As we all know, Dan Sokatch and The Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco have parted ways. Mr. Sokatch is leaving and taking a position as CEO of the New Israel Fund.
Many questions are being asked. Did this have anything to do with the Film Festival fiasco? Or with other controversial matters? Is he leaving of his own volition or was he pushed?.
After talking to several people and connecting the dots, here is my assessment of what has happened.
Dan Sokatch is a young, capable, and idealistic man who once studied for the rabbinate, but switched to public advocacy and administration where he thought he could be more effective.
Sokatch founded the Progressive Jewish Alliance (PJA) about a decade ago as a vehicle to “bring the Jewish community into the 21st century” Sokatch can best be situated among those Jews who believe that social justice should be the central organizing principle of American Jewry. And with the PJA he was able to realize many of his core passions.
A little over a year ago, the SF Federation was seeking a new Executive Director. Three features hovered over Federations background that helped color subsequent events
First, donations had been steadily declining, from a peak of 17 thousand families to al little under 11 thousand, in a community of 250,000 Jews. Some way need to be found to turn this around.
Secondly, for the past 20 plus years the San Francisco Federation had developed a reputation as being more left-leaning than comparable Federations in other cities. Some of their allocations went to organizations of the sort that more likely to be supported by the New Israel Fund. Further, the commitment to Israel had been declining, much to the dismay of other Federations around the country, .
Despite this, progressive Jews in the Bay area were suspicious of Federation as being too “old guard”, too committed to Israel with a reluctance to criticize the Jewish state, and demonstrating a long-standing failure to address their concerns. In fact, Federation has always sought consensus and tried to meet the needs of the entire community.
It made some kind of sense to think that someone like Sokatch would be comfortable with the changing philosophy of Federation, would allay the suspicions of the progressive community, and would lead to the involvement of significant numbers of progressives, both financially and personally. And so the job was his.
Sokatch was welcomed into the Federation family with much enthusiasm. Universally, there was good feeling about the hire. But there were two red flags that were ignored.
First, it is never prudent to have a broad based organization like the Federation run by a political operative who represents only one part of the political spectrum. Sokatch’s background was clearly in liberal advocacy, albeit in a Jewish context. When a Federation CEO is not identified with a political bias, the various members of the Jewish community can each project their own personal beliefs and values onto the director.
Secondly, and more specifically, prior to his hiring he had been involved in the founding of J Street, and was on their advisory board. J Street is a progressive political group founded as a vehicle to challenge the strong political support for Israel that had been nurtured for many years by such organizations as AIPAC. In addition, J Street viewed itself as the Jewish cheerleaders for Barack Obama. When the President wanted to lean on Israel, J Street gave them cover within the Jewish community.
While mainstream Jewish activist groups had used their clout to lobby on behalf of the American-Israel relationship in such areas as foreign aid and Iran sanctions, J Street took contrary positions However, for the leaders at the SF Federation, wishful thinking trumped any real consideration that this might be a problem. It was accepted at face value when J Street labeled itself as pro-Israel, despite the fact that it was perceived by many as an alternative to AIPAC, an organization that represents the entire spectrum of pro-Israel orientation. Further, J Street had been organized by persons who had marginal commitments to the welfare of Israel. .
Over the past year, a number of things have happened that caused tension between Sokatch and the lay leaders of Federation.
The first, and the most important of these, was the community-wide outrage at the actions of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival (SFJFF). The festival, under the directorship of Peter Stein, has had a history of showing films that were often considered anti-Israel, and has come under heavily criticism for this. But this year, criticism reached a fever pitch with the decision to show the film “Rachel”. This is a political polemic designed to enhance the martyrdom of Rachel Corrie, a young woman accidently killed by a bulldozer while attempting to stop the IDF from destroying a home in Gaza that was protecting smuggling tunnels.
