Zionists Out of the Peace Movement

Late last month, Henry Herskovitz of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends extended an invitation to the Rev. James C. Rhodenhiser of St. Clare of Assisi Episcopal Church to meet with him and other critics of JWPF's vigil. The specific occasion for the offer was the visit to Ann Arbor of Dan McGown and Paul Eisen of Deir Yassin Remembered. After the invite and an explanation Herskovitz wrote, "We would certainly be willing to listen to what you and other invitees have to say." Below, via Herskovitz, is Rhodenhiser's response in toto and unedited except for the addition of one hyperlink.

Henry, can't get the mayor or Ken early Saturday a.m. To hear why scapegoating is a good idea. apologizing would be the way to get Jewish community attention and door to actual dialogue, not posters advocating overthrow of Israel or blaming Zionism for Nazism. Peace is always the result of mutuality not hostility. Ken and I are willing to put up an Israeli flag at our places if you wanted to give Beth Israel a break those weekends, we could make up a schedule together. God bless, james

Reading this, one wonders if Rhodenhiser is really so ill-informed or ill-educated that he actually believes there is any scapegoating going on. Merriam-Webster defines a scapegoat as "a person who is unfairly blamed for something that others have done". However, Beth Israel Congregation (BIC) has never been blamed "unfairly" nor for what "others have done".

BIC is fairly subject to protest for their own public support for the Jewish state that was created by force by a minority population in someone else's homeland. BIC is fairly subject to protest for indoctrinating children into militant Zionism. BIC is fairly subject to protest for its cheer-leading when Israel goes to war. BIC is fairly subject to protest for its toleration of its senior rabbi's apologetics of torture.

Rhodenhiser writes about opening (?) the "door to actual dialogue". He would do well to read read "When Dialogue is NOT our Hope" by Joseph Phelps in the Mennonite journal, Conciliation Quarterly. Here's part of what Phelps writes:

We cannot dialogue when: ...

When an issue of justice is involved.

This is the most complex reason for halting dialogue. Some conflicts are more than a difference of perspectives. As Martin Luther King reminded us, sometimes there are reasons "why we can't wait." People of God cannot be content to engage in dialogue with perpetrators of evil and injustice. We must be hesitant and cautious to place such strong labels on an individual or group, but sometimes we must.

There are times when action must take precedence over talk, when conflict should be pursued in place of a false peace. This is what Jeremiah (6:14) accused the prophets of Jerusalem of doing: "They have treated the wound of my people carelessly, saying, 'Peace, Peace,' when there is no peace." A dialogue between Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus company which tried to force her to give up her seat in the 1950s was not in order ... Clearly, the time for talking had passed. An act of resistance, a shifting of sentiment, and a redefinition of power was necessary before honest dialogue could resume.

Jesus reminded us that there would be issues worth (non-violently) fighting over: "Do you suppose that I am here to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather dissension" (Luke 12:51). His stance for justice and true holiness put Him in constant conflict with those who preferred the status quo. The conflict exposed the need for radical change. To have quelled the conflict through dialogue would have been to neglect the work for which He was sent ...

Yes, a talking shop would be much easier and more comfortable than actually taking a decade-long public, prophetic stand but JWPF is not a dialogue group; it is a peace and justice action group. Here is its position:

Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends will end the vigils if Beth Israel satisfies our three previously stated requests or if equivalent goals are achieved through negotiations with Beth Israel: committing to work for the equal rights for the Palestinian citizens of Israel; committing to work for the end of the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem; and committing to work for the right of Palestinians to return to the homes from which they were forcibly removed in what was to become Israel.

The above words were written by a JWPF founder, the late Sol Metz (they are erroneously and mysteriously attributed to someone else on the MLive web site). No dialogue with BIC is necessary or warranted. Just as the Montgomery bus company ended its support for segregation, BIC can ends its support for Jewish supremacism in Palestine. However, I suspect the folks at BIC are far more devoted to their racist cause than the owners of the bus company ever were.

I've never met the Rev. Rhodenhiser. I know of him only through the little that I've read by him and about him. Based on that small sample though he strikes me as the kind of cleric the Rev. William Sloane Coffin had in mind when he said: "I think the bright flames of Christianity are now down to smoldering embers, if not ashes, of feeling comfortable. The church is pretty much down to therapy and management. There's really little prophetic fire ... we have mediocre politicians, and the clergy is pretty mediocre also."

I can easily imagine a long ago version of Rhodenhiser scolding the prophet Jeremiah as he stood "in the gate of the LORD'S house" and rebuked Israel (Jeremiah 7). I can see him chastising Amos for telling Beth Israel in the Lord's name: "I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies" because the Israelites had turned "justice to wormwood" and brought "righteousness to the ground." Look, there's James Rhodenhiser denouncing Isaiah to the city officials for telling Israel they are a "sinful nation, [a] people laden with iniquity" whose "hands are full of blood".

And, hey, isn't that the Rev. Rhodenhiser admonishing Jesus of Nazareth, wagging his finger and telling him "Peace is always the result of mutuality not hostility" after, all in one episode, Jesus: Drove the money-changers from the Temple; provoked the elders and chief priests to anger with his defiance and teachings; called the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, blind fools, snakes, and vipers; and condemned the Holy City saying "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!"? Jesus wasn't much for Rhodenhiser-style dialogue, it would seem, and Rhodenhiser isn't much for Jesus or Coffin-style prophetic fire.

Labels: Beth Israel, Christianity, Henry Herskovitz, Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends, William Sloane Coffin

Earlier this month Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends celebrated ten years of faithfulness in the struggle for justice and peace in Palestine. Once again, Temple Beth Sholom has marked the occasion.

Labels: humor, Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends

There is no such thing, it is said, as bad publicity. However, a recent article in Tablet Magazine would have been better publicity for Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends (JWPF) if author Steve Friess had been committed to telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Friess would also benefit by learning a thing or two about professional journalism from Ryan Stanton. Below are several excerpts, preceded by "SF", from Friess' September 12 article, "500 Days of Protest in Ann Arbor", my comments follow each excerpt.

SF: "protesters ... wave doctored Israeli flags, with red lines crossing out the Star of David in the middle, and solicit honks from passing motorists."

Only one "doctored" Israeli flag has appeared at the protest outside the Beth Israel Congregation (BIC). On that flag, the red slash of the international no/prohibition symbol does indeed cross the "star of David", aka the "magen David", but solely because it is the central emblem adorning the flag of the State of Israel. That emblem, a hexagram, is not an ancient Judaic symbol.

As noted in the "Magen David" entry in the Encyclopaedia Judaica, the hexagram was used "as early as the Bronze Age ... in many civilizations and in regions as far apart as Mesopotamia and Britain." The symbol also "appears in early Byzantine and many medieval European churches ... Probably in imitation of church usage – and certainly not as a specifically Jewish symbol – the hexagram is found on some synagogues from the later Middle Ages ..."

So, how did the hexagram become associated with Jews and Judaism? According to the Encyclopaedia Judaica: "The prime motive behind the wide diffusion of the sign in the 19th century was the desire to imitate Christianity. ... From such general use it was taken over by the Zionist movement. The very first issue of Die Welt, Herzl's Zionist journal, bore it as its emblem."

Judaism 101 adds: "The Magen David gained popularity as a symbol of Judaism when it was adopted as the emblem of the Zionist movement in 1897, but the symbol continued to be controversial for many years afterward. When the modern state of Israel was founded, there was much debate over whether this symbol should be used on the flag."

SF: "the group—known as Jewish Witnesses For Peace and Friends even though Herskovitz is its only regular Jewish participant ..."

This false and misleading. Marcia Federbush, who is Jewish, also attends the vigil regularly. While it is true that a majority of current participants are not Jewish, this was not always the case. When the vigil started, Jews comprised a majority. Several Jews quit because they were not able to stand up to the pressure and smears meted out by Zionist Jews. Further, other Jews who were there from the beginning, such as Rachel Persico, Larry Hochman, and Sol Metz, have since died. It is, perhaps, a sign of the moral decrepitude of the larger Jewish community that no younger Jews have come forward to take their places.

