Three days ago I wrote a Post about the absurd futility of Financial Resource Development at JFNA and many, many of you turned the discussion to an often angry, often vituperative tirade about respective positions on the Iran Deal. It was not nearly the intelligent discussion we often have on these pages.
Friends, we find ourselves, individually and collectively, in the midst of a damaging firefight, as American Jews are gathered in a circular firing squad ready to fire...and firing...at each other. In my memory, which as you know goes back a long, long way, never have I seen our Jewish mishpacha so divided; so divided against ourselves. Too many of us, way too many, have come to view the Iran Deal "debate" as a zero sum game and we, as a Jewish polity, are being badly, badly damaged.
Setting aside your opinions on Ambassador Michael Oren's book, Ally, today's circumstances and internal bickering remind me of Oren's retelling of a visit to Washington by Prime Minister Netanyahu, where Oren brought the leadership of the Republican Jewish Coalition and the National Jewish Democratic Council together with the PM. As Oren described it, this so-called "leadership," ignored the Prime Minister, and just began screaming at and over each other until Oren intervened at the top of his voice. The bi-partisanship that used to characterize American Jewish political engagement has been sacrificed at the alter of partisanship -- "you are either with us or we're against you." Yes, we can thank the Obama Administration for part of this conversion; but, at the end of the day, we truly have ourselves to blame. Those of us on the far right within the Jewish polity, mainly Republicans but not all, think nothing about characterizing those of us who are progressive, liberal Jews, mainly Democrats but not all, as abandoning Israel, fearing characterization as "Fifth Columnists," and similar. Aipac is being weakened not by the histrionics of John Kerry, but by us...by us, and stands accused by some of you of embracing this dispute with our government as a cynical fund raising ploy while "pressuring federations." Meanwhile the leaders of JFNA are in their usual position -- cowering in a corner for fear someone will demand to know the organization's position when, as always, it has none. And, many consider having no position to be the best place to be and condemn all those on either side.
The partisanship doesn't end there. When one of those Congressmen who has historically been a strong, strong supporter of Israel, vote-after-vote, Sander Levin, indicated early-on that he would vote in favor of the "Iran Deal," friends of mine sent out vile and vituperative e-mails and texts stating, in effect, "we will get him" in the next election. This is what we are doing toward our friends. Favor the Deal? You're "J-Street;" you're "anti-Israel." Oppose the Deal? You're "pro-War." There is no middle ground; there is only the screeching of the Carolyn Glicks on one hand and the screed of the Jeremy Ben-Amis on the other. Pick a side or you're with the enemy; pick a side and you are the enemy. It's all shrill; it's all shameful.
Friends, it's going to be nigh impossible for the Jewish polity to pull back together when the current issue subsides, as it will, into history. Things might be different if anyone at all had sufficient respect at our communal and national institutions to be listened to and if those self-same leaders had the courage to speak out, to demand that we find unifying principles around which we...all of us...could coalesce and go forward. But, of course, all of this is happening at a time that our organizational leadership apparently command no respect whatsoever.
In a rational world each of us and all of us might examine the Iran Deal and understand that there are arguments both pro and con (yes, I wrote that); perhaps stronger on one side than the other, but certainly pro and con. That kind of understanding should lead to a civil discussion among intelligent Jewish men and women but it doesn't and it hasn't -- not in the media and not in so many of your Anonymous Comments on this subject on the pages of this Blog and elsewhere. We need leaders today who will urge us to first reject the extremists on both the left and the right so that we can have serious, reasoned discussion and debate. The time for pointing fingers at each other in our communities must come to an end.
Yes, I long for that day when our leaders were men and women of such strength that they would and could move us toward tolerance and civility in our public (and private) statements. On these pages I have often longed for the leadership of a Shoshana Cardin...but, instead we are afflicted with human weakness, men and women who believe that placing their heads in the sand rather than standing tall is leadership; men and women who have done nothing to merit the respect that would obligate us to listen. So...they...do...nothing. They are waiting for someone else.
Sigh.
AN ADDENDUM:
Some of you seem to misunderstand whose Blog this is and believe that insulting me with misstatements entitles you to space here while you hide behind your Anonymity. Thus, one of you wrote in response to this Post:" Attack people who care about Israel because they didn't jump to condemn the administration and then call for peace and quiet. That's leadership." The so-called "Commentator" who totally misrepresented what has appeared on these pages will no longer have his/her "Comments" appear on these pages.
