"(Lee) Smith's definition was then applied to the Jews in the Obama Administration. In Jewish communal life, we have got our own...and we all know whom they are, don't we?"Thus, I distinguished between my criticism of the Court Jews in Jewish communal life -- about whom I was writing -- and any criticism of those Jews in Obama's realm. Apparently I wasn't clear enough. For I received the following screed...Anonymously, of course.
"This is shameless. You attack Jewish leaders who may support the Administration. Are they traitors, in your mind? You seem to think so. Calling people names isn't going to help our federations. Are you sure you want to go down this path of sinat chinam?"I have been fortunate in the writing of this Blog -- I have presumed and treasured the intelligence of all of you who are regular readers of these Posts. I enjoy the frequent give and take and appreciate the substantive criticism that so many of you have provided (reread the heat, passion and intelligence embodied in the Comments to Speaking Out as examples). In many instances -- well, some, anyway -- you have convinced me that I need to reexamine my own convictions.
Then, I get accused of being on the "path of sinat chaim" by some Anon. who I would direct to an immediate on-line reading comprehension course. You want to criticize me for what I have written about the Court Jews in Jewish communal life, go for it. But do not accuse me of sinat chaim for what I have not written...at least not yet.
The rest of you guys...I love you.
Shabbat shalom,
Rwexler
Posts
28 comments:
Re: 3 comments about Richard's last Post (Court Jews)
Where to begin...
Anon 3:09 - you need to learn to read English. Richard NEVER attacked Jewish leaders who support the Administration.
Anon 3:20 - you, too, need to read more carefully. Richard went out of his way to keep his comments at the level they should be.
Anon 3:47: Yikes! Richard has always said that he represents only himself, no one else.
As an aside - although the LAJJ poll does show that the majority of American Jews support the Iran deal (as of today), there is another set of facts that, actually, should be more important: Not only the Israeli PM, but the OPPOSITION, and 78% of the Jewish Israeli public, and EVEN liberal and well respected Ari Shavit, are against the deal.
This is THEIR lives we're talking about. It is more than absurd for us, in the diaspora, to think we know better than they do. As I said, it is THEIR lives at stake - we can do nothing less than support them. Anything less than that would be a shanda.
Shabbat Shalom!
And yet here are all these Israeli security experts and military experts, Paul, who disagree with you and say that Netanyahu is damaging Israel's security. They may be wrong - but don't they deserve to be listened to respectfully? Surely the shanda is to rush to attack?
I'm not the poster in question - but I found your original comments in the blog to be in poor taste, Richard. (And I support your blog).
Saying that "our own Court Jews ... "kiss up" to those who are in power at our communal, Continental and international institutions, ignore the values they have been taught through their own experiences and believe that only by their acquiescence to the powers in place, will they achieve higher office" is pretty much the definition of sinat chinam.
Your blog is important. Don't give up. But please don't make these kinds of attacks.
Paul Jeser saying that comments were at the level they should be is hilarious.
OK, OK...I now strongly recommend a Shabbat hiatus (that includes you, Paul...and me).
Love you all.
Richard:
It's not hard to make the inference based on your track record. I can't recall any post where you have had anything good to say about our President, and certainly not about anything having to do with Israel.
Sometimes you bring examples of terms or definitions which you then later extrapolate to show how Federation suffers from these very same things. But this is not the first time that you have used an example that casts negative light on Obama, to then pivot to the Federations.
But is it really necessary to have used Obama's Jews as your example of court Jews? [not that I would even agree with your perspective]? There are countless centuries of examples--certainly the term goes very far back.
To those that observe, have an easy and reflective fast.
To this last Anonymous,
Tsk, tsk, tsk...you hide your unsubstantiated allegations accusations behind the cloak of Anonymity I provide you on this Blog. Provide me with that "list" you are apparently keeping and we'll discuss.
I prefer the old Richard, who exhorted us in October 2008 to vote for Obama. This new Richard ignores the vast majority of American Jews and wants the federations to do the same. You may be right about the Iran agreement - I personally have no opinion either way - but ignoring the views of the majority of American Jews is pretty much guaranteed to have a deadly effect on our federations.
Richard:
I, for one, think that you have been appropriate and fair-minded in your comments on the Obama Administration. But this is a different issue. Attacking Jewish leaders, ignoring the views of the vast majority of American Jews ... we can't afford to have this kind of community leadership. We need inclusiveness and dialogue. And you, Paul and others need to show some respect for opinions with which you disagree.
To Anon 8:55
Yoy may be right, however, ignoring the views of a large majority (78%) of Israelis, including the Opposition and well respected liberals such as Ari Shavit, pretty much guarantees a very real deadly effect on the State of Israel.
Thank you. As you know, this is my Blog. I could refuse to print the views of those who may differ with me; I don't. Thereby, I think I show my respect for those with whom I may (or do) disagree...every day. I will try to continue to do so.
I for one am deeply grateful for your blog and for your thoughtfulness. I agree with the critics about the need for dialogue - but it's your blog, and a credit to your openness that you are willing to publish criticism.
Paul Jeser can't count. It's not 78% of Israelis. It's 78% of Israeli Jews. Oh, wait ... he doesn't care about Arab-Israelis ....
Friends,
I have a suggestion -- if you and Paul Jeser want to continue your "dialogue" -- wither get your own Blog or get a room. Let's discontinue the corrections and re-corrections.
Richard - why cut off the debate? It's not like JFNA is giving us any opportunity to discuss these issues. Good for you for keeping this open.
Is that the Jewish communal equivalent of "get a room, you kids"?