SF: "Almost every Shabbat since Sept. 13, 2003, they have appeared at this corner on Washtenaw Avenue decrying the synagogue as an agent of Palestinian oppression."

This is also misleading. No one in JWPF asserts that BIC is "an agent of Palestinian oppression". As AnnArbor.com reported nearly a month ago: "Herskovitz said his group isn't blaming the synagogue for the actions of a foreign government — just holding the congregation accountable for supporting the state of Israel."

What is at issue is the synagogue's active and willful complicity in the oppression of Palestinians. This takes the form of its public expressions for the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine, the silencing of all but the most tepid of Jewish critics of the Jewish State, its trips to Israel to indoctrinate BIC youth into militant Zionism, and its cheer-leading when Israel goes to war. Not surprisingly, BIC leaders and members want to support Israel without experiencing the moral opprobrium that is their due.

SF: "But [Henry] Herskovitz's efforts are rooted in an old-fashioned intra-faith grudge: In 2003, the synagogue refused to let him present a slideshow of photographs he'd taken at a Palestinian refugee camp that he felt documented human rights abuses. Incensed, he turned to local pro-Palestinian groups for support."

To reduce Herskovitz's objections to being silenced by his synagogue, which had no problem hosting yoga classes on the sabbath, to an "old-fashioned intra-faith grudge" is a way of trivializing the issue. One can imagine a 17th century Steve Friess similarly characterizing Spinoza's expulsion from Amsterdam's Jewish community as an "old-fashioned intra-faith grudge".

Curious readers are invited to view the photos Herskovitz collected on his 2002 visit to the Balata refugee camp in the West Bank. His photos document the experience that began the transformation of a nominally Zionist Jew into a stalwart enemy of Jewish hypocrisy and chauvinism. Also, Herskovitz first turned to fellow Jews and the peace community from which he came when his efforts were rejected by Rabbi Dobrusin.

SF: "Beth Israel's rabbi, Robert Dobrusin, said he rejected the original request because he didn't know what context Herskovitz planned to use for his presentation. 'If what's happened since then is any indication, I was right,' Dobrusin said this week."

This is a rather strange assertion. Why didn't Dobrusin ask Herskovitz about the "context" and content? And why didn't Friess ask Dobrusin about that? In fact, I've spoken to Henry Herskovitz and he says Dobrusin knew exactly what he wanted to do.

SF: "Herskovitz, for his part, first called on Beth Israel to denounce Israel's existence, and now promises they'll stand down if Dobrusin removes the Israeli flag from the sanctuary."

Here is Herskovitz's comment on the Tablet Magazine web site:

Friess' claim that "Herskovitz, for his part, first called on Beth Israel to denounce Israel’s existence" is simply not true. Though I personally believe that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish supremacist state, I have never called upon Beth Israel to do the same, whether it was when the vigils started, nor now.

Rather, as our deceased friend and vigiler Sol Metz reiterated in the Ann Arbor News (July 17, 2009): "Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends will end the vigils if Beth Israel satisfies our three previously stated requests or if equivalent goals are achieved through negotiations with Beth Israel: Committing to work for the equal rights for the Palestinian citizens of Israel, committing to work for the end of the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, and committing to work for the right of Palestinians to return to the homes from which they were forcibly removed in what was to become Israel."

It is also inaccurate to report that removing the flag will end the vigils. That is Herskovitz's personal issue, JWPF has never adopted that position collectively.

SF:"[Herskovitz] says he attended High Holiday services at Beth Israel before Dobrusin's 1988 hire, but now he spends Yom Kippur each year taunting fasting worshippers by dubbing it International Eat-a-Cheeseburger Day."

Herskovitz never dubbed Yom Kippur anything and he certainly doesn't taunt anyone, no one brings burgers to the vigil. The only way "worshippers" would even know about the Bill Henry, Z"L, international Eat-a-Cheeseburger Day is if they chose to read about it here, in Herskovitz's weekly vigil reports, or, now, from Friess' article. Not much of a taunt.

SF: "[Herskovitz] and his group are scrupulous about staying off synagogue property and not obstructing anyone's ability to come and go—just as the synagogue has been scrupulous about respecting Herskovitz's First Amendment right to carry on protesting."

There is some truth to this. JWPF has been scrupulous about not obstructing people, the only people ever investigated or arrested by police in connection with the protests were a Beth Israel congregant, Eli Avny (Assault with a Deadly Weapon), and a BIC guest, Abraham Seligman (Assault and Battery). But there is a false equivalence suggested here. For, while JWPF has never sought any means, legal or extra-legal, to prevent people from attending services, the congregation has not been similarly respectful of the rights of JWPF members.

In 2007, it came to light that BIC was handing out a leaflet entitled,"Frequently Asked Questions About the Synagogue Protesters". It included these words:

Since what they are doing is legal, we cannot force them to leave, and we do not want to hand them the publicity a legal fight would entail. Our instincts in this area have been affirmed by the current and former Ann Arbor police chiefs, and by numerous other attorneys and community leaders we gave consulted. We continue to investigate legal options, albeit without much optimism.

It is clear that the leaders of BIC acknowledge the free speech rights of JWPF only grudgingly and, at least at that time, they continued look for the means to silence them.

SF: "But even many who are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians regard Herskovitz's group as an embarrassment. Imam Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Michigan, denounced the protest to The Arab American News, noting: "We'd be hypocrites to say it's not civil in front of mosques yet to endorse it taking place at other houses of worship ... There's a time and place for everything, and it would not be fitting for us as Muslims to protest in front of Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath day."

Interesting. Friess writes about "many" but, quoting a two-year-old article, he only cites a one person, Dawud Walid, a self-described "Black American Muslim" and a "revert to Islam" (read Walid's contribution in All-American: 45 American Men on Being Muslim). Here's something else attributed to him: "Dawud Walid ... said the root cause of the conflict [in Lebanon] was Israeli occupation of Lebanese, Palestinian and Syrian territory, not Islamic fundamentalist terrorists as the Bush Administration would prefer people to believe. He also told the cheering crowd that the interests of Israel are not the same as and should never supersede America's." (Source: Art Aisner, "Marchers protest war: Multiple speakers at rally highly critical of Israel", Ann Arbor News, August 12, 2006).

So, yes, if he still believe as he did seven years ago then Walid can probably fairly be said to be sympathetic to Palestinians so why does he object to the vigils?  Not for Walid is the reasoning of Rabbi Abraham Heschel: "Worship preceded or followed by evil acts becomes an absurdity. The holy place is doomed when people indulge in unholy deeds." He is uninterested in what goes on in the synagogue or what it stands for.

It's simple, Walid doesn't want people protesting outside mosques. Here's what Herskovitz said about this in the same article Friess cites: "I would say that if a mosque was a Zionist mosque, as strange as that may sound, I would certainly not attack a group for protesting in front of such a mosque; we have protested in front of Zionist churches and synagogues before."

Perhaps, Walid's head-in-the-sand approach helps explain why he and an Episcopal bishop collaborated with Rabbi Dobrusin on an op-ed about torture. You see, a year before that op-ed was published Rabbi Dobrusin explained at a sabbath service how torture could be "justified" under Judaic law. Here's the key paragraph in Dobrusin's sermon:

Some might ask: Doesn't making torture illegal tie the hands of our military in the event that an act of torture might possibly save thousands of Americans? Think about how we would respond if, God forbid, our family members were in danger. We would do what we thought we had to do, and then would seek to defend ourselves as having committed a justified act of self-defense. But we don't go into situations saying that morals don't matter in how we live our lives.

Yes, opposition to torture matters--all the way up to the point that it doesn't. When the situation gets challenging then "We would do what we thought we had to do ..."

