Jewish establishment can’t condemn occupation


Two articles from Haaretz anad an insert on Brigitte Gabriel and her Muslim-hating ACT for America


PM Netanyahu with the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations Chairman Stephen M. Greenberg (centre) and Executive Vice Chairman/CEO Malcolm Hoenlein at the opening of the organization’s 42nd Leadership Mission, February 14, 2016. Photo by Avi Hayoun

Why the U.S. Jewish Establishment Won’t Condemn the Israeli Occupation

Unless more U.S. Jews who oppose the occupation become members of established Jewish organizations and donate money, the establishment is unlikely to heed calls of those who want it to condemn the occupation.

Dov Waxman, Haaretz premium
May 02, 2016

Once again, the American Jewish establishment has come under fire for its unwillingness to criticize Israel. Just before Passover, 23 young American Jews got themselves arrested in a series of sit-ins held at the offices of major Jewish organizations in Washington DC, New York, Boston, Chicago, and Berkeley. Staged by the activist group IfNotNow, the protesters called upon the American Jewish establishment to publicly oppose Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. A few days later, Seymour Reich, a former head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations — one of the main groups within the Jewish establishment — wrote a blistering op-ed in the largest circulation Jewish newspaper in the United States, calling upon the leaders of mainstream Jewish organizations to publicly condemn “the Israeli government’s assault on democratic values.”


The Jewish Group IfNotNow has demonstrated outside AIPAC headquarters and, here, in Philadelphia marching to demand that President-elect Donald Trump fire Stephen Bannon, Philadelphia, November 22, 2016. Photo courtesy of IfNotNow/via JTA. See also #Jewish Resistance to the Occupation

These demands are by no means new. For decades now, going to back to the formation of the group Breira in the mid-1970s, liberal and left-wing American Jews have been protesting the silence of the American Jewish establishment in the face of what they see as oppressive, reactionary, and anti-democratic Israeli policies and practices.

Yet, despite countless protests and appeals, most of the organizations that make up the American Jewish establishment (which includes, among others, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Jewish Federations of North America) have consistently refused to voice any public criticism of the Israeli Occupation, although they have, on occasion, mildly rebuked Israeli governments and Knesset members for legislative proposals they deem undemocratic and, more often, for government initiatives that undermine the status of non-Orthodox Jews in Israel.

Why, then, has the American Jewish establishment remained so silent about the occupation?

While many on the left, both Jewish and non-Jewish, accuse the American Jewish establishment of actively supporting the occupation, the reality is more complex. Most of the leaders of organizations within the Jewish establishment actually support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and have no desire to see Israel ruling over the West Bank and controlling the lives of millions of Palestinians. Whatever historic or religious significance the territory has for them, most mainstream American Jewish leaders believe that Israel must eventually give it up. But, unlike their critics on the left, they also believe that it is not safe for Israel to immediately end the occupation. They are convinced that the occupation can only end when Israel and the Palestinians make peace, and since this depends upon the Palestinians as much as Israel, the continuation of the occupation until then cannot be blamed on Israel. Thus, in their minds, it is imprudent and unfair to simply insist that Israel end the occupation.

But even if the leadership of the American Jewish establishment were persuaded that the occupation is largely Israel’s fault, or that continuing it poses greater dangers to Israel than unilaterally ending it, many of their organizations would still resist any open condemnation of Israel. It is simply not in their DNA.

Having spent decades defending and celebrating Israel, mainstream Jewish organizations are profoundly uncomfortable criticizing it. Their corporate culture reflects and reinforces their traditional mission of doing “hasbara” for Israel. Even internal criticism of Israel is subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, discouraged.

Getting these organizations to dramatically change course and actively oppose the occupation would be like getting the Republican Party in the United States to support raising taxes on the wealthy to cut the deficit. Even if it makes sense, it’s an almost impossible task.

Which brings me to the third major reason why the American Jewish establishment won’t oppose the occupation. Just as the Republican party is now dependent upon some mega-donors who staunchly oppose higher taxes and a grassroots base which is fiercely anti-government, so too the American Jewish establishment increasingly depends upon a small number of major donors and a grassroots base who are generally more right-wing and politically conservative than most American Jews.

opposing the occupation could be bad for business.

Nowadays, the people who give the largest amounts of money to mainstream American Jewish organizations, or who regularly show up at their meetings and conferences, tend to be on the right, or at least the centre-right, of the American Jewish political spectrum when it comes to Israel (although they may be Democrats domestically). Going directly against their views and publicly condemning the occupation might well put an organization’s finances and membership at risk.

Like any organization, those within the Jewish establishment are focused first and foremost on their own survival, and they are generally risk-averse. Put simply, opposing the occupation could be bad for business.

Unless significantly more American Jews who oppose the occupation become members of establishment Jewish organizations, show up at their meetings, and give them large sums of money, the American Jewish establishment is unlikely to heed the calls of those who want it to condemn the occupation. But this should not deter its critics, because even if such calls fall upon deaf ears, they might be heard elsewhere, in the corridors of power in Jerusalem, where it really matters.

Dov-waxmanDov Waxman is a professor of Political Science, International Affairs, and Israel studies at Northeastern University and the co-director of its Middle East Center. His new book Trouble in the Tribe: The American Jewish Conflict over Israel has just been published by Princeton University Press.

 


Brigitte Gabriel [below] was born Hanan Qahwaji in Lebanon in 1964. She is the founder of two anti-Muslim organisations. the American Congress For Truth and ACT! for America

 According to the Washington Post, the organization “touted as its “first accomplishment” its 2008 campaign to shut down a Minnesota Islamic school”. The Southern Poverty Law Center has the described Act for America as “the largest grassroots anti-Muslim group in the country”, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations has described it as “one of the main sources of growing anti-Muslim bigotry in our nation”. ACT tries to dissuade Jews and Christians from conducting interfaith dialogue with Muslims. From Wikipedia

For Jewish Federations: Left-wing on Israel Bad, anti-Muslim Radical Right Good?

