind Federations, JCCs and synagogues; (2) J Street calls itself the “political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans”; (3) several of the descriptions
make it clear it is an intensive lobbying campaign to support political
candidates who share J Street’s vision; and (4) some of the places where
these intensely political, lobbying training efforts are being held are
in our Jewish communal homes, which are limited by federal law and
community consensus from engaging in lobbying or political campaigning.
For example, J Street Philadelphia is holding its Political Initiative
launch at the Philadelphia Federation building, although the event is
sponsored only by its political entities – those that are permitted to
engage in lobbying and campaigning – and not the tax-exempt arm. Not
only that, but even on its Facebook page, J Street Philadelphia labels
itself only a political organization. In most other cities, the
J Street lobbying launch is being held in private homes, which makes
sense. But while it appears only Philadelphia is allowing its
Federation building to be used to launch this lobbying effort, there are
some cities in which the Jewish Community Centers and some synagogues
have allowed these lobbying campaigns to take place. The nearly
identical language used to describe most of the local efforts focuses on
action to be taken during this “election season,” and includes training
for being “on the front lines of voter engagement in this important
election year.” Should Jewish Federations or Jewish Community Centers or
synagogues host one-sided political events or lobbying efforts? Of
course not. Those entities need to remain neutral so that all Jews feel
welcome in their communal centers. And from a financial standpoint,
those Jewish communal entities must also avoid any semblance of
political favor because the only way such entities are created, exist
and grow is through funding from donors, in exchange for which the
donors can deduct the value of the donations when reporting their income
for tax purposes. And that is why, usually, religious institutions are
loathe to allow anything that smells political, particularly when it
comes to election season, within their gates. Even the appearance of
supporting a particular politician or lobbying effort can create serious
problems. So why are some Jewish organizations allowing their
facilities to be used for J Street’s unabashedly political initiative?
The answer in Philadelphia probably reflects the thought process that
took place in other Jewish communities, which was twofold: (1) they
assumed the event was not political and (2) Jewish institutions strive
to be inclusive. Why did Philadelphia think the event was not going to
be political? Because the decision makers there, at least initially,
did not see the original announcement of J Street’s Political
Initiative, and because many think of J Street as a nonprofit,
tax-exempt organization, the same as are Federations, JCRCs, and the
other alphabet soup of Jewish organizations. You see, by originally
presenting itself as simply another Jewish organization, but with a
decidedly leftist orientation, the J Street national, and then their
local affiliates, were able to participate in Jewish communal life as if
they were just another non-profit, pro-Israel, Jewish organization.
But J Street* is now an overtly political entity, working for political
candidates who support its causes and working to create candidates who
will champion those causes. It is a lobbying effort that came in the
front door of our communities wearing its nonprofit, tax-exempt status,
but is now operating within our gates in its political, lobbying,
campaign incarnation. And that feint leaves our Jewish entities’ tax
status, and certainly its nonpartisan stance, vulnerable, while J
Street, which gave subtle but sufficient indications of what it is
really doing, with little to hide. Can you imagine any synagogue, JCC or
Federation allowing, say, the Republican Jewish Committee to launch a
lobbying efforts in their buildings? Or a Tea Party planning event? Of
course not. So if not them, then why this J Street Political
Initiative? Because it succeeded in achieving stealth legitimacy, to
our peril. * The J Street Education Fund
is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization for education and outreach,
but that arm of J Street is not involved in this new initiative. Lori
Lowenthal Marcus is the president of Z STREET and the executive
committee chair of the National Conference on Jewish Affairs
Monday, May 7, 2012
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Jews unwelcome on campus Op-ed: Western universities becoming frightening bastions of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish hostility
11:08 , 05.06.12
 |
 |
|
|
  |
|||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Jews unwelcome on campus