SF: "Others point out that Dobrusin is a poor target, because the rabbi has been outspoken in his support for a two-state peace settlement. 'The rabbi is one of the most outspoken for addressing full equality for Arab citizens,' said Ann Arbor City Councilman Chuck Warpehoski, director of the local Interfaith Council, which has condemned Herskovitz and his followers. 'That's his dream for what Israel should be. We're talking about one of the people most willing to be critical of Israeli policy and he's the one who's targeted for this kind of abuse. It boggles the mind.' "

What truly "boggles the mind" is that any supposedly rational, ethical person could think that "support for a two-state peace settlement" is in any way about peace, justice, or "full equality." The South African apartheid regime, too, wanted separate states for Whites and Blacks but no decent, thinking person ever fell for that. By talking about "Arab citizens" Warpehoski also conveniently leaves 4.9 million Palestinian refugees of 1948 and 1967 out in the cold. Perhaps dollar signs are obscuring his moral vision, earlier this year the editor of A2Politico.com described Warpehoski as "a walking conflict of interest".

SF: "Herskovitz was happy to elaborate ... 'I said it's incumbent upon Jews to understand why they were hated and why they were treated so badly not only in Germany but other places,' he said. 'For one thing, the Bolsheviks from Russia were coming into Germany and Hitler feared the Bolsheviks, which were dominated by Jewish leadership. So he looked around and said, "Well, I have all these Jews in Germany." It's like the Japanese-Americans in World War Two, we didn't trust them so we rounded them up. That's what Hitler did.' Such commentary, while historically suspect and abhorrent to most Jews, has made Herskovitz a celebrity of the anti-Israel fringe."

Certainly, it is the burden of Jewish mainstream discourse to defend and propagate the notion of Jews as eternal innocents and their 'enemies' as irrational people who hate them only because of Jews' innate goodness, material success, godliness, or ________ (fill in the blank with a positive attribute of your choice). However, there are Jews (no one else can be trusted with such matters, right?) who lend credence to the idea that the rise of Nazism and the policies of the Third Reich were influenced by the behavior of Jews.

As Theodor Herzl explained in The Jewish State (1896):

... Governments will never take action against all Jews. The equal rights of the Jew before the law cannot be withdrawn where they have once been conceded; for the first attempt at withdrawal would immediately drive all Jews, rich and poor alike, into the ranks of revolutionary parties. The beginning of any official acts of injustice against the Jews invariably brings about economic crises. Therefore, no weapons can be effectively used against us, because these injure the hands that wield them. Meantime hatred grows apace.

Although Herzl was clearly mistaken in failing to anticipate the Third Reich his main point is well-taken and Nazi Germany is an exception that proves the rule. Jews did use their power to create an economic crisis in Germany and their efforts to topple Hitler may well have succeeded if they hadn't been halted by Jews. 

Dennis Prager and Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, writing in Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism (2007), develop the idea that Jewish radicalism helps explain animosity toward Jews. In fact, they have a whole chapter on the subject where they state flatly: "During the last century some of these Jews have contributed to intense Jew-hatred. These are radical and revolutionary Jews" (p. 42). They assert, "The association of Jews with revolutionary doctrines and social upheaval has not, unfortunately, been the product of antisemites' imaginations" (p. 43). They take note of "the highly disproportionate role played by Jews in radical causes ..." (p. 43) explaining that "radical alienated Jews have been active in societies as diverse as despotic and antisemitic czarist Russia, the democratic Weimar Germany, and the United States" (pp. 44-45).

They remind readers, for example, that "Béla Kun, a Jew, established the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic in March of [1919]. Of the 48 people's commissars in his government, 30 were Jews as were 161 of its 202 highest officials" (p. 46)."In Germany," they write, "until 1933 when Hitler came to power, the predominance of Jews on the radical left was as pronounced as in Russia. ... These Jewish radicals wielded a major influence over the cultural and intellectual life of Weimar Germany, an influence utterly disproportionate to their numbers ... " and "to many Germans ... they stood out as destroyers of everything German" ( p. 46).

In The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (1993), Benjamin Ginsberg argues "Jews played key roles in constructing a number of the most important states to emerge ... over the past 700 years. ... For many of these states, Jews were crucial in building and staffing institutions of extraction, coercion, administration, and mobilization ... these relationships have been the chief catalysts for organized anti-Semitism" (p. 11). Of Soviet Russia and the USSR, he says: "the special contribution of the Jews to the Bolshevik state involved the organization of coercion. From the beginning, the Soviet state relied heavily upon military, police, and security services to sustain itself, and Jews were active in these agencies. ... Jews had traditionally been at the margins of Russian society and, hence, prepared to staff and direct the coercive instruments upon which the state relied to control its citizens" (pp. 30-31).

Ginsberg also goes into some detail about how Jews were central to the creation of the Weimar Republic and dominated German economic, political, and cultural life during the inter-war period. And Ginsberg cites Rosa Luxemburg, a Jewish communist, as "one of the most prominent leaders" of the failed German Revolution of 1918–19, and mentions three other Jews prominent in the communist coup d'etat in Bavaria that resulted in the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic in 1919: Eugen Leviné, Gustav Landauer, and Ernst Toller (p. 29).

From Samuel Landman, in Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine (1936) and echoing British PM Lloyd George, we learn that American Zionist Jews were mobilized on a "quid pro quo contract basis" to bring the US into World War I on the side of Britain and France (p. 4). The payoff was the Balfour Declaration. Landman was a British Jewish Zionist insider and he claims: "The fact that it was Jewish help that brought U.S.A. into the War on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German—especially Nazi—minds, and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupies in the Nazi programme" (p. 6).

Regarding Bolshevik Russia, Winston Churchill averred in 1920: "There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin [in fact, Lenin, too, had Jewish ancestry] the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders." Of course, since Churchill is not Jewish he cannot be regarded as a reliable source in this matter.

Now, let's sum up what we have learned in this final section. Contra Friess, there is nothing "suspect" about Herskovitz's "commentary" about attempting to understand the rational basis for German antipathy to Jews. This is not to excuse the irrational imputation of collective guilt to all Jews qua Jews but to point out that there is evidence that Jews, a tiny minority, exercised disproportionate power in Russia, Germany, and elsewhere. Jews used power in their perceived self-interest and in a manner which alienated and angered members of the majority populations of these countries. Jews may find this truth "abhorrent" but they do no one, least of all themselves, any favors by refusing to wrestle with it.

Finally, Friess claims that Herskovitz's "commentary" has made him "a celebrity of the anti-Israel fringe." My last question to Friess is what fringe? There is reason to believe that the pro-Israel crowd may be the true fringe. According to an international scientific poll commissioned by the BBC this year, only 21% of respondents thought Israel had a "mainly positive" influence in the world. 52% thought Israel had a "mainly negative" influence, putting the country in the same class with North Korea.

Labels: Benedict Spinoza, Beth Israel, Henry Herskovitz, history, Israel, Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends, Jews, Warpehoski

AnnArbor.com has a recent article about the 10th anniversary of the Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends vigil in front of Beth Israel Congregation. In the article, reporter Ryan Stanton quotes congregant Barry Gross touting congregants who "pledge to donate money to humanitarian causes for every protester who shows up on Saturdays".

Their two recipient organizations are the Magen David Adom (MDA)--the Israeli counterpart of the American Red Cross--and Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam (NSWAS), which is described in the article as "a cooperative village jointly founded by Israeli Jews and Israeli Palestinian Arabs to show they can live side by side in peace." The humanitarian value of these two entities is, at best, questionable and, thus, they are very appropriate charitable choices for Zionists.

Emblem of the Magen David Adom (lit. "Red Shield of David")

The MDA is an adjunct of the Zionist movement and the Israeli military and has a track record of not serving all citizens of Israel equally (see here and here). Two anecdotes will give you a further sense of the values of the Magen David Adom. Last year, the MDA created a rabbinical committee to "dictate religious guidelines" to MDA volunteers. The head of the committee is Shmuel Eliyahu (also transliterated as "Eliahu"), the Chief Rabbi of Safad, and who is on the Israeli government payroll. I first wrote about Eliyahu in 2008 when he was singing the praises of "a revenge that is so painful, it will burn into their souls the message of all our enemies that Jewish blood is more valuable than gold and platinum."