Then there was the even more moronic Anonymous one who misrepresented so much that he/she will never again have his/her Comments appear on these pages. Just so he/she will know whom I am referencing, you are the one who believes that only your opinion is relevant; that I insulted all "communal servants" (a strange characterization by referencing the Court Jews in our system); and that I am under the influence of Aipac.
Both of you, are entitled to your opinions; you are not entitled to make up your own "facts."
Do not write again because, sadly, you don't want debate or discussion; you demand only acquiescence to your preformed views, to your hate of all those who disagree with you.
Rwexler
Posts
25 comments:
So let's assume that the national JFNA leadership won't step up. What do you think we in the federations should do now?
Hello Pot, this is Kettle. I have news for you...
It was reported today in the Israeli press that there have been death threats against the President of Israel for daring to condemn the hatred that led to the stabbings at a Gay pride parade and the burning alive of a Palestinian baby. This culture of right wing incitement and recrimination knows no greater long term practitioner than the current PM going back to the atmosphere he helped create that led to the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin and was exhibited shamelessly again in the last election campaign. To acheive his ends he and his American supporters think nothing of tearing American Jewry apart. Sorry Sir, both sides are not equally complicit in this madness.
I have said my piece and will not comment again on your blog relating to this matter.
Richard, good try. You probably knew in advance where this effort would lead.
I think a few more men and women who place their heads in the sand is exactly what we need right now. What instead we seem to have is misguided leaders who believe that they alone have the truth and seek to impose it on others. Tolerance and civility mean not rushing to judgment and not putting out statements to condemn the Administration within 24 hours of the agreement coming out. Or do you still believe that LA, Miami, Boston, et al, had time to read the agreement, consult with their Board, their leaders and their communities, and put out their statements in just one day?
I'm not sure I agree. We have some terrific federation professional leaders. Yes, it would be good if we had national presence. But that may not be realistic right now. So, instead, we've reverted to strong local federations. Maybe that will be the direction for the next five years?
But let's be honest. Would Shoshana have countenanced debate and discussion when she had made up her mind?
paul jeser has left a new comment on your post "A PLEA":
Dear Richard,
As one of those 'extremists' I'd like to respond to your well thought out and meaningful plea...
I believe that there is one major difference between what is going on now and almost everything that has happened in the past - this time, Israel's existence is being threatened. This is not a philosophical or theoretical discussion. This is not a discussion about pluralism, equality, social or religious issues. This is a fight for saving the lives of our families. That is why those of us who oppose this agreement are so strong, so emotional, so 'extreme.' We are mad, disappointed, furious at those we feel do not understand this and support an agreement that may lead to the death of many in our family.
And this is where the Federation's role is important. Federations should be looking at the agreement, as many have, and not worry about the politics or who is on which side. Federations in the past have taken positions not popular with some of their donors. Federations have convened the community not only to listen, but to teach. Leaders 'lead', they do not 'follow,'
My plea - people should stop worrying about those who currently oppose this death-wish for the People of Israel and start remembering what happened to the Jewish People only 70 years ago. If we act now, as our community acted then, the result will be the same.
Richard:
I have stayed out of this discussion until now (though I've been watching it carefully, as have, I am sure, many of our friends and colleagues). But I am honestly concerned by this discussion.
Paul Jeser is a man of deep love for our people and for Israel. I am sure of it. And I mean no attack on him (and certainly not on you). But he is incapable of seeing what the majority of American Jews see, that this is a political discussion. Many Israeli security experts say that this deal can be manageable from Israel's perspective. So ... are those federations who hold off, who thoughtfully debate, who don't rush to take positions ... are they wrong? Can we not respect their communities and their processes?
I think Paul Jeser's recent statements make him unsuitable for this discussion.
Can we not find a balance between strong local federations and a national presence?
Israel's existence was threatened before. But surely its relations with the United States, and the support of a united American Jewish community is its greatest strategic asset? Not the fear (well-founded) of a nuclear Iran in ten/fifteen years time.
What happens when -- as most political commentators think likely -- the deal goes through and the administration wins? Do the rounds of recriminations begin? Does Israel become more and more a partisan issue?
Thank you, Richard, for leading this important discussion.
I agree with the poster at 5:29pm. Paul Jeser wants federations to be something they must not become. We need our federations, now more than ever, to be respectful, tolerant places of discussion. Not threats and intimidation.
No, there are still federations who have not "taken sides" on this debate. But pressure is rising from AIPAC for them to get into line.
