A question for those circling the wagons

Generally the members of the local Jewish bureaucracy cover for each other when one of their tribe comes under attack. Most recently, we saw this in the case of the outrageous goings-on at UC Berkeley Hillel, where "community" organizations united to smear pro-Israel student activists and stick up for a clearly incompetent and wrong-headed Hillel leadership.

The reaction of the Jewish nomenklatura at 121 Steuart Street this time around is no different. They're sticking up for the SFJFF, with at most a head shaken sadly at the "mistake" of not better paving the way for communal acceptance of Israel-bashing at the Film Festival.

Here's an open letter from a pro-Israel activist calling out the head of the local JCRC, the self-styled experts in "community relations," on their egregious failure of leadership with regard to the SFJFF.  It will be interesting to see how he responds.

Dear Doug,

As someone who has been quite vocal about her opposition to the “Rachel” event and the failure of Jewish communal leadership to properly address it, I would like to respond to your recent report (forwarded below) documenting the JCRC’s role in handling the event. Then, I would like to ask you a couple of questions.

Although the JCRC was not “a sponsor, endorser, funder or co-presenter of the Festival,” the organization you direct does play an important leadership role in the community. As you have noted in your report, JCRC is respected for the guidance it gives other Jewish agencies regarding controversial community issues. Therefore, having recognized early on that the “Rachel” event was an egregiously inappropriate SFJFF program that could do tremendous harm to the Jewish community, in your respected advisory capacity, I believe you should have advised Peter Stein to do the right and honorable thing, and cancel the event. Of course Mr. Stein did not have to take your advice, but for you not to have offered this advice and urged Stein to accept it, is, from the perspective of many of us in the Jewish community, a major failure of leadership.

In justifying your decision to not press the Festival leadership for the cancellation of the event, you offered a few reasons, chief among them the idea that canceling the film would backfire and lead to accusations of censorship. It seems to me this is an extremely disingenuous claim. For had the SFJFF wanted to show a Holocaust denial movie produced by an “Israeli” follower of Neturei Karta, invited David Irving to speak after the film and partnered with “Jewish Friends of Ahmadinejad” for the event’s promotion, I am certain you would have acted swiftly and decisively to have the event canceled, cries of “censorship” notwithstanding. Such an event would clearly have “crossed the line of Jewish legitimacy,” and been extremely destructive to our community.

So, too, if you thought the virulently anti-Israel “Rachel” event and the participation of organizations that vilify and demonize the Jewish State had “crossed the line of Jewish legitimacy” and would bring harm to our Jewish community, you would have ignored the accusation of censorship and pressed for the cancellation of the event. That you did not, suggests that, as distasteful as you found the “Rachel” event and its co-presenters, you still considered them to be acceptable within the “big tent” of our Jewish community.

---

And therein lies the heart of the problem: I believe the vast majority of Jews in our community understand that this event and the organizations which promoted it indeed “crossed the line of Jewish legitimacy.” Furthermore, they see your unwillingness to articulate this truth as another major failure of Jewish leadership, one which has certainly backfired, bestowing legitimacy to an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic program, and the groups who promoted it.

I for one feel that if the virulently anti-Israel “Rachel” event is considered a legitimate form of expression in our community, and if organizations which demonize Israel and her supporters, such as the Jewish Voice for Peace (see below for the latest example of JVP’s disgraceful behavior), are considered legitimate in our community, then it is a Jewish community that I neither want to be part of, nor support. Moreover, you would be seriously mistaken if you were to think that my position represents a right-wing, pro-Israel fringe in our community; I truly believe that most Bay Area Jews feel as I do.

This recent controversy has demonstrated to many of us the need for a clearly articulated statement from our Jewish communal leaders about what constitutes legitimacy within our Jewish community. In this regard, I would like to ask you, as director of the JCRC, the following 2 questions, which I would be most grateful if you could answer:

1) Do you believe the “Rachel” event constituted a legitimate form of artistic expression within our Jewish community?

2) Do you believe the Jewish Voice for Peace is a legitimate organization within our Jewish community?