A year earlier Eliyahu had been calling for mass killings of Palestinians. Eliyahu has a track record of violent incitement and racism that even embarrasses the 'progressive' Zionist Jews who are calling for his ouster--it's a shande far di goyim don't you know? Please ponder for a moment the outcry if the American Red Cross appointed a similar committee of liberal Christian clergy, let alone violent reactionaries on the government payroll.

My second MDA anecdote concerns its Greater Tel Aviv spokesman, Mydan Ben Yoash. It seems Ben Yoash is a funny man who shared his humor on Facebook. Here's a joke that got him into a bit of trouble last June:

Q: How long does it take an Arab woman to bring down the garbage?

A: Nine months!

Get it? Ha, ha. Is this guy a card or what?

As for NSWAS, here's a description from Mulham Assir writing in the Palestine Chronicle: "Neve Shalom is a fraudulent propaganda construct created (like the Wall of Shame itself, on stolen land) to fool the world with the slogan 'peaceful coexistence is possible.' The subtext is 'if only Palestinians would accept the occupation, the dispossession, our refusal to allow the refugee to come home even as we import people from all over the world to man our "Jewish state" machine, if they accepted their "métèque" and wog status in their own land, but above all, if only most of them would go away voluntarily so we wouldn't have to allay our demographic fears by using tanks, missiles and bulldozers that put a crimp in our image abroad.' "

Elsewhere, Assir refers to NSWAS as a Potemkin village. His critique is underscored by information on the NSWAS web site. For instance, the community is not self-supporting but dependent upon funding from "International Friends' Associations around the world," the European Union, the Israeli government, and, of course, Zionists like Barry Gross and friends. Also, the village is for "Jewish and Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel," Palestinian refugees from 1948 Nakba or 1967 Naksa need not apply. And, yes, you must apply to live in NSWAS and be approved first by "a committee" and then by "the plenum".

Furthermore, the goals and achievements of NSWAS are quite limited: "We talk about 'living with the conflict', 'conflict management', sometimes 'conflict transformation'. We don’t look at our work as 'conflict resolution' because realistically, the conflict requires a political solution." Elsewhere, discussing "problems" arising "in the current political and economic situation" the community admits "Issues also revolve around the imposition of inequalities, rules and trends by the wider society upon the village. An obvious example is that Jews are recruited into the army where they are exposed to danger and possibly active service against Arabs. Another is the fact that Arabs are subject to subtle and less subtle forms of discrimination in the wider society." All this has resulted in the "lowering of optimism regarding chances for an equitable coexistence since September 2000 [the beginning of the al-Aqsa Intifada]" and "a questioning of the degree to which NSWAS's own form of coexistence is successful."

As an aside, there is also the irony that NSWAS was founded by the Rev. Bruno Hussar, a Jewish convert to Roman Catholicism who became a Dominican priest, on land leased and later donated, by a Christian monastery. Yet, today, "the majority of the village members are either secular or regard religious belief as a personal matter, religion is seen more in terms of being a component of one's cultural identity."

All in all, I'd say that MDA and NSWAS reflect the values of Barry Gross and friends quite well. The MDA supports the Israeli military, discriminates against Palestinians, and appoints Jewish racists to high profile positions and NSWAS is a, perhaps, noble experiment that is in fact powerless to address that circumstances responsible for its creation. Why deal with Jewish supremacism when you can simply evade the issue, write a check, and feel smug about it to boot? 

Labels: Beth Israel, Jewish supremacism, Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends, Judaism, racism, Zionism

Inspired by incidents of anti-Muslim violence, it was billed as part of celebrating Religious Freedom Day but Rabbi Robert Dobrusin of Beth Israel Congregation (BIC) hijacked the panel discussion on Thursday at the Ann Arbor District Library. One of the featured panelists, Dobrusin bemoaned "an extremely unpleasant situation" and launched into a diatribe against the weekly vigils of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends despite his admission that "our religious freedom has not been threatened, it has not been limited" and "no one has ever been physically prevented from entering our building".

Dobrusin was long on generalities but short on specifics. He admits that JWPF is "expressing an opinion at odds with deeply held feelings of a majority of our members". This gives the lie to the claim sometimes made by vigil critics that many or most of the congregants agree with JWPF's criticisms of Israel but that the problem is mainly with JWPF's tactics. Dobrusin then proceeds to claim that JWPF misrepresents the "relationship" and "connection which our congregation ... feels with the State of Israel." Yet, Dobrusin's charge of misrepresentation is bald-faced with nothing to support it.

He follows with the claim that JWPF "has endeavored ... to publicize its message against the legitimacy of Israel and against any negotiated settlement based a two-state solution". This falsehood is not new.

Regardless of the varying positions individual JWPF members may have, as I wrote in 2007, "In fact, JWPF has never taken a group position on the legitimacy of Israel." Likewise, the group has never taken a position opposing a "two-state solution." In March, 2007, JWPF approved the following statement:

Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends have been asked what it would take for us to end our vigils at the Beth Israel Congregation (BIC).

Our answer is simple and well within the power of BIC. We would end our vigils at BIC if the Board of Directors of BIC publicly states its full support for the following principles that basic human rights require:

1. The full civil and political equality of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel within Israel;
2. The prompt implementation of the rights of Palestinian refugees of 1947-8 and 1967 to return to their homes and properties in Israel and Palestine as stipulated in UN resolution 194; and,
3. The prompt end of Israeli occupation and colonization of all lands seized by Israel in 1967.

Although we are not all Jewish, we hold that inequality, the forced exile of millions of Palestinians, and military occupation are inconsistent with the highest ideals of Judaism.

Following his misrepresentation of JWPF's position on Israel, Dobrusin says: "Now, the question is if we express our opinions ... are we accountable for what it is we believe? Can people disagree with us or should we be able to hide behind the walls of our synagogue and say this is our opinion and it can't be debated?"

Dobrusin answers his question in the negative claiming "if we want to have respectful discussion ... we can have respectful discussion ... surely that can happen." So, why is it that more than seven years ago the request of JWPF founder Henry Herskovitz, who regarded BIC as his spiritual home and regularly attended High Holy Day services there, to address the congregation, not at Sabbath services but on a week night evening, was denied?

In more than seven years, why haven't Henry and JWPF ever been invited in for the debate Dobrusin says he welcomes? The answer is, apparently, because JWPF's non-violent exercise of their own Constitutionally protected rights, which Dobrusin grudgingly admits is legal, feels "to us as harassment".

Dobrusin also claims that the signs JWPF members hold outside BIC are "often quite simply untrue." This is a tacit admission that at least sometimes they are true. Moreover, as before, Dobrusin's claims are simply unsubstantiated. What signs are untrue, Rabbi? Let's debate that.

Dobrusin talks about how "restrained," at his behest, the congregants have been in responding to the "harassment" of JWPF. "We don't want physical or verbal confrontation on the street outside the synagogue," he says.

This would have been a nice time to acknowledge that the only people ever investigated or arrested by police in connection with the protests were a Beth Israel congregant, Eli Avny (Assault with a Deadly Weapon), and a guest, Abraham Seligman (Assault and Battery). It would also have been an opportune moment for Chuck Warpehoski to make a belated apology for the fact that the organization he heads, the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, never took a stand against the violence directed at JWPF members but that probably wouldn't be good for business.

Dobrusin concludes his presentation with a plea for people to support BIC and speak out against JWPF's vigils. Dobrusin frames his plea by saying:

The point I want to stress this evening is really the one with the most importance. You know in the long-run this isn't a Beth Israel issue. And it isn't a Jewish community issue. And it isn't an issue about Middle East politics. It's an Ann Arbor issue. The atmosphere and peace of our entire community is tarnished when people feel tension as they approach their house of worship on their holy day ... as long as this type of action continues the spiritual atmosphere and the sense of comfort and peace of our community is severely damaged and that's truly a shame for all of us. (emphasis added)

What's clear from this is that Rabbi Dobrusin is no student of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Here's something the Rev. King had to say in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" about "tension" and "peace":

... I am not afraid of the word "tension." ... there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

No doubt it was men like Rabbi Dobrusin whom the Rev. King had in mind when he lamented the one "who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods ... ' "

Rabbi Dobrusin wants us to believe that the violent Jewish supremacist state that he and his congregation support is not the real issue.

