 |
|
|
Advertise
|
|
Major Jewish Groups Agree to Protect Far-Left Group: Is It "Anti-Israel" or Just "Tough Love"? By
Susan Rosenbluth, Editor February 2007 The groups, including the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, Aish HaTorah, the Jewish National Fund, Hillel, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, make up the current steering committee of the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC), an alliance of 31 Jewish organizations that banded together in 2002 to “foster support for Israel on the college campus,” promote “Israel advocacy,” and “counter the worrisome rise of anti-Israel activities on college campuses.” Funded by the Charles and Lynne Schusterman Family Foundation and Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life, ICC is a conglomeration of Jewish organizations ranging from Americans for Peace Now on the left to the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) on the right. It includes at least two media watchdog groups, CAMERA and Media Watch International; several Israeli universities; and the campus activity arms of the Orthodox Union, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, and Union for Reform Judaism. Member organizations receive materials, resources, and grant opportunities for their organizations and their students. “Breaking the Silence” In December 2006, several ICC member organizations expressed outrage at a fellow member, the Union for Progressive Zionism (UPZ), for bringing the group “Breaking the Silence” to college campuses throughout the country. Composed of a handful of former IDF soldiers who virulently oppose “Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land,” Breaking the Silence depicts Israel as a country which orders its troops “to shoot to kill unarmed people without fear of reprimand,” has spawned a generation in which those who “stick to morality” are the exceptions and not the rule, and tolerates citizens who “inflict the purest evil on their [Palestinian-Arab] neighbors.” Mort Klein, president of ZOA, accused the UPZ-sponsored Breaking the Silence program of “omitting historical facts, providing no balance or context, and promoting outright falsehoods about Israel.” For example, he said, the program features highly inflammatory photographs, including one of soldiers lounging near a young Palestinian man who sits blindfolded and handcuffed. “An uninitiated college student could easily get the impression that Israeli soldiers just love hanging out in civilian neighborhoods and terrorizing the population, blindfolding and arresting Palestinian-Arab men without reason, conscience, or care. The program does not mention that Palestinian terrorists deliberately hide in civilian neighborhoods, providing a context for Israeli soldiers’ presence there. The program makes no reference to the fact that blindfolds and handcuffs are used so that suspected terrorists will not be able to identify the military bases to which they are brought, for the protection of the Israeli soldiers who are serving in the area. The program does not mention that Palestinian terrorists have already murdered almost 2,000 Israelis and maimed 15,000 more,” said Mr. Klein. No Context In late October 2006, the UPZ-sponsored Break the Silence program was presented at the University of California at Santa Cruz. In a letter to the ICC, Prof of Chemistry Ilan Benjamin called the presentation “neither fair nor balanced, but…rather unabashedly anti-Israel.” An Israeli who served in the IDF, Prof Benjamin said although posters advertising the event said it would deal with “foreign policy,” the speaker seemed unfamiliar with that topic. “There was almost no mention of why the Israeli army is inside Arab towns. Despite extensive data, the speaker dismissed the notion that security checkpoints prevent a large percentage of the suicide bombers,” he said. Crucial Point More important, said Prof Benjamin, students who came to the program were denied “a crucial point of information necessary for a critical understanding of Israeli foreign policy, namely that Israel is in a state of war with a terrorist organization that is embedded in civilian neighborhoods.” According to Prof Benjamin, the speaker “simply had one goal, which was undeniably politically motivated: ‘The Israelis must answer to the American government and the American taxpayer. This is why I am here; this is my goal.’” Prof Benjamin said he had hoped that during the question-and-answer period, he might be able to raise issues to “bring a modicum of balance to the discussion.” Those hopes were dashed when the speaker refused to respond. “He said he does not discuss politics,” reported Prof Benjamin, admitting to being stunned at the response. International Court But for Prof Benjamin, the worst was still to come. At the end of the program, he said, the speaker “encouraged the audience to think what they could do to ‘continue the resistance to The Occupation and bring the Israeli army to the International Court of Justice.’” That is no longer just an idle threat. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and its London-based firm of solicitors, Hickman Rose, have tried to bring charges of human rights violations against the IDF and its leaders, and this has led to serious problems bordering on international incidents. In September 2005, Israel Maj-Gen (res) Doron Almog was forced to abandon plans to visit Britain at the last minute, after the Muslim group charged him with crimes against humanity for “his military role against the Palestinian people.” Israel’s ambassador in London, Tzvi Hefetz, spoke with Mr. Almog during the flight and advised him not to get off the plane, warning him that if he entered Britain, he would be served with the claim. Immediately upon landing in London, Mr. Almog returned to Israel. War Crimes Just this past December, the Palestinian Centre, managed to have an arrest warrant issued for Lt-Gen (res) Moshe Yaalon, who was on a private fundraising trip in New Zealand organized by the Jewish National Fund. Mr. Yaalon, former head of the Intelligence Branch, served as Chief of Staff from 2002 until June 2005. An Auckland District Court Judge issued a warrant for Mr. Yaalon’s arrest for alleged war crimes arising from his role in the 2002 assassination of Hamas leader Salah Shahade in Gaza in which at least 14 Palestinian civilians were killed. New Zealand Attorney General Michael Cullen overruled the warrant upon advice from the Crown Law office that there was insufficient evidence, a move which, according to a spokesman for Hickman Rose, “devastated” the firm’s Palestinian clients. A year earlier, another anti-Israel group, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), issued class action suits on behalf of Palestinians and Lebanese against Mr. Yaalon and the former director of Israel’s General Security Service, Avi Dichter. In his letter to the ICC, Prof Benjamin said Breaking the Silence’s “blatantly un-balanced presentation” raised an important question: “The comments by the speaker and the group that brought him clearly show that the main goal of this event was political advocacy. In what way does this kind of political advocacy constitute a legitimate scholarly endeavor that belongs on a college campus?” he asked. Princeton A few weeks later, Breaking the Silence came East. At Princeton University, its presentation was sponsored by the Princeton Committee on Palestine, a group dedicated to raising awareness about human rights for Palestinians; the Global Issues Forum; and the Jewish Social Justice Forum. Although there had been efforts to convince the Princeton Israel Public Affairs Committee (PIPAC) to co-sponsor, the group declined, explaining that they did not think it would be “a constructive event for the Israel-Palestinian dialogue on campus.” Explaining that the discussion suggested by Breaking the Silence was not new, PIPAC president Zvi Smith, a sophomore from Los Angeles, said, “Israel is by no means beyond criticism, but we weren’t sure this would be constructive for people who have no background whatsoever in Israel and in Israeli policy and the conflict.” Said Shonnar of Ramallah, president of the Princeton Committee on Palestine, found the Breaking the Silence perspective “interesting.” “A soldier who actually served, realizing that his service is not serving the security of Israel directly, but, in many cases, jeopardizing it,” he said. “We” The program at Princeton attracted an audience of about 75 people and featured 23-year-old Doton Greenvald, who had served as a sniper in the IDF. His presentation was essentially a slide show depicting Palestinians bound and blindfolded with Israeli soldiers commandeering their homes and turning them into military posts, when they were not confiscating Palestinian property. Mr. Greenvald did not explain what the soldiers were doing there, although he did mention grenade launchers that were fired into Palestinian cities and Palestinians who were shot by accident. Rather than speaking in the first-person singular “I,” he used the plural, “we,” indicating that his experience was universal among all IDF recruits. “We wake up one morning and find we are dead—not physically dead, but humanly dead,” he said. “You hardly notice the transition from humanness to inhumanness.” Red Line He said he joined Breaking the Silence because he cares about his country. “What’s our red line as a society? When are we going to stop?” he said. In an interview with the New Jersey Jewish News, he said that although he was touring the US, his real goal was to speak to Israelis. He denied that he was spouting the pro-Palestinian perspective, but he admitted it also was not pro-Israel. “I’m telling the story from a different point of view,” he said. “We want to bring up the price of the occupation. There’s a bill, a price for it. It’s a moral price I’m not sure we are willing to pay.” Columbia Two weeks later, some 60 students at Columbia University in Manhattan, gathered to hear the Breaking the Silence program, featuring Yehudah Shaul, one of the organization’s founders. He introduced himself as a former Israeli soldier on a mission of self-reflection. His conclusion was that while he had entered the IDF as a compassionate young man who respected human life and dignity, by the time he completed his tour of duty, the experience had changed him into a human rights violator. Painting the entire IDF with a broad brush, Mr. Shaul presented the process of his transformation from a decent person into a heartless “fighting