The problem was magnified by the fact that the festival arranged to have the Jewish Voice for Peace, an outspoken anti-Israel group, and the American Friends Service Committee, as cosponsors
To compound this, the film festival showed a second film, “Defamation”, which mocked concerns about anti-Semitism, ridiculed the Anti-defamation league and Abe Foxman, trivialized the Holocaust, and lionized such figures as Norman Finkelstein, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. The final blow was an invitation from the Film Festival to Cindy Corrie, mother of Rachel and a propagandist for the International Solidarity Movement, a radical group with ties to Hamas.
These poorly conceived decisions by the SFJFF sparked vigorous and broad based outrage, which quickly spread into the national media. . Since Federation was one of the financial sponsors, there was a call for them to defund the festival. Both Peter Stein and the Federation leadership responded to this controversy in a way that can only be described as tone-deaf. They insisted that this was simply an example of “diversity”, and defended the decisions of the SFJFF on\ the basis of catering to a broad range of opinions.
Sokatch was placed in a difficult position. If he spoke out against the Festival, he would antagonize his progressive supporters. But if he failed to do, he risked alienating many of those who considered this to be a moral issue.
Federation and its supporters were determined to hang tough. They were not going to give in to what they thought was simply one more group complaining with little cause about Federation. Further, they attempted to garner support for the film festival director, encouraging letter writing campaigns. One additional piece of support for Stein came when he was nominated for an award by the United Jewish Communities as a community “hero”. All indications are that the nomination originated from within the walls of Federation.
The film festival critics were persistent, and criticism of Stein and the Festival board quickly evolved into a threat to boycott Federation. It appeared that Sokatch might replace Stein as the villain-in-chief.
Secondly, the J Street connection rankled. AS the year went by, J Street was exposed as an anti-Israel lobby group despite their pro-Israel claims. They helped raise money for lawmakers who took critical positions on Israel, and they vocally opposed the Gaza war. The last straw for many came when it was revealed that J Street donors included individuals who had been associated with pro-Palestinian and pro-Iran groups,
At the same time, Sokatch did not entirely sever his connections with J Street, and is slated to be a speaker at their convention in October. It almost seemed as if he were testing the limits of what was acceptable.
Finally, significant donations from the progressive Jewish community did not materialize. Since this was one of the main reasons for his hire, this failure was not helpful.
Despite the fact that there was tension, and that Sokatch became progressively more controversial, his leaving appears to be his own decision. The position as CEO of the New Israel Fund became available; he initially turned it down, but as things became more sticky, he accepted it. There is no reason to believe that he was pushed out,,and he is leaving with considerable good will.
Dan Sokatch is a decent and highly capable person. He is sincere about his commitments, and believes strongly that he is doing the right thing for the future of American Jewry. However, I believe that there are significant problems with Sokatch’s thinking.
The first has to do with his belief that social justice should be the core organizing principle for American Jewry. There is little dispute that social justice is an important component of Jewish thought and action. But if it is to be the central principle, then the question can be asked; why be Jewish? There are many secular organizations that do excellent work in the realm of social justice. And while we must be aware of and attend to social justice as an important feature of Judaism, there are other enduring features, such as religious belief, study of Torah and other texts, and a commitment to the existence of the Jewish state as part of our heritage. We are a diverse people, and not all Jews will be comfortable with all these roles. But without any of these things, and with only a strong commitment to social justice, why not simply join “Ethical Culture” or be active in the ACLU?.
In addition, Sokatch appears to be a man who is unable to recognize that those who disagree with him on some matters are not all simply reacting reflexively and without thought in the name of support for outmoded policies There is reflexive uncritical thinking across the entire political spectrum, and brilliant ideas come from individuals of both the left and the right. If Dan Sokatch can absorb this, he will go far.
Showing posts with label progressive Jews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label progressive Jews. Show all posts
Friday, September 18, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Open Letter to Dan Sokatch, CEO SF Jewish Community Federation
Dear Mr. Sokatch;
I am writing because I am disturbed at the direction that the Federation has taken in its support for the SFJFF, of Peter Stein, and of their programs.