Forget that when Israel turned Lebanon into a "free-fire zone" in 2006, BIC responded by publishing on their web site a photo of four Israeli flags along with a statement of support for the "people of the State of Israel at this time of crisis" and stating that "We pray for the safety of those who defend Israel …"

Forget that Rabbi Dobrusin wrote in the Ann Arbor News: "Beth Israel Congregation affirms without any hesitation or equivocation the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state, and affirms the right of Israel to defend itself from enemies who seek its destruction."

Forget that BIC sends their young children to Israel and poses them for photos with armed Israeli soldiers.

Forget that Rabbi Dobrusin has offered a halachic justification of torture from the bima.

Forget all that. The real issue is the tension and tarnished peace in our community. Oh, the humanity!

Rabbi Dobrusin wants us to believe that "among the institutions which our community must respect is the sanctity of the house of worship." But Beth Israel's support for Israel has diminished, if not eradicated, its claim of sanctity. As Abraham Heschel explains:

The prophet knew that religion could distort what the Lord demanded … To the people, religion was Temple, priesthood, incense: "This is the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord" (Jer. 7:4). Such piety Jeremiah brands as fraud and illusion. "Behold you trust in deceptive words to no avail," he calls (Jer. 7:8). Worship preceded or followed by evil acts becomes an absurdity. The holy place is doomed when people indulge in unholy deeds.

BIC's support of Jewish supremacism in Palestine is indeed an evil act and an unholy deed. And as the prophet Isaiah (ch. 1) said:

Though you pray at length,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood.

And as the prophet Amos (ch. 5) said to "the House of Israel":

Ah, you that turn justice to wormwood,
and bring righteousness to the ground! ...
They hate the one who reproves in the gate,
and they abhor the one who speaks the truth. ...
Hate evil and love good,
and establish justice in the gate ...
let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

You can find a 3.1 Mb audio file (.wav) of Dobrusin's speech here at http://a2vigil.org/video/dobrusinspeech-small.wav.

Labels: Beth Israel, Henry Herskovitz, Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends, Warpehoski

Below is the analysis of Henry Herskovitz (with Michelle J. Kinnucan) of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends to a recent op-ed by Rebecca Tumposky on the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN).

There are many problems with IJAN, which lead me to doubt the purposes of the group. I first question whether they are a Palestinian solidarity group or yet another group that seeks to shield and preserve Jewish power both in Palestine and in the U.S.

In this writer's opinion, Jews - if they are acting in a group that represents Jews in the peace movement - should first and foremost challenge what Akiva Eldar and J. J. Goldberg, among others, call the "Jewish lobby" - the powerful people and institutions (and their rank-and-file supporters) who dominate the US discourse and policy regarding Jews and Israel. Often, these are the very people behind the charge of "self-hating Jews" (and for non-Jews, "anti-Semites") about whom Rebecca Tumposky, national organizer with the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, complains. Yet, nowhere in her article does Ms. Tumposky show a disposition to directly do that.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that three originators of IJAN who live in southeast Michigan, including "Invincible," declined the invitation to stand vigil with us at our Global Vigil Day in 2007 or at any other time. They refused to expose and challenge Beth Israel Congregation--a local institutional bastion of open, unabashed Jewish support for Israel--when they had the opportunity. And yes, I'm the first to admit that standing in front of a synagogue is not the only way to challenge Jewish power, but at the same time ask where does IJAN directly challenge this power using another tactic?

In Tumposky's op-ed she says IJAN "seeks to challenge the violence and injustice of Israeli apartheid" but she and IJAN are US-based. So, where is her mention, let alone challenge, of the Jewish supremacism/power that allows Jews - less than two percent of the US population - to so effectively steer US policy and resources into underwriting Jewish apartheid in Palestine?

Right out of the box, she shows her hand - Tumposky's and IJAN's opposition to apartheid is rooted not in universalistic notions of justice and human rights but in Jewish chauvinism/exceptionalism. Thus, they appeal to Jews on the grounds of "our varied traditions of social justice." And Tumposky wants to make sure - absolutely certain - that fighting anti-Semitism is prioritized in any work on freeing Palestine from the genocide brought on by the Jewish state. Thus, she writes, "We challenge anti-Jewish prejudice while standing in solidarity with organizations that support Palestinian liberation and historic justice ..." In short, IJAN enters the Palestinian solidarity movement with an explicit agenda of highlighting, if not foregrounding, the concerns of Jews, the very people who enjoy Jewish privilege here and in Israel.

Her opposition to Zionism is carefully couched as a subset of opposing colonialism and imperialism, in general: "We share a commitment to participation in struggles against colonialism and imperialism. We therefore oppose Zionism ... IJAN, in fact, opposes all imperialist aggression". She refuses to take notice of the peculiar situation of Zionism - Jewish imperialism - in that Jews lacked a nation-state of their own and, thus, Zionists commandeered other countries, namely Britain and the US, to realize their goals.

Tumposky beats up one or two carefully placed straw men along the way: "We will say it again and again, despite accusations of being 'self-hating Jews': Zionism is not Judaism and the Jewish community." Just who is it that equates Zionism with "Judaism and the Jewish community"? And why is this point so essential for "anti-Zionists" like the IJAN folks? What would Tumposky say to the 757 rabbis - "the largest number of rabbis whose signatures are attached to a public pronouncement in all Jewish history" - who in 1942 stated that Zionism is an "Affirmation of Judaism" and "Anti-Zionism, not Zionism, is a departure from the Jewish religion"?

She also plays a Left Zionist game when she attempts to distinguish the 'types' of Zionism, claiming that "the Zionism we oppose is not a longstanding cultural or religious expression". She conveniently ignores the fact that when push came to shove, all the Zionists - Left, Right and Center - gave their blessings to destroying Palestine.

In the first chapter of his book Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Norman Finkelstein challenged the myth that any of the Zionist tendencies (Labor, Religious, etc.) were ever benign. In short, the only thing about Zionism that really matters is that it "is a form of racism and racial discrimination," as the UN General Assembly correctly identified in 1975.

Tumposky's definition of Zionism is also problematic - "the 19th century ideology that led European Jews to work with imperialist powers to displace and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people, which continues today." It is folly to imply that Jews were passive objects of that "ideology". Zionism was created, implemented, and popularized by Jews. Are readers supposed to believe that it was the imperialist powers that Jews only "worked with" that committed this crime? Isn't it more accurate to say that Jews led these imperialist powers by the nose - as they still do today - to have non-Jews die for the Jewish state?

When she writes "Israel and its U.S. lobby helped pushed us toward the Iraq war and are exerting similar pressure to attack Iran", readers need to be cognizant of what she omits - EVERY major constituent group of the organized Jewish community pressed for war on Iraq, and there's a list of at least two dozen Jewish individuals - in powerful government or media positions - who also pressed strongly for war.

Tumposky touts "Jewish visions of collective liberation and traditions of social justice", but doesn't give us any proof that this tradition ever existed, other than in the minds of Jews who want their image spit-shined, if not outright falsified. More than 300 years ago, Benedictus de Spinoza, who is often upheld as a great Jewish intellectual, observed that Jews had in fact nothing to commend themselves as superior to others, had acted in such a way as to "incur the hatred of all", and that this hatred was the glue that bound Jews together. Other than, perhaps, a few years during the Civil Rights struggle (and Benjamin Ginsberg casts doubt on even this), Jews collectively have acted in concert NOT for universal well-being, but for the benefit of Jews. IJAN does not seem to be an exception.