Op-ed: Western universities becoming frightening bastions of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish hostility Giulio Meotti From the outside, Western faculties appear as genteel oases of wisdom and knowledge. In truth, institutions of higher education are becoming brutal offspring of anti-Jew hatred. Famous faculties that have been an historical cradle of European civilization are sacrificing freedom and Israel to barbarism and obscurantism. Even in America the gloves are coming off. The Institute for Jewish & Community Research in San Francisco recently published a report titled "Alone on the quad: Understanding Jewish Student Isolation on Campus,” one of the most comprehensive surveys of its kind. More than 40% of students confirm anti-Semitism on their campus; some 41% of students have encountered anti-Israel remarks made in class by professors. Numbers are also telling in Europe. While boasting large numbers of Muslim students and students from Arab countries, European universities count very few Jewish or pro-Israeli students among their population. Whereas 15-20% of young people matriculating in America’s top universities are Jewish, in Europe only a few faculties claim even a tenth of this figure. Today, we are witnessing the worst wave of anti-Israel hatred since April 6, 2002, when 123 academicians signed an open letter, published in Britain’s The Guardian, calling for a moratorium on all cultural links with Israel. Recently, the University of Paris VIII closed its doors for two days to avoid a harder stance about a planned conference against the Jewish State. Elsewhere, while septuagenarian Israeli novelist and Holocaust survivor Esther Orner has been banned from the University of Provence, Hezbollah officials spoke at the Sorbonne University. Meanwhile, Rotterdam’s Erasmus University recently hosted events in which Israel was equated with South Africa’s apartheid regime. 'Israel absolute taboo in Europe'But the case of Pieter van der Horst, the professor of Early Christian History and Judaism at Utrecht University, is emblematic of the fear and hatred dominating Dutch academia. The pioneering researcher wanted to argue in his valedictory lecture that “the Islamization of European anti-Semitism is one of the most frightening developments of the past decades.” However, his university’s chancellor prevented him from doing so by censoring the lecture in advance.“It should have been my last lecture”, van der Horst told me. “In the Middle East of today, the demonization of Jews has reached unprecedented levels. Jews are accused of every evil under the sun, from cannibalism to the attacks on the Twin Towers, to causing the tsunami, the bird flu, AIDS and so on. The University’s committee claimed it was too dangerous to give the complete lecture because it might trigger violent reactions from ‘well-organized Muslim student groups.’ I decided to submit an expurgated text because I did not want to expose myself and others to potential danger.” “I capitulated to self censorship,” he added. “In the country of Anne Frank we accept that today the Jews don’t walk in the streets with their religious symbols. We accept that in Holland synagogues are protected by the police. What will be the end of all this?” Dozens of academicians just signed a petition condemning Liverpool University’s invitation to Israel’s deputy ambassador to the UK, Alon Roth-Snir. Meanwhile, students at Edinburgh University voted in favor of the boycott of Israeli goods. At Queen’s University in Belfast, Palestinian militants violently attacked Israeli attaché Solon Solomon. Benny Morris, professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, was assaulted last year on a street by a group of Muslims before a conference at the London School of Economics. When Morris finished his lesson on Israel’s war of 1948, he was unceremoniously bundled away through the back exit of the faculty, past the garbage cans, out of fear for his safety if he left the building in the normal manner. “I felt like a Jew in Berlin in the ‘20s”, a shaken Morris told me. “Israel is an absolute taboo in Europe. At Cambridge, my class was canceled after intimidation by Islamist groups. And I think that it will only get worse.” Matthias Küntzel, a German political scientist, was invited by Leeds University for three days of seminars. His lecture on “Hitler’s Legacy: Islamic Anti-Semitism in the Middle East” was expected to draw a large audience. But when Küntzel arrived at the British faculty, he was informed that his lecture had been cancelled “on security grounds.” 'Peace with Israel is a crime'Last autumn, Israeli professor Ronen Cohen, whose “sin” is that of teaching at Ariel University, was expelled from a German academic conference in Berlin (he was later reinstated after a storm of protest.) Elsewhere, Spain’s Housing Ministry disqualified Ariel University from participating in the international competition on solar power because of its address in Samaria.According to a poll commissioned by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 62% of university students say they do not want Jewish classmates. These numbers are as surprising as they are worrying: the most anti-Semitic people in Spain are supposedly the most educated. A prominent figure in Belgium’s Jewish community, Jacques Brotchi, just resigned from the board of University of Brussels after denouncing grave anti-Semitic incidents within the campus. A study published by Professor Marc Elchardus of the Flemish University showed that 50% of Muslim students harbor anti-Semitic sentiments. In Italy popular anti-Semitic websites called for the “blacklisting” of Jewish professors. An Israeli student at the University of Turin, Amit Peer, confessed to Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that “the Jews here are hiding their own identity because they risk becoming a target”. Israeli attaché Shai Cohen has been prevented from speaking at Pisa University after a violent attack by students, who called him “butcher.” The Israeli ambassador, Ehud Gol, fled Florence University after a similar “protest.” A shoe