French
German
Hebrew
Noruegan
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Polish
Portuguese
Attention: Rabbi Steve Gutow SGutow@thejcpa.org
Ethan Felson efelson@thejcpa.org
and… The 14 National JCPA Member Agencies, incl. American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, American ORT, Anti-Defamation League, B’nai B’rith, Hadassah, Jewish Labor Committee, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America,National Council of Jewish Women, Union for Reform Judaism, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism and Women’s League for Conservative Judaism
CC: Lori Lowenthal Marcus of National Conference on Jewish Affairs (NCJA) lorilowenthalmarcus@gmail.com
On May 4th, 2012, I distributed a letter entitled Re: “WARNING! JCPA and Its Major Jewish Affiliate Organizations Are About Betray Their Duty to Protect Jewish Students From Campus Antisemitism”. It concerned the debate and vote JCPA was planning to have at its Detroit annual plenary conference between May 5-8th, 2012 on the issue of using federal law to counter anti-Semitism on American college campuses and the need JCPA telegraphed that such use must be made with great caution. NCJA had already written a critique on the matter.
That debate and discussion has now taken place and it is reported on in the Detroit Free Press at:
The discussion of the resolutions passed at the JCPA plenary to help protect Jewish students sound good in theory, but they gloss over some hard fact realities as regards many Jewish students and do not specifically address the concerns I raised in my letter and similar and other concerns raised by the newly formed organization, NJCA.
The following 10 point discussion refers to specific statements in the summary report in the Detroit Free Press and concludes with a number of suggestions to make pro-Israel advocacy more effective:
1. there have been a number of cases where Jewish students or Israeli officials visiting campus have been harassed or singled out. Such disputes have at times spilled over into anti-Semitism,
This statement minimizes the problem.
Over the years there have been many reports out of Canada and the U.S. that have unequivocally stated that various anti-Israel events sponsored by Muslim student organizations have descended into not only impassioned rhetoric that spread pro-Palestinian revisionist history lies, but demonized Israel a Jew hate fest. Saying that such anti-Israel rhetoric has at times spilled over into antisemitism, further specifically minimizes the problem.
Those reports included many 1st hand accounts by both Jewish students, Hillel reps. and Jewish leadership observers. Further there have been many reports of how Muslim students have ganged up in campus common areas on Hillel and other Jewish students who had a table with pro-Israel materials or who tried to engage the gang leaders in civil discussion or debate.
All these reports spoke to Jewish students being made to feel intimidated, fearful and insecure.
It is not surprising that not all Jewish students feel that way as the survey NJCA cited and JCPA alludes to. There are a number of reasons for this, whether it is that anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism are not a serious problem on all campuses or that some, if not many Jewish student’s sense of Jewish identity, knowledge and appreciation for things Jewish and feeling towards Israel is not significant.
Whether those who conducted the survey limited their survey to campuses where anti-Israel sentiment runs high, gaged the level of Jewish identity, appreciation for things Jewish and their feelings towards Israel from the sample of Jewish views taken and other factors the might call into question the validity of their findings that 40% of Jewish students have no problems, is not at all clear. I suspect the survey did not cover the points cited.
Still there are a significant number of Jewish students who are impacted by the problem of pervasive and aggressive anti-Israel sentiment on some, if not many campuses and that impact results in those Jewish students’ own freedom of speech being compromised.
By citing the problem in such minimalist fashion, it appears JCPA has failed to address the problem as it really exists.
2. The detailed resolution, encourages Jewish groups to work with university administrations, students and others to make sure there isn’t a hostile climate for Jewish students. But it also said free speech should be honored on campuses.
Just how do you propose that be done? It’s not like Jewish organizations have not before tried to work with university administrations. Those administrations themselves are fearful of taking a strong stand against anti-Israel activism, except in the more extreme cases, such as what occurred at UC Irvine regarding the co-ordinated MSU effort to disrupt M. Oren’s address.
As for honoring freedom of speech, a number of important pro-Israel pundits have stated that the best defence to combat, overcome and discredit aggressive anti-Israel demonizing speech, especially that which crosses over into antisemitism and those who spread such toxic speech, is for students, Jewish and non-Jewish students who are impacted, to fully exercise their own freedom of speech.
Again, that sounds good in theory. In practice, it only rarely happens because of the intimidation, fear and insecurities engendered by the Muslim students and their Israel hating leftwing lackies.