I and the hundreds of blind-copied individuals on this email, as well as the thousands of people to hom this email will be forwarded or who will read it on the internet, look forward to hearing your answers to these questions.

Thank you and Shabbat shalom.

Sincerely,
Tammi Benjamin

August 3, 2009

-------------------

BEHIND THE SCENES AT JCRC CXIII

A candid frequent briefing by Rabbi Doug Kahn,
JCRC Executive Director,
for Jewish Community Leadership

THE CONTROVERSY OVER “RACHEL” AT THE
JEWISH FILM FESTIVAL AND THE ROLE OF JCRC IN RESPONSE –
A SPECIAL BEHIND-THE-SCENES REPORT

Introduction

One of JCRC’s core functions is developing consensus within the organized Jewish community on issues of vital concern, and then representing those consensus views to the broader community. In carrying out this function, JCRC works closely with Jewish agencies and synagogues to assist them on sensitive community relations issues. JCRC’s expertise is called on regularly and routinely– by our Federations, JCCs, Hillels, cultural institutions, day schools, summer camps, synagogues and other valued institutions.

We are proud that agencies know that they can count on us for guidance at difficult times, and that they can trust that our goal is not publicity but achieving results – most often behind-the-scenes. Agencies also know that we respect the boundaries of decision-making – that the organizations we work with ultimately make and are responsible for their own decisions.

The “Rachel” film and event at this year’s Jewish Film Festival exposed a significant rift within our community and resulted in several hundred emails opposed to and in support of the JFF’s program. Several emails raised questions or made suggestions about the JCRC’s role in responding to the controversy. Because of the unprecedented community reaction to the Jewish Film Festival’s “Rachel” film and program, we thought it would be helpful to share with key community leadership this report on JCRC’s response to the controversy.

“Rachel” and the JCRC Response

This memo documents our efforts – largely in coordination with the Jewish Community Federation – to address the concerns around “Rachel.” It should be noted that JCRC was not a sponsor, endorser, funder or co-presenter of the Festival. It should also be noted that the Film Festival is no stranger to strong criticism over some of its selections in years past, including from JCRC, but this year the criticisms clearly reached a new decibel level.

1) Shortly after learning about this program, JCRC’s Executive Director Doug Kahn called Peter Stein, Executive Director of the Jewish Film Festival, to convey strong concerns about the program and to alert the Festival leadership that there would surely be significant criticism.

2) Extensive conversations with Peter Stein and Shana Penn (who subsequently resigned as President of the Board of the Film Festival) ensued. JCRC had significant concerns about the film itself. At the same time, because 1) we had not reviewed the film;2) it was clear that the Film Festival planned to proceed with the film; 3) efforts to press the Festival to cancel the film would backfire and lead to a major battle over claims of “censorship;” and 4) we believed that it was not the film in isolation but the film combined with the invitation to Cindy Corrie to speak that shifted the program into a more highly politicized event, we focused on the overall “Rachel” program. In the first J Weekly story on the controversy, Doug Kahn was quoted as saying that he had not seen the film but that he believed that inviting Cindy Corrie was a serious mistake. Throughout this period, JCRC worked closely with the Jewish Community Federation and the JCF of the Greater East Bay.

3) Conversations with the Festival confirmed the wisdom of focusing on the overall program. The Festival is an independent organization that is immersed in both the Jewish and the cultural arts community. It has prided itself on presenting a broad range of films that touch on the many aspects of Jewish life in Israel and throughout the world, sometimes critically and pro-actively. Based on our assessment of our community’s general openness to a big tent approach, including through the medium of film and artistic expression, and of what actions might be achievable, we proposed three specific steps to the Festival leadership. We believed that these proposed steps, consistent with our community’s longstanding support of responsible free expression, would help demonstrate that the Festival acknowledged and heard the legitimate criticism with respect to the construction of the “Rachel” program:

a. To offer an alternative viewpoint – one that would convey the extent of concern about the role of groups such as the International Solidarity Movement of which Rachel Corrie was a part;

b. To apologize for not fully appreciating how polarizing the program would be;

c. To acknowledge that lessons had been learned from this experience and that controversial programs would be addressed with much better care in the future.