I will not recount the damage done by the screening of "Rachel" and of "Defamation", the use of Cindy Corrie, the sponsorship by JVP, and the unfortunate use of language by you, as well as attempts to reframe the issue by Peter Stein. Others have gone over these issues in great depth.
To claim, as you have, that the SFJFF is independent and that you do not interfere in their programming may be technically true, but misses the point. This would be true de facto if no money from the Federation, or any other form of support, was given to them. However, as this is not the case, you are in part responsible for their actions and any harm that they do to our community. And this being America, you of course can do as you wish; you have only to accept the consequences.
It is certainly true that the SFJFF has done much good over the last 29 years, including reaching out to unaffiliated Jews. However, if they are not careful, all of the good done over 29 years will be annulled by a few bad choices. And I speak of really bad choices, not just films that are edgy or present a somewhat marginal point of view.
If the festival selects films based on the politics of their director and executive committee, they have a responsibility to display caution and due diligence. Not every film that elicits opposition is automatically provocative and deserving of a "discussion". I doubt that we would agree to screen a film that defended the practice of lynching (Birth of a Nation), or glorified Hitler (Triumph of the Will). Would Peter Stein claim that these are wonderful films, with outstanding directors (as they were considered at the time), and though controversial, should provide food for thought?. There are some things that are simply beyond the pale, no matter how many persons may want to see them. . The fact that some may like these films is irrelevant; morality is what matters.
You have received many letters from Federation donors expressing their strong feelings, and their determination to withhold support from Federation. I understand you believe that the Federation can tap the pocketbooks of "progressive" Jews who have not previously been involved, thereby expanding your base of donors. Anyone who has been involved in community work, in politics, or in non-profit fundraising, knows that ignoring your base is always a mistake. I suspect that you will lose far more than you will gain from the few, if any, progressives who decide to support Federation.
What to do?
First, you need to stop using buzz words like "diversity", or "depth of feelings and convictions", and start treating members of the community as adults.
Secondly, you need to stop taking actions to defend and promote Peter Stein. Recently, the UJC recieved a nomination for Peter Stein as a community hero; there are strong reasons to believe that the nomination came from Federation. This, along with a letter writing campaign by staffers, must stop. Federation must not take sides in such a volatile dispute, especially when the side that you take is that of persons who do not wish our commuhnity well.
These issues are too important. Your choice of hanging tough rather than recognizing this as the serious crisis that it is serves no one.
I understand that you believe that this is just another instance of a sour dissident group unhappy with Federation, who are balanced by those who support the SFJFF. Let me assure you that those who are upset with your actions are thinking persons of substance, and that this is a much larger crisis than you seem to believe. It is one which you ignore at your peril. Pandering to our enemies (I am not overstating the case) will achieve a loss of respect for you personally, and ultimately a loss of dollars for Federation.
Lawrence W. White MD
I am writing because I am disturbed at the direction that the Federation has taken in its support for the SFJFF, of Peter Stein, and of their programs.
I will not recount the damage done by the screening of "Rachel" and of "Defamation", the use of Cindy Corrie, the sponsorship by JVP, and the unfortunate use of language by you, as well as attempts to reframe the issue by Peter Stein. Others have gone over these issues in great depth.
To claim, as you have, that the SFJFF is independent and that you do not interfere in their programming may be technically true, but misses the point. This would be true de facto if no money from the Federation, or any other form of support, was given to them. However, as this is not the case, you are in part responsible for their actions and any harm that they do to our community. And this being America, you of course can do as you wish; you have only to accept the consequences.
It is certainly true that the SFJFF has done much good over the last 29 years, including reaching out to unaffiliated Jews. However, if they are not careful, all of the good done over 29 years will be annulled by a few bad choices. And I speak of really bad choices, not just films that are edgy or present a somewhat marginal point of view.
If the festival selects films based on the politics of their director and executive committee, they have a responsibility to display caution and due diligence. Not every film that elicits opposition is automatically provocative and deserving of a "discussion". I doubt that we would agree to screen a film that defended the practice of lynching (Birth of a Nation), or glorified Hitler (Triumph of the Will). Would Peter Stein claim that these are wonderful films, with outstanding directors (as they were considered at the time), and though controversial, should provide food for thought?. There are some things that are simply beyond the pale, no matter how many persons may want to see them. . The fact that some may like these films is irrelevant; morality is what matters.