Distinguishing IJAN from AIPAC, J-Street and Tikkun, might make good reading, but doesn't let them off the hook. Once again, I'm reminded of Paul Eisen's words: "The crime against the Palestinian people is being committed by a Jewish state with Jewish soldiers using weapons displaying Jewish religious symbols, and with the full support and complicity of the overwhelming mass of organized Jews worldwide. But to name Jews as responsible for this crime seems impossible to do." It seems obvious to me that IJAN and similar organizations exist, in no small part, to prevent the naming of Jews as responsible for the Jewish-led genocide against the Palestinian people.

Labels: anti-Zionism, Benedict Spinoza, Henry Herskovitz, Israel, Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends, Norman G. Finkelstein

There were other voices in the days of the prophets. The prophets Amos, Elijah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and all the rest, were opposed, generation after generation, by prophets who belonged to the royal courts, who assured the king that his conduct was beyond reproach. The biblical prophets were harassed as traitors ... While the official soothsayers denounced the enemies of the king, the prophets whom we revere followed after Nathan, who dared to confront King David with murdering Uriah and stealing his wife. Nathan defended this Hittite stranger ... "You are the man," he said to David: you are morally responsible.


Though you pray at length,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood.

--The Book of Isaiah, Chapter 1.

Just less than a year after Israel launched its deadly Hanukkah Massacre against the densely populated open-air prison that is Gaza, leading lights of Ann Arbor's Jewish community once again felt compelled to show themselves as bloody-handed prophets of the "royal courts" by mounting another effort to disparage truly prophetic voices in their midst.

I'm referring here to Art Aisner's front-page story in this month's issue of the Washtenaw Jewish News: "False witnesses." You may find evidence in Aisner's story that members of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends (JWPF) are flawed and frail human beings--as are we all--but you will search in vain in Aisner's 3400-word piece to find any conclusive evidence that JWPF's witness is false.

For instance, Aisner claims: "the core of the group remains committed to a belief that not just Israelis, but all Jews who support a Jewish national home, are responsible for inflicting tragedy upon tragedy on Palestinians." Assuming Aisner is correct, it is unclear how that marks JWPF members as false witnesses. Would Aisner make the same claim about Rabbi Abraham Heschel?

In The Prophets, Heschel wrote: "Above all, the prophets remind us of the moral state of a people: Few are guilty, but all are responsible. ... In a community not indifferent to suffering, uncompromisingly impatient with cruelty and falsehood, continually concerned for God and every man, crime would be infrequent rather than common" (emphasis added). Who can deny that if the American Jewish community was not actively complicit in Palestinian suffering and did not enable and engage in Zionist cruelty and falsehood that the daily crimes perpetrated by and on behalf of the Jewish State would soon cease?

In 1971, Richard Nixon's "Plumbers" broke into the offices of the psychiatrist of Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg "to get a 'mother lode' of information about Mr. Ellsberg's mental state, to discredit him." I imagine that Aisner wishes he had that type of 'access' because a significant part of his article smacks of "Plumber" journalism. For example, there's this: "Herskovitz acknowledges regularly attending sessions with a therapist over the years, but insists he isn't crazy."

Like Ellsberg and Herskovitz, tens of millions of Americans have sought out the aid of a psychotherapist; undoubtedly, many have done so for extended periods of time. So, what kind of person is Aisner that he resorts to innuendo to reinforce the "cruelty and falsehoods" of someone like Stephen Pastner whose "caricature depictions of the protesters ... honestly [sic] question some members' sanity?"

To his credit though Aisner lets Herskovitz take a crack at this "cheap diversion of the public's attention." The purpose of this, Herskovitz notes, is to send the message: "Pay no attention to the Israeli atrocities, but focus on Henry so nobody wants to take up the issue."

Aisner also resorts to innuendo when it comes to Herskovitz's name and attendance at Beth Israel Congregation (BIC). Aisner writes: "Although he claims to have attended services at the synagogue he now pickets, an initial search revealed no member by that name. Perhaps it is because for much of his time in Ann Arbor the Pittsburg [sic] native was known by his given [sic] name, Henry Henry." Perhaps, it's because of Aisner's sleight-of-hand of slipping from attending services to membership, as if they were same. Further, the surname Herskovitz received when he was born was "Herskovitz." It shouldn't have been too hard for Aisner to sleuth this out but it must have better suited his purposes to raise rather than dispel doubts.

The discerning reader is also left to wonder why Aisner searched BIC records for "Henry Herskovitz" but, apparently, not for "Henry Henry." It's seems reasonable to conclude that, if it were true, Aisner would dutifully report that there was no "Henry Henry" in the records, either. So, did Aisner find (and fail to report) what he didn't want to find--a record that Herskovitz attended BIC's services when his name was Henry Henry?

As part of his effort to call into question Herskovitz's "true motives," Aisner also quotes BIC member Dan Cutler: " 'I've heard a pretty wide range of opinions about the Middle East [in the congregation] including no lack of people very critical of the Israeli government' ... But the picketers don't care about actual opinions among real people in the congregation, he contends." This reminded me of the bit from the first Blues Brothers movie when Elwood asks the proprietress of an establishment he hopes will book his band, "What kind of music do you usually have here?" The woman proudly replies: "Oh, we got both kinds. We got country and western." BIC is just as diverse: They have Zionists who are critical of Israel and Zionists who are not-so-much critical of Israel. Vive la différence!

If Rabbi Rob Dobrusin is to be believed, it is precisely because of the "actual opinions among real people in the congregation" that BIC is a fitting site for a protest. As Dobrusin writes in the Ann Arbor News in 2007: "there is one general statement which I can make on behalf of the Congregation - Beth Israel Congregation affirms without any hesitation or equivocation the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish State ... No matter how long the protests continue, this will never change." Anyone else hear echoes of George Wallace: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever"?

In Aisner's piece, Stephen Pastner also complains: "The thing that twinges me is that it's the impropriety of doing it in front of a place of worship". Would Pastner hesitate to protest outside a local church that advocated stripping Americans Jews of their US citizenship? How about one that supported the dissolution of Israel? I doubt Pastner would bleat much about the "impropriety" of protest then.

Arguably, institutions and individuals who claim to deal in values and ethics deserve to be held to a higher standard of conduct. Nor are such protests inconsistent with religious tradition. The Old Testament tells us that Jeremiah stood "in the gate of the LORD'S house" and rebuked Israel. As Abraham Heschel explains:

The prophet knew that religion could distort what the Lord demanded ... To the people, religion was Temple, priesthood, incense: "This is the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord" (Jer. 7:4). Such piety Jeremiah brands as fraud and illusion. "Behold you trust in deceptive words to no avail," he calls (Jer. 7:8). Worship preceded or followed by evil acts becomes an absurdity. The holy place is doomed when people indulge in unholy deeds.

BIC's support of Jewish supremacism in Palestine is indeed an evil act and an unholy deed. In 2006, as Israel devastated Lebanon, killing hundreds and wounding thousands, BIC waved the flag (Israeli, that is) and prayed "for those who defend Israel." BIC attendees have assaulted JWPF members because of their criticism of Israel (in his search of official records Aisner somehow missed this). BIC spreads falsehoods about the vigils. They send their children to Israel and pose them with armed Israeli soldiers. And Rabbi Dobrusin has offered a halachic justification of torture from the bima. Yet, none of this "twinges" Stephen Pastner or interests Art Aisner.

Speaking of records, Aisner went so far as to get records of Sol Metz's divorce, as if this information was somehow relevant to Metz's position on Israel. He brings it up, in part at least, to tag Metz as a hypocrite for protesting the pro-Israel activities of the Jewish Federation but Aisner, apparently, has to invent some of his "facts" in order to accomplish that.

Aisner has Metz going "to the local Jewish Federation for help with clothing and other needs for his family" after the divorce. But in an e-mail sent to Aisner after the publication of his story, Metz makes it clear that "I did not go anywhere for help with clothing during that or any other time. Rosemary [his ex-wife] did go with my opposition." Commenting on Aisner's assertion that Metz is "aware of the hypocrisy, but remains unfazed by it," Metz wrote, "I guess that your lie [about seeking help from the Jewish Federation] was an attempt to set up this whopper."