4) To their credit, the Festival responded positively to all three suggestions, issuing a statement that explicitly addressed these points, and extending an invitation to Dr. Mike Harris, co-founder of San Francisco Voice for Israel, to speak before the film. Mike agreed to do so.

5) For the sharpest of critics, this action was deemed too little too late. We believe, however, that these steps were significant.

· Mike Harris made a forceful statement about the role of Palestinian terrorism and ISM in the conflict. Though some in the audience were offensive in their taunts and boos, Peter Stein made a strong call for civil discourse and returned to the microphone several times so that Dr. Harris could continue his statement.

· The Festival acknowledged that it had learned important lessons. The biggest question is how the Film Festival will address controversial subjects in the future. In that regard, we are pleased that the Festival has asked JCRC along with the Federation to help convene meetings with key leaders to talk through the difficult issues that came to the surface this year and next steps.

6) JCRC played a critical role in persuading the JFF to respond to the criticism of “Rachel.” We could not have played that role effectively had we engaged in a public campaign aimed at forcing the Festival to do something that it was not about to do – cancel the film – or at encouraging community members to boycott the Festival. We are a fellow Jewish communal institution and we want the Film Festival to solicit our advice – as do dozens of other organizations in the community – on key community relations issues. And we want to and will work actively with the the Festival leadership to address programs on controversial issues with much greater care in the future – something that they have already committed to doing.

7) As an organization that promotes civil discourse in our community, we are concerned that too many communications on the subject of the Festival went way beyond the boundaries of civil discourse. As lines are sharply drawn and polarization increases, such communications not only detract from otherwise legitimate criticisms but make it harder to really accomplish the changes that we seek. JCRC is committed to every reasonable effort to protect civil discourse – including vigorous but respectful disagreement. The Festival is an important institution within our community. It does remarkable outreach work and has earned an international reputation as a serious film festival. At the same time, it can do much better in being sensitive to and responsive to our community. And we can elevate the level of civil discourse in our community -- even on issues about which we are so passionate.

8) This entire chapter in our community’s life demonstrates something that JCRC has been observing for some time – that we are in a period of increased polarization and heated passionate debate. From booing by individuals during Mike Harris’s comments, to calls to withhold funds from the Federation even though Federation is not and cannot be responsible for JFF’s individual programming decisions, passions exploded. As we move beyond this year’s Festival, the hard work ahead remains. Our community relations work – including our efforts to expand civil discourse and our broad-based Israel advocacy efforts – has never been more important.

Rabbi Doug Kahn
Executive Director, JCRC
121 Steuart Street, Suite 301
San Francisco, CA 94105

JCRC: Pursuing a Just Society and Secure Jewish Future

The JVP fundraising email that Tammi refers to may be found here.

Jennifer Rubin: Repercussions of Bay Area Outrage

Daniel "J Street' Sokatch and Peter Stein appear to have bitten off a bit more than they can chew. Here's another piece by the formidable Jennifer Rubin about the fallout from SFJFF anti-Israel fiasco:

Repercussions of Bay Area Outrage

Jennifer Rubin - 08.07.2009 - 8:25 AM

On Sunday I wrote about the San Francisco Jewish Federation–sponsored Jewish Film Festival, which featured the Palestinian propaganda film Rachel and descended into a display of anti-Israel venom. If the letters to the editor in this week’s JWeekly.com are any indication, there are plenty of very upset Jews in the Bay Area. One writes:

Many people think that the recent showing of “Rachel” at the SFJFF was meant to stir controversy in the Jewish community over Israeli policy. It has accomplished more than that. Some people wanted to see the film for what it was and did not anticipate the repercussions; i.e. the intolerable rudeness toward Dr. Mike Harris and the stomping out of his opposing point of view. They thought that Cindy Corrie’s presence would add credibility to the film, not knowing that she is a pro-Palestinian propagandist who was photographed smiling next to Arafat.

Some other accomplishments were:

1. That changes will be made on the SFJFF board;

2. That people are annoyed with what seems to be spinelessness in Jewish leadership;

3. That a major contradiction is “free speech” and discussion are for some, but not for others — an issue to be examined;

4. That there are “peaceniks” who have disdain for any peace, but instead, behave like violent thugs.

It’s an accomplishment that the broader Jewish “community” has woken up here and elsewhere in the States and world.