You have received many letters from Federation donors expressing their strong feelings, and their determination to withhold support from Federation. I understand you believe that the Federation can tap the pocketbooks of "progressive" Jews who have not previously been involved, thereby expanding your base of donors. Anyone who has been involved in community work, in politics, or in non-profit fundraising, knows that ignoring your base is always a mistake. I suspect that you will lose far more than you will gain from the few, if any, progressives who decide to support Federation.
What to do?
First, you need to stop using buzz words like "diversity", or "depth of feelings and convictions", and start treating members of the community as adults.
Secondly, you need to stop taking actions to defend and promote Peter Stein. Recently, the UJC recieved a nomination for Peter Stein as a community hero; there are strong reasons to believe that the nomination came from Federation. This, along with a letter writing campaign by staffers, must stop. Federation must not take sides in such a volatile dispute, especially when the side that you take is that of persons who do not wish our commuhnity well.
These issues are too important. Your choice of hanging tough rather than recognizing this as the serious crisis that it is serves no one.
I understand that you believe that this is just another instance of a sour dissident group unhappy with Federation, who are balanced by those who support the SFJFF. Let me assure you that those who are upset with your actions are thinking persons of substance, and that this is a much larger crisis than you seem to believe. It is one which you ignore at your peril. Pandering to our enemies (I am not overstating the case) will achieve a loss of respect for you personally, and ultimately a loss of dollars for Federation.
Lawrence W. White MD
Where is the Outrage; Hatred Comes to the Bay Area Jewish Community and it Comes From Some Jews
I have lived in the Bay area since 1995. I have seen many instances of anti-Semitism coming from Jews, including demonstrations by members of Jewish Voice for Peace, Women in Black, and others, often in collaboration with Palestinian groups. I remember how some of these groups shut down a speech by Benjamin Netanyahu in Berkeley about eight years ago, and the claim by a Jewish leader of one of these organizations (MECA) that “not everyone deserved free speech”. I remember demonstrations in front of the Israel consulate which threatened to turn violent. I have read anti-Semitic diatribes in the pages of the Berkeley Daily Planet.
But for the first time, the larger community has reacted vigorously to these outrages. The catalyst was the showing of the film “Rachel” by the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, and co-sponsored by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). The JVP has nothing to do with peace and is questionably Jewish; it has become an ostensibly Jewish mouthpiece for the allies of Hamas. Along with the showing of Rachel, Cindy Corrie, a flak for the International Solidarity Movement, was gently interviewed by Peter Stein, the Jewish film festival director. You will read below how that showing degenerated into a hate fest.
Despite the clear outrage, the SFJFF believes that they simply started a dialogue about something with two presumably equally valid points of view. (By their reckoning, Birth of a Nation, which defended the Ku Klux Klan, or Triumph of the Will, which glorified Hitler, might also be merely controversial and deserving of discussion). The Jewish weekly, “J” ran a point-counterpoint spread presenting both sides of the argument (see Larry Goldberg’s article below). “J” saw no need or value in taking sides. The Film Festival, controlled by a director and board who are far left ideologues, has issued no apology and defend their actions on grounds of aesthetics and free speech (The film was a political polemic, not a well crafted documentary with aesthetic value)
And the Federation of SF? They are not taking sides either. Their new CEO comes from a progressive background, and is one of the founders of the far-left “J Street”. Presumably he does not wish to alienate his base. Perhaps he really believes that there is nothing wrong in showing propaganda put out by a pro-Hamas group. Perhaps he believes that progressive Jews who hate Israel will suddenly start giving money to the Federation.
