Engaging the Millennial Disengagement

Despite warnings to myself from within and a few from without, I think I'll ignore the advice of self-proclaimed Jewish millennial voices (there's a sardonic hint in there) to us outsiders, age-wise and community-standing-wise, to "try shutting up and sitting down" but rather actually discuss and address points put forward by David A.M. Wilensky and Gabriel T. Erbs who composed "A Taxonomy of Stupid Shit the Jewish Establishment Says to Millenials", published in the Spring 2017 issue of Jewish Currents (and I'm old enough to remember that that organ, now referred to as a "progressive Jewish media", was basically rooted in communism, only sliding into some sort of socialism just before the 1960s).

Now, to be clear.  I actually have hopes, or at least intentions, to convince some of these classified-as-millennial Jewish younger generation types to reconsider their positions: the political ones, the cultural ones, the social ones, the religious ones and even the psychological ones within which they prefer, currently (no pun intended), to encapsulate themselves. That, of course, requires mean to assume that they still do possess the capability to intelligently look-from-without at what they are doing and thinking.  Self-introspection is a classic Jewish life-fundamental and here is Moshe Chaim Luzatto's phrasing: "...man's coming to see clearly and to recognize as a truth the nature of his duty in the world and the 
end towards which he should direct his vision and his aspiration in all of his labors all the days of his life".

I know this task can be, well, daunting.  I read there that

Synagogues are inherently spiritual enterprises. They are religious communities. But they are often so spiritually empty that if they can manage to entice any millennials inside, we can see that there’s nothing real there for us. 

I wondered what the opposite of "empty" and "real" is for such people and discovered that, besides davening the Amidah in the dark (did the Shabbat clock kick in?),

at the oneg, there was an honest-to-God keg of beer

and, like I'm thinking to myself, they don't drink schnapps anymore?

Fortified, I proceed to make comments on their writing.

*     *     *

We really don’t understand how any thinking person believes an intra-communal breeding program will be a convincing appeal to young people. Jewish millennials chafe against this pearl-clutching because we embrace, overwhelmingly, progressive values about gender, sexuality, and marriage. To us, baby-boomer chatter on intermarriage sounds alarmingly like what a lot of “polite society” said at the advent of racial intermarriage.

"Racial"?  That is a bit extreme. Being Jewish is not being a race.

Instead, most attempts to empower Jewish millennials keep us on a very tight leash...They not only fail to place Jewish millennials in key decision-making roles (read: appropriations), they represent a tremendous hubris on the part of institutional program leaders...Instead, young Jews are relegated to young-professional outreach groups or feckless “student cabinets” (in the case of Hillel International).

Would you guys give project money to people right-of-center?

Israel, like most countries, is not really cool...even without the settlements, the occupation, and the Nakba, Israel is not hip. Young people don’t really think entire countries are cool...No number of slimy, oversexed advertising campaigns will change that. Yet millions of dollars are spent every year pitching a sexy, Disneyland [v]ersion of Zionism and Israel to Jewish millennials

America is?  England?  Syria?

Would undersexed be okay?

The Conference of Presidents and Michael Oren, not exactly known for being relatable to millennials, know that they need us. But people like that just can’t bring themselves to believe us when we tell them how we see the world. The vast majority of us believe that there is such a thing as the Occupation, that Palestinians are people too, and all manner of heresies.

So, if there really is no illegal occupation or if the so-called Palestinians are really Southern Syrians, we still have to permit you your fantasies - which, by the way, harm Israel's security and the lives of its citizens?

And now, the get, er, serious:

WHAT CAN YOU take away from all of this?
Be an ally...Put us in the driver’s seat. Put us on the board. And when you think of something disparaging to say about millennials, try shutting up and sitting down instead. When you hear one of your peers saying some stupid shit about us, shut them down and sell them a copy of this issue of Jewish Currents. 

Sorry David (an editor of jweekly.com and a former editor of New Voices magazine (once known as the Jewish Student Press Service) and Gabriel Erbs (a labor union organizer in Portland, Oregon, and a former board member of J Street U, the student arm of J Street), with that crap above, the last thing we need, ‏‏עס פֿעלט מיר ווי אַ לאָך אין קאָפּ (Es felt mir vi a lokh in kop = I need it like a hole in the head), is to allow your kind of thinking and behavior to control anything to do with Judaism and Zionism. You'd end up as the Last Genertion.