3. JCPA’s Resolution cautioned against using legal action as a knee-jerk response
Why state the obvious as if to say that the obvious is lost on Jewish groups who have or will seek redress through Title VI legal action?
4. In recent years, some Jewish groups have resorted to lawsuits or threats of lawsuits in response to anti-Israel activity. But the JCPA said such actions are too aggressive at times and can cause a backlash.
In saying this, is JCPA stating an opinion as regards whether the action was productive or not? Alternatively, is it stating a fact that is borne out by objective evidence?
As to concerned reference to a backlash, what exactly does JCPA and its affiliate members fear in that regard?
Has the feared backlash actually happened as a result of efforts to combat anti-Israel demonization and delegitimization and antisemitism on campuses?
If so, what specifically was the nature of that backlash and how and to what extent did that backlash undermine or set back Jewish leadership’s efforts to fight against anti-Israel-antisemitic agit-prop on campuses?
5. Wendy Wagenheim, ex-president of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Metro Detroit, said: “The safety of Jewish students on campus is extremely important to us, as well as… a robust and legitimate debate on campus.”
Ms. Wagenheim’s emphatic statement, seems belied by less than successful past results in that regard.
The problem JCPA was to address, was that the only robust debate on campus is being advanced by Muslim student associations and their left wing useful idiots. One cannot speak to a debate, because the anti-Israel factions have practically monopolized the discussion with their propaganda attacks on Israel. Jewish students and Jewish organizations that are supposed to be defending Jewish students, are failing to mount an effective counter offensive in that regard.
The fact that Ms. Wagenheim expresses the concerns of Jewish leadership that the safety of Jewish students on campus is paramount is no doubt true, but that truth is undermined by the factual truth that Jewish leadership is seemingly at a loss on just how to ensure that the safety of Jewish students is achieved.
6. “We feel very strongly that people should not be parachuting in… looking for problems,” said David Luchins, a member of the Orthodox Union and chairman of the political science department at Touro College in New York City. “It’s very counterproductive.”
Just what basis does Luchins have to say people are parachuting in and looking for problems? Which people is he talking about? Does Luchins speak from fact and reality or his own general views on how one can and should be productive or risk being counterproductive. Is there any hard evidence to support Luchin’s views?
Luchin’s words sound a lot more like pontificating generalities and his own opinions, than addressing a real issue.
7. the JCPA resolution says Jewish groups should “develop well-coordinated strategies for protecting Jewish students from hostile campus environments, and to support initiatives that promote Israel and the well-being of Jewish students.”
If this is the sum total gist of the JCPA Detroit plenary’s thinking? The Resolution states the obvious and that is not saying much, if anything at all.
Surely this is not a revelation that JCPA and mainstream Jewish leadership have just figured out.
There has been talk for years amongst main stream Jewish organizations about the need to develop well-coordinated strategies to protect Jewish students from hostile campus environments.
That this Resolution makes this statement as if it is some novel earth shattering insight on how mainstream Jewish organizations must proceed hereafter, amounts to a tacit admission that its efforts to date have not been nearly as successful as hoped.
One need only consider the hard evidence that in spite of all the efforts mainstream Jewish leadership has thus far employed, the harmful magnitude of anti-Israel sentiments on campus, much of which is tinged with antisemitic sentiments or worse, has significantly grown and become far more pervasive on an increasing number of campuses.
This statement further speaks to mainstream Jewish leadership staying the course of using pro-Israel advocacy/activism only to promote positive images of Jews and Israel. That course has been tried without nearly the success desired.
8. Fear of a backlash – reveals obvious concerns had by JCPA and mainstream major Jewish leadership
There are two obvious concerns, one alluded to and one unspoken:
a. If pro-Israel advocacy/activism is more aggressive, JCPA and mainstream Jewish leadership fears that anti-Israel advocates will re-double their aggressiveness. The result will likely be that anti-Israel advocacy and antisemitism already felt by many such advocates, will become even more hostile, possibly violent or otherwise even more harmful towards Jewish students;
b. Not typically spoken of is that university administrations and others of presumed good will towards Jews and Israel, may adversely react to more aggressive pro-Israel advocacy/activism. They might themselves become anti-Israel to an extent or some who are not anti-semitic, at least not overtly, might become so. If that fear came to pass, not only Jewish students, but the Jewish community at large would likely suffer even more.
