The SF Jewish film Festival, the SF Federation,
and the Pro-Israel Community
by Lawrence W. White MD
For many years, the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival (SFJFF) has run films critical of Israel, often with attitudes bordering on anti-Semitism. This year, the film “Rachel” celebrated the life and death of Rachel Corrie. Rachel was an impressionable young student recruited by the International Solidarity Movement, (ISM), a Hamas-supporting group, who was sent to Gaza to aid in the campaign to demonize Israel. She was accidentally killed when she entered a war zone to try to stop the removal of tunnels used to smuggle arms to Hamas. The ISM loves martyrs, and so Rachel became a glorious sacrifice to the cause of demonizing Israel. And so, one of the many ideologically motivated film makers, made a documentary about the life and death of Rachel. And predictably, the SFJFF decided this rather mediocre film was a must showing for their annual festival.
The film festival compounded this provocation by co-sponsoring the film with two anti-Israel groups, and by inviting Rachel’s mother, Cindy Corrie, a mouthpiece for ISM, to speak. .The showing of the film was welcomed by the most vocal elements of the anti-Israel community, who hailed the screening as a milestone in getting American Jews to break with Israel. Pro-Israel spokespersons, such as Michael Harris who was invited to give a short presentation before the film to mollify critics, were booed and harassed. Larry Goldberg, who attempted to ask a question after the Cindy Corrie soft-ball interview, had the microphone snatched from his hands by SFJFF goons.
And then there was the showing of Defamation by the film festival, a film that ridiculed concerns about anti-Semitism as if a guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington had not been murdered recently because of Jew hatred, as if a world-wide outbreak of anti-Semitism has not occurred as a result of solidarity with the Arab masses and manipulation by the Arab sheikdoms. Further, “Defamation” ridiculed teaching about the Holocaust, giving respectability to the views of Norman Finkelstein, a professional anti-Semite and Israel hater, who makes his living speaking to conventions of Holocaust deniers, who refers to the Holocaust as an “industry”, and who ridicules Elie Wiesel as the “clown prince of the Holocaust”. The film mocks Abraham Foxman and the ADL, and glorifies Walt and Mearsheimer, the authors of “The Israel Lobby”.
There are Jewish film festivals all over the country; none have been controversial. The difference is that the others are about film, about Jewish culture, about history, about real people and honest problems. The SFJFF is largely about left wing anti-Israel propaganda. The CEO, Peter Stein, and most of his board, are ideologues who are less interested in Jewish film, culture, and history than in anti-Jewish propaganda.
The result? A major rift in the community between those who support the existence of a Jewish state and want a strong US-Israel relationship, and those whose radical proclivities are far stronger than any feelings for Israel or for the survival of the Jewish people.
For those supporting Israel, there are two main targets that have emerged; the film festival and its director, and the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, which has given its imprimatur year after year to the festival, and contributed funds collected from its donors to the festival.
The SF Federation has not acted in good faith. When the controversy exploded, leaders and staffers in Federation initiated a letter writing program defending the showing of “Rachel”. The director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, an arm of Federation, published a column in J, ridiculing film festival critics and implying that they were a tiny, angry, and vocal minority, who were unconcerned with the issues of the greater community. The SF Federation nominated Peter Stein as a hero of the Jewish community in a contest run by the United Jewish Communities.
The Federation CEO, Daniel Sokatch, a founder of the anti-Israel group "J Street" and a member of their advisory board, complained about muzzling of the “progressive” community. Sokatch, who did untold damage to the reputation of Federation in the larger community, compounded the controversy by defending the film festival. As pro-Israel donors began to consider bypassing Federation with their dollars, Sokatch also bailed out by taking the CEO job at the New Israel Fund, another fringe group which, like J Street, is anti-Israel while claiming to be pro-Israel. Why the Federation chose a far-left wing ideologue as CEO says more about the Federation than about Dan Sokatch. At best, it is a demonstration of naïveté, at worst, an indication of the political inclinations of the Bay area Jewish community.
Recently, pro-Israel leaders in the community attempted to find a formula to heal the rift. They asked the Federation to pass a resolution that would deny funds to any organizations that advocated harming Israel via boycotts, divestment and sanctions. At the insistence of Federation, the wording was watered down repeatedly. Zvi Alon, Natan Nestel, and others tried to run an advertisement in the weekly Jewish paper, “J”, advocating for this resolution. Then Federation successfully used its muscle to get “J” to refuse the ad. This time the critics fought back, threatening to expose the behind the scenes censorship by Federation. As a result, “J” backed down and reluctantly ran the ad.
At a contentious meeting on Nov 19, Federation voted against the resolution, promising to reconsider it at their February meeting, and hoping the issue would go away by then. Perhaps they failed to understand that this controversy had now gone international. Media coverage had exposed the rift, and had shown how extreme anti-Israel groups have hijacked both the film festival and the Federation, and acted to accelerate the abandonment of Israel by a growing segment of the American Jewish community.