Federation’s minimal response consisted of carefully chosen non-committal words, along the lines of ‘Hey, not us. We have no control over what they do’ Well, never mind that the Federation gives partial funding to the SFJFF. And never mind that the community donates its dollars to that same Federation. And never mind that we expect some leadership on moral issues that affect our community. Is there not some reason to expect our leaders to express some judgment regarding this anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate fest? Where is the outrage?
But for the first time, the larger community has reacted vigorously to these outrages. The catalyst was the showing of the film “Rachel” by the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, and co-sponsored by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). The JVP has nothing to do with peace and is questionably Jewish; it has become an ostensibly Jewish mouthpiece for the allies of Hamas. Along with the showing of Rachel, Cindy Corrie, a flak for the International Solidarity Movement, was gently interviewed by Peter Stein, the Jewish film festival director. You will read below how that showing degenerated into a hate fest.
Despite the clear outrage, the SFJFF believes that they simply started a dialogue about something with two presumably equally valid points of view. (By their reckoning, Birth of a Nation, which defended the Ku Klux Klan, or Triumph of the Will, which glorified Hitler, might also be merely controversial and deserving of discussion). The Jewish weekly, “J” ran a point-counterpoint spread presenting both sides of the argument (see Larry Goldberg’s article below). “J” saw no need or value in taking sides. The Film Festival, controlled by a director and board who are far left ideologues, has issued no apology and defend their actions on grounds of aesthetics and free speech (The film was a political polemic, not a well crafted documentary with aesthetic value)
And the Federation of SF? They are not taking sides either. Their new CEO comes from a progressive background, and is one of the founders of the far-left “J Street”. Presumably he does not wish to alienate his base. Perhaps he really believes that there is nothing wrong in showing propaganda put out by a pro-Hamas group. Perhaps he believes that progressive Jews who hate Israel will suddenly start giving money to the Federation.
Federation’s minimal response consisted of carefully chosen non-committal words, along the lines of ‘Hey, not us. We have no control over what they do’ Well, never mind that the Federation gives partial funding to the SFJFF. And never mind that the community donates its dollars to that same Federation. And never mind that we expect some leadership on moral issues that affect our community. Is there not some reason to expect our leaders to express some judgment regarding this anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate fest? Where is the outrage?
Friday, September 4, 2009
Memo to Peter Stein; SFJFF Screening for 2010
To: Peter Stein;
From: Lawrence White;
Subject; It is not too early to consider screening for next year.
I recommend that for 2010, SFJFF consider the film described below. There is no downside to doing this.
Jewish Voice for Peace, which advocates talking to Hamas, will support it. The Corrie family, who spend a lot of time in Gaza, will love it. The ISM, active in hiding terrorists, will co-sponsor it along with Women in Black. This will serve to expand the ranks of our viewers, garner more controversy, more publicity, and more viewers. .
And for the rest of the Jews? Federation will not get involved, except to throw money raised from the community at us. They will tell us that SFJFF is an independent organization, they will not tell us what to screen,
A little discussion/dialogue within the community is a healthy thing, and this movie will certainly accomplish this. We need to get past bland pro-Israel programming and look at the issues that divide our community. These differences must be aired. Not everyone is pro-Israel, and we need to accept that we are American Jews, not Israeli Jews, and our concerns are different.
It is time to look at other voices. This film was made in Palestine. The director is a gifted young man educated in Germany. It has received applause and praise from viewers in Gaza. It will likely be shown at Cannes,
We have shown many films made in Israel. What's wrong with one film from Palestine?
Perhaps we can invite someone from CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood to discuss the movie in a Q and A led by you (Peter Stein) , (microphone to be carefully guarded so comments only from those who love the movie.) And oh yes, if those pesky Zionists make a lot of noise, we will let them have a few minutes before the film to air their tired grievances. (What's wrong with those people? Don't they have lives?)
See you at the movies.
Hamas goes to the movies
From The Independent
By Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza
The audience in the Gaza Strip clapped and cheered as the actor delivered the movie's most memorable line – "To kill Israeli soldiers is to worship God".