machine” as the standard that, he implied, is true for all Israeli soldiers. He portrayed the IDF as a lawless institution comprised of troops who behave in an arbitrary, ruthless manner for the purpose of depraved personal satisfaction. Because this was Manhattan and not the suburbs, during the question period, Mr. Shaul was faced with many pro-Israel students and guests, including a number of former IDF soldiers several of whom had served in elite units. One of them is now a student at Columbia Law School. Their joint attempts to counter his presentation by sharing their own experiences were futile. “The event was not structured to allow former soldiers whose experiences were dramatically different than Shaul’s to present their experiences in the IDF,” said Rachel Glaser, ZOA campus coordinator, who attended the program. Stopping US Aid Mr. Klein said that because the soldiers in the audience were denied the opportunity “to provide context and balance to Shaul’s one-sided presentation, the audience was left with the feeling that Israel is a ruthless and oppressive abuser of human rights, when nothing could be further from the truth.” When asked about his purpose in presenting that sort of program, Mr. Shaul said his interest was ensuring that Israelis take responsibility for the army’s actions and that Americans take responsibility for their government’s financial aid to Israel. He said he wanted the American people, whose government gives billions of dollars in aid to Israel every year, to know what the Israeli army is doing. Asked by a participant if he knew of any Palestinian organizations which allowed Arabs to question their government’s moral decisions, Mr. Shaul said, “I really don’t care. I am an Israeli who has to raise his children in Israel.” Playing with Fire When Ms. Glaser asked the UPZ organizers what they thought they had accomplished, one of the Jewish students said, “It achieved something important. People perceive pro-Israel groups as monolithic. They think we are not able to take responsibility for the bad things that happen.” Ms. Glaser did not argue with the student’s perception, but went on to suggest that they would have done better to have had a panel that included Mr. Shaul. She suggested that while, in Israel, programs with just an anti-Israel message were tolerable, “outside of Israel, you’re playing with fire,” she said. Lofty Goals Ms. Glaser said that while self-reflection and the effort to improve oneself and one’s country are admirable, Breaking the Silence furthered neither of these lofty goals. “The main thing it did achieve was the dissemination of more anti-Israel sentiment on campus,” she said. This was nothing new, she said, ticking off the “mounds of falsehoods and anti-Israel propaganda” she and her colleagues were faced with all the time. However, she said, unlike other speakers, rallies, and events that have sought to tarnish Israel on campus, Breaking the Silence featured a Jewish speaker and, at Columbia, it was hosted by a Jewish organization, UPZ, a member of the ICC. “By having a Jewish group host and co-sponsor such an event, it gives greater credence and validity to the speaker and the anti-Israel sentiment which he espouses. The ICC was created to promote Israel on campus, and to counter and respond to anti-Israel events. However, in this instance, a member organization ironically chose to present such an event for which the ICC was created to oppose,” she said. Last Straw For Mr. Klein, the Columbia presentation was the straw that broke the camel’s back. After alerting all 31 ICC member organizations, he contacted David Harris, ICC executive director, asking him to take “immediate action.” “The Union of Progressive Zionists should discontinue sponsoring Breaking the Silence. If it insists on promoting this program, then its membership in the ICC should be terminated,” wrote Mr. Klein Mr. Klein said he wanted Mr. Harris to conduct his own investigation to ascertain whether the Breaking the Silence program supports or denies the ICC’s mission. “If the program is contrary to the mission, then Breaking the Silence should no longer be sponsored by UPZ if UPZ wishes to remain part of the ICC. As a member of the ICC, the UPZ is being given credibility as supportive of Israel, when the program it sponsors shows the opposite,” said Mr. Klein. Misleading Name Other ICC member organizations echoed ZOA’s concerns. Several wrote their own letters to Mr. Harris, charging that disaffected Israeli ex-soldiers, such as Mr. Shaul, severely damage the image of the Jewish state. By promoting Breaking the Silence, UPZ was in direct contravention of the ICC’s mission to bolster campus perceptions of the Jewish state, the groups said. Stand with Us, a Los Angeles-based organization that calls itself a “one-stop-site for Israel advocacy, activism, and education, said Braking the Silence “poses a problem because it creates a one-sided, anti-IDF presentation that distorts facts and ignores Israel’s efforts to uphold high moral standards while fighting a difficult terrorist war.” Roz Rothstein, national director of Stand with Us, pointed out that even the name “Breaking the Silence” is “misleading and problematic.” “The implication is that the speakers will unveil the ‘real’ story about