was hurled at Israeli ambassador Benny Dagan while he was giving a lecture at the Stockholm University and a Jewish student, Anja Savosnic, was forced to give up Hebrew studies at the University of Oslo due to anti-Semitic attacks from fellow students. In 1936, at the beginning of a new wave of terrorism against the Jews, Zionist leader Berl Katznelson wrote: “We are called upon to defend ourselves not only from the physical marauders but also from the spiritual marauders.” Today the new spiritual marauders are based in Western faculties. They want to bring the war to the home of every Jew. It’s an academic final solution epitomized by a sign on the walls of London University: “Peace with Israel is a crime.” Giulio Meotti, a journalist with Il Foglio, is the author of the book A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism Back |
|||||||||||||
Friday, May 4, 2012
‘FDR used the Jews’
05/03/2012 21:56
| Over the years, I had the opportunity to conduct a number of lengthy interviews
with Prof. Benzion Netanyahu, who passed away early Monday, concerning his
activities in the United States in the 1940s, when he was executive director of
the American wing of the Revisionist Zionist movement. The previously unpublished interview below took place in June 2009, as I was working on my book, Herbert Hoover and the Jews: The Origins of the “Jewish Vote” and Bipartisan Support for Israel (coauthored with Prof. Sonja Schoepf Wentling), which was published last month. In your view, why were American Jewish leaders so cautious during the 1940s? Part of the problem was how they saw themselves. In their contacts with president Roosevelt, Jewish leaders thought of themselves as weak or helpless. Take, for example, Rabbi Stephen Wise – leader of the American Zionist movement, the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress. He thought of himself as a servant of president Roosevelt. He referred to Roosevelt as “chief,” and he really meant it that way – Roosevelt as was the chief, and Wise was the servant. Wise was happy to just follow along with whatever Roosevelt wanted. He was content as long as FDR just remembered his name or gave him a few minutes of his time every once in a while. What about the Jewish advisers within Roosevelt’s inner circle? FDR used Jews if they served some purpose that he needed. Samuel Rosenman was useful to him as a speechwriter. Henry Morgenthau Jr. was useful to him as secretary of the Treasury. Only a certain kind of a Jew could reach that position in Roosevelt’s administration – the kind of Jew who would not talk about Jewish issues or problems. FDR used the Jews, but there was no room in his heart for the plight of the Jewish people. In his mind, the suffering of Europe’s Jews was not included in the “Four Freedoms,” the four great principles for which America was fighting in World War II. Roosevelt had no time for the problems of the Jews. (Prof. Netanyahu’s assessment was privately shared, at the time, even by many within the Jewish establishment. Coincidentally, on the morning of our conversation, I spent some time doing research at the Central Zionist Archives, and came upon the transcript of a meeting in 1944 between Nahum Goldmann and the Jewish Agency Executive, including David Ben-Gurion. Goldmann, who was cochairman of the World Jewish Congress as well as the agency’s representative in Washington, had come to Jerusalem to brief the agency’s leaders on the political situation in the US capital. Goldmann told them Roosevelt was only “superficially sympathetic” to the suffering of European Jewry. He said, “It is impossible to educate the president, because he will only let you see him once every six months, for 30 minutes, and he spends the first 10 minutes chatting and telling stories.”) Just before Yom Kippur in 1943, the Bergson Group (led by activist Hillel Kook, who was known as Peter Bergson) and the Vaad Hahatzalah (an Orthodox rescue committee based in New York City) mobilized more than 400 rabbis to march to the White House to plead for rescue. The president refused to meet with a delegation of their leaders. Later, a columnist for one of the Yiddish newspapers wrote that if 400 priests had come to the White House, the president would not have refused to see them. Was there indeed a double standard applied to Jewish concerns? To answer that question, just consider how the international community would have responded if millions of Englishmen or Frenchmen were the ones who were being annihilated, rather than millions of Jews. Would the world have just stood by, quietly? Would you have needed to have protest groups organizing marches and taking out newspaper ads in order to wake up the world’s conscience? No. The nations of the world would have immediately risen in angry protest, without any prompting. They would never would have allowed such a thing to continue. But when the Jews were the victims, it was a different story. It was as if the Jews were untouchables. It was as if the nations did not want to besmirch their hands by touching the Jews. What could American Jewish leaders have done to change Roosevelt’s position? Roosevelt understood the language of political power. Jewish leaders should have done, and could have done, what my colleagues and I did – we went to the Republicans. And then Roosevelt got the message. We built relationships with Republican members of Congress, and leaders of the Republican Party such as [former president Herbert] Hoover and [1936 presidential nominee