Another writes:

In donating to the federation I trusted and empowered a group to manage my contribution in a responsible way. They agreed to use proper judgment with any investment. The federation has no right to use diversity as an excuse to justify their support of predictable behavior similar to Hamas or KKK as demonstrated by some anti-Israel organizations.

Holding an anti-Israel, hate-fest film festival with our federation donations is not what I would consider Jewish behavior. Nevertheless, the film festival has the right to screen any film or invite Cindy Corrie to be a speaker — all of which I strongly oppose.

Following several failed attempts to influence the federation to reconsider their position and instead apply good judgment and leadership, I finally understood that they have deliberated, considered all sides carefully and made a final decision. One which, with my minimal wisdom, I cannot support.

I had no choice but to stop all my donations to the federation. I will be redirecting my funds, as well as additional money, to pro-Israel groups who demonstrate better judgment and have no difficulties leading.

And Natan Nestel writes of the federation:

Federation CEO Daniel Sokatch camouflages the Federation’s failure to oppose the incessant ideological assault on Israel by invoking buzzwords like “diversity” and “depth of feelings and convictions.” He ducks the real issue — how best to counter extremists, their propaganda and their political machinations.

The anti-Zionist crowd cheered Ahmadinejad, anti-Israel boycotts, divestment and sanctions and screamed “Sig Heil” — all with Federation (your) funds and its tacit approval.

This “debate” is about life-and-death issues regarding our brethren in Israel, not a local dispute with friendly disagreements. Sokatch’s failure to see that distinction is indeed disturbing; Federation leaders don’t seem to get it.

Federation’s misguided effort to grant legitimacy to anti-Israel organizations must stop. Simply put, the Federation shouldn’t support organizations or events that promote anti-Israel venom and that collaborate with anti-Israel groups and individuals.

Perhaps the Jewish Film Festival and its federation sponsors misread their greater audience beyond the netroot film crowd. If so, some good may come of this horrendous lapse of judgment.

Mike's Place bombers attended a Rachel Corrie memorial

In late April 2003, two Muslim British citizens attacked the Mike's Place pub in Tel Aviv.  One attacker's bomb exploded, which the second attacker's bomb failed to detonate.  The result: three dead and more than 50 wounded.

What did the bombers do prior to the attack?  They attended a memorial service for Rachel Corrie.

Abraham Miller: Fear and Self-Loathing at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival

A fantastic piece by Abraham Miller from Pajamas Media:

Killer quote:

Quickly justifying its clumsiness in dealing with this event, the organized Jewish professional community has issued a statement that gives new meaning to the term “sophistry.” The organized community claims to be “working behind the scenes,” at which they are so adept that no one ever knows what they are doing or can see any consequences of their work.

What few in the organized community want to acknowledge publicly is that this community is inundated with a sizeable group of leftist, self-loathing Jews who are Jews when it is convenient to propagate their leftist agenda.

As a non-Jewish acquaintance of mine, who is familiar with the people who run the festival, put it: “Most of these people don’t give a damn about Israel and wish it would disappear. To them, Israel is an embarrassment.” He, incidentally, shares that vision.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/self-loathing-at-the-san-francisco-jewish-film-festival/

Fear and Self-Loathing at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival

The festival screens a laudatory film on Rachel Corrie and invites Rachel's Hamas-supporting mother to speak. (Also read Ron Radosh: Rachel Corrie: Endless Martyr for Anti-Israel Hatred)

July 29, 2009- by Abraham H. Miller

Simone Bitton is a French-Israeli director who numbers among the 479 Israelis who called for a complete boycott of Israel during the Israel Defense Forces incursion into Gaza to stop rockets from exploding in Sderot.

Obviously, Bitton exempted her own endeavors from the call.

Bitton has now directed the film Rachel, a documentary on Rachel Corrie. If there is any doubt regarding Bitton’s politics or the film’s slant, note that the documentary tours film festivals along with Cindy Corrie, Rachel’s mother and a propagandist for the likes of Hamas and the International Solidarity Movement — groups committed to Israel’s destruction.

