The JFGLA issued the following call to action:
"Dear _________,Jay Sanderson, President & CEO"
As you know, this summer Congress will be reviewing the Iran nuclear agreement and it is imperative that our elected officials hear our voice. Below is our statement on this matter of national security. Please contact your member of Congress<http://www.jewishla.org/page/m/5714bf7d/2bb01abe/7c4dc4c0/5d7e9b09/281357870/VEsH/> today — the time is now.
The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles joins with Jewish communities across the country in urging Congress to oppose the joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s Nuclear Program, signed on July 14, 2015.
The proposed agreement with Iran is not a partisan issue; it impacts the security of the United States, the stability of the Middle East, the future of the State of Israel and the safety of every Jewish family and community around the world. This Iran deal threatens the mission of our Federation as we exist to assure the continuity of the Jewish people, support a secure State of Israel, care for Jews in need here and abroad and mobilize on issues of concern.
Our Federation wants a diplomatic solution that ends Iran’s nuclear program. We recognize the efforts of the Administration to reach such an agreement. We regret and are gravely concerned that the proposed agreement allows Iran to remain a threshold nuclear state, does not allow for “anytime, anywhere” inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities, and offers immediate rather than gradual sanctions relief without requiring Iran to address the military dimensions of its nuclear program.
The proposed agreement releases Iran from arms embargos in five years and ballistic missile sanctions in eight years. Iran’s past behavior gives us reason to be concerned that these deadly weapons will be shared with terrorists including Hamas and Hezbollah and will hasten the creation of an Iranian hegemony in the Middle East.
As Americans and Jews who yearn for peace and are invested in the future of our children and grandchildren, we must voice our concerns about an agreement that will destabilize a fragile region. We encourage members of our community to raise their voices in opposition to this agreement by contacting their elected representatives to urge them to oppose this deal.
Congress has until September 18th to review the agreement. That means that by acting promptly, you can start the Jewish New Year knowing you made your voice heard when it counted.
Thank you,
Leslie E. Bider
Chairman of the Board
To Leslie and Jay and the leadership of the Jewish Federationof Greater Los Angeles, kal ha'kavod.
And...add another kal ha'kavod to the leaders of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation and its JCRC for their clear expression in the following Statement on the Iran "deal":
"
The Greater Miami Jewish Federation and its Jewish Community Relations Council are deeply disappointed with the details of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s Nuclear Program, signed on July 14, 2015. Regretfully, we have no choice but to oppose it and we urge others to join us.
"Painful lessons of history have taught the Jewish people that reliance upon the good will of others for our well-being is not a plan. This agreement, the success of which is dependent on willing Iranian cooperation, puts Israel and others in harm’s way against a sworn and evil enemy in the world’s most volatile region. Therefore, the details truly matter.
While we sincerely respect the intent and effort of the United States Administration to prevent Iran, through negotiation, from obtaining a nuclear weapon, this agreement falls short in several key areas that we believe are critical to the safety and security of all people around the globe. There is simply too much at stake, not only for Israel, but also for the United States and indeed the entire world, to remain silent on any concerns.
We recognize that we are not nuclear experts, but we must heed the large, diverse and growing number of independent and nonpartisan experts and organizations who have raised serious concerns since the release of the text of the agreement.
In particular, critical issues have been raised relating to inspections and verification, weaponization activity, infrastructure dismantlement of nuclear facilities, and the duration of some of the most sensitive components in the agreement.
These issues, and the resulting vulnerabilities, are sufficient reasons to let our elected officials know that a nuclear Iran is of concern, and compromise on any of these areas is not an option. Therefore, it is critical that we urge their disapproval of this agreement.
Given the escalating instability in the Middle East and Iran’s long-standing commitment to encourage and fund violent terrorist groups sworn to the destruction of Israel and every democratic value we share as Americans, it is impossible to separate this deal from the context of life in this region or from Iran’s constant hateful rhetoric toward the United States.
Trust must be earned over time. With very little evidence of long-term compliance, the agreement allows for the release of up to $150 billion in funds to Iran, much of which will be coming in the earliest stages of implementation. This large influx of cash will serve to strengthen that country’s role in destabilizing the region. It will enable Iran to continue its proven record of supporting terrorism at anyone’s doorstep – a profound concern for all people of good will worldwide. Consequently, this deal impacts all of us – our children, our grandchildren, and generations yet to come.