Let me be stark: no matter how you feel, the political truth at the moment is that anti-Semitism masquerades as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism and playing around with non-Zionism or with a 'why Israel?' stance is asking for trouble for a lot of people and fueling a movement you cannot control.

^

They're Back to 1948

J Street tweeted a throwback to the 1948 "occupation":

The article referenced highlights the December 4, 1948 letter in the New York Times that infamously, responding to the Deir Yassin battle, blacklisted Menachem Begin as a "fascist" and which sought to upset his successful New York tour.

The author of the piece, published, with J Street approval, is David Granberg of IfNotNow. That letter, signed by "27 American Jewish leaders", condemned Begin

as the “latest manifestation of fascism,” [and] the letter cites the Irgun’s open and boastful involvement in the 1948 Deir Yassin massacre of over 100 Arab men, women and children as exemplary of the party’s dangerous and reactionary character. The letter called for Americans to unequivocally denounce Begin and his party, which also terrorized left-wing Jews 

and Granberg adds:

Less than four years after the liberation of Auschwitz, Jewish leaders recognized that Israeli violence against Palestinians was morally abhorrent, dangerous and absolutely unrepresentative of Jews or Judaism. 

That letter actually described Herut, Begin's political party, of which J St. founder's father was a member, as

closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties

And some are aghast at the terms some call IfNotNowers. 

Perhaps some Israeli violence was problematic. For sure. Especially that of the Palmach. But this throwback to 1948 is in line with the ideological line adopted now that justifies Arab violence, specifically the Return March antics at the Gaza border, while condemning the IDF's defensive measure against a terrorist organization.  And while IfNotNowers are saying Kaddish for Arabs killed there at the Gaza fence, they have never recited Kaddish for any Jewish victim of Arab violence (I have tweeted them repeatedly to counter my assertion but no denial).

Make no mistake: IfNotNow, JVP and now JSt. are pursuing an anti-Zionist cause.

^

Hillel At Princeton: On the Roof?

Most of us have heard, or should have, of the adventures of Hillel the Elder on a roof on a snowy night.  As recorded in Yoma 35b

Hillel the Elder every day he used to work and earn one tropaic, half of which he would give to the watchman at the house of study; the other half he used on food for himself and the members of his household. One day he was unable to earn anything, so the watchman at the house of study did not let him in. He then climbed [to the roof] and hung on, sitting over the opening of the skylight, so that he could hear the words of the living God from the mouths of Shemaiah and Avtalion. It is said that the was a Sabbath eve in the winter solstice, and snow came down on him from heaven. When the dawn rose, Shemaiah said to Avtalion, "Brother Avtalion, every day this house is bright with light, but today it is dark. Is the day cloudy?" When they looked up, they saw the figure of a man in the skylight. They climbed to the roof and found Hillel, covered with three cubits of snow. They removed the snow from him, bathed and anointed him, and, as they seated him in front of an open fire, they said, "This man deserves to have the Sabbath profaned on his behalf."...

Hillel of Princeton seems to be stuck up on a roof (cross-posted at TOI).

The bare facts about the Hotovely-Princeton Hillel Affair are known.

Protests from a dovish Jewish campus group, the Alliance of Jewish Progressives (AJP) caused the Hillel of Princeton University to cancel a scheduled talk by Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely that was to take place this past Monday evening at the last moment. Chabad picked up the talk.  By the way, they did this maneuver in a parallel fashion recently.  And while she stiff-armed J Street's hosting of an exhibition of Breaking the Silence, she blmaed her refusal on "timing":

The CJL did not oppose J Street bringing the organization to speak on campus, wrote Rabbi Roth in an email to the Prince.
“However, given the sensitivities related to the timing of the event overlapping with Yom HaZakiron, the day commemorating Israeli soldiers killed in battle and in terrorist attacks, and Yom Ha’atzmaut, the celebration of Israel’s Independence Day, we did not want to host the program in the building,” she wrote.

The protest went public in a letter published in the campus daily. Afterwards, AJP claimed they were only upset that proper procedures for inviting guests to events of the Center for Jewish Living were not followed through on,but were quite forthright that

We firmly reject the CJL’s choice to host a racist speaker like Hotovely while it continues to quiet progressive voices.

I see now that Rachel Frommer has a great quote:

Mikaela Gerwin, co-president of AJP who attended Hotovely's talk, maintained that the deputy foreign minister has said "hateful things" about Palestinians and non-Orthodox Jewish religious sects, but that her group may have misstepped in claiming racism.
"That’s a complicated word," she said.
Gerwin added that nothing Hotovely said at Princeton struck her as racist, but that it was a generally uninteresting speech that lacked nuance.