One would expect Bitton’s work to be showcased by the usual gaggle of progressives and ultra-liberal church groups intent on destroying the Jewish state.

But in the San Francisco area? The Jewish Film Festival shows Bitton’s work.

Peter Stein, the festival’s director, knew exactly what he was doing in selecting this film. Stein was familiar with both Bitton’s work and her politics. He invited the American Friends Service Committee, now helping with the boycott of Israeli goods, to participate in the showing.

Stein also had on his board Rachel Pfeffer, the interim director of Jewish Voice for Peace — a group committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. (Since Rachel Pfeffer’s outing as JVP director, her biography on the festival web site has been thoroughly cleansed.)

Despite protests which have further fractured a sharply divided Jewish community, Rachel and the film festival are moving forward with the film in the name of free speech and open debate. Typically worthy aspirations, but in this case? A smoke screen.

Cindy Corrie has been up and down this community more times than the Hayward geological fault. Name an Israeli-bashing leftist group, and you’ll find its headquarters lies somewhere within five miles of the Berkeley campus.

For several years, Berkeley’s Hillel didn’t celebrate Passover, but it did celebrate Cinco de Mayo, a holiday that is not even celebrated throughout Mexico. But for leftist Jews, it’s better to align oneself with the revolt of the oppressed masses in Puebla, Mexico, than with Jews throwing off Pharaoh’s yoke of slavery.

Berkeley Hillel, under the ever-vigilant eye of the Jewish community, brought in the anti-Israel Students for Justice in Palestine, a lead organization in the anti-Israel boycott, to disseminate its propaganda to impressionable and naïve Jewish students. Berkeley Hillel could not have better served the bidding of the anti-Israel left and their Muslim allies than if it had turned over the organization to them.

If you want to get a forum in the San Francisco Bay Area Jewish community, you need to be anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, or preferably both. Cindy Corrie is not the only Cindy to get access to the community calendar here — Cindy Sheehan has also been a popular speaker. Yes, the Cindy Sheehan who said that her son died because the Iraq war was fought for Israel and orchestrated by neocons. This is a message she now denies but which others persist in claiming she wrote. Cindy Sheehan got a platform at the Berkeley-Richmond Jewish Community Center.

When the members of San Rafael’s Osher-Marin Jewish Community Center were not embracing the delicate bouquet of a good Sonoma pinot noir, they were sniffing after Cindy Sheehan, giving her a platform for a book reading and signing. You might not be able to get Obsession — the video about radical Islam — shown in some of the synagogues here (it is too pro-Israel). But you will get Sheehan.

So no — the local Jewish community is screening Rachel not out of free speech concerns, but due to strong support for its message. Why the Jewish community would choose to subsidize propaganda directed at the destruction of Israel is the real issue. Why would they play fast and loose with lies designed to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state? Why would they welcome people whose political mission is the killing of Jews?

Quickly justifying its clumsiness in dealing with this event, the organized Jewish professional community has issued a statement that gives new meaning to the term “sophistry.” The organized community claims to be “working behind the scenes,” at which they are so adept that no one ever knows what they are doing or can see any consequences of their work.

What few in the organized community want to acknowledge publicly is that this community is inundated with a sizeable group of leftist, self-loathing Jews who are Jews when it is convenient to propagate their leftist agenda.

As a non-Jewish acquaintance of mine, who is familiar with the people who run the festival, put it: “Most of these people don’t give a damn about Israel and wish it would disappear. To them, Israel is an embarrassment.” He, incidentally, shares that vision.

Cindy Corrie traffics in sympathy for her daughter, but I have not read a single interview where she shows the slightest compassion for the mothers of the other dead Rachels whose deaths were brought about by people her daughter sought to protect and whom she venerated. Nor does Cindy Corrie display the slightest insight into her daughter’s role as a facilitator of mass murder of innocents. Maybe Cindy Corrie should look in the mirror and ask herself why she let her daughter walk into a war zone run by terrorists, where there were daily confrontations between people trying to kill Jews and the Israeli military trying to stop them. Maybe Cindy Corrie should turn some of her anguish toward Evergreen State University, which provided academic credit for this indulgent stupidity. In continuing her daughter’s work, Cindy Corrie is not promoting peace, she is promoting human carnage.

