This article is posted with permission of the writer, an important leader in the PR war for Israel, democracy, freedom, America, and the Judeo-Christian values that are the foundation of Western civilization. There are two essential lessons to be learned from her article. First, always respond to the attacks of those AND THEIR ENABLERS who want to exterminate Israel, America and the West, Jews and Christians, no matter how insignificant others say the threat is. When someone says they want to wipe you off the face of the Earth ... believe them. Remember the origins of the Holocaust. Secondly, no one organization, institution, or individual alone is sufficient to win a skirmish, battle, or the PR war. While never easy, the organizations and individuals in the Philadelphia community have show that it is possible to collaborate ... to get the vectors lined up in the same direction .. in a massive, loud response to those who promote evil, hatred, and lies. This response is exactly the action on which the PR Counter Offensive Strategy is predicated.Ron DolinskyHow Many Are Thy Tents, O Jacob?¨By
Lori Lowenthal MarcusGiven the ideological bedlam often seen even within individual Jewish organizations, just imagine trying to get an entire community of Jewish organizations together to sign a several-paragraphs-long statement reflecting a single position -- and to do that within a matter of weeks.
That miracle almost happened recently, when the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia gathered practically every Jewish organization in the Philadelphia community to send a message of strong disapproval to an anti-Israel coalition known as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (
BDS) movement, which is holding a three-day conference at the University of Pennsylvania on February 3-5. But the "almost" is necessary because one significant local group refused to join in. Understanding who, and why, reveals important lessons that must be taken to heart.
Penn
BDS was thrown together by a single undergraduate student with the goal of luring the
BDS conference to the University of Pennsylvania campus.
BDS is a global, largely unsuccessful but widely publicized menace with the ultimate goal of demonizing, demoralizing, and destroying the state of Israel.
BDS proponents claim that their methods constitute a tool to achieve justice for those oppressed by Israel; they take their cue from the effort to overthrow the racist South African government during the 1980s. But
BDS is, in fact, merely a thin mask over enmity against any effective haven for the Jewish people.
Last month, when the Penn Hillel leadership learned that the
BDS conference was to take place on their campus, the Philadelphia Jewish leadership was alerted, as was the Israeli Consulate. A broad spectrum of at least nominally pro-Israel local organizations was quickly
called together with the goal of creating a strong communal response.
Mainstream local groups such as the Jewish Federation, the Anti-Defamation League, and Scholars for Peace in the Middle East -- as well as those on the far left of the spectrum, such as the New Israel Fund and J Street, and those on the right end, such as Z STREET and the Zionist Organization of America -- were included in this call to action. Several decisions were reached: there would be a communal statement of solidarity condemning the
BDS conference; there would be an event showcasing communal support for Israel just prior to the conference; and, to counter the campaign of boycotting Israeli goods, there would be a concerted effort to encourage people to purchase Israeli products.
The crafting of the communal statement took two rounds of drafts and delicate negotiations with each organization involved. It fell to David Cohen, the senior associate for Israel and Middle East Affairs at the Philadelphia Federation, to
ferret out each group's rock-bottom red lines, then artfully craft changes to avoid crossing any of those lines, and finally to come up with a document that avoided all the pitfalls but still clearly condemned the strategy of
BDS generally, and the holding of the
BDS conference at Penn specifically.
I was present at and participated in the meetings as the Z STREET representative. In response to the first draft, I told Cohen that Z STREET objected to an emphasis on the ubiquitous "two state" mantra. We think the one clear goal of the peace process should be peace for Israel. Z STREET believes that the pro-Israel community
disserves that goal by adding an additional goal which may not -- and in our view, clearly does not -- ensure that such peace will be attained. While disappointed to see the "two states" language as part of the final version of the
community statement, we decided that a show of community-wide solidarity is important. More than two dozen other organizations felt the same, with each no doubt making its own ideological compromises so that the Jewish community could say something with one voice.
But there was a conspicuous absence from the Philadelphia Community Statement's list of signatures. Although its representative was present at the community-wide meeting and was included in the community phone calls, J Street refused to be a part of the community and would not sign the joint statement of condemnation. Instead, J Street Philly issued a
separate statement -- one very different from the community's in title, in tone, and in apportionment of blame. As the local representative
stated clearly, J Street wanted to "maintain the integrity of our values" and their "unique position on this issue."
Whereas the Philadelphia Community Statement is officially one of solidarity with Israel and of condemnation of the
BDS Conference, J Street's is neither.
The Philadelphia Community Statement unequivocally condemns boycotting Israel,
disinvesting from its companies, or sanctioning it. J Street's statement criticizes the
BDS tactics but explicitly recognizes, validates, and agrees with the underlying sentiments expressed by those advocating
BDS, which include "the ongoing occupation and diplomatic stagnation" and the "legitimate and warranted" and shared "concern about the present and future of the Palestinian people."
Of particular concern to J Street was a broad condemnation of
BDS -- one that lacked "nuance," such as making exceptions for boycotting goods made in Judea and Samaria. Also, J Street refused to criticize Penn, even subtly, for allowing the conference to be held there. J Street was unwilling to include its voice in stating that "the outrageous claims of
BDS campaigns do not stand up to the rigors of academic inquiry and as such, go against the sophisticated civil discourse that is a core element of the University of Pennsylvania."
Worse, J Street seems to have issued even its own tepid statement with not even enough enthusiasm as to post it; the J Street statement does not appear on the J Street Philadelphia
website or on J Street's
Facebook page. J Street also refused to be one of the more than thirty co-sponsors of the "
We Are One With Israel" event with Alan
Dershowitz.
Much has been
written about why and
whether J Street is allowed in the "big tent" of Jewish communal organizations. The argument in favor, of course, is the desire to expand the marketplace of ideas, to be as inclusive as possible, and simply to give a respectful hearing even to those with whom one disagrees. But we now know what happened when J Street was unquestioningly welcomed into the Philadelphia community tent. When given the first opportunity to stand as one with the community and speak with one voice from one tent, J Street snuck out the back and pitched its own tent instead.
Lori
Lowenthal Marcus is president of Z STREET and chair of the National Conference on Jewish Affairs executive committee.
Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/how_many_are_thy_tents_o_jacob.html at February 03, 2012 - 06:10:36 AM CST
Labels: American Thinker, BDS, JStreet, LoriLowenthal-Marcus, Penn, Phiadelphia
