Jewish Voice for Peace (and BDS) Can't Explain Why They Should Be Funded by the Jewish Community Federation

It took a few weeks, but the folks over at the Jewish Voice for BDS-- though they still insist on being called "Jewish Voice for Peace" -- finally came up with a response to the San Francisco Jewish Community Federation's Policy on Israel-Related Programming, which they posted at their "Muzzlewatch" site. To what should be nobody's surprise, that response is misleading, disingenuous, and resorts to name-calling to try to distract from the fact that they have no solid ground on which to base their argument.

They really run off the rails right at the very beginning, claiming that the "litmus test for Jewish identity" in the Bay Area is now "do you UNCONDITIONALLY love Israel"? The Federation policy doesn't deal with questions such as "who is a Jew?" or whether someone can join a synagogue. It is a policy regarding what programs the Jewish Community Federation (a private charitable nonprofit with its own board of directors) will fund. The Federation is under no obligation to fund a group just because they happen to put the word "Jewish" in their name-- whether that's the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, Jewish Voice for Peace, or a "Messianic Jewish" congregation.

Organizations stand for a set of principles. The Federation's mission statement declares:

"The Federation gives continuity to Jewish values: [including]The supporting of Israel, the democratic homeland for the Jewish people". Why, then, should it support, even indirectly, organizations or programs whose mission or content runs counter to that? Doing so would actually violate the fiduciary responsibility that its board has to its donors. Since the founding principles of BDS include the fictitious "right" of return for descendants of refugees from the Arab war against the Jews in 1947-8, the BDS movement has clearly stated that its goal is not merely the end of Israel's occupation of the West Bank, nor the establishment of a Palestinian state living in peace next to a Jewish state of Israel; its goal is a Palestinian state in place of Israel.

The Muzzlewatch post then goes on to incorrectly charge that the "McCarthyite policy guidelines" would "seek to sever public ties that Jewish organizations, including progressive synagogues and arts and educational organizations, have with groups" that support BDS. Actually, the policy specifically refrains from that-- it only addresses funding of organizations that through their mission, activities or partnerships, support BDS. It explicitly points out that "Artistic presentations that may include critical perspectives of Jewish life or Israel and that, on balance, are consistent with JCF's core values" are considered to be in accord with the new policy. As far as any other activities, the policy only affects Israel-related programming. So if you are running an art exhibition or film festival that presents programming on Israel in partnership with those groups that support BDS, then you still have the freedom to present them; however, you should be seeking your financial support elsewhere than the Jewish Community Federation. Exactly as it should be, and no logical reason that Jewish Voice for BDS can provide to suggest otherwise.

Jewish Voice for BDS also charges that this will "impact the ability of Jewish organizations to partner with Christian, Quaker or Muslim groups, many of which support BDS." It certainly won't, for example, impact the ability to partner in activities such as feeding the hungry, or providing shelter to the homeless, which have nothing to do with Israel-related programming. Just another example of throwing as much mud against the wall as possible just to see what might stick. (It's another, and much more complicated, discussion as to whether Jewish community organizations should draw a line against working together with representatives of other religious groups that are actively supporting the elimination of Israel, if the project in question has nothing to do with Israel.)

This policy statement is a turning point-- not in its restatement of the existing values of the Federation, but in standing up against the creeping subversion of our community institutions by those who do not share and support those values. Jewish Voice for BDS is right about one thing, though--these guidelines are indeed aimed at them. After all, though they are a small fringe group, they have been vocally spitting in the face of this Jewish community's institutions for years. And the community, as embodied in its Federation, has finally said "Enough. We will not fund this agenda." No excommunication, no auto-da-fe, no fatwa, just a statement that those who wish to attack one of our central values shouldn't expect us to pay for it.

(And yes, I DO unconditionally love Israel, just like I unconditionally love my children. That won't stop me from criticizing their mistakes, or providing appropriate consequences for serious misbehavior. But it means that I won't beat them up physically, I won't starve them, and I won't stand by when someone else physically assaults them-- or threatens, quite publicly, to kill them.)

San Francisco Jewish Community Federation Sets Policy to Prevent Funding Anti-Israel Programs

Almost seven months after the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival's ill-advised hosting of Cindy Corrie, in collaboration with Jewish Voice for Peace and the American Friends Service Committee, the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco has formally responded with a policy statement regarding Israel-related programs by its grantees. While it took a while, this policy certainly appears to meet the needs of the community: preventing misuse of Jewish community funds in supporting anti-Israel groups or presenting anti-Israel events.