And Frommer adds:

the AJP is being disingenuous in now framing its complaint as being with Hillel's event policies, the student said.

"AJP didn’t once mention the IAC until after the event took place. The name of the protest was ‘stop hate,'" said the student. "This wasn't about having a debate about ideas, and it wasn't about process. This was about stopping Hotovely coming at all."

While Deputy Minister Michael Oren demanded a boycott, I tweeted him

No, more should come until the Hillel staff there is removed

At the campus newspaper article I commented that its content is what someone has called an "Reality inversion alert" -

You write:
“Hotovely’s alarming vision for the future of the region is coupled with a complete rejection of Palestinian history and connection to key sites such as the Haram al-Sharif [Temple Mount]."But it is the Muslims, from the Mufti to Arafat to Abbas who reject any Jewish claim to or identity with Mount Moriah, the First and Second Temples, the attempt to build a Third Temple in 363 CE or anything Jewish about Jerusalem. Have the signees ever studied anything about Jewish history...Do they possess knowledge or slogans? Outlook or out-of-touch? This is all so embarrassing for we Jews who, of whatever political stripe, at least actually know something of what we speak and write.

I added that

throwing around a charge of "racism" really gets one no where when, on the record, the most racist element in the conflict are Arabs who wish to deny a ethnic national community any political, civil and human rights the international community recognized and guaranteed consistently since 1917

A late-burner was the AJP post-event claim that they were misunderstood:

MK Hotovely clearly misunderstands the intricacies of the Princeton Jewish community and the aims of our protest. Our Hillel’s response to the concerns of progressive Jewish students does not constitute a “liberal dictatorship.” Rather, the events of the past two days show the CJL’s commitment to more equitable standards of inclusivity and diversity.

But they weren't. They clearly sought to shut her down,

“We firmly reject the CJL’s choice to host a racist speaker like Hotovely..."

and succeeded, while claiming all they wanted was for the rules for inviting speakers, the "Israel policy", by applied equally. P.S. Their activity at Chabad was titled:

Stand Against Chabad-Sponsored Hatred

and characterized as one that "deserves intense pushback".

Be that as it may, what raised eyebrows even more was AJP's claim that a Jewish Agency shaliah was somehow involved. They published

On the evening of Nov. 5, in an email to students and members of the community who planned to attend an address by Tzipi Hotovely, a member of Israel’s Knesset, Rabbi Julie Roth, the executive director of the Center for Jewish Life, and the CJL Israel Fellow, Lior Sharir, announced they would be postponing Hotovely’s visit to the CJL pending further review by the Israel Advisory Committee.

Yigal Palmor left a comment at my Facebook post, writing:

We've checked and I can confirm that any suggestion that the Shaliach was behind the cancellation is *untrue*. Hillel have published an apology and it clearly shows this had nothing to do with the shaliach...the Shaliach had nothing to do with the cancellation.

I should trust him as he is, after all, Director of Public Affairs and Communications at The Jewish Agency for Israel. I did ask him if he would call out AJP as liars. I am still waiting.

What is even more intriguing than an Israeli-funded shaliah quashing a government minister's right to free speech is the role of Rabbi Roth. Could she not have simply picked up a phone and within 5-10 minutes received a confirmation that Ms. Hotovely's right to appear at Hillel is approved? Did she really think Hotovely is a racist and her arrival should be stymied by rules?

UPDATE: from Daniel Kurtzer -

The decision to postpone/cancel the visit was wrong, plain and simple. Rabbi Julie Roth, the Center for Jewish Life’s director, regretted that decision almost immediately, as she told me on Monday morning after the fact.

Rabbi Roth is active in the New Israel Fund. She's #163 on this petition and #1868 on this one. She has full free speech. Even progressive free speech. And she has unique insight into other radical groups as her husband is Rabbi Justus Baird who has written:

The Torah was received in the diaspora. Most of Jewish history was lived out in the diaspora. Diaspora Judaism deserves a foundational, equal place in the self-identity of the Jewish people, right alongside the Jewish state.

That is, I should stress, a legitimate opinion. It is also radical and skewed, but that's my opinion. The Diaspora, I think, does not deserve, in Judaism, equality to Israel.

He's with Rabbis Without Borders. They, at least, hold to the principle that a Rabbi should "strive[s] to be aware of the partial truth in a view with which we deeply disagree". He is on the Rabbis & Cantors Board of J Street. He identifies with T'ruah and he and his wife have donated a sum of between $1,00-$2,499 to the group.

