Two things that the leaders of JFNA are particularly concerned with are the twin concepts of "off the record" and "confidentiality." Unfortunately, they don't have a clue what the terms mean. (This while they point fingers and accuse "you breached the confidentiality of _________.") So, as always, let's help them out.
"Off the record" -- "unofficially, in confidence, not for publication." Hello!! When JFNA and JCPA introduced a June 1 conference call (Jerry Silverman framed the call perfectly) on which Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon tried to explain the flotilla fiasco, the listeners/"participants" were told explicitly -- "this call is 'off the record.'" And Ambassador Ayalon reiterated the confidential nature of the call during his remarks.
So...guess what? By the end of the day, JFNA published a Leadership Briefing -- Israel's Deputy FM Ayalon Briefs Jewish Leaders on the Flotilla Incident. And, that would have been fine BUT the Briefing quoted Ambassador Ayalon at length and often. JFNA ignored its own admonition. In the interest solely of self-promotion, "off the record" became "on the record." Here is how I believe JFNA self- defines "off the record" and "confidentiality" -- "we can ignore 'off the record' any time we want -- you can't." Or, perhaps it is "only we know what can be quoted on the record even when the speaker believes the session is 'off the record.'"
Now if you or I (and it is far more likely it would be "I" than "you") were merely accused of having breached confidentiality, you or I (see above) would be immediately excommunicated by JFNA's "leaders." (Can one be excommunicated more than once?) It's do as we say, not as we do-- the "rules" apply to you, not to us. Got it?
So, my friends, consider this Post "off the record," would you please?