The GA from a distance...
~ Protesters added excitement to the GA on Monday. Five protesters identified as from some alleged Peace organization, but, in reality, they were of us and from us, rose up, one by one, to disrupt Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech, protesting the "Loyalty Oath" legislation in Israel. Each was quickly hustled off by security until the last, a woman, who was dragged to the floor by a purported member of the JFNA Young Leadership Cabinet from San Antonio. Gosh, in the halcyon days of yore, the YLC was dedicated to raising money.
The Prime Minister, of course, was non-plussed, he's heard worse, but in an organization dedicated to no dissent, even to its suppression, the last of these protesters was dragged to the floor. Somehow this is consistent with the culture that we have created. At one and the same time, protest, usually in a more mild form, has been part of many General Assemblies. We should all be reminded that as some patronize and pander to the younger generations, these are men and women of substance and knowledge who reject the "kisses" being blown at them in a constant stream from JFNA's leaders. Oh, well.
~ I heard the Philanthropic Resources Chair (nee National Campaign Chair) plug Tribefest totally devoid of any substance whatsoever. This has been JFNA's consistent practice. Link to the JFNA's promo for Tribefest -- a guy in a suit in a hot tub inviting you, if you're young enough, to "come to the desert." Luckily for them, the promoters of this embarrassment have no sense of shame. There are probably a bunch of dedicated folk walking the hallways in New Orleans with big Tribefest buttons on and if you ask them "what's Tribefest" they will answer "join us at the party." Ask them what's going to be on the agenda and they will roll their eyes and walk away...because they don't have a clue.
~ Then there is the revised Fair Share Dues Resolution. Presented with basically a two sentence desultory "summary" by the currently ubiquitous Steven Silverman (as Financial Relations Committee Chair) and, as usual, no questions from those gathered for the meeting, some substantive highlights were left out. For example: the amendment adds the potential for a "payment plan" from a federation under-paying its Dues (although this had been possible for years, JFNA has now codified a practice in which it has been engaged since the consideration of "hardship" has been side-tracked); curiously, as written, constituency membership (Women's Philanthropy, YLC) will no longer be terminated for those from federations whose membership terminates -- only the subsidies will be taken away for, e.g., missions or events (this was clearly the application of the Law of Unintended Consequences -- for it will be far easier to terminate membership of a federation in default if membership in the constituencies can continue for those participating); and then there is the futility of terminating membership eligibility on the JAFI Board and Committees for leaders from a terminated federation -- failing to understand that with the JAFI Governance changes enacted last year, JAFI will choose its own Board members going forward and may or may not accept UIA/JFNA recommendations.
~ On a "lighter" note, the use of the word "robust" needs to be exorcised from the JFNA leaders' lexicon. Never has there been a word as abused as has been "robust" -- all of us will accept that everything at JFNA is "robust." Let that be the end of it (though I doubt it).
I guess you just had to be there.
Rwexler
Today's UJ Thee and Me Blog posting was very robust. We have decided to re-brand the Blog in the shadow of the Best Ever,New and Improved, and Biggest GA ever and in the tradition of New Orleans. It will now be known as JFNA Wha Dat.
ReplyDeleteThere are 'protests' and then there are 'protests' (I was at the GA a g'zillion years ago when the students protested (education....).
ReplyDeleteInterrupting a public speech by Israel’s PM is not the way to get a question asked - and, more importantly, answered.
If those 'protesters' have such strong feelings about decisions made by the Israeli government they need to make aliyah, pay Israeli taxes, serve in the IDF - in other words put their lives where there mouths are.
If they don’t make aliyah they have no moral right to tell the democratically elected government of Israel what to do.
The Federation is becoming more and more like AIPAC or even the ZOA in regards to Israel.
ReplyDeleteIt is by no means representative of US Jewry. And as Richard has chronicled in his blog, this current government seems to be tone deaf when it comes to actions--particularly those that affect diaspora Jewry--that make many younger Jews way of supporting it, whether in Israel or abroad.
Federations need to hear it, and so does Bibi. It's not like younger Jews (or at least younger Jews who aren't "yes" men and women") have a seat at the table, Paul. They should....otherwise in 20-30 years they will have no donors. It's not simply an internal Israel issue...those who think like this are fooling themselves...
From 40 years of experience the Federation world has just about always been supportive of the government of Israel - as well it should be. We heard just the opposite claims during Rabin's z'l days (Feds turning left...).
ReplyDeleteYes, young donors need to be heard, but not that way nor at that venue. They shoud also be taught that NONE of their giving thru the Fed world goes to support the Israeli government. The people of Israel, yes, but not the gov't.
The best (and probably only) way for anyone to really effect change in Israel is to move there and become part of the democratic process, not disrupt meetings in NO.