IDF alleged human rights abuses though they tell only one side of the story. The implication is that Israel’s press and politicians do not air controversies about IDF policies when in fact they do, and that the IDF does not punish soldiers who violate moral standards when in fact they do. The implication is also that the IDF would not be responsive to these soldiers’ concerns when in fact it has been trying to develop appropriate policies to deal with an enemy that attacks Israeli citizens and then embeds itself among Palestinian civilians,” she said. Poor Judgment Rabbi Eric Lankin, head of JNF’s department of Institutional Advancement and Education,, said that in bringing Breaking the Silence to US campuses, UPZ had shown “poor judgment by not recognizing the unique challenges that Israel faces on campus.” As a member of ICC, UPZ had “stained the reputation of all of our Jewish organizational partners,” he said. Not all the letters in response to Mr. Klein’s call for UPZ’s expulsion from the ICC agreed with the ZOA leader. The Jerusalem-based World Zionist Organization, for example, sided with UPZ. “It is important to engage as many students as possible within the Jewish community. Provided the programs come from a love of Israel, we feel that programs like these must have a place within the ICC,” wrote Ofer Gutman, executive director of the University Student Division, the North American arm of the WZO’s campus affairs department, and Elon Shore, WZO’s mid-Atlantic regional director. Old Labor Letters supporting UPZ also came from the organization’s members and many Birthright Israel participants. A group of 100 left-wing Israeli academics wrote to the ICC to support the work of Breaking the Silence. Strangely enough, there were no letters from the UPZ’s parent organizations, Ameinu (the former Labor Zionist Alliance), Meretz USA, Habonim-Dror Labor Zionist Youth, and Hashomer Hatzair. Ameinu president Kenneth Bob told the Forward that direct contact with the ICC was the job of their campus arm, the UPZ. “Kicking the UPZ out of the ICC would be tantamount to excluding the Labor Zionist voice that founded the state of Israel,” said Mr. Bob. Free Speech Some Jewish media which covered the controversy portrayed it as a free-speech issue, with Mr. Klein cast as trying to stifle dissent. Mr. Klein denied that ZOA or any of the other organizations which took issue with Breaking the Silence had any desire to suppress UPZ’s right to express itself. “UPZ has a right to promote this hateful program, but not as a member of the ICC, which was set up to build support for Israel and reduce anti-Israel intimidation and harassment on college campuses,” he said. UPZ and its supporters characterized their admittedly harsh criticism of Israel as “tough love.” “Our students are not simply concerned about being pro-Israel, but are concerned Zionists who love Israel. Therefore, they care about what kind of Zion we as the Jewish community around the world are supporting and creating,” said Tammy Shapiro, UPZ’s executive director. Members of Breaking the Silence, she said, speak out about “the moral cost to Israel of the 40-year military occupation” because they share UPZ’s concern. “They’re not members of the order of self-hating radical leftists who want to destroy Israel. They are patriots who wish to repair the flaws that threaten to destroy our home,” she said. Mr. Klein compared her argument to that of an abusive husband who says he is beating up his wife in order to “repair the flaws that threaten to destroy our home.” Welcomed by Anti-Zionists Ms. Shapiro indicated that if UPZ and Breaking the Silence were to lose their positions in the Jewish orbit on campus, they would find anti-Israel venues which would welcome them. Sponsoring “thoughtful Israelis,” such as Mr. Shaul, she said, “shows integrity on our part” and a “willingness to engage the challenges Zionism faces today.” This attitude, she says, makes a group like UPZ appealing to “curious students on North American campuses.” “While certain groups in the Jewish community view UPZ students as only presenting unsettling truths to the Jewish Community, they do not see the other side of the coin. It is only our students who can approach the curious students on North American campuses. These students are intelligent, and are unwilling to ignore problematic situations which they hear and read about. It is only our students, by acknowledging their concerns not denying them, who can explain the necessity of Zionism as well as a fair and just two-state solution. For this the entire ICC, and anyone concerned with Israel’s reputation in the world, is indebted to them,” she said. Reaching Arabs Further, she said, UPZ is the only Zionist campus group that can reach Arab students because of programs such as Breaking the Silence. Without UPZ, she said, Arab students would interact only with anti-Zionist groups. In fact, on campuses where there is no Jewish group that agrees to host them, speakers from Breaking the Silence are often sponsored by such anti-Israel groups as the Muslim Student Association or Amnesty International. Many anti-Israel, Muslim websites have links to Breaking the Silence. Different Motivation Ms. Rothstein from Stand with Us said the fact that Breaking the Silence’s