The policy states:
"The JCF does not fund organizations that through their mission, activities or partnerships

1. endorse or promote anti-Semitism, other forms of bigotry, violence or other extremist views;

2. actively seek to proselytize Jews away from Judaism; or

3. advocate for, or endorse, undermining the legitimacy of Israel as a secure independent, democratic Jewish state, including through participation in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in whole or in part."

Not only does this policy apply to the Federation's grantmaking process, but it will also apply to directed donations through its Endowment Fund.

The policy statement goes on to note programs that would not be consistent with this policy:

"1. Panel discussions, speakers series, cultural, artistic or educational programs that as an overall experience – i.e. based on the entire body of work – endorse or prominently promote the BDS movement or positions that undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel

2. Individual programs that endorse the BDS movement or positions that undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel

3. Co-sponsorship or co-presentations of public programs on Middle East issues with supporters of the BDS movement or others who undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel."

And, in case there was any doubt about it, Federation Acting CEO Jennifer Gorovitz stated in her introductory e-mail about the policies "Had the policy been in effect prior to the event accompanying the screening of the movie "Rachel," we believe these guideposts would have made clear that such an event and co-sponsorships fall outside the bounds of the JCF's funding."

The key step will be enforcing this policy and not overlooking violations. Of course, Jewish Voice for Peace will claim that they don't undermine the legitimacy of the state of Israel. We've refuted that assertion so many times that their leaders are either frankly delusional if they still believe it, or staggeringly arrogant if they think anybody else will.

This should become a model for other Jewish community organizations to prevent the undermining of their mission by anti-Israel activists. In particular, Hillel should examine the behavior of their own individual campus organizations through the lens of this policy. UC Berkeley Hillel, as a grantee of the Federation, will have to comply with it; perhaps this will finally bring about the long-overdue end to the subversion of that institution by members of Students for Justice in Palestine.

Can we find 433,971 people to hate on Israel? California's Divestment Initiative

After 10 years of abject failure, the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement, like the Energizer bunny, keeps going and going and going...

Chris Yatooma has recently introduced a ballot initiative to force California's state pension funds to divest from companies doing business in Israel. 433,971 signatures are needed by mid-July to put the proposed law on the November election ballot.

The initiative was submitted under the name of the "Israel Divestiture Forum," (IDF). According to an interview in the San Francisco Examiner , Yatooma claims "that's just me having some fun". No, Mr. Yatooma, it's fraud. The same way Paul Larudee of the International Solidarity Movement naming his latest anti-Israel venture the "Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees" ( AIPAC ) is fraud, meant to deliberately deceive. It’s the same tactics we've seen over and over again, as the anti-Israel forces attempt to push their agenda on a disinterested public. In the absence of facts and history, fraud and outright forgery have become the well-oiled tools in the anti-Israel tool chest.

According to Mr. Yatooma, "Public retirement systems in this state currently invest on behalf of the citizens of California in publicly traded foreign companies that may be at risk due to business ties with foreign states such as Israel." Clearly Mr. Yatooma has not read "Start up Nation" . Israel has more companies on the tech-oriented NASDAQ than any country outside the United States - more than all of Europe, Japan, Korea, India, and China combined. Israel also attracts more of the global pool of venture capital investments per capita than any other country, with $2 billion in foreign venture capital invested in 2008. For the last five years the Israeli economy has substantially outstripped the average GDP growth rate of developed countries. Today Israel has the highest density of startups in the world.

Yatooma's initiative is chock full of typos, misstatements and downright lies. His agenda is clear, however- by declaring "territory occupied by Israel since 1949" he denies the right of Israel to exist, within any borders.

Over the years the California initiative process has been hijacked by special interest groups pushing their agenda, and this year is no different. An initiative costs $200 to file, but can cost nearly $2 million to qualify for the ballot. The question is not whether Yatooma find 433,971 people to hate on Israel, but whether he can do it without resorting to fraud, forgery and lies. Given the history of the BDS movement, the odds aren't good.

Freedom of Speech at Universities--Except for Supporters of Israel

Events this week in both the USA and the UK have once again shown the double standard for free speech at universities-- free speech for any type of radical Islamist cause is entirely acceptable, even rewarded, but any expression of support for Israel can be forcibly suppressed without apparent consequences.

Southern California saw this in practice on two UC campuses: Irvine, where Israel's ambassador to the US Michael Oren was speaking, and UCLA School of Law where Daniel Taub of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spoke. While Taub, Principal Deputy Legal Advisor to the MFA, spoke about the Goldstone report on February 8, protestors filed in front of him, preventing him from speaking until they were cleared by campus police. They justified their action by claiming that "“The Israeli government shouldn’t be able to speak with no response” from the Palestinian side" Of course, there are many events at UCLA that promote the anti-Zionist viewpoint, not only from students but also from faculty, without any "response" being allowed-- and without forcible obstruction of the event. At Irvine, which has been the site of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate speech for years without any condemnation from the university administration, Ambassador Oren was the target of a well organized series of disruptions that resulted in the arrest of 11 students-- and, at long last, Chancellor Michael Drake finally (and tepidly) indicated to the protestors that he was "embarrassed" by their actions.