Richard, congratulations for taking a reasoned and balanced position on dissent in our ranks. The implications of what occurred in New Orleans have ramifications for the needed success of anti-BDS efforts. The CEO of LA, one of the supposed architects of the initiative, is quoted as describing the protesters as our "enemies". Have our children now become our enemies? To preserve the integrity of the millions allocated for the anti-BDS effort JFNA must make a clear distinction between those who oppose current Israeli policy, settlements,superfluous loyalty oaths and the occupation (there are sadly no neutral words on these matters) and attempts to delegitimize Israel. To do otherwise would lead us to a witchunt of self-devouring proportions. Already in the eyes of too many zealots Tom Friedman, Amos Oz, AB Yehoshua, David Grossman and others - once invited guests at our meetings and fundraisers - are now vilified and ostrocized. Will this effort turn our campuses into battlegrounds of Jew against Jew? The ideological borders of the anti BDS effort must be defined.
ReplyDeleteTo the Anonymous whose Comment I have not yet posted: while I disagree with any number of your conclusions, I would like to publish your passionate Comment. I would ask you first to delete the allusions to Hitler and Goebbels and resend and I will publish it. If you cannot make that deletion, then I cannot post your Comment.
ReplyDeleteWhoever the last anonymous poster was, I can help you with your vocabulary challenged ways. There are not only neutral words, but accurate words to describe what you raised in your post.
ReplyDeleteHow sad that in your zeal you have chosen to adopt the words of those who oppose our very existence as your own.
Let's start with occupation. They are correctly called administered territories. No one called them occupied when Jordan and Egypt "occupied" them from 1948-1967. Unfortunately, there has never been a Palestinian Arab commonwealth - so there is no occupation by any definition. What there is was a failure to implement the UN Partition Plan and a series of wars.
Superfluous loyalty oath. Well I guess you are entitled to your opinion on whether or not it is superfluous and its timing is certainly suspect. When I attended school in America I had to pledge allegiance to the flag and to avoid violating my religious precepts against oaths - we said one nation under Canada and over Mexico. A naturalized citizen to the United States must even give up his beloved Potentate and agree to bear arms against all enemies real or imagined.
Settlements - well this is certainly a toss up in terms of word use in context. Gilo, Ramot, and Ariel for example are cities not settlements. Each side defines for itself what a settlement is. There are illegal Settlements by Israeli law, and they should be removed as soon as possible. While it certainly is debatable what the definition of a settlement even is, it is important to note that the meaning of the word is likely defined by how it is said - if I could hear you say it - the tone of your voice suggests that you are wiping a drop of spittle from the corner of your mouth as you say the word with contempt.
It is certainly reasonable for you to believe that "settlement" or construction activities over the 1967 "Green Line" is wrong. I would only suggest for your consideration the following inconvenient facts:
1) Terrorism began, and the then terrorist PLO activities, far predate 1967 and the first settlements over the green line
2) All prior agreements with the Palestinians were negotiated without a construction freeze
3) The recent past freeze was meant to prevent facts on the ground but in fact the freeze was only for Israeli construction. Palestinian construction engineered to create "facts on the ground" escalated dramatically.
I share your dream for peace. A Jewish State of Israel living next to an Arab Palestinian State. Now, it appears that you are well re
versed in the issues - so I can only anticipate your jumping down my throat over the use of the term Jewish State. But I take you back to that certain date in which Jews everywhere were huddled around their radios when the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a resolution adopted on 29 November 1947 by the General Assembly clearly spells out the creation of a "Jewish State" and an "Arab State".
And as long as we are in the mood of completing negotiations and not actually allowing the parties to negotiate: The Partition Plan called for the Internationalization of Jerusalem for a 10 year period - after which time the residents may have a referendum to decide their political future. I do not need to remind you that the majority of the residents of East Jerusalem are Jewish and not Arab.
The crux of the conflict is that all those who declare justice and right and wrong from the sidelines may be missing the point. The solution to the conflict is not about right and wrong or history or one sided version of justice - it is about coming to an accommodation that all parties can live with and sooner rather than later.
But please, please do not repeat the lies of others.
Whoever the last anonymous poster was, I can help you with your vocabulary challenged ways. There are not only neutral words, but accurate words to describe what you raised in your post.
ReplyDeleteHow sad that in your zeal you have chosen to adopt the words of those who oppose our very existence as your own.
Let's start with occupation. They are correctly called administered territories. No one called them occupied when Jordan and Egypt "occupied" them from 1948-1967. Unfortunately, there has never been a Palestinian Arab commonwealth - so there is no occupation by any definition. What there is was a failure to implement the UN Partition Plan and a series of wars.
Superfluous loyalty oath. Well I guess you are entitled to your opinion on whether or not it is superfluous and its timing is certainly suspect. When I attended school in America I had to pledge allegiance to the flag and to avoid violating my religious precepts against oaths - we said one nation under Canada and over Mexico. A naturalized citizen to the United States must even give up his beloved Potentate and agree to bear arms against all enemies real or imagined.