We acknowledge that there are diverse views within our community, but ultimately this issue must remain above politics and reflect our collective determination to ensure moral clarity and absolute resolve in dealing with one of the world’s most dangerous regimes.
The full agreement may be found at www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-text.html."
Rwexler
Posts
37 comments:
Shmirat haloshon, controlled and careful speech. In 60 days your battle will be won or lost but the major casualty either way will be Jewish mutual respect and cooperation across political and ideological lines. Be careful chaverim.
Where is the national call to action on this? Richard is 100% correct.
Richard:
[And this is based on a total hypothetical--I know nothing about the politics of this Federation]
I would assume, therefore, that you would also applaud the San Francisco [or another liberal-minded community] if it came out in support, cautious or otherwise, on behalf of this agreement.
After all, there are certainly those in the organized Jewish community, as well as loads of Israeli intelligence and security machers, who are backing this agreement.
Richard,
You don't think that our federations should be thoughtful, bipartisan convenors for community discussion? Or you'd rather we get dragged in to fight the Administration and be just another partisan lobby?
How can any Jew, or Jewish organization support this deal ESPECIALLY since both the Israeli Prime Minister AND the opposition oppose it. Does not make any sense.
American Jews, from their fairly secure seats in the Diaspora, who do not pay Israeli taxes, who do not serve in the IDF (or worse, send their kids to serve in the IDF) have a MORAL obligation to support the decisions of the Democratically elected Government of Israel. Diaspora Jews (no matter how much they may give to Israeli institutions or organizations), have not earned the right to try to influence decision making by the Israeli government - only Israeli citizens have earned that right.
Going back to this specific case, we haven't often seen the sitting coalition and the opposition in agreement - so any American Jew or American Jewish Organization (i.e., J Street, NJDC, etc) that supports this deal is doing nothing but strengthening Israel's enemies.
Y'shar Koach to the Federations who have come out in opposition. Shame on those who haven't. In the days of the national UJA and CJF, the Federation world would be mobilizing and working hand-in-hand with AIPAC in defeating this agreement.
Can you post a link to the Chicago statement? I can't seem to find it on the Chicago website. Thanks.
Shame on those who would drag their federations into a partisan battle without even bothering to consult with their community. Shame on those who would have us be just another lobby. That's not what we are - or at least, not what we should be.
Friends,
The small sample represented by these Comments -- passionate, even angry -- reflects the difficulty federations and JFNA have in formulating communal/ Continental positions on something as complex as is this "Iran deal." Yet, what right have we to avoid position statements on matters as precious and important as this to the United States and Israel?
“A sense of crisis has emerged in many Jewish communities regarding their relationships with Israel, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to discuss Israel because of the bitter political disputes these discussions spark,” writes Rosner, a journalist and senior fellow at the JPPI.
“This difficulty may lead to the exclusion of Israel from Diaspora community agendas, and is an obstacle to communicating Israel’s actions and policies to the Jewish public within a sympathetic communal framework.”
http://www.timesofisrael.com/world-jewry-becoming-ever-more-uncomfortable-with-israel-major-study-finds/
Richard:
Thank you for your comment, but you never responded to the question posed about a more liberal Federation.
It may seem to you like a matter of conscience, conviction and morals to oppose this agreement, but others in the Jewish community would very strongly use the same adjectives to support it.
Is that you wish that Federations would come out more strongly on this issue, or is this your wish only if that position is in accord with your own?
"As unanimous as the politicians are in backing the prime minister, the generals and spymasters are nearly as unanimous in questioning him." Does Paul Jeser think that the Israeli intelligence and security leaders are betraying Israel too?
http://forward.com/opinion/312461/cracks-widen-as-israel-security-insiders-break-with-politicians-on-iran-dea/
We've been down this road before. Twice at least. And each time it ended badly. Let's try to protect our communities and our federations with some humility and inclusiveness, rather than rushing to accuse the silent majority of being treacherous to Israel. It would be nice to see an AIPAC that is more thoughtful but that's not our concern. Our concern is for a calm, inclusive Jewish federation system. Rushing to condemn those who didn't leap to attack the agreement won't help us.
To my Anonymous friend at 9:33: I won't pander on these pages and I would like to be intellectually honest at all times, if possible. Of course I wish federations and JFNA leaders would agree with me in the positions they take on as important an issue as the Iran Deal; who wouldn't? At one and the same time, I believe in a process that struggles to come to a consensus and then annouces the result publicly. Hiding in silence is, to me, an institutional cowardice that will further distance the community/communities from the trust in our federations (I think that trust in JFNA has already been lost) and that is unacceptable.