Judge for yourself--watch the video:

Of course, the proof will be in the consequences provided by these universities. But don't hold your breath. There are two sets of rules in international relations-- one for all countries except Israel, and one for Israel. Other countries have the right to defend their civilians from cross-border attacks; Israel does not. Other countries have the right to decide who may enter their country; Israel does not. Other countries have the right to decide who may become citizens of their country; Israel does not. And, similarly, there are two rules for university campuses-- anti-Israel speech that often crosses the line to overt anti-Semitism cannot be restricted or even criticized, but any event in support of Israel or Zionism can be legitimately shut down by force. In the fall of 2008, the Tikvah student group at UC Berkeley was disciplined merely because some of their members shouted "liar" at Norman Finkelstein as they exited his talk. Yet no action had been taken against the Muslim Students Assocation at Cal when they shouted down Daniel Pipes and harrassed Israel supporters attending his talk in 2004.

Of course, things could be worse: when Israel's deputy foreign minister spoke at Oxford University 2 days ago, he was met not only by assailants who were restrained by police, but by a heckler who shouted "itbach el-Yahud" (Arabic for "slaughter the Jews", the battle cry of pogromists in Mandatory Palestine and of anti-Israel protestors in San Francisco). Ayalon is considering pressing charges . If he does, you can be sure that Muzzlewatch will be all over it--how dare those nefarious Zionists interfere with this man's right to promote hatred!

We Are All Seismic Shock

Simply Jews has just posted, under this same title, the nearly unbelievable story about a blogger in the UK who goes by the name of Seismic Shock. Seismic Shock has run a series of posts exposing the activities of Reverend Stephen Sizer, an Anglican cleric who associates with Holocaust deniers and members of terror organizations (imagine Alison Weir with a clerical collar). Sizer, along with his colleague Dr Anthony McRoy (a lecturer at the Wales Evangelical School of Theology who has delivered a paper at a Khomeinist theological conference in Iran comparing Hezbollah’s struggle against Israel via suicide bombing with the Christian’s struggle against sin via the atoning death of Jesus), filed a police complaint against Seismic Shock who then was visited by a member of the local constabulary.

You should read Seismic Shock's own guest post at Harry's Place for the full details, including Sizer's attempt to intimidate a blogger in Australia by threatening her with the same treatment (though Australia is, last we checked, a separate country).

One has to wonder, of course, why police in the UK feel the need to have "an informal chat" with a blogger exposing extremist haters, but those in the UK who openly support Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other terror groups are free to spread their hate.

Jewish Voice for Peace-- Still Proudly Delegitimizing Israel

Jewish Voice for Peace, through their house organ Muzzlewatch , is still trying to keep one foot in the BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) camp while claiming that they are still part of the dialogue within the mainstream of the Jewish community. Two recent posts on Muzzlewatch by Cecilie Surasky illustrate this schizophrenic attitude perfectly.

The first one dealt with a blog post elsewhere by James Besser, a veteran journalist in the Jewish press, entitled "Stifling Debate about Gaza". Besser raises very valid points about whether Israel's policy towards the Hamas regime has been correct--not in some morally ambiguous sense that equates the "rights" of a gang of radical Islamist thugs to launch rockets at civilians with the right of Israeli citizens to live in peace, but correct in the sense of best serving the interests of the state of Israel and its people. While clearly noting that he doesn't disagree with Israel's decision to use force in Gaza, he does write:

"I am saying there’s something disturbing about the growing determination to stifle debate in an American Jewish community with a multiplicity of pro-Israel views."

Presumably, Besser is referring to the controversies regarding J Street , which describes itself as a pro-Israel organization yet accepts money from Arab and Iranian interest groups and held a conference whose attendees jeered at the name of Elie Weisel and heckled suggestions that the Palestinians had some minimal degree of responsibility for their choices in voting for Hamas. Much of the discussion regarding J Street is not about their policy suggestions per se, but rather whether these positions are actually arising from a fundamentally Zionist viewpoint, as opposed to their own description of themselves as primarily an arm of President Obama's foreign policy.

(However, I know some committed Zionists who happen to agree with much of what J Street promotes. They should have every right to espouse these policies, just as those of us who disagree should have every right to respond without being accused of "stifling debate" merely for the act of disagreeing.)