T'ruah promotes positions - and I don't know if one would term them mainstream, radical, progressive or extreme - that include that they

advocate for an end to the military occupation of the West Bank and an end to the continued expansion of the settlements that extend this occupation, that infringe on the human rights of Palestinians, and that compromise the safety and security of Israelis...We urge all members of the North American Jewish community to engage in debate and disagreement for the sake of greater truth, justice, and peace.

That sounds to me a little like...Tzipi Hotovely and her predicament which someone termed an example of moral panic by left-wingers.

And at T'ruah they

are concerned about efforts to shut out a growing segment of our community based on their support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. Despite our disagreements with this movement, we believe that the Jewish community is strengthened by vigorous debate on issues that are vital to the well-being of Israel and the worldwide Jewish community.

That sounds very much like support for AJP.

He was a supporter of Linda Sarsour as published at TOI:

“Anyone who has worked closely with Linda knows that she has a deep love for and appreciation for Judaism and Jews,” he said. “Linda and I don’t agree on everything about Israel, Palestine or about other issues, and that is OK with me. I fully support CUNY giving a pubic platform to Linda Sarsour, and I think its graduates have a lot to learn from her voice.”

Hillel has apologized. But I still cannot figure out Rabbi Roth's role in all this. Was she too busy? 

Why didn't she convene the committee to obtain approval prior to the protest? Why couldn't she do that in a quick round of phone calls after the AJP protest? She is signed on the 'apology' that notes Hotovely's appearance cancellation was done

because it had not been reviewed by the Center for Jewish Life’s Israel Advisory Committee, which is designed to review and facilitate a broad range of Israel programming throughout the year...This was not a good enough reason to postpone the event... we should have engaged a broader range of students in this program from the beginning...

I am sorry but that sounds very weak and less plausible each time I read it. Was there any doubt in Roth's mind that Hotovely should be a welcome guest? Or does she think providing her a platform, perhaps, should be debated? Did she really think she was a racist and that AJP had the power over her to stop the event? Does she agree with her husband that the Diaspora is at a level of offsetting Israel?

Why hasn't AJP been called out on suggesting Sharir was not involved? Did they lie or what? Why haven't we heard of an investigation or a review of what occurred? Will Rabbi Roth be censured or found innocent of any possible wrongdoing?

Until Next Year in Jerusalem?

(with thanks to AB)

_____________

Now this about Rabbi Roth and Nonie Darwish and this quote

Grinberg told the Tory that he felt “a lot of pressure from Rabbi Roth to cancel.”

She has a record. 


P.S.  And yes, there are others who argue in favor of shutting down Hotovely.

___________

I am mentioned by Caroline Glick and in the Hebrew version, too.
^

The Hypocrisy of Jeremy Ben-Ami

In a CBS report on this week's Christian Media Summit in Jerusalem, I found this quote:

"We really truly stand with Israel, and we really truly want to be dear friends," he [Gordon Robertson, chief executive of the Christian Broadcasting Network] said.

Not everyone agrees. Jeremy Ben Ami, president of J Street, a liberal pro-Israel group in Washington that is often critical of the Israeli government, said the evangelicals do not necessarily have Israel's best interests in mind. "Israel should be wary of embracing extreme Christian Zionist groups that may be more concerned with their own theological agendas than with Israel's long-term survival as a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people," he said.

I'm still laughing.

If anyone is concerned over his own agenda and does not have Israel's vital interests in mind or heart, if there is anyone who is more committed to a foreign ideology rather than Jewish nationalism, if there is anyone that is serving a tenet (progressivism) and a person (Barack Obama) more than Israel and Zionism, it is Jeremy Ben-Ami.

J Street has taken many wrong turns.  Most of them not pro-Israel.

His observation in this matter is purely hypocritical and in error.

^

J St. Description Contest

I have already noted that I do not use Holocaust nor Nazi terminology when dealing with other Jews.

It is not nice. It is unnecessary. It is not proper and there is no possible comparison of circumstances that could justify such linguistic usage.

Would the Senators at David Friedman's confirmation hearing like it if I termed their questioning as an "inquisition"?

Friedman's "worse than kapos" has its own inner logic - that whereas these people were forced, J Streeters seem actually to delight in their destructive work, underrmining Israel's security and diplomatic support while pretending to be "pro-Israel, pro-peace" - but that still does not justify employing the term "kapos".