Rwexler
(I am the poster at 11:55. I'll let the 9:33 poster do his/her own sacred work)
Richard:
Don't you think it's a contradiction to say that you support a process that struggles to come to a consensus when in the beginning of this post you praise federations that clearly had no struggle and no intent to listen to voices of dissent or question? We don't need a "national call to action" here. We need humility and dialogue. Rushing to support a flawed strategy will surely further distance communities from the trust in our federations more.
This discussion, and the one on Dan Brown's page, shows exactly why we need(ed) a CJF. While the prime responsibility of the national UJA was to assist the Feds in fundraising, the CJF brought the Fed leadership (lay and pro) together to discuss these important issues, come to a consensus, and then act.
Right now, there is NO national Federation voice and the Jewish People, the Jewish Community, the People of Israel and the State of Israel are paying the heavy price.
Paul Jeser confuses unity with uniformity. I, too, am proud to see federations thoughtfully engaging their communities on this issue and not rushing to blindly support his single interpretation of truth. The price we pay for coercion and scoundrel-like admonition of treason is the reason we're better off today.
Within two to three months there will be Jews who will change synagogues, end memberships in organizations, quit boards, maybe join others, stop speaking to friends and argue loudly with family members. The battles will continue into the 2016 elections (in Israel perhaps as well). Federations need to think hard whether they will be supporting actors or walk-ons in this melodrama or whether they will play a lead role as a sanctuary ( ir miklat) of tzedakah and unity, I think we should not make the mistakes of the zealots, one to which even the great R. Akiva sucumbed, but choose the latter path of unity and communal peace.
I'm the 9:33 anon:
Thank you Richard, for clarifying.
I was wondering since the title of your post seemed to indicate "speaking out" was preferable than trying to arrive at a consensus.
But now you are at least being honest and saying that this isn't exactly what you had in mind. Or at least to the extent that others may wish to speak out with different voices and that, frankly, for those voices at any rate, you prefer they remain silent.
That, by the way, is a sure fire strategy to lose the "next generation" of American Jews that concerns you (and me) so deeply.
Paul Jeser's comments against a Jewish communal leader in the Jewish Journal - a well-respected rabbinic figure, who has every right to his opinion supporting the treaty - calls into question his (Jeser's) commitment to community. You don't represent us. And the "heavy price" is the one we pay when rabbis are attacked for speaking their minds.
Why do you think that federations that have kept silent are ‘risk averse’ and frightened to lose donors? Maybe they’re just smart enough to know that AIPAC and its blabbermouths are all too quick to drag federations into losing strategies and they want to protect their communities?
The 'so-called' communal leader whose commitment to Israel I question is Rabbi John Rosove, co-Chair of J Street's Rabbinical Council. That should say enough about his commitment to Israel, but I would add that he, in one of his blogs, compared Israel to an addicted drunk!
http://www.jewishjournal.com/rabbijohnrosovesblog/item/speak_tenderly_to_jerusalem).
Rabbi Rosove, who constantly criticizes Israel, and hardly, if ever, writes anything positive about Israel, is certainly not respected in the real pro-Israel community - not by a long shot.
I support Rabbis and all Jews speaking their minds, however, I do not support extreme and inappropriate public criticism of Israel, especially when its future may be in doubt. None of us should.
Paul Jeser is entitled to his opinion. Let's just be glad that the vitriol stays with him and doesn't represent our federations.
So "by a wide margin, American Jews support the recently concluded agreement with Iran to restrict its nuclear program, and a clear majority of Jews wants Congress to approve the deal. In fact, as compared with Americans generally, Jews are more supportive of the “Iran deal.”
Before you attack the poll, the pollsters, the motives of the pollsters and the self-hating Jews who are the majority ... maybe it's time to tone down the rhetoric about what you're demanding federations do? And maybe it's time to get our federations out of the Republican party and let us do our job, building community as a wide, inclusive tent for all?
http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/new_poll_u.s._jews_support_iran_deal_despite_misgivings
I was saddened to see the negative comments about AIPAC by some who wish to remain anonymous. They make it sound as it is 'us' verses 'them.' AIPAC is US! It's leadership and donors come from all segments of our community. I believe that there probably is not one Federation that does not have donors and/or leaders involved in AIPAC. When AIPAC comes to a decision, such as opposing the Iran agreement, it does so with wide support. Let's stop this criticism of one of the more important organizations of our time.