But Cecilie missed Besser's key point: "a multiplicity of PRO-ISRAEL views." JVP is simply not part of this discussion, because they are not a pro-Israel organization! To being with, to be pro-Israel is to be a Zionist , to support the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their own national homeland, just as this same right is accepted for almost every other self-defined national group. Not only does JVP explicitly refuse to support this, but they join in anti-Israel demonstrations with International ANSWER which openly supports Islamist terror groups; they have signed on to a public statement endorsing BDS as a way to pressure Israel into accepting the mythical "right" of return; they work with the anti-Zionist Sabeel, but never with any organization that supports the existence of a Jewish state; they hand out fliers drawn from the work of the anti-Zionist Ilan "facts aren't important" Pappe. I'm not sure who JVP is really trying to deceive here-- the genuine pro-Israel mainstream of the Jewish community, or themselves. They've certainly failed at the first.

Surasky's second post is Mr Hyde to her previous Dr Jekyll-- instead of trying to appeal for acceptance, she more accurately boasts of her role (and, by extension, JVP's) in supporting attempts to delegitimize Israel. She discusses the Reut Institute's recent analysis of worldwide delegimitization efforts against Israel, immodestly identifying herself as a "general in the new battlefield for Israel's survival". Sorry Cecilie-- propaganda officers are usually below command rank; the generals are the ones who are paying you to promote their policies. (As for me, I'm just a dedicated volunteer.)

Curiously, Surasky doesn't even note in passing several very important points from the Reut analysis--ones that she should have been crowing about as an endorsement of what she claims to stand for. As noted in the article in the Jerusalem Post: "Other recommendations presented by Reut to counter the hubs of delegitimacy are to break the 'all-or-nothing' dynamic of criticism of Israel, place more Israeli diplomats in the hubs [of delegitimization, like the San Francisco Bay Area], be wary of 'strange bedfellows' such as right-wing and evangelical organizations..." If you are a leftist Zionist group that opposes Israel's policies, and especially one that continuously claims to be calling for open debate and criticizes those who support Israel from the right, then isn't this a complete endorsement of your position? Surasky should be jumping up and shouting ecstatically about this! But, look at the strategies suggested later in that very same sentence: " support anti-boycott campaigns (buy Israeli products), establish a 'price tag' for attacking Israel and punish boycotters....". Yes, Cecilie, they are indeed to referring to you, JVP, and your extremist friends. And the price that you will continue to pay by denying Israel's legitimacy is not getting the legitimacy within the Jewish community that you so desperately crave yourself. After all, you can't get a seat at the table when you're trying to saw off its legs.

Israel Aids Haiti; Arab Nations Ignore The Disaster

The tragedy in Haiti is mind-boggling in its extent. Countries around the world are mobilizing to offer assistance. The Canadian Press just reviewed the list of those who are offering assistance: of course the wealthier developed countries such as the US and many EU countries as would be expected, but also India and China as well as regional countries such as Mexico and Venezuela. And, of course, Israel.

Israel, though there are almost no Jews in Haiti aside from tourists.
Israel, though Haiti routinely sides with the most one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the UN.
Israel, though Haiti is far away from the Middle East.

This is not a new phenomenon. Israel sent aid after the devasting Asian tsunami in 2004 , after earthquakes in India and El Salvador in 2001 and Greece and Turkey in 1999. This isn't just Israelis contributing donations, but also mobilization of the Israel Defense Forces itself to provide direct assistance.

One might expect that the Arab states, many of them awash in oil revenue, would offer similar assistance. A Google search for "Arab earthquake aid Haiti" yields a few teasers on news sites that on further investigation are hits from unrelated stories on those sites, so the net result is pretty much what the Arab nations are providing: next to nothing. This should not surprise anyone, given their relatively miniscule contributions to UNRWA to assist the descendants of their fellow Arab refugees from the 1947-48 war-- a war which the Arab nations encouraged, supported, and bear responsibility for the resulting refugee population.

Several American organizations are raising funds which will be funneled through IsraAid, Israel's consortium of humanitarian aid groups. You can make contributions to IsraAid via B'nai B'rith International or via the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (select "Haiti Earthquake Relief" from the dropdown menu).

Haiti's government has more important things to worry about right now, but I can't help but wonder whether, when the next viciously anti-Israel resolution comes before the UN General Assembly, their representatives will remember that Israel (and the worldwide Jewish community) responded to their desperate situation with immediate and unconditional aid. And the Arab nations? Maybe they'll offer the Haitians discounted leases at the new Burj Khalifa tower in Dubai.