rhetoric matches the propaganda spouted by Israel’s worst enemies belies Ms. Shapiro’s claims that the disgruntled former soldiers are motivated simply by their love of Israel. “If Breaking the Silence speakers were sincere, they would be presenting accurate facts about terrorism, about the terrorist goals expressed in the charters of Hamas, PLO, and Hezbollah, about the ongoing anti-Israel incitement, and about the ways the corrupt Palestinian leadership has contributed to perpetuating the conflict and to harming the lives of ordinary Palestinian civilians. If they were sincere, Breaking the Silence speakers would be raising the full range of moral dilemmas the IDF faces, and only then would they introduce the impact this war has had on them personally,” said Ms. Rothstein. Pointing out that college students hear sufficient Israel-bashing from pro-Palestinian and Muslim groups on campus, Mr. Klein called the suggestion that Jewish or pro-Israel groups must sponsor programs such as Breaking the Silence because otherwise anti-Israel groups will do so, “simply ludicrous.” “Breaking the Silence is given credibility only when an allegedly pro-Israel group and member of the ICC is sponsoring it. All ICC members should be building love and support for the State of Israel. This does not mean avoiding a discussion of Israel’s flaws and the complicated challenges it faces. But it does mean having nothing to do with programs that demonize Israel or the Israeli people. This only inflames antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment on our campuses, which we in the ICC are supposed to be fighting,” he said. Less Than Perfect Like other critics of the Breaking the Silence program, Mr. Klein did not deny that Israeli soldiers’ behavior can be less than perfect. “Like any democracy, Israel can make mistakes in seeking to protect its people,” he said. “But in Israel, soldiers are called to account for those mistakes. Shaul excluded from his presentation the existence of Israeli military law. He neglected to mention that when IDF soldiers violate their military code of conduct, which forbids the behaviors Shaul accuses IDF soldiers of exhibiting rampantly, they are punished and held accountable.” He excoriated the Breaking the Silence program for implying that Israeli soldiers deliberately and regularly target noncombatants. “More than any other army in the world, the Israeli army’s policy is one of restraint, committed to taking every possible measure to prevent harm to civilians,” said Mr. Klein. Another problem with the Breaking the Silence program, he said, is that it does not address the Palestinian Arab society’s culture of hatred against Jews and the State of Israel, which is promoted in its media, schools, camps, and religious sermons. Pluralism Nevertheless, Ms. Shapiro rejected Mr. Klein’s demand that UPZ sever ties with Breaking the Silence. She said the two groups will be planning future activities together, including a proposed student tour of the PA areas. She maintained that keeping UPZ in the ICC coalition demonstrates the umbrella group’s allegiance to the concept of pluralism. “We think there is definitely a plurality of views in the coalition,” she said. “As long as we believe in support for a Jewish and democratic Israel, we will not be outside the big tent they are trying to create.” Right-Wing Critic Some UPZ supporters found it ironic that it was Mr. Klein who was objecting to public criticism of Israel. Mr. Klein has criticized Israeli governments for accepting the Oslo Accords, the Wye Agreement, and the Road Map. He bitterly fought alongside Israeli right-wing Jews who struggled against the expulsion in August 2005 from Gush Katif, Gaza, and northern Samaria. “If those on the right are going to point fingers, they shouldn’t be surprised to find some pointing back at them,” said an editorial in the Forward, calling ZOA’s campaign against UPZ “misguided.” Mr. Klein countered by explaining that if UPZ had merely expressed an opinion, he would not have argued. “If they said Israel should make concessions or unilaterally withdraw from Judea and Samaria, I might have disagreed, but I wouldn’t call that necessarily anti-Israel. Breaking the Silence is telling lies about Israel, and that’s unacceptable,” he said. Big Picture On campus, he said, ZOA representatives are pretty careful about staying away from partisan Israeli domestic politics in favor of “the bigger pro-Israel picture.” “I don’t think we ever talked about the Jews of Gush Katif, Gaza, on campus,” he said. Recently, ZOA has presented a homosexual Arab currently living freely in Israel. “He tells students how different his life is in Israel from what he experienced in the PA. In Israel, he’s free and no one threatens to kill him. Students respond to that,” said Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein said even those who take issue with his opinions against withdrawals would have to admit his views opposing withdrawals and prisoner releases do not hurt Israel the way Breaking the Silence’s charges of brutality do, “Our opposition to Israel’s concessions makes Israel look good to the left-wingers who believe every word Breaking the Silence spouts,” said Mr. Klein. Three Votes In the end, Mr. Klein’s arguments lost to