To someone like me who remembers being taken by my grandmother to a storefront in Chicago’s Lawndale so I could help her cull through the lists of death camp survivors looking for the names of her sisters (we found one of four), I am unable to comprehend the behavior of these leftist Jews. As someone who remembers the pride that ignited a room of immigrant Jews and displaced persons when the first newsreels were shown of Jews (then called “Palestinians”) fighting for a homeland, I am incapable of imagining how these leftist Jews have been permitted to control a major community event.

They are propagating the seeds of their own destruction. Neither their leftist politics nor their pathetic condemnation of everything Israel does to defend itself will save them if the ideology, politics, and people they so mindlessly support should ever come to power.

Enamored of Marx, they should remember one of Marx’s most insightful and prophetic statements (probably taken from Georg Buchner): “Like Saturn, the revolution devours its own children.”

Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science and a former head of the Intelligence Studies Section of the International Studies Association.

Jennifer Rubin: Bay Area Outrage

The estimable Jennifer Rubin of Commentary's Contentions Blog and Pajamas Media is on the case:

Bay Area Outrage

JENNIFER RUBIN - 08.02.2009 - 1:52 AM

Abraham Miller gives us a peek in the descent into anti-Israel and anti-Semetic Leftism, which has gripped the Jewish community of the San Francisco Bay area. The latest outrage was the Jewish film-festival at which the latest work of Simone Bittone, Rachel, was featured. Bitton  called for boycotting Israel during the incursion into Gaza in order to put an end to the rocket attacks into Israel. Miller explains the background and the scene at the anti-Israel propaganda fest:

Simone Bitton is a French-Israeli director who numbers among the 479 Israelis who called for a complete boycott of Israel during the Israel Defense Forces incursion into Gaza to stop rockets from exploding in Sderot.

Obviously, Bitton exempted her own endeavors from the call.Bitton has now directed the film Rachel, a documentary on Rachel Corrie. If there is any doubt regarding Bitton’s politics or the film’s slant, note that the documentary tours film festivals along with Cindy Corrie, Rachel’s mother and a propagandist for the likes of Hamas and the International Solidarity Movement — groups committed to Israel’s destruction.One would expect Bitton’s work to be showcased by the usual gaggle of progressives and ultra-liberal church groups intent on destroying the Jewish state.

But in the San Francisco area? The Jewish Film Festival shows Bitton’s work. Peter Stein, the festival’s director, knew exactly what he was doing in selecting this film. Stein was familiar with both Bitton’s work and her politics. He invited the American Friends Service Committee, now helping with the boycott of Israeli goods, to participate in the showing.

(AFSC, you may recall, hosted a dinner in New York for Ahmadinejad in September 2008.) Those who attended the event report that it predictably turned into a virulently anti-Israel and anti-Semitic crowd. The audience jeered a pro-Israeli speaker and rooted for those boycotts and sanctions against Israel. A friend relates via email that there were Nazi salutes and “Sig Heil” screams. (Ron Rodash has more here.)

To be clear, this was an event sponsored by the Jewish Federation. Needless to say, the Federation in San Francisco has been inundated by complaints. Yet the Federation continues to defend its participation in the event and has refused to pull funding. The Federation leadership instead continues to laud the Film Festival. It is all about the wonderful “diversity” of the Jewish community, the Federation tells its critics.

But this is not an isolated event in the San Francisco Bay area. As Miller and others have documented, with the full encouragement and support of the local Federation and the Northern California Hillel, the Berkeley Hillel has become a hotbed of anti-Israel propaganda. Miller again explains:

For several years, Berkeley’s Hillel didn’t celebrate Passover, but it did celebrate Cinco de Mayo, a holiday that is not even celebrated throughout Mexico. But for leftist Jews, it’s better to align oneself with the revolt of the oppressed masses in Puebla, Mexico, than with Jews throwing off Pharaoh’s yoke of slavery.