The last two Commentators have identified the seminal issue I had hoped would be discussed: as our communities discuss, debate and reach consensus on this a political issue on the one hand and an existential issue on the other, where will we all be the day after? Paul Jeser has his viewpoint, and while I give him great credit for his passion and his willingness to associate his name with his opinions, their very repetition and partisanship limit their effectiveness -- I recognize that and hope that Paul would as well.
We have reached the terrible point where it appears impossible for some, for many, to discuss not just the issue of the Iran Agreement rationally but anything rationally. For a sad few, so lost in hate and partisanship that they can't make rational arguments, anyone, any organization that has a different opinion becomes the focus of their hatred. If this doesn't stop, partisanship wins and the Jewish community and all the things that most of you who r4ead this Blog believe in. become the loser.
Richard, your comments are exactly right. So what happens now? You're a leader. You have a voice.
Are there any federations who are discussing this next-day issue?
Not all federations are facing the same pressures. It would be interesting to know who is doing what.
Today's piece in eJewishphilanthropy is relevant and necessary. We can't silence the voices of the liberal left on Israel.
http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/are-these-the-voices-we-want-to-silence/
I don't think that your characterization of JFNA is entirely fair. Do you expect them still to come out with a definitive statement? Any statement they make will alienate large numbers of our community. That's clear. So why focus your energy on this?
I have no expectations of JFNA at all...not for guidance to the federations, certainly not for a Statement one way or the other. I, like you, fully understand the implications for JFNA were its leaders to take any statement. Sometimes, that is the price leadership must pay.
As a longtime Federation professional and an occasional reader, I have to compliment you on your excellent synthesis of the political landscape vis a vis "your with the enemy...you are the enemy."
Balanced disagreement and civil discourse is but a memory of days of yore.
http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/are-these-the-voices-we-want-to-silence/#more-84629
This eJP article is one of the most thoughtful statements on our current controversies I have read to date. I would encourage all to take serious note of its message. It can serve as a sobering yet hopeful starting point for Federations seeking to define their position and their role in the days ahead.
In case you missed it here is the PR sent out by JCRC of Washington.
JCRC OF GREATER WASHINGTON STATEMENT ON IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL
We acknowledge and deeply appreciate President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, and the entire negotiating team for their unremitting diplomatic efforts to reach an accord to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. This Administration, through its unprecedented level of military cooperation with the State of Israel, has demonstrated its support for the security of the Jewish state.
We recognize the diversity of thoughts on this profound and sensitive matter and encourage our community to respect different viewpoints and not to challenge the motivations of people with differing positions. People on all sides of the issue believe their position will best prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and is in the long term interests of the United States, Israel, and the world. Those who are against the deal should not be accused of being warmongers or have their opinions seemingly invalidated by challenging what is their alternative. Those who favor the deal should not have their support for Israel questioned. We recently marked Tisha B’Av, mourning the fall of Jerusalem due to baseless hatred. It is pivotal that we keep this lesson from Jewish history in the forefront of our minds as we proceed through this debate.
We also regret derogatory personal statements, some coming from Israel, criticizing President Obama and his motivations. There is no place for this type of demonizing rhetoric.
The Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) of Greater Washington remains vehemently opposed to a nuclear Iran. Prior to the announcement of the deal, we outlined five criteria that would need to be met by any agreement to ensure Iran could not attain nuclear capabilities. Unfortunately we have reluctantly concluded that this proposed agreement does not comply with these parameters and therefore we must oppose it and call upon Congress to vote against this deal.
This deal has significant flaws. It does not permit essential “anytime, anywhere” short notice inspections of Iranian facilities and does not clearly condition sanctions relief on full Iranian cooperation in satisfying International Atomic Energy Agency concerns over the possible military dimensions of Iran’s program. The deal lifts sanctions as soon as the agreement commences, lifts key restrictions within 8 years, disconnects and stores centrifuges in an easily reversible manner, and requires no dismantlement of centrifuges or any nuclear facility. And after 15 years, when virtually all restrictions on Iran's nuclear program are gone, Iran will be legally able to acquire a nuclear weapons capability with a breakout time measured in days.
The JCRC shares the goal of achieving a negotiated, peaceful solution, and emphatically rejects the notion that objecting to this proposed deal is a call for war.
The JCRC will provide further communications on this situation, continue to update our resource page and share important information on our social media pages.
There is a new wave of McCarthyism in the system today. Too many fear retribution, or accusations of not supporting Israel enough. In this atmosphere, propelled by blogs and threats, is it any surprise that leadership won't speak out?
Post a Comment