As to this point b., such fear says a lot about what JCPA and mainstream major Jewish leadership must think and feel about university administrators and others of presumed good will. It also says a lot about the insecurity JCPA and mainstream Jewish leadership feelsas revealed by the concerns they raise over potential consequences if they were to take more aggressive positions in their advocacy/activism. Just the possibility that those fears might be realized, seems a sufficient deterrent to trying to take a more aggressive approach to pro-Israel advocacy that also seeks to undermine and discredit anti-Israel agit-props.
If that fear has already been realized, it would be even greater cause for insecurity. It is that insecurity that seems to underlie JCPA’s resolution that Jewish organizations must be very cautious in using Title VI legal actions.
JCPA and its affiliate organizations thus have committed to using only a considered deliberately cautious approach to ensure it won’t have to face and deal with the backlash it fears, whether it is real or imagined.
The question however, if asked, appears not to have been answered. Should JCPA and other major mainstream Jewish leadership not be steeling their spines and using their combined intelligence and ingenuity to figure out how to become more effective advocates/activists both to defend and protect Jewish students and to undermine and discredit anti-Israel agit-props, while ensuring that feared backlash does not happen?
9. What about JCPA and other mainstream Jewish organizations employing advocacy strategies and tactics designed to undermine and wholly discredit anti-Israel advocates and their malicious and mendacious propaganda?
Mainstream Jewish leadership as noted, has deliberately avoided employing strategies and tactics to confront, fight, and defeat anti-Israel advocates/activists and their noxious, toxic and mendacious anti-Israel propaganda.
Whereas anti-Israel advocacy is often marked by outraged passions and a lack of civility, tolerance, political correctness and sometimes even carries a veiled threat of violence towards those they disagree with, mainstream Jewish leadership advocacy/activism has assiduously limited their advocacy to being intellectually dispassionate and drowning in civility, tolerance and political correctness.
Such civil, polite, tolerant and politically correct advocacy/activist strategies and tactics are not working, has hereinbefore noted. Mainstream Jewish organizations have to know that, yet they are sticking with their stay the course strategy.
10. Some suggestions on new and effective strategies and tactics JCPA and Jewish organizations should at least fairly consider employing in their pro-Israel-Jewish advocacy/activism, which efforts include strategies and tactics to undermine and discredit anti-Israel agit prop activists
I have often counseled that mainstream Jewish leadership must not steadfastly dismiss the idea of going on the attack against anti-Israel advocates/activism and by doing so, it becomes as fully engaged in the war of words and ideas to capture hearts and minds as the anti-Israel advocates are.
Is JCPA and other mainstream leading Jewish organizations loathe to do so because of this so called feared backlash, whatever that means and which has yet to be explained, specified and identified based on hard objective evidence?
It appears so.
Some such strategies and tactics I have previously written on, include:
a. While remaining at all times civil and non-violent, pro-Israel-Jewish advocacy against anti-Israel advocates/activists must become passionate, aggressive, concerted, sustained, uncompromising, eschew all forms of political correctness and expressions of tolerance towards them with the clear purpose of defeating them in this war of words and ideas and persuading far greater numbers of Jews and non-Jews to their pro-Israel-Jewish point of view.
b. Directing efforts towards Jewish students with the avowed intent of instilling and reinforcing Jewish identity, knowledge about Jewish-Israel history and pride in that knowledge, appreciation of things Jewish, reinforcing the Jewish bond with Israel and helping Jewish students to find the courage to stand firm and fully exercise their own right of freedom of speech to effectively speak out against the anti-Israel advocates/activists that are assailing them on campus;
c. Employing classic propaganda techniques, but with a fundamental difference – unlike the big lie that traditional propaganda employs, pro-Israel-Jewish advocacy would be based on big truths unequivocally, unapologetically and uncompromisingly told that are big enough to bury the lies of the anti-Israel advocates. Pithy slogans, photos, buzz words, easily grasped brief explanations and statements etc., all can be truthfully expressed;
d. Devising a game plan to help university administrators to get over their own fears that seriously impair their ability to themselves stand firm against anti-Israel advocacy and activism. The failure of university administrators to counter, curb or stop overly aggressive anti-Israel advocates/activists harms Jewish students by making them feel fearful, intimidated and insecure to the point that their own ability to fully exercise their right of freedom of speech is sorely compromised and which further seriously compromises what should be for them a very positive and rewarding university experience.
e. Doing all the foregoing in a way that limits, if not erases the possibility that the feared adverse backlash ever materializes.
All of which is submitted with respect to JCPA and our mainstream Jewish leadership, but also with my plea that the foregoing points be fully and fairly considered.