Not to 'hog' the conversation but I must say that I am very saddened by the negative comments about AIPAC made by some who remain anonymous. They set it up as 'them (AIPAC) vs us. AIPAC's donor base and leadership come from every part of our community: secular to Orthodox, left to right. AIPAC is us, not them! I doubt that there is a Federation which has not had leadership and donors involved in AIPAC. When AIPAC comes up with a consensus (as they have against the Iran agreement) you know that it has the strong support of its leadership and donors. AIPAC doesn't have to 'drag' anyone into losing strategies - our community, for the most part, knows what it has to do, and does it. In this specific case, when Israel's PM AND the opposition agree, it only makes sense for American Jewry to do everything in its power to support their position. Federations who speak out against the agreement and support the Israeli government understand this.
Richard;
I love Israel. And like most American Jews and many of its security and military experts, I think this agreement is fine. It's not great. But it's better than not having an agreement. Your demand to have our federations take one side in this position has serious consequences for your ability to claim that you want a real dialogue and community consensus.
Thanks for asking. Let me posit this: how does one have a dialogue and reach community consensus if there is no public debate leading to a position -- for OR against the Iran deal as an example. What do you suggest as an alternative to "real dialogue?"
Rwexler
For those who support the deal with Iran, I would only ask this question, "If Iran were located where Canada or Mexico is, would you still support the deal?"
Joel Alperson
For those who do not support the deal--what do you propose that will improve the dangerous nuclear status quo?
Joel Alperson would have us reject the treaty based on a single hypothetical. MetroWest issued a statement this week that is at first read cautious and without rush to judgement except it contained an action point that they are updating their contingency plans in the event Israel takes military action against Iran. Luckily no one takes this silly statement seriously so we are not likely to be faced with a headline that finds its way to Corey Booker's office reading "NJ Jews prepare for war". All this indicates how ill suited we are at Federations to jump into this complex and divisive debate and we should stick to our historic philanthropic activities and leave the political advocacy organizations, left and right, to fight this one out.
Shouldn't every federation be updating its contingency plans right now? G-d help us if we're not thinking these things through. Good for them for being cautious.
Boy, does the national community need a UJA / CJF / NJCRAC now....
The national community needs tolerance and respect. Not McCarthyism.
The national community needs to let AIPAC do its important work. But the federations have a wider agenda, one no less important (some of us would say even more important). And respect for different views is part of that agenda.
Joel is a Republican activist who has written that tikkun olam and tzedek chevrati (social justice) are marginal Jewish values whereas my positions are quite the opposite,. ANON 1:15 and Paul and I are obviously on different political planets on Iran and Israeli politics.
However, I am honored and proud when I enter a Federation meeting to work constructively with any of them and argue respectfully with them on overseas projects and building community at home. However, on issues of major public policy, and issues internal to some aspects of Israeli policy, where a community consensus is totally absent and doubtfully achievable, we are best then finding our own rooms in different organizations.
Having commented in now article length 4X in this conversation I will sign off by wishing Richard, Joel, Paul and all a good shabbes and an easy fast.
anon 1 and Anon 23/12:57 and anon 24/10:20.
I wasn't planning on making a second post but given that the last individual to post has completely invented a description of me and my articles, I have to respond.
First, I am not a Republican activist. That claim is a fabrication. You have no evidence to the contrary because there is none.
Second, I've never stated in my articles that tikkun olam is a marginal Jewish value. Rather, I've argued that over the last 20 years, give or take, the phrase is most often used when advocating for left-leaning agendas and, as a result, has been over-emphasized in the Jewish world.
Finally, don't you think there's anything wrong with making (in this case, incorrect) claims about someone on this blog while choosing to remain anonymous?
Joel
We can dissect your articles Joel but that was my takeaway and readers can google and judge for themselves. While I take back the word "activist" or at least do not wish to argue definitions, your 5K to the Romney campaign and four figure donations to the McCain, and Bush Cheney campaigns say something. So I agree you are not Max Fischer (but then sadly none of us are). I offer my sincere apologies for a linguistic overeach. And that is why partisan politics should be left at the Federation door.
Post a Comment