Rabbi Daniel Gordis, a thoughtful and articulate writer, published an article in the Jerusalem Post on this subject. Pointing out facetiously that the world agrees that “Israel is the primary culprit in the Middle East conflict, the cause of relentless Palestinian suffering and the primary obstacle blocking the way to regional peace” Gordis discusses how the world has instigated a chorus of opprobrium as exemplified by the Swedish organ-snatching blood libel, Norwegian divestment, Turkish severance of military cooperation with Israel, and the US administration notion that the problem in the Middle East can be boiled down simply to the “settlements”, including areas of Jerusalem currently “occupied” by Jews.
And the list seems endless. American Jews have now joined in. According to Gordis, Canadian and American Jews have lashed out at the Toronto International Film Festival for its honoring of Tel Aviv. Two American Jewish sociologists have written that 50% of American Jews under age 35 have stated that the destruction of Israel would not be a personal tragedy for them. And on and on.
As Gordis pointed out:
“In San Francisco, Jewish communal funds were used to support the SF Jewish Film Festival's screening of Rachel, an Israel-bashing "documentary" about Rachel Corrie of International Solidarity Movement fame. Noting that the SFJFF was now effectively in partnership with Jewish Voices for Peace, a well known anti-Israel, pro-boycott organization, many prominent Jews vehemently protested. But the film was shown, anyway.”
So Federation, now an unindicted co-conspirator in the abandonment of Israel, will not agree to withhold funding from those who demonize Israel. And further they hope (expect) that their critics will forget about this by the time of their next meeting. They won’t.
The good news is that this is not a new phenomenon. We have seen this drama many times before. Because Jews from Central Europe preceded Eastern European Jews in immigrating to America by two or three generations, they found themselves suddenly embarrassed by those who clamed to be their fellow Jews. The new arrivals spoke Yiddish, lived in poverty, and were completely unassimilated, while wealthy German Jews, who had fully become a part of the larger American community with leadership positions in government, finance, retailing, and professional life, looked down their noses at their co-religionists as they figured ways to set themselves apart from these aliens..
Then we had the phenomenon of those Jews who put loyalty to Roosevelt ahead of rescue of European Jews. Or Jews who put loyalty to Stalin ahead of saving Jewish intellectuals from show trials and execution.
And again, those elements of the Reform Jewish community who opposed Zionism in the 1940s, formed the American Council for Judaism, and installed Rabbi Elmer Berger as its CEO. Their fear? Accusations of dual loyalty, and a desire to prove beyond any doubt their allegiance to their host nation.
And again, when a fight erupted over community control of schools in New York, wealthy Manhattan Jews wanted to ally with the black community more than they wanted to protect the less influential Jewish teachers and social workers. And again, when Leonard Bernstein and his ilk lionized the black Panthers and radical black anti-Semites.(immortalized by Tom Wolfe in “Radical Chic”). Or recently when Michael Lerner (another anti-Israel propagandist pretending to be pro-Israel) invited the rabid Israel hater Alice Walker to give the Yom Kippur sermon at his temple.
It is hard to pick up a newspaper without reading some evidence of a rift in the Jewish community. Samuel Freedman has written a wonderful book called “Jew vs. Jew” in which he profiles many examples of internecine battles among Jews in America over the last 50 years. Though this is not a new phenomenon, the Bay area excels at the sort of venom in which the far left seems to specialize.
So what now? Those who want SF Federation to declare their clear intent to deny funding or validation of anti-Israel action or talk are here to stay. At the same time, another group, also large, influential, and well connected, is trying to secure the resignation of Peter Stein. If Stein does not resign voluntarily (which seems unlikely) supporters hope to get funders to withdraw support from the film festival.
Federation loudly defends itself, pointing out that it has been active in promoting Israel. And the film festival defends itself by pointing to some of its other cosponsors and non-controversial films. However, as long as Federation does not declare its intent regarding support for those who defame Israel, and as long as Peter Stein remains stubbornly recalcitrant and continues calling the shots at the SFJFF, the rift will remain.
Showing posts with label "Dan Sokatch". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "Dan Sokatch". Show all posts
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Letter from Tammi Benjamin to Chair of Jewish Community Federation
Dear Mr. Koshland,
I would like to bring to your attention the article below, in which Lenny Ben-David poses some excellent questions to J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami.
In the spirit of Ben-David's article, here are two questions which I would like to pose to the SF Jewish Community Federation Board of Directors:
Do you think that choosing a member of J Street's advisory council to be the Federation CEO was a wise decision?
Do you intend to adopt a resolution ensuring that Jewish communal funds will not go to support any organization or event that demonizes Israel, promotes the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement, or lends support or legitimacy to terrorist organizations?
Mr. Koshland, the Federation's inadequate response to the anti-Semitic demonization of Israel and her supporters engendered by the SFJFF "Rachel" event, coupled with the revelation that your former CEO has strong ties to J Street, have led many Bay Area Jews to lose confidence in the Federation and to question their continuing financial support.
Your Board's answers to the questions I have posed could go a long way to addressing this crisis of confidence. I and the thousands of community members who will read this email look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Tammi Benjamin
Showdown on J Street
Lenny Ben-David
October 20, 2009
J Street’s director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, published an open letter [1] to Israel’s Ambassador Michael Oren in the Jerusalem Post this week insisting that he appear at the J Street Conference at the end of the month. Hopefully, Ambassador Oren will continue to deny the supposed “pro-Israel” organization the legitimacy of his presence.