Imad Aqel, which premiered at the weekend, is the first feature film produced by the Islamist Hamas movement and the title is the name of a Palestinian militant whom Israel held accountable for the deaths of 13 soldiers and settlers.
Director of Hamas feature film hopes it will air at Cannes Film Festival
ALEX SORIN and JPOST STAFF , THE JERUSALEM POST
Hamas's first dramatic feature film depicting the life top Hamas operative Emad Akel was aired publicly on Monday to cheering crowds in the Gaza Strip, Al Jazeera reported.
The film's director Majid Jundiya who studied film in Germany said that he hopes the film will be shown in the Cannes Film Festival, and added that the film is one of Hamas's first attempts at breaking into the media industry.
The film received applause and praise from the viewers in Gaza.
The $200,000 budget movie tells the story of Emad Akel, commander of the Hamas military wing, who was killed in a firefight with Israeli troops in Gaza in 1993.
Akel, 23 at the time, was known as "the ghost" for his many disguises, including dressing up as a Jewish settler with a skullcap. In the early 1990s, he topped Israel's wanted list for his suspected role in killing 11 IDF soldiers, an Israeli civilian and four Palestinian informers in a series of attack.
From: Lawrence White;
Subject; It is not too early to consider screening for next year.
I recommend that for 2010, SFJFF consider the film described below. There is no downside to doing this.
Jewish Voice for Peace, which advocates talking to Hamas, will support it. The Corrie family, who spend a lot of time in Gaza, will love it. The ISM, active in hiding terrorists, will co-sponsor it along with Women in Black. This will serve to expand the ranks of our viewers, garner more controversy, more publicity, and more viewers. .
And for the rest of the Jews? Federation will not get involved, except to throw money raised from the community at us. They will tell us that SFJFF is an independent organization, they will not tell us what to screen,
A little discussion/dialogue within the community is a healthy thing, and this movie will certainly accomplish this. We need to get past bland pro-Israel programming and look at the issues that divide our community. These differences must be aired. Not everyone is pro-Israel, and we need to accept that we are American Jews, not Israeli Jews, and our concerns are different.
It is time to look at other voices. This film was made in Palestine. The director is a gifted young man educated in Germany. It has received applause and praise from viewers in Gaza. It will likely be shown at Cannes,
We have shown many films made in Israel. What's wrong with one film from Palestine?
Perhaps we can invite someone from CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood to discuss the movie in a Q and A led by you (Peter Stein) , (microphone to be carefully guarded so comments only from those who love the movie.) And oh yes, if those pesky Zionists make a lot of noise, we will let them have a few minutes before the film to air their tired grievances. (What's wrong with those people? Don't they have lives?)
See you at the movies.
Hamas goes to the movies
From The Independent
By Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza
The audience in the Gaza Strip clapped and cheered as the actor delivered the movie's most memorable line – "To kill Israeli soldiers is to worship God".
Imad Aqel, which premiered at the weekend, is the first feature film produced by the Islamist Hamas movement and the title is the name of a Palestinian militant whom Israel held accountable for the deaths of 13 soldiers and settlers.
Director of Hamas feature film hopes it will air at Cannes Film Festival
ALEX SORIN and JPOST STAFF , THE JERUSALEM POST
Hamas's first dramatic feature film depicting the life top Hamas operative Emad Akel was aired publicly on Monday to cheering crowds in the Gaza Strip, Al Jazeera reported.
The film's director Majid Jundiya who studied film in Germany said that he hopes the film will be shown in the Cannes Film Festival, and added that the film is one of Hamas's first attempts at breaking into the media industry.
The film received applause and praise from the viewers in Gaza.
The $200,000 budget movie tells the story of Emad Akel, commander of the Hamas military wing, who was killed in a firefight with Israeli troops in Gaza in 1993.
Akel, 23 at the time, was known as "the ghost" for his many disguises, including dressing up as a Jewish settler with a skullcap. In the early 1990s, he topped Israel's wanted list for his suspected role in killing 11 IDF soldiers, an Israeli civilian and four Palestinian informers in a series of attack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)