Ms. Shapiro’s call for “pluralism.” On January 19, the ICC’s steering committee met to consider the ZOA’s request to ask UPZ either to sever ties with Breaking the Silence or leave the coalition. According to Mr. Harris, the steering committee was presented with three issues: (1) whether there is cause under the ICC membership criteria to remove UPZ from the coalition; (2) whether the ICC should establish a mechanism to monitor the campus programming of ICC member organizations; and (3) whether the ICC’s membership criteria and founding mission statement should be revisited. The steering committee voted unanimously against each of the three steps. Consider Programming In a seeming contradiction, Mr. Harris said the steering committee organizations recommitted themselves “to working collaboratively to promote a proactive pro-Israel agenda on college campuses across North America, and to encouraging all member organizations to work with and respect all members of the coalition in the spirit of pluralism and cooperation that unites us, as indicated in the ICC membership criteria.” “Recognizing that the commonalities bringing us together are far greater than the differences that separate us, the steering committee calls on all ICC member organizations to support and promote the activities of the coalition and to continue educating and advocating on campus for a Jewish State of Israel within secure and recognized boundaries,” he said. In the statement, the steering committee “encourages all ICC member organizations to continue to think carefully about the programming we bring to campus, and how that programming will affect the campus climate and students’ understanding of and support for Israel.” “Dismayed” Mr. Klein said he was “dismayed” that the major Jewish groups had voted to allow “anti-Israel campus programs to remain under their umbrella.” Calling on his experience with dozens of IDF officers and soldiers, Mr. Klein said he knows the UPZ-sponsored Breaking the Silence program promotes “outright falsehoods.” “The program does nothing to support the ICC mission of building support for Israel on our campuses. Instead, it incites hatred of Israel, and inflames the already-existing anti-Israel sentiment that is a serious problem on many campuses. The ICC Steering Committee should have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the ICC’s mission is being fulfilled by its member groups. Part of the reason that the ICC was established in the first place was to fight against exactly this kind of anti-Israel propaganda promoted by Arab and other anti-Israel groups on campus,” he said. Easy Way Out He accused the steering committee members of taking “the easy way out and doing nothing,” despite the apparent reservations many of them had shown earlier. “AIPAC, ADL, and American Jewish Committee all say they are committed to fighting bias against Jews and Israel, but when they had the chance to make it more than just a sound bite, they didn’t step up to the plate,” he said. Michael Salberg, the ADL’s director of international affairs, said that while his organization does not agree with Breaking the Silence’s message and, in fact, finds it “troubling,” the ADL supports diversity of opinion in the Jewish community as healthy. “I wouldn’t put the Breaking the Silence message in the category of delegitimizing or demonizing or even defaming Israel,” he said. JNF JNF, which, before and after the vote, retained its concerns about Breaking the Silence’s message on American campuses, nevertheless opted to keep UPZ in the coalition. Praising pluralism and “dissonant voices” within Israel, JNF said it was a different matter when those dissonant voices about Israel appear on American college campuses. “We believe that the message of Breaking the Silence has been interpreted on campus to be a serious criticism of Israeli democracy and the rule of law. It is that interpretation which profoundly disappoints us because we are deeply committed to strengthening Israel, and we believe that our fellow partner organizations of ICC are equally committed,” said JNF. Two Other Questions To add to the confusion, JNF then indicated that the group’s leaders did not understand that they could have voted to monitor UPZ’s programming as well as the criteria for admission to the coalition all together. “We believe that the ICC needs to learn from this experience and reflect on the boundaries of the activities of the member organizations, recognizing that some activities of partner organizations will simply be outside the boundaries of the ICC. However, given the ICC’s current status as an umbrella organization with representation on the left and the right, but with no boundaries currently set, JNF could not vote against UPZ,” said JNF. When asked why JNF did not vote to revisit the mission statement or the monitoring mechanisms, which would have allowed new boundaries to be set, Jodi Bodner, a spokeswoman for JNF, said, “JNF is comfortable with the mission statement. What was discussed and agreed to for further discussion was creating a ‘best practices policy’ for the future.” “JNF is not in and does not want to be in the business of monitoring other organizations’ programming,” she said. “We would hope that members of an organization are of like