Jeremy Ben-Ami, who works to the detriment of his father's legacy*, has now, I read, declared that his organization's 

"challenges are not limited to the Middle East"

Well, I guess we're in for some possible pro-Islamist reorienting.

In any case, without resort to Holocaust/Nazi language terms and certainly no profanity, what would you call J Street?

Traitors has already been taken, in a sense.  As has “Juedische Selbsthass”.

Can someone come up with a new longuistic form?


______________

*

Who wrote the following:

Western political leaders have acquired a concern for 'Arab-Palestinian homelessness', which is selfishly economic rather than humanitarian.  At the same time they ignore that three quarters of the original Palestine Mandate area is now under Palestinian-Arab rule.  The sooner disaspora Jews and the Hebrew nation recognize these new realities, the stronger they will be.

The Hebrew renaissance offers a painful choice to Jews.  They can live in the diaspora, often  facing isolation, persecution and ambivalent identities, or they can return to their ancient land and face perils, but with a chance for honorable self-fulfillment and an end to wandering...

It was Yitzhaq Ben-Ami, father of Jeremy Ben-Ami, on page 544 of his book. 
Years of Wrath, Days of Glory.

Think about that.


^

J Street's Wrong Turn

First, J Street goes after Regavim's tax-exemption status.

While the US has consistently opposed illegal settlement expansion, it has allowed Americans to make tax-deductible contributions to groups actively engaged in dispossessing Palestinians of their land and aiding the spread of settlements. Today, we're calling on the Treasury Department to review whether tax-deductible treatment for donations to such groups meet the relevant requirements -- and, if not, to cut off the flow of tax-deductible US dollars...To: Treasury Secretary Jack Lew -  Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requirements are clear about the criteria organizations must meet to benefit from tax-deductible, charitable donations: Their activities must not be “illegal [or] contrary to a clearly defined and established public policy.”

This follows a campaign (see here) which asserts

Support for settlements...contradicts the clearly established, bipartisan US policy of opposition to settlement expansion. Why should US taxpayers subsidize activities expressly designed to oppose and undermine decades of consistent US policy, which are illegal under international conventions signed and ratified by the United States? This is a question we’re asking of the Treasury in an action we launched last week. 

Then, MK Michal Rozin lends support.

As a Member of Knesset, my job is to speak out on behalf of the best interests of my fellow citizens and my country...the settler movement and its powerful allies in the Netanyahu government have been quietly laying the groundwork for annexation in the West Bank’s Area C...This process is led in part by influential right-wing NGOs (like the group Regavim),...Incredibly, Regavim and their fellow settler groups often benefit from tax-free contributions coming from the USA -- even while they actively oppose the two-state solution, undermining key US and Israeli interests.
That’s why J Street has called on the US Treasury Department to review whether the activities of Regavim should make them ineligible to receive tax-free contributions...I’m so grateful to J Street supporters like you, and to all those Jews around the world who love Israel and know that supporting Israelis means standing up for diplomacy and peace -- and speaking out when our government’s policies put our values and security at risk.
Thank you for all that you do,
MK Michal Rozin

But it's based on a lie.

First of all, that "public policy" claim is wrong. it's an administration policy, not public.

Whereas way back in 1978, a legal opinion was expressed by the State Department's legal advisor that activity related to the promoting and facilitating of Jewish civilian residency in the disputed areas of the former Palestine Mandate territories not currently under Israel sovereignty (and let's not forget that all of Jerusalem is still considered as I write by the State Department not to be Israel territory) is

inconsistent with international law.

the arguments are weak and misrepresent international law.  Even a Peace Now resource reveals, as does this one, that most of the US Presidents' words they use avoid the legal aspect as has President Obama as he refers to the communities as "illegitimate'.  Then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright actually admitted the Jewish communities across the Green Line are legal as have many other American political figures and scholars.

This campaign seems to be based on this Nicholas Mirkay article from 2013 and on this one by Amanda Berman in 2010 Already in 2011, Mirkay went after the JNF to the delight of some. And seems he started at this as early as 2008 based on his 2007 paper. (And the NYTimes has pumped it like here in 2010 and see this letter by William H. Welsch Sep 22, 2006). But already, as noted there, it was pointed out that Mirkay and comrades are mixing apples and pears:

“I do not think racial [discrimination] in America, with our own unique history, is the same as the unique situation of Israel and the Palestinians,” Ellen Aprill, a professor at Loyola Law School

Indeed, as my second point, the challenge to a presumed tax-exemption status must prove a negation of or actions of that organization is does it go againts "fundamental public policy" and "well-defined standards of public policy" as stated clearly here.  It must be shown to be "contrary to well-established and clearly defined public policy." 