Berkeley Hillel, under the ever-vigilant eye of the Jewish community, brought in the anti-Israel Students for Justice in Palestine, a lead organization in the anti-Israel boycott, to disseminate its propaganda to impressionable and naïve Jewish students. Berkeley Hillel could not have better served the bidding of the anti-Israel left and their Muslim allies than if it had turned over the organization to them.

Other lowlights from the Berkeley Hillel: smearing Orthodox Jews in its Valentine’s Day invitation posted on Facebook, participation in “Israel Apartheid Week,” holding a dance party on Yom Ha’Shoah, and actively discouraging students from marching in support of Israel and displaying the Israeli flag during the Gaza incursion.

This is the “Jewish Left” in all its glory — embracing those who would destroy Israel, reveling in the camaraderie of Palestinian extremists, and determined to ostracize and vilify Israel. Why those in the Bay Area Jewish community who do not share these views have not risen up to put an end to this charade remains a mystery. But clearly, the enemies of Israel have no greater friends than those who are helping carry out their aims – all in the name of the “Jewish community.”

Anti-Israel ISM activist Paul Larudee on Rachel event: anti-Israel point of view is now respectable

Our friend Dusty writes to say: "Paul Larudee, formerly of International Solidarity Movement, sent out the following email report".

Emphasis below is mine.

The showing of Simone Bitton’s film, Rachel, at the Castro theater in San Francisco on July 25, 2009, as part of the Jewish Film Festival, was a landmark event in changing attitudes toward Israel. Although the film itself is deserving of the attention given to it by both the press and the public, the real story was audience itself.

Around 1000 people attended the showing of the film. The line of theater-goers went around the block. I and my two companions were unable to find three seats together in the 1400-seat theater, and we were by no means the last in line. (The balcony went largely unused for some reason). People were actually standing in the aisles. It was the largest audience I have seen at any film festival. Attendees came from as far away as Sacramento and perhaps farther.

My first thought was that the supporters of Israel had turned out in force. In an unprecedented decision for any film, Michael Harris of San Francisco Voice for Israel had been given five minutes to speak at the beginning, to raise his objections. Perhaps he had turned out a lot of his community to drown out Palestinian rights advocates.

I was wrong. As Michael began to speak of Israel’s right to defend itself, the misguided motives of Rachel, the "other Rachels" and all the other tired arguments against the film, the audience audibly moaned, then began to raise its own objections, punctuating Michael’s every phrase louder and louder. At that point, the festival organizer stepped in to ask the audience to be more tolerant and pointed out that Rachel’s mother, Cindy, who would be speaking at the end of the film, deserved such courtesy, as well.

The audience settled back into subdued groans for a few phrases, but when Michael accused Jewish Voice for Peace and the American Friends Service Committee of being backers of terrorism, the audience erupted into applause at the mention of each name. It’s a good thing it wasn’t traditional Yiddish theater, where the audience armed itself with tomatoes. Anyone but Harris would have been humiliated by the experience.

The concern for respectful treatment of Cindy Corrie’s presentation at the end of the film was also unwarranted. The audence was so completely supportive of her, her daughter and Palestinian rights that there was not a hint of the hateful messages with which the organizers had been deluged prior to the showing.

It was astonishing. Although the audience was by no means all Jewish, a large number clearly were, and the sense of many of the attendees was that their relative immunity from the charge of anti-Semitism gave them license to be more vocal.

The significance of the event was unmistakable. We were witnessing a major shift in attitudes toward Israel, even (or especially) within the Jewish community. The rose-colored glasses were coming off, and Israel was clearly no longer immune from standards to which other nations had long been held.

To keep things in perspective, community attitudes are far from being reversed. It’s hard to believe that this audience represents even a majority of the community from which it comes. However, for it to be so dominant and numerous in this setting is something of a milestone, and potentially constitutes something of a sea change in the way Israel is perceived.

Take heed. The "other" view of Israel is now respectable.

Many thanks to Peter Stein and Daniel Sokatch for respectively putting on and backing an event at which anti-Israel, pro-Hamas activists feel comfortable.