Alf] Landon, and we lobbied them before the Republican Convention in 1944. They put a plank in their party platform that year calling for “unrestricted immigration and land ownership” for Jews in Palestine and it called for making Palestine a “free and democratic commonwealth” for the Jewish people. That was the first time one of America’s political parties took such a position. Stephen Wise said he was deeply embarrassed that the Republicans were trying, in his view, to upstage the president on Palestine. But the Democrats responded by putting language in their platform – this is the first time they did this – supporting “unrestricted Jewish immigration and colonization” and establishment of a “free and democratic Jewish commonwealth.” Was Congressman Emanuel Celler the key figure in convincing the Democratic Party to do that? Some of the Jewish congressmen were very good. Some were not. Celler was one of the best. I had many meetings with Celler during those years. He was very friendly and supportive. Sometimes when we discussed with him an idea for a newspaper ad, or a resolution in Congress, he would want to use language even stronger than we proposed. He was not afraid to criticize the president on Jewish issues, even though he and Roosevelt were from the same party. Celler was a courageous man. How would you characterize Sol Bloom, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who was the most powerful Jew in Congress? Bloom was a very small man, a narrow-minded politician. He was worried about keeping his powerful position. He stayed close to the State Department and Roosevelt, and did what they wanted, so he could keep his position. Would you say there was a certain similarity between Bloom’s attitude and that of Jewish leaders such as Rabbi Wise? They were both in a position to push the administration, but they were both afraid to do so. If American Jews had pressured FDR with regard to opening Palestine, he could have compelled the British to put aside the White Paper so Jews could escape from Europe to Palestine. (In his biography of Wise, Prof. Melvin Urofsky describes one of the rare instances in which Wise pressed FDR – and got results. Hearing, in 1936, that Britain was planning to restrict Jewish immigration to Palestine, Wise asked Roosevelt to intervene. The fact that it was an election year gave Wise some implicit political leverage. Urofsky explains that Roosevelt, “alert to the potential political benefits” (meaning, a chance to impress Jewish voters at no cost), let London know he would be unhappy if Palestine’s doors were shut. The British, anxious to preserve relations with Washington, backed down. It was a very significant accomplishment. Three years later, the British would impose the White Paper, “but in the intervening years (1936- 1939),” Urofsky points out, “more than 50,000 Jews, mostly from Germany and Austria, were able to [enter Palestine] –men, women, and children who would undoubtedly have perished had the 1939 White Paper been issued three years earlier.”) What was the response of grassroots American Jews to the news from Europe, as compared to the response of the leadership? Certainly the grassroots Jews responded in a more heartfelt way than the leaders. And the lower they were on the economic ladder, the more they seemed to care. Our work had the support of the poor people, the little newspaper vendor on the corner, or the kosher butcher or the school teacher. Those who were better off were more assimilated, and they paid very little attention to what was happening. They slept soundly at night, because they closed their eyes to the Jewish tragedy. This is something I could never understand. How could they just turn away and continue to go about their business as they usually did? How could they still eat in the finest restaurants, when the Jews in the ghettos were starving? How could they sleep at night? There were times I literally could not sleep at night because of what was happening in Europe, and I could not understand how anyone else could. Was that also true of Jewish leaders? Jewish leaders, too, were going about their business, and involved in all kinds of issues. And they probably were sleeping soundly at night. They did not understand the full urgency of the situation. And they had other problems, such as the problem of their big egos, especially in the case of someone like Stephen Wise. I had a meeting with him in 1940, shortly after I first arrived in the United States. He knew my father, Rabbi Nathan Mileikowsky, who was a prominent speaker for the Keren Hayesod and other Zionist causes. When I sat down with Wise, I began speaking in Hebrew. I looked upon him as if he was the chief rabbi of America, so I assumed that of course he would know how to speak Hebrew. He answered me in English – he said, “As a matter of principle, I do not speak Hebrew in private conversation.” In fact, as I later discovered, he could not speak Hebrew at all – he just could not stand the idea that anybody might think that he could not speak Hebrew. He was a bluffer. A man who was so shallow and petty was not suited to be a Jewish leader, especially one who had the responsibility to lead American Jewry in responding to the Holocaust. It is a mark of the poverty of the Jewish people that these were its leaders in those terrible times. Rafael Medoff is founding director of The David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies. |
||
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)