Settlements - well this is certainly a toss up in terms of word use in context. Gilo, Ramot, and Ariel for example are cities not settlements. Each side defines for itself what a settlement is. There are illegal Settlements by Israeli law, and they should be removed as soon as possible. While it certainly is debatable what the definition of a settlement even is, it is important to note that the meaning of the word is likely defined by how it is said - if I could hear you say it - the tone of your voice suggests that you are wiping a drop of spittle from the corner of your mouth as you say the word with contempt.
It is certainly reasonable for you to believe that "settlement" or construction activities over the 1967 "Green Line" is wrong. I would only suggest for your consideration the following inconvenient facts:
1) Terrorism began, and the then terrorist PLO activities, far predate 1967 and the first settlements over the green line
2) All prior agreements with the Palestinians were negotiated without a construction freeze
3) The recent past freeze was meant to prevent facts on the ground but in fact the freeze was only for Israeli construction. Palestinian construction engineered to create "facts on the ground" escalated dramatically.
I share your dream for peace. A Jewish State of Israel living next to an Arab Palestinian State. Now, it appears that you are well re
versed in the issues - so I can only anticipate your jumping down my throat over the use of the term Jewish State. But I take you back to that certain date in which Jews everywhere were huddled around their radios when the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a resolution adopted on 29 November 1947 by the General Assembly clearly spells out the creation of a "Jewish State" and an "Arab State".
And as long as we are in the mood of completing negotiations and not actually allowing the parties to negotiate: The Partition Plan called for the Internationalization of Jerusalem for a 10 year period - after which time the residents may have a referendum to decide their political future. I do not need to remind you that the majority of the residents of East Jerusalem are Jewish and not Arab.
The crux of the conflict is that all those who declare justice and right and wrong from the sidelines may be missing the point. The solution to the conflict is not about right and wrong or history or one sided version of justice - it is about coming to an accommodation that all parties can live with and sooner rather than later.
But please, please do not repeat the lies of others.
Whoever the last anonymous poster was, I can help you with your vocabulary challenged ways. There are not only neutral words, but accurate words to describe what you raised in your post.
ReplyDeleteHow sad that in your zeal you have chosen to adopt the words of those who oppose our very existence as your own.
Let's start with occupation. They are correctly called administered territories. No one called them occupied when Jordan and Egypt "occupied" them from 1948-1967. Unfortunately, there has never been a Palestinian Arab commonwealth - so there is no occupation by any definition. What there is was a failure to implement the UN Partition Plan and a series of wars.
Superfluous loyalty oath. Well I guess you are entitled to your opinion on whether or not it is superfluous and its timing is certainly suspect. When I attended school in America I had to pledge allegiance to the flag and to avoid violating my religious precepts against oaths - we said one nation under Canada and over Mexico. A naturalized citizen to the United States must even give up his beloved Potentate and agree to bear arms against all enemies real or imagined.
Settlements - well this is certainly a toss up in terms of word use in context. Gilo, Ramot, and Ariel for example are cities not settlements. Each side defines for itself what a settlement is. There are illegal Settlements by Israeli law, and they should be removed as soon as possible. While it certainly is debatable what the definition of a settlement even is, it is important to note that the meaning of the word is likely defined by how it is said - if I could hear you say it - the tone of your voice suggests that you are wiping a drop of spittle from the corner of your mouth as you say the word with contempt.
It is certainly reasonable for you to believe that "settlement" or construction activities over the 1967 "Green Line" is wrong. I would only suggest for your consideration the following inconvenient facts:
1) Terrorism began, and the then terrorist PLO activities, far predate 1967 and the first settlements over the green line
2) All prior agreements with the Palestinians were negotiated without a construction freeze
3) The recent past freeze was meant to prevent facts on the ground but in fact the freeze was only for Israeli construction. Palestinian construction engineered to create "facts on the ground" escalated dramatically.
I share your dream for peace. A Jewish State of Israel living next to an Arab Palestinian State. Now, it appears that you are well re
versed in the issues - so I can only anticipate your jumping down my throat over the use of the term Jewish State. But I take you back to that certain date in which Jews everywhere were huddled around their radios when the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a resolution adopted on 29 November 1947 by the General Assembly clearly spells out the creation of a "Jewish State" and an "Arab State".
And as long as we are in the mood of completing negotiations and not actually allowing the parties to negotiate: The Partition Plan called for the Internationalization of Jerusalem for a 10 year period - after which time the residents may have a referendum to decide their political future. I do not need to remind you that the majority of the residents of East Jerusalem are Jewish and not Arab.
The crux of the conflict is that all those who declare justice and right and wrong from the sidelines may be missing the point. The solution to the conflict is not about right and wrong or history or one sided version of justice - it is about coming to an accommodation that all parties can live with and sooner rather than later.
But please, please do not repeat the lies of others.