What ‘communal consensus’ does the JFNA reflect when it blocks donations to anti-occupation causes but welcomes ‘pro-Israel’ right-wingers who traffic in Islamophobic hate speech?

By Russel Neiss , Haaretz premium
March 23, 2017

For the past several months, local federation lay leaders, Jewish professionals, and young Jewish activists throughout the country, have all urged the Jewish Federations of North America [JFNA] to take a stronger stance against the policies and appointees of the Trump administration that many see as dangerous to the Jewish community, our values, our allies, and our communal priorities.

JFNA’s response, when they have responded, has been to say that they need to remain neutral and maintain communal consensus on these issues.

But the truth is that JFNA can’t even manage to keep itself internally coherent.

In early February JFNA published their 2017 policy agenda. Amongst promises to protect Medicaid and Medicare, and advocate for dollars for the prevention of “cyber-attacks,” the document promoted “supporting a two-state solution with Israel living in peace with a demilitarized Palestinian state.”

According to the Jewish Federations, the ‘American Jewish consensus’ on Israel means: There’s no such thing as being too far to the right.

Less than one month later, Richard Sandler, Chair of the JFNA Board of Trustees, lent his support to David Friedman to serve as the American ambassador to Israel. This is of course the same David Friedman who in addition to calling progressive Zionists “worse than kapos,”  is on record supporting a one-state solution as his favored outcome to the conflict.

If this was a one-time slip-up, perhaps we could take JFNA at their word, that this merely represented Sandler’s “personal view,” and was only intended to “encourage discussion.”

But while JFNA claims to support a policy of neutrality and consensus building on politically sensitive topics, the truth is they and their affiliates often have no problem aligning themselves with radical right-wing views, speakers and organizations, while simultaneously diminishing voices on the left under the guise of “communal consensus.”

Take for example recent reports of local Federations in San Francisco and Los Angeles that have refused to direct dollars from donor-advised-funds to left-leaning organizations.


Nobody who supports far-right David Friedman can plausibly say they are politically neutral. Photo by Yuri Gripas/ Reuters

The JFNA say they’re neutral and consensus-based. But the Chair of their Board of Trustees lent his support to David Friedman.

In San Francisco, a donation was denied to an organization that worked to save Jews in WWII because a portion of their work today is devoted to human rights of Palestinians, and includes advocacy of divestment of corporations active in the occupied territories. This apparently ran afoul of guidelines that the head of the San Francisco Federation described as “our community’s sincere and hard-won consensus on ensuring a safe space for a broad range of responsible views from left to right.”

In Los Angeles, the Federation forbade a donation to IfNotNow, deeming their tactics too “disruptive” and “hostile” to the Federation.

Despite blocking these donations to left-leaning groups, both of these Federations (and many others around the country) continue to distribute monies to right-wing organizations that the both ADL and SPLC have deemed to traffic in hate speech.

Of particular note, (since we’re talking about Los Angeles allegedly banning donations to “disruptive” groups that are “hostile” to Federation) is Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative. This is a group that upon being blocked from sharing their hate speech from within the Jewish Federation’s Board Room, protested outside. Geller called the Federation’s actions “craven capitulation to Islamic supremacist Jew-haters,” adding that, “We expect that from kapos.”

Her organizations continues to receive monies through federation donor-advised-funds.

But Geller is by no means the only one. Brigitte Gabriel, founder of ACT! For America (also on ADL & SPLC’s lists), has spoken at more than a dozen Jewish Federations throughout the country. Tuesday she celebrated on Twitter her invitation to meetings at the White House.

Following an instance when the head of the Nashville Federation spoke alongside a representative from the hate group at a pro-Israel rally, William Daroff, JFNA’s senior vice president for public policy, was asked if JFNA thought it was appropriate for local federation executives to speak at events with known hate mongers. His response was that, “[The Federation] didn’t co-sponsor. End of story.”

Perhaps he hadn’t yet achieved “communal consensus” on whether speaking out against pro-Israel Islamophobic racists was acceptable or not.

And while that last statement is perhaps unduly harsh to Mr. Daroff, it points to a deeper truth about our alleged communal consensus on Israel — there is no such thing as being too far to the right.

What other conclusion are we supposed draw when JFNA leadership can endorse individuals who slander progressive Zionists without repercussions or any mea culpa from the organization, while simultaneously barring Jewish individuals who speak out forcefully in defence of Palestinian human rights?

What other conclusion are we supposed draw when funding from Jewish Federations can actually pay the salaries of convicted right-wing Jewish terrorists, while JFNA continues to refuse to work with many Muslim American organizations because of unproven but alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood?

What other conclusions are we supposed to draw when local federations wholeheartedly endorse legislation that makes no distinction between Israel and the occupied territories, while simultaneously remaining silent when LGBT Jews in their community are kicked out of their Jewish campus organization because they participated in a fundraiser for LGBT refugees that an organization that supports the boycott and divestment of Israel also participated in?

What other conclusion are we supposed to draw when hate groups are welcomed by our federation system under the guise of pro-Israel advocacy?

Is this really the communal consensus that reflects our desires and our values?

Russel Neiss is a Jewish educator, technologist, and activist based in St. Louis, MO. He is the creator of PocketTorah, the viral Stl_Manifest bot among many other Jewish educational technology initiatives. Follow him on Twitter: @russelneiss

© Copyright JFJFP 2024