As further clarified in IV Scott on Trusts Section 377 (3d ed. 1967):

"A trust cannot be created for a purpose which is illegal. The purpose is illegal ... if the trust tends to induce the commission of crime or if the accomplishment of the purpose is otherwise against public policy.... Where a policy is articulated in a statute making certain conduct a criminal offense, then ..., a trust is illegal if its performance involves such criminal conduct, or if it tends to encourage such conduct." . 
....In determining whether activities of this type are consistent with IRC 501(c)(3), the Service relies on a three-part test. Rev. Rul. 80-278. Such activities will be considered permissible under IRC 501(c)(3) if: (1) The purpose of the organization is charitable; (2) the activities are not illegal, contrary to a clearly defined and established public policy, or in conflict with express statutory restrictions; 

One more opinion on this:

The Treasury Department is empowered to enforce "established public policy" with respect to tax-exempt charities.' Under this public policy power, the Treasury has revoked the tax-exempt charitable status of organizations that discriminated against blacks, organizations whose members engaged in civil disobedience against war, and organizations involved in illegal activity. The Treasury interprets its public policy power as applying to any activity that violates clear public policy...The point at which a public policy is sufficiently established for purposes of applying the Treasury's public policy power is unclear...Presently, neither Congress or the United States Supreme Court has decided conclusively whether race-based affirmative action violates public policy.

Besides the obvious, that Jewish resettlement activity in Judea and Samaria is not to be compared to the rest of the examples - which are mainly race-oriented or proven criminal activity but also internal American issues and to extend the IRS power to actions of non-Americans, even if supported by American citizens - it is clear that no illegality is involved.

But more important, American public policy was quite the opposite.  It supported Jewish resettlement activity through the Anglo-American Convention of 1924 when the territory defined as the Jewish national and historic homeland was all the region between the sea and the river.  If it was legal then, it's legal now and as there is no equal sovereign power to Israel who can prove claims to that territory, all this legalese fumfitting (to mutter, splutter and stutter in Yiddish) is just pro-Palestine propaganda (PPP).

^

When Attacked, Defend

These names ring a bell, so to say?

Abner of Burgos. 

Pablo de Santa María. 

Gerónimo de Santa Fé.  

Nicholas Donin.

They are Jews who not only converted out but then turned on Judaism and Jews in a near rabid attack, misrepresenting Jewish texts to bring about the deaths of Jews and destruction of their culture.  More of them here.

Is it only Jews who have the peculiar habit of not only opting out but then turning on their families, their people, their religion, their culture and their national identity to destroy from the roots?

I've blogged about Judah Leib Magnes asking Secretary of State George Marshall and President Truman to halt monetary contributions to the fledgling state of Israel which would virtually assure an Arab military victory (he thought if Israel couldn't fight then the Arabs would stop, too, and make peace).  I've blogged about Peter Beinart.  And about J Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami, son of the Irgun's Mike.

I am not referring to legitimate criticism of errors and faults and even crimes of individual Jews and the state's apparatus which need be highlighted and corrected but to a certain strain an antipathy which rejects or leads to the fundamental undermining of Zionism in the activities of persons and groups.

The dangers that were launched against Jews centuries ago by turncoats are perhaps different but the theme is still the same: 'we're not just leaving but we are coming back to get you'.

In that scenario, Israel, Zionism and Judaism need defend themselves.

^

J Street Hits Detour, Makes Reverse

After finding out that even their liberal-watered-down-washed-out Zionism was insufficient to receive funding to attend a Haaretz Conference, after the approval came through, a J Street reaction was:

“The concerns raised by the finance committee trouble us deeply for two reasons. “First, because we disagree with the notion that this conference is contrary to the VSA’s anti-racist values. Second, because our own anti-racist ideologies are the very reason we exist as an organization: to oppose the occupation of the West Bank and fight for a two-state solution.”

Dear Jeremy J Street:

You see what you have done?

Besides completely betraying your father's legacy (and that's a personal privilege), my presence in Shiloh, where our shared forefathers lived 3250 years ago, is now somehow "racist".

Is this the education your J Streeters get?

Shame on you.

You are now supporting the Muslim apartheid racism?