minds and adhere to the guidelines set forth.” In fact, said Mr. Klein, because the ICC steering committee did not establish any criteria for membership in the coalition or for monitoring the campus programming of ICC members, groups such as UPZ will continue to “demonize Israel on campus yet still disingenuously identify themselves as ICC members advocating on campus for Israel.” Expecting More While Mr. Klein took issue with all the member organizations on the steering committee, he seemed to take special umbrage at Aish HaTorah, a group run under Orthodox auspices which prides itself on providing opportunities for Jews of all backgrounds to discover “the wisdom and beauty of their heritage.” Mr. Klein acknowledged that even if Aish had voted against the measure, it still would have passed. “But at least UPZ would not have been able to say it passed unanimously,” he said. In fact, according to many sources, UPZ’s leadership felt the unanimous vote—and especially the nod from Aish—was a feather in its cap, giving it increased credibility and standing. Hasbara Fellowships Aish’s campus Israel activism department includes Hasbara Fellowships, a leadership seminar program which educates students about the history and politics of Israel and the Middle East, focusing specifically on the issues of the Palestinian conflict. These students are trained to be effective activists on their campuses by giving them the tools to create a pro-active pro-Israel campaign, while simultaneously acquainting them with traditional Judaism. Hasbara Fellowships and another Aish HaTorah project, HonestReporting.com, have together formed HonestReporting.com for Campus. A media watchdog, HonestReporting.com reaches 55,000 subscribers who rely on it to detail examples of media bias, present the facts, and give contact information for the media sources. HonestReporting.com for Campus is doing the same for campus newspapers whenever there is evidence of anti-Israel bias. “Aish devotes its life to teaching students how to combat bias against Israel. How could they have voted to allow UPZ to continue spewing its Break the Silence message?” said Mr. Klein. Level of Comfort When asked, Rabbi Elliot Mathias, the director of Hasbara Fellowships, and the Aish official who sits on the steering committee and ultimately made the decision on how to vote, tried at first to justify it. Acknowledging that he and Aish strongly disagree with UPZ and do not “buy the argument that their intent is pro-Israel,” Rabbi Mathias nevertheless said he was uncomfortable “throwing a Jewish group off a broad coalition.” “The ICC is there for groups to communicate and work together on shared goals,” he said. “To do that, we sort of need to put our differences aside.” He said he was hoping the ICC and its steering committee “could just move on.” Changing the Vote But it was not that simple. On Jan 28, nine days after the steering committee’s vote, Rabbi Mathias sent an email to all members of the ICC, informing them that Aish HaTorah had changed its vote. “After further discussion and understanding of the facts surrounding the Breaking the Silence program, Aish HaTorah realizes that its vote not to remove UPZ from the coalition was a mistake. We now feel that the UPZ should be removed for sponsoring such a program and requests that our official vote on the steering committee be recorded as a vote to remove UPZ,” said Rabbi Mathias, noting that the Breaking the Silence program “certainly goes against the ICC mission.” On behalf of Aish HaTorah, Rabbi Mathias apologized “for not clearly stating our position during the official vote on the proposal.” For Mr. Klein, it was a modicum of vindication. “At least UPZ can’t say it won unanimously,” he said. AJCongress Another ICC member, which, unlike Aish, is not on the steering committee, also seems to be having a hard making up its mind on how to respond to UPZ and the vote. In the middle of January, there was a report that AJCongress had tendered its resignation from ICC, refusing to be part of a group that would tolerate UPZ. A letter allegedly written by Gary Ratner, West Coast regional director of AJCongress, agreed with Mr. Klein that visits to American campuses by disgruntled former IDF soldiers seeking to disparage the Jewish state serve only to tarnish Israel’s image, a direct contravention of the ICC’s mission to bolster campus perceptions of the Jewish state. “We should not sponsor groups that add to this vilification or bring young men and women, who are disgruntled with the IDF for whatever reasons, to speak on behalf of the ICC,” said the letter allegedly written by Mr. Ratner. The letter accused UPZ of “bring[ing] one-sided condemnation of Israel, ignor[ing] the larger context of terrorism, and add[ing] to the serious problem of anti-Israel prejudice on campus.” Not Resigning But a few days after reports about Mr. Ratner’s letter appeared in the press, AJCongress’s executive director, Neil Goldstein, said his organization had, in fact, not left the ICC, at least not yet. According to a report in the Forward, Mr. Goldstein maintained that the letter had been written by a staff member who lacked the authority to make such a decision and that it was not signed by Mr. Ratner, even though his name was printed at the bottom