Marcia Federbush's divorce of twenty years ago is also grist for Aisner's mill as is a very abbreviated account of Katherine [sic] Wilkerson's criminal trial and firing from Packard Community Clinic (PCC). Aisner writes: "Wilkerson was acquitted by a jury in 2007, but she was fired a year later over a contract dispute."

In fact, Dr. Wilkerson was fired about two months after her acquittal because she refused to consent to a gag rule. In a letter to PCC Executive Director Kim Kratz from the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, Michael Steinberg characterizes the gag rule as "extremely broad" and said it "poses serious civil liberties implications for the free expression rights of employees" and "could prevent an [employee] from participating in virtually any political demonstration outside of work that has nothing to do with work."

The ACLU urged the PCC to remove the offending contract provision and stated that any employees no longer working at the clinic because of refusing to agree to the gag rule should be "given the opportunity to return to work upon signing a revised agreement." Wilkerson was never given this opportunity.

Steinberg also writes, "I understand that individuals were threatening to withhold contributions or patient referrals because of the controversial speech of one of your doctors, Catherine Wilkerson, about Israel and Palestine." Now, what kind of people would cut off funding and patients for a non-profit community medical clinic that was founded to serve needy, vulnerable people? What kind of cowards would quietly submit to such blackmail? These are not questions Aisner is interested in.

Aisner is interested in the Greens though--when it fits his agenda, that is. Although Aimee Smith and Michelle Kinnucan were duly elected, he characterizes their ascension "to leadership positions in the local Green Party" as an example of JWPF's ability "to disrupt a few Ann Arbor institutions where you'd least expect." It shouldn't have been too unexpected or much of a disruption though since the Green Party of the United States went on record in 2005 (before the alleged Smith-Kinnucan coup) as calling "for divestment from and boycott of the State of Israel until such time as the full individual and collective rights of the Palestinian people are realized."

Aisner implies that under Smith and Kinnucan "issues like the environment, instant run-off voting, and domestic social justice" were sidelined as the "the party quickly became laser focused on Palestinian rights." It's funny then that during this time the local party did such things as supporting the United ENDA campaign and maintaining a presence at Ann Arbor's annual environmental Green Fair.

You can also read Smith's 2006 interview with Ann Arbor's own (but not-so-homeless) "Homeless Dave." There, she speaks articulately about Palestine but also about things such as depleted uranium, food localism, Bahro's concept of "exterminism," and the "Green Revolution." All in all, not a very laser-like focus on Palestine, I'm afraid.

On the local Greens, Aisner also quotes Peter Schermerhorn of the sour grapes brigade: "It was very difficult for the Greens to get any traction locally since we were blamed for losing the 2000 election for Gore and we were building it back ... But it's gone, and it's been gone ever since they [Smith and Kinnucan] were put in charge." Schermerhorn fails to mention that the Huron Valley Greens were moribund and not even meeting regularly when Smith, Kinnucan, and others revived the local organization in late 2005. Schermerhorn seemed to acknowledge this in an Ann Arbor News article by Aisner's former colleague, Tom Gantert. In the July 1, 2006 piece, Schermerhorn is quoted as saying: "Some joined recently ... Some have been members for years. They've definitely perked up the energy level and, to some degree, redirected it.''

It bears mentioning that Aisner's article also has a photo of Smith (who is not a Muslim, as Aisner ever so helpfully points out, and has never claimed to be one, as Aisner does not point out) wearing hijab while, according to the caption, scolding "the [Celebrate Israel Day] crowd, 'Stop pretending you're from Arabia. Be proud of your European roots.' " To get his apparent point across that Smith is a hypocrite for wearing the hijab while taking Jews to task for pretending to be a Semitic people, Aisner depends upon the inability or unwillingness of his readers to distinguish between solidarity and theft/appropriation.

On the subject of Jewish theft/appropriation it will suffice for present purposes to quote Columbia University associate professor Joseph Massad, citing Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel by Israeli scholar Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi:

The naming of the new Jew [Beit-Hallahmi elsewhere refers to the new Jew as the "anti-Jew"] Sabra is consistent with Zionism's interest in nature and geography. Not only is the new Jew a hard fruit to pick, but he also grows in the desert, the product of a new geography. His mother is nature and the land of Israel. His name is part and parcel of the geographic, historical and cultural appropriation of Palestine by Zionism. That the very name of the new Jew is Arabic is no more of an inconsistency than the future Israeli cultural theft and appropriation of falafil and hummus (traditional Palestinian and Levantine Arab dishes) as Israeli Jewish dishes or dabkah (traditional Palestinian and Levantine Arab line dancing) as Israeli Jewish folk dancing.

I have by no means addressed every omission, distortion, factual error, or hare-brained notion expressed by JWPF opponents in Aisner's piece but before I end I want to take on one of David Shtulman's inanities. Herr Shtulman whines: "There's a sense of entitlement they have that everything they want to do is okay, and I don't think the Jewish community needs to accept it."

As the article makes clear, the relevant "everything they want to do" is to speak out against the organized Jewish community's support for Israel. And it must aggravate poor Shtulman and his ilk that there is an "entitlement" to that, it's called the First Amendment and Zionists haven't succeeded in killing it off yet. Until they do, the bloody-handed prophets of the "royal courts" will undoubtedly continue to wail and gnash their teeth as long as someone has the courage and integrity to criticize Israel's evil acts and unholy deeds and those who are complicit in them.

Packard Health

Labels: Beth Israel, David Shtulman, Henry Herskovitz, Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends, Zionism

Writing to the Ann Arbor Peace list, one of the (mis)leaders of the local peace biz, Chuck Warpehoski, takes a jab at JWPF leader Henry Herskovitz regarding last week's vigil report. Warpehoski writes:

1. Checking whether or not Temple Beth Emeth displayed a "torture is wrong" banner does take doing a bit more work than sitting at a computer, but it's not hard to verify. All it takes is a walk or drive to the building. As of today, the "torture is wrong" banner is still hanging at Temple Beth Emeth/St. Clare's Episcopal Church.

2. Regarding Beth Israel Congregation's opposition to torture, I see no reason to believe that a survey of citizens of Israel would have the same results as a survey of American Jews in general or Beth Israel Congregation members in particular. In fact, last year Beth Israel Congregation participated in the Rabbis for Human Rights "Honor the image of God: Stop Torture Now" campaign. This year, Rabbi Dobrusin has submitted a joint Op-Ed column to the Detroit Free Press along with Imam Dawud Walid and Bishop Wendell Gibbs calling for an investigation of U.S.-sponsored torture since 9/11 as well as stronger U.S. laws banning torture.

This year the Jewish community has had the highest participation in Torture Awareness Month activities of any faith tradition. A much higher participation of the synagogues have participated than the churches, sanghas, mosques, or other congregations.

But hey, since when has Henry let a few facts stand in the way of a good rant?

In reality, simply walking by Genesis--the name of the building shared by TBE and St. Clare's--is not sufficient to verify that TBE rather than St. Clare's put up a banner. In his report, Henry doesn't dispute that there is a banner present in front of Genesis but claims that TBE is apparently not on any NRCAT endorsement list accessible by Google. As of Tuesday, that was still true. Eleven Ann Arbor congregations are listed from last year but none of them are Jewish. JWPF, however, comes up as a member of NRCAT and is listed on the 2008 participating congregations list of 5/29/08.

As for "facts," Warpehoski claims that "This year the Jewish community has had the highest participation in Torture Awareness Month activities of any faith tradition" but he doesn't offer any evidence for this. Is he including JWPF? Even if his assertion is true, it doesn't erase the fact that last year Rabbi Dobrusin, from the bima, made a case for justifying torture as self-defense under Jewish religious law. Nor does it change the fact that the only anti-torture banner that has ever flown outside Beth Israel Congregation--'spiritual' (I use the term loosely) home of ICPJ president Ruth Kraut--is the one carried by JWPF members.