Richard is right about many things and IMHO he sometimes is stubbornly wrong. I think this is one of those times. However he offers a lively platform for an open and safe discussion on those institutional issues vital to the survival of the communal system. Thank you Richard and I hope you will stop being shortsided on the danger of politicizing Federations, particularly given the cynical behavior of the PM and his Las Vegas benefactor.
An Anonymous friend (or two) wish to continue to use this Blog to attack Paul Jeser, or, at the least, his views. I have rejected their Comments as irrelevant to the dialogue you have on-going on these pages.
why cut off the debate?
The "debate" shall continue, but it will not be one between Anonymous Commentators and Paul Jeser. Sorry. I think I have made myself clear.
To the last Anonymous Commentators whose Comments I have to my sorrow, rejected: You are both fully capable of Commenting generally, making your points without the necessity of confronting Jeser personally -- try some editing and I will e pleased to print tour Comments. Try it.
Seems to me the politics of this deal should be argued elsewhere in the Tablet, Forward, or perhaps even the local Jewish press. The issue germane to Richard and his readers should be on the role of central agencies in the debate and the wisdom or lack thereof shown to date in various Federations and national organizations.
Many major decisions made by Federations are 'politicized.' I remember the major fight over funding Soviet Refuseniks who wanted to come to America verses going to Israel. When the Fed of which I was the Exec, rightfully, decided to fund Refuseniks wherever they went, the Fed lost three major donors who believed that we should fund them only if they go to Israel. In this case (Iran) the Feds who have taken a stand have done so because they believe it is in the best interest of the People of Israel, not in response to the behavior of the PM or one of the most important philanthropists of our day. I am sure that 78% of Jewish Israelis, the Opposition and many Israeli Liberals appreciate those Fed's willingness to stand up and be counted.
Chevre:
There are some in my community - and perhaps in yours - who want to drag our federations into the middle of this partisan fight.
They claim that because the majority of Israeli Jews oppose this agreement, we should too.
And yet... would they oppose settlements even though the majority of Israeli Jews say that the settlements should be removed? Would they support gay marriage in Israel even though the majority of Israelis support them? Would they support civil marriage in Israel even though the majority of Israelis do?
They would not. Nor should they. They are entitled to their views in a fair open debate. But they use the claim to majority in a way that allows them to paint those of us who want a community debate to be traitors and haters of Israel. We are not. And this path is a dark one for those of us who love Israel but do not follow the path of the Republican Right that some in our community would drag us down.
Richard:
You asked for a list. Here it is.
The following are dates of posts during the past year where you made references to our President, his Administration, or someone in it, which were either snide in tone, poking fun, or in disagreement. I did not locate a single instance where you had anything positive to say:
8/12/14
10/28/14
11/10/14
12/21/14**
3/29/15
4/19/15**
4/28/15
7/3/15
The ** references are particularly noteworthy since they begin with rather gratuitous negative comments about something having to do with our President or his Administration, and then pivot to how this is comparable to something (or someone) negative in the Federation world.
Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Thanks to the diligence of one Anonymous Commentator, I have been "exposed" as one who has not "supported" President Obama on some of these pages -- at least in the opinion of the Anonymous Commentator. (There is an assumption behind this cloak of Anonymity that I somehow have to be supportive of the President on these pages...but that assumption is wholly rebuttable under the circumstances, isn't it?). In all events, these citations indicate a certain boas on the part of the Anonymous one that I don't share. Thus:
~ On 8/12/14, I wrote: "No matter where one stands politically, the idea of Congressional litigation against the President (and/or vice-versa) is so repugnant for what it says about our dysfunctional government."
~ On 10/28/14, I wrote: "Yes, it has happened. The Vice President of the United States will speak at the General Assembly. This is not so surprising inasmuch as V.P. Biden is known to stop his entourage and give a speech at a parked taco truck -- but G-d love him, he will speak at the GA. That's how important we are."
~ On 12/21/14 I didn't cite the President or the Administration at all.....
And so it goes. And so it went.
Sobeit.
Richard:
Not so fast. The point of your post was to express amazement that anyone would even suggest your linking Federation Jewish "leadership" with the "leadership" ills that you see at the White House.
My rebuttal was to show, without regard to whether I supported your view or not, that, in fact, whenever you introduced the President, his Administration or its policy into your blog, that it was never done in a positive light.
Moreover, there were several previous instances where you directly made comparisons between what you viewed as faults with Federation leadership and some aspect of our President's rule.
One of them was on 12/2/14 (not 12/21/14 as I had originally indicated--my bad).
Here is how your post about Kathy Manning began on 12/2/14:
ENDING THE REIGN? OR MORE OF THE SAME
"Yes, her fingerprints remain on everything that has gone wrong at JFNA. I won't go through the litany of failures once again -- you know them as well as I. Like the President she holds in such awe, the promise of home runs for Obama in foreign policy has given way at the White House to the fiction that there have been singles and doubles, at JFNA they can't even been able to get to first base...on anything."
And you did indeed do the same thing on 8/12/14, despite your protestations to the contrary, when referring to JFNA "leadership":
"They would rather attend meetings that are no more than self-congratulatory assemblies of the few, approve budgets that serially have not been followed year-after-year while spending is directed and redirected away from governance-approved budget lines to the whims of the few with no approvals, extend the term of a CEO who is to our Continental institution as John Kerry is to our nation's foreign policy(?) institution -- among other things."
So it really shouldn't surprise any careful reader of this blog who took offense at your "Court Jew" post [I'll take you at your word that you did not mean to signal any such thing]. But the precedent had most surely been set.
Great work. Excellent analysis. I am afraid you have wasted a lot of time but there must be some sense of satisfaction -- at least I hope so. My sense is that you would like to write your own Blog -- if I may be of assistance, let me know
Post a Comment