^

Jeremy (J Street) Ben-Ami Coming to the West Bank

Really.  He'll be on the West Bank:

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president and founder of J Street, will speak on “Prospects for Arab-Israeli Peace in the Wake of the Israeli Elections” 5 p.m. Tuesday, April 14
 in the Humphrey Forum
 at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, 
301 19th Ave. S., on the U of M West Bank campus, in Minneapolis.  Ben-Ami will be joined by Humphrey School Professor Brian Atwood, chair of Global Policy and former dean.

I presume the construction and residency there on that West Bank is legal?


(kippa tip: JW) 

-----------------------------

A response:

__________________

Seems that George Washington University also has a problem with J Street.

^

J Street News: Head Wound Victim

My loyal long-time readers will forgive me for reading into this unfortunate San Diego Texas incident a connection to that Jewish group that purports to be pro-Israel:

Two people flagged down officers on J Street near 15th Street to report a man in the street, bleeding from a head wound.

To compound matters, the victim is expected not to survive:

A 47-year-old man who was shot in the head in East Village on Saturday is not expected to survive, San Diego police said.

Head wound did I read?

^ 

So, This Is J Street?

Is this a perceptive analysis of today's J Street? (thanks to LM for the idea and GD for reminding me):-

It should be borne in mind that Israeli foreign policy is the policy of a democratically elected government, representing what the majority of Israelis believe to be in their best interest. Since this belief is backed by their willingness to die, or to serve great stretches of army service, in its defense, it ought to be treated by their unthreatened American Jewish friends with respect, if not awe. Members of J Street have been accusing the “rightist establishment” of various indelicacies. Surely there has been nothing quite so indelicate in American Jewish life of recent years as this widespread assumption on the part of our new political philanthropists that “we know better than you what is in your best interest.”

But if J Street has been insensitive, it has lately also grown dangerous. Like the Russian maskilim (“enlighteners”) of the 19th century, who went to the Czar with a list of reforms to be foisted on their less enlightened Jewish brethren—because they knew what was in the Jewish interest even if the Jewish majority did not—so J Street now approaches the American government to convince Americans that they must bring pressure to bear on an Israel that does not know what is in its best interest. And like the maskilim, members of J Street are convinced of their intellectual and moral superiority in taking this treacherous step. But we know, as the enlighteners ought to have known, that the Czar worked in his interest, not in the interest of the Jews, and used whatever Jewish support he could get neatly to camouflage his ends. The decision of a Jewish group to appeal to the powers-that-be against the perceived self-interest of Israel (and the Jewish body politic) now, when as Mr. Shattan rightly says, “the political fortunes of the state of Israel have reached perhaps an all-time low,” is dangerous, to use the mildest available term.

American Jews, acting as Jews, can only protect Israel’s right to self-determination. When they begin to subvert that right, the constituted community has not only the right but the duty to expose their actions and to condemn them. In so doing it is not being “Mc-Carthyite” or even vengeful, just minimally responsible.

No.

But it sounds very familiar, right?

Here is the original in Commentary, June 1977:

It should be borne in mind that Israeli foreign policy is the policy of a democratically elected government, representing what the majority of Israelis believe to be in their best interest. Since this belief is backed by their willingness to die, or to serve great stretches of army service, in its defense, it ought to be treated by their unthreatened American Jewish friends with respect, if not awe. Members of Breira have been accusing the “rightist establishment” of various indelicacies. Surely there has been nothing quite so indelicate in American Jewish life of recent years as this widespread assumption on the part of our new political philanthropists that “we know better than you what is in your best interest.”

But if Breira has been insensitive, it has lately also grown dangerous. Like the Russian maskilim (“enlighteners”) of the 19th century, who went to the Czar with a list of reforms to be foisted on their less enlightened Jewish brethren—because they knew what was in the Jewish interest even if the Jewish majority did not—so Breira now approaches the American government to convince Americans that they must bring pressure to bear on an Israel that does not know what is in its best interest. And like the maskilim, members of Breira are convinced of their intellectual and moral superiority in taking this treacherous step. But we know, as the enlighteners ought to have known, that the Czar worked in his interest, not in the interest of the Jews, and used whatever Jewish support he could get neatly to camouflage his ends. The decision of a Jewish group to appeal to the powers-that-be against the perceived self-interest of Israel (and the Jewish body politic) now, when as Mr. Shattan rightly says, “the political fortunes of the state of Israel have reached perhaps an all-time low,” is dangerous, to use the mildest available term.

American Jews, acting as Jews, can only protect Israel’s right to self-determination. When they begin to subvert that right, the constituted community has not only the right but the duty to expose their actions and to condemn them. In so doing it is not being “Mc-Carthyite” or even vengeful, just minimally responsible.