Warpehoski claims to see no reason to suppose that American Jewish support of torture parallels Israeli Jewish support. Consider the following points that Warpehoski can't see:

• When, in Senate confirmation hearings, former Republican attorney general Michael Mukasey, "a believer and devout Jew," refused to declare waterboarding illegal under US law, his nomination was rescued by two Jewish Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer, who voted with Republicans to send the nomination to the full Senate. They were joined there by Joseph Lieberman, another Jew who voted against his caucus. Mukasey was confirmed by a 53-40 vote--"the narrowest margin to confirm an attorney general in more than 50 years."
• Alan Dershowitz is one of the world's foremost apologists for torture and for Israel. Need I say he is Jewish?
  
• Leaders of Reform Judaism movement admit: "Jewish law presents some conflicting principles that effect how Jews view torture."
• In December 2007, Marc Perelman, wrote an article entitled "As Torture Debate Heats Up, Jewish Groups Stay Mum." Here are a few select passages from that article:

The American Jewish Committee last week became the first, and to date only, mainstream Jewish group to give strong public backing to proposed legislation that would ban the use of torture by American military, intelligence and law-enforcement personnel ...

Most other Jewish organizations with prominent advocacy efforts in Washington, however, have been noticeably absent from efforts to push through the anti-torture legislation ...

"There was a shocking silence of the Jewish community on the issue of torture, and there is still a lacuna on this vital issue, to my eye," said Felice Gaer, director of the AJCommittee’s Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights. ...

The executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights-North America, Rabbi Brian Walt, said that the reluctance of a large segment of the organized Jewish community to speak out against harsh interrogation techniques [sic] stems partly from the belief that torture may help to prevent terrorist attacks, as well as from concern that heightened scrutiny of American security forces’ methods could draw increased attention to Israel’s own interrogation practices.

Of course, Chuck Warpehoski sees none of this. Indeed, one wonders if Warpehoski can see anything that his paymasters don't want him to see, let alone speak about.

See also:

• Israelis No. 1 in Supporting Torture
• Jews and Torture
• Jews and Torture Update
• Rabbi Dobrusin Tortures the Truth
• Jews and Torture Update II

Labels: Beth Israel, Henry Herskovitz, Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice, Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends, torture, Warpehoski

Poor old Joel Finkel of the Chicago chapter of the openly Zionist organization Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), was reduced, once again, to sputtering nonsense by a fellow Jew who speaks the truth about Jews and Palestine.

Back in 2005, when Chicago JVP was still called Not In My Name, Finkel had a conniption over Paul Eisen's essay "Jewish Power." Finkel was so mentally impaired by that bout with the truth that, among other things, he was apparently rendered incapable of understanding that "a single state 'between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, one country with equal citizenship for all' " is fully compatible with Palestinian "national aspirations." Palestinians--not including millions of refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, and elsewhere--already comprise a demographic majority 'between the river and the sea' and it is Jewish opposition to equality and democracy that comprises the primary obstacle to the realization of Palestinian national aspirations.

Recently, Finkel was set to frothing over the 12-27-08 vigil report from Henry Herskovitz of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends. On January 3rd on the Chicago JVP e-mail list Finkel writes:

Henry is a reactionary fool. As a critic of the vigils outside the synagogue during Sabbath services, I never claimed that these desecrated the Sabbath. The issue is that the message that is given to the public is that Jews--­religious Jews­--are guilty of the crimes of the Israeli government. This message is false and incites anti-Jewish sentiment, which is exactly what it is designed to do.

In fact "Jews-religious Jews" are guilty of Israeli government crimes especially those Jews in the Israeli government but also those who freely lend their support to the Jewish apartheid state. According to a poll conducted by an Israeli organization, 95% of Israeli Jews support the Hanukkah Massacre in Gaza and you can bet that includes a lot of religious Jews and reflects the attitude of, probably, millions of American Jews.

The synagogue that JWPF holds vigil in front of has publicly declared itself in support of Israel. In 2006, as Israel devastated Lebanon, killing hundreds and wounding thousands, Beth Israel waved the flag (Israeli, that is) and prayed "for those who defend Israel and for the three kidnapped soldiers." Beth Israel attendees have assaulted JWPF members because of their criticism of Israel. Like Finkel, Beth Israel spreads lies about the vigils. They send their children to Israel and pose them with armed Israeli soldiers. And Rabbi Dobrusin has offered a halachic justification of torture from the bima. Yet, to Finkel, none of this justifies public protest.

Are all Jews guilty of Israel's crimes? Of course not, and JWPF has never claimed otherwise. The blanket guilt is the phantom of Finkel's fevered imagination.

Finkel continues:

Secondly, Henry believes that anyone who, in any way, speaks of solidarity with Israelis is necessarily a Zionist. This is a right-wing view that betrays a deep-seated loathing for international solidarity. It is a view that is as reactionary as Zionism itself. It is of little wonder that Henry’s group is widely despised within the Palestinian community in the Detroit area.

The question I've heard Henry ask again and again is "Do you support Israel's claimed right to exist as a Jewish state?" That is Henry's test: Do you support an outlaw, exclusivist apartheid regime? I remember the American movement in support of the struggle against South African apartheid and the internationalist position is the same now as it was then--solidarity with the oppressed, not with the oppressor class. In the 1980s people of conscience supported the Azanian/Black South African people and today's internationalists stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people. Henry is a living example of such solidarity, which is why he has hosted visiting Palestinians (and anti-Zionist Jewish Israelis) in his home.

As for "Henry's group" being despised, sure, some Palestinians probably despise JWPF because it shows them up as compromised defeatists. But when opponents of the vigils waged public campaigns against JWPF they couldn't find a single Palestinian, other Arab, or Muslim individual or group to publicly oppose the vigils. And four months ago when the Arab American News profiled JWPF none of Finkel's imagined "Palestinian community" members had anything to say against them.

Finkel writes:

As for me, I was proud to carry a sign, which read "Solidarity with the families of Gaza and Sderot," at our demonstrations in Chicago. A Palestinian man, who had spent 20 months in Israeli prisons before being deported, asked if he could help me carry the sign. The only people who objected were the right-wing Hamas supporters, who surrounded us and tried to intimidate us with chants of "God is Great," "Long live Hamas," "Long live Hezbollah," and "Down with Israel." But, as we expected, the overwhelming Palestinian response was to thank us for being there.

It was undoubtedly people like Finkel whom Emerson had in mind when he wrote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Finkel is proud to equate the situation of Gazans with that of the colonizers in Sderot as if that grotesquerie made sense anywhere but in the racism-addled minds of Finkel and his ilk or to a few broken, desperate Palestinians abasing themselves for crumbs fallen from the master's table. Of course, as an Arab friend points out, it is possible that Finkel has also exploited and distorted, for his own political agenda, simple expressions of kindness and generosity, the type for which Palestinians are renowned. That is, Finkel has solipsistically spun a charitable indulgence of his absurd comparison into a ringing endorsement of it.

As in an earlier paragraph, Finkel invokes "right-wing" as a sort of bogeyman. I mean, who else would say "God is great," uphold Hamas and Hizbullah, or worst of all say, "Down with Israel"? No, poor old Joel Finkel has drunk so much Trotskyist-Zionist kool-aid that the can't even imagine that progressives might express solidarity with such popular (and in the case of Hamas, democratically elected) indigenous liberation movements as Hamas and Hizbullah, let alone denounce the blessed Jewish state. It is a measure of the decrepitude of the American Left that, when it comes to Hamas and Hizbullah, they are mostly on the same side as the US government.

Finkel closes as follows:

In the end, Henry’s little group, which has successfully isolated itself from the Peace and Justice movement, will not even be a footnote in history. And that is just fine with me.

/Joel Finkel

Jewish Voice for Peace – Chicago
American Jews for a Just Peace

It's clear that Finkel is whistling past the graveyard here. His deepest fear is that Israel is headed for the garbage heap of history and that JWPF is playing a small but significant role in hastening that inevitable conclusion and exposing Jewish complicity in the crimes of Zion.

Labels: anti-Zionism, Henry Herskovitz, Jewish supremacism, Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends, Zionism