of the document. According to the Forward, Mr. Goldstein said his organization was still in the process of deciding whether or not to remain in the ICC. According to Mr. Klein, Mr. Goldstein personally confirmed that AJCongress was in fact ending its affiliation with ICC. In a letter which was printed in the Forward, Mr. Goldstein admits that AJCongress was “disturbed” by UPZ’s decision to sponsor a campus tour by leaders of the Breaking the Silence movement. Thinking about Others Mr. Goldstein said his group’s position was that all members of the ICC—on the right and the left—have the prerogative “to promote the Israeli cause in a way that appears best to them.” Nevertheless, he said, he wondered whether university students who have yet to decide which view to adopt “should be initiated into the pro-Israel discussion by introducing them to the left or right or religious or secular critique of Israeli policies.” Mr. Goldstein said that when AJCongress was initially approached to join the ICC, he understood that it would be to provide services for pro-Israel activism, “including a harmonious message, which would of necessity hew to a centrist or consensus course.” “In the context of the debate over Breaking the Silence, we have now been informed by coalition officials that in practice they have now concluded that such harmony and consensus of message is not possible to achieve,” he said. Forum The ICC’s new function, he said, would be to serve as “a forum for discussion, exchange of ideas, dissemination of information, and provision of services to those groups working on campus.” “Naturally, given this significant change in our understanding of the Israel on Campus Coalition mission, it calls into question whether we should continue as a member,” he said. Mr. Klein and Ms. Rothstein said ZOA and Stand with Us would remain in the coalition. “We belong in the ICC. UPZ is the group that should leave,” said Mr. Klein. Israel Taking Note At the end of January, an internal Foreign Ministry report showed that Mr. Klein is not the only one concerned about former IDF soldiers speaking out against Israel in the US. The report, prepared in Los Angeles by Israeli Consul General Ehud Danoch and Consul for Media and Public Affairs Gilad Millo, discussed Breaking the Silence and another similar group, Combatants for Peace, which is hosted by Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, the Jewish Alliance for Peace and Justice, a group that is not part of the ICC umbrella. “The willingness of Jewish communities in the US to host these organizations and even sponsor them is unfortunate. This is a phenomenon that must not be ignored,” said the report, which urged action to be taken against the soldiers, referred to as “refuseniks,” and their organizations. “Their negative effect on Israel’s image must be stopped,” said the report, noting that support for these former soldiers has become controversial in the US. The report has been sent to the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem and to all Israeli representatives in North America. New Appeal In light of the report, Mr. Klein issued an appeal, urging the ICC steering committee organizations that voted to allow UPZ to remain a member of the coalition to emulate Aish HaTorah and change their votes. “Many of these groups have, as part of their own mission, an agenda to fight incitement against Israel. Why then are they permitting this incitement against Israel to go unchallenged and even legitimized by allowing its sponsors to remain part of the pro-Israel umbrella called the ICC. And these harsh attacks by Jews against Israel have much greater credibility than harsh attacks against Israel by Arabs and are therefore more dangerous,” said Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein reported that an Israeli official described Breaking the Silence speakers as “Israelis against Israel funded by Jews.” “He told me the Arab/Muslim groups are using them to destroy Israel’s image,” said Mr. Klein, adding that the US Commission on Civil Rights recently recognized antisemitism, including Israel-bashing, as a serious problem on American campuses. Always Right “We therefore agree with the LA Israeli Consul General’s office that pro-Israel communities must not add fuel to the Israel-bashing fire by allowing UPZ programs the credibility and legitimacy of being part of our pro-Israel ICC umbrella,” he said. Noting that, under his leadership, ZOA was virtually the only member of any of the large Jewish-organization coalitions which actively opposed the Oslo Accords from the beginning, as well as all the other documents in which Israel was expected to relinquish land in exchange for promises or pieces of paper, Mr. Klein said he was used to being in the minority on issues concerning the Arab war against Israel. “And tragically, we’ve been right every time,” he said. The Jewish Voice and Opinion is a politically conservative Jewish publication which present news and feature articles not generally available elsewhere in the Jewish or secular media. Articles may be reprinted in their entirety with attribution.
|
|
|
|
EMAIL : susan@jewishvoiceandopinion.com
COPYRIGHT © 2003-2007, The Jewish Voice and Opinion, Englewood, NJ 07631.
All Rights Reserved.
ISSN: 1000-3244