Ruth R. Wisse
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec

And from Ben Halperin there:

...Ambivalence, in one mix or another and in varying proportional intensities, is the common element in the Jewish involvement in Breira: the radical student Zionists, the Hillel rabbis and the Sh’ma coterie, and the veteran mavericks long dedicated to upholding alienation in dispersion as a way of life especially designated for the Jews. What they have in common is a shared detachment and disenchantment vis-à-vis the so-called Jewish establishment...

^

J Street's Pro is a No

This is a logo from the J Street University division:

In a rhyming mood, I am sure a very good case could be made that J Street, its founders, its platform, its policies, its actions and its intentions are, on all those issues above, more, much more a "no" than "pro".

And their negativity is expressed in ignoring realities and developments, which is also a "no" in my understanding.

Examples:

a) how can you be "pro-democracy" when Mahmoud Abbas has not been elected for going on almost a decade?  Or when you know that the intended Palestine entity, at this moment is 80% non-democratic, and not enlightened and non-tolerant and tramples civil liberties and human rights - and that's referring to Arabs - , and will not be democratic when a full-fledged state?

b)  how can you be "pro-TwoStates" when already there are three entitities in the former area of the Palestine Mandate that are exclusively Arab - Palestinian Authority Fatahland in Judea and Samaria, Hamastan in Gaza and Jordan?

c)  how can you be "pro-justice" when the Arab side will not agree to recognize the national ethos of the Jewish people?

d)  how can you be "pro-peace" when you never deal with Arab incitement or violence on the same level that you do anything you dislike on the Jewish side?

If you're on J Street, you've made a wrong turn.

And if you're active in J Street, I fear you have no anti-Zionist limitations:

Have you any boundaries?



^

No More of This at Swarthmore

Swarthmore Hillel may become known now as the Shammai Chapter.

As we are informed:-

In a swift, decisive move, Eric Fingerhut, the new president and chief executive officer of Hillel International informed the head of Swarthmore College’s (former) Hillel just who is in the driver’s seat when it comes to making policy decisions. The Swarthmore chapter’s unanimous vote on Sunday, Dec. 8, to reject Hillel guidelines regarding Israel, means it cannot use the name Hillel. “Let me be very clear – ‘anti-Zionists’ will not be permitted to speak using the Hillel name or under the Hillel roof, under any circumstances,” Fingerhut wrote,

And we learn more:

The local Federation paper, the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent, reveals that there are more details to be worked out.  It quotes what it refers to as the “Hillel of Greater Philadelphia’s staff person at Swarthmore, Rabbi Kelilah Miller,” who, presumably receives support, training, communications or other benefits from being affiliated with Hillel.  But Miller said she plans to “challenge the students to live up to the commitments they expressed in the resolution they adopted.”  In other words, she’s committed to ensuring the students continue to thumb their nose at Hillel’s guidelines.  

Miller?  The one signed-on to this last year's J Street letter?  Who was in Netiovot recently (did she visit a YESHA Jewish community to learn?)

Back in 2002, Miller provides an insight into the development of a 19-year old freshman who deosn't really care that society needs protect itself to the concept that perhaps Jewish students do not need to worry about exposure to anti-Zionism:-

I'm sorry, but to my mind, that type of thinking, which presumbably only further "progressively" developed is the worse thing Israel defenders need in a Hillel Rabbi.


I left this comment at the Hillel site:

I hope that if Swarthmore Hillel decides to remain "Open" but unaffiliated (will they call themselves Shammai?), that I and some of my colleagues will be invited to speak? I live on the eastern side of some fictitious line colored Green that once delineated the site where Arab aggression a la 1948 stopped and had no international legal; standing other than being a cease-fire line recognized in an Armistice Agreement but which Arabs flouted from Day One. In my area, there are Jewish communities, reconstituted (see Preamble to League of Nations decision to award a Mandate to Gt. Britain for the purpose of a Jewish national home based on the Jewish people's historical connection with that land [oh, and Arabs were never mentioned; only non-Jews]), since Arab ethnic-cleansing during the Mandate period expelled Jews from places in which they resided for centuries and even before the conquering Arabs arrived when they occupied the Jewish homeland in 638 CE, like Gaza, Hebron, Shchem, Jenin and the Old City of Jerusalem.
We have a great narrative to tell the students and I think this title, best sums it up: "Apartheid Roads and other Lies They Told You". I can even bring a PowerPoint Presentation.

^