J Street’s goals and policies were revealed when Stephen Walt, co-author of the venomous The Israel Lobby, recently proclaimed [2], “This is a key moment in the debate. It will be important whether Obama gets enough cover from J Street and the Israel Policy Forum so Obama can say, ‘AIPAC is not representative of the American Jewish community.’”
It’s time to call out Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s director, to answer the following questions:
1: You served as Fenton Communications’ senior vice president until you established J Street, launched in 2008. In early 2009, Fenton signed contracts with a Qatari foundation to lead an 18-month long anti-Israel campaign in the United States with a special focus on campuses. The actual text of the contract [3] called for: “An international public opinion awareness campaign that advocates for the accountability of those who participated in attacks against schools in Gaza.”
Did you sever your ties with Fenton when you began J Street? Do you retain any role or holdings in Fenton today? Did you play any role in introducing Fenton to the Qatari agents or play any role in facilitating the contract? Were you aware of the negotiations or the contract signed on March 12, 2009?
These questions are relevant because it’s important to know if J Street’s refusal to support Israel’s anti-Hamas military campaign was influenced by your ties with Fenton, whose promotional material claims: “We only represent people and projects we believe in.”
Were there discussions with Fenton prior to J Street’s refusal to condemn the Goldstone Report on Gaza, a report that certainly serves the Fenton/Qatari interests? Were there communications with Fenton surrounding J Street’s support for Rep. Donna Edwards who refused to sign a congressional resolution supporting Israeli actions in Gaza?
2: You were recently asked in an interview [4] about funds J Street received from Palestinians, Arab-Americans, and Iranian-Americans, to which you answered: “J Street does have some Arab and Muslim donors — about five. These are individuals, not organizations, corporations or foreign countries. Well over 90 percent of our money comes from Jewish Americans and Christians.”
Did you really say J Street has only five Arab and Muslim donors? A partial listing quickly extracted from the U.S. Federal Election Commission shows [5] more than 30 contributors, many with ties to Arab-American organizations.
So far, only J Street’s Political Action Committee has disclosed its contributors, as mandated by federal law. But who are the donors to the main J Street organization? Make that list public, and these pesky inquiries will probably go away.
When asked about J Street’s funding by the Jerusalem Post — the newspaper that ran the original exposé — you responded [6] “at most 3 percent” of contributors were Muslim or Arab. Now you state that the figure may be closer to 10 percent. One tenth of J Street’s budget of $3 million, or $300,000, is a substantial sum. Why do so many Arabs contribute to an organization that purports to be “pro-Israel?”
3: Do any Israelis support J Street’s agenda? How many? Look at the list of Israeli speakers appearing at J Street’s Conference, all losers in Israel’s political arena: Ami Ayalon, Colette Avital, Amir Peretz, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Yuli Tamir, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak. They have all failed to secure support from the Israeli electorate or even from their own parties, so they take their messages to the U.S. and plead with the U.S. government to pressure Israel’s government, make the Israelis do things that their citizens have already rejected. The tactic is patently anti-democratic.
Two retired senior IDF officers, well-known members of the peace camp, recently went to the U.S. to speak on J Street’s behalf. When they got there they discovered that J Street opposed sanctions against Iran. According to a JTA account, Brig. Gen.(res) Israela Oron called for a “timetable that would be tied to punishing sanctions.”
“The thing that worries me and that worries other Israelis is that [current negotiations are] not limited in time,” Oron said as the faces of her J Street hosts turned anxious, adding [7]“I’m not sure I’m expressing the J Street opinion.”
Maj. Gen. (res) Danny Rothschild discovered that he differed [8] with J Street’s policies on an immediate freezing of settlements, the halting of settlements’ natural growth, and opposing tough sanctions against Iran.
And then Labor MK Ophir Pines-Paz spoke to a Washington gathering in early October sponsored by J Street’s co-founder, Daniel Levy, today of the New America Foundation. When Pines-Paz was told he was wrong in “assuming that everyone on the left is aligned on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and threat, [and in agreement] with Israel’s assessment,” he exploded. [9] “Wake up!” he shouted.
J Street produced a film clip for its site and for YouTube [10] showing prominent Israelis who “speak out in support of a two-state solution and J Street.” But do they actually support J Street? View the clip carefully and discover that only three out of 11 Israelis mention J Street at all — former minister Ami Ayalon and Uri Savir. The third is former MK Colette Avital who is a J Street employee in Israel. Not quite the ringing endorsement J Street had in mind.
Even the leaders of Israel’s opposition have refused to appear at the Conference, according to sources in Jerusalem.
4: How extensive is your interlocking directorship? I believe that is the correct characterization of J Street and its allied organizations. J Street’s contributions from the heads of the Arab American Institute and Iranian lobby NIAC have been documented in these pages. They serve on J Street’s Finance Committee which has a minimum requirement of $10,000. As research continues in the files of various federal agencies, we found that the interlocking relations continue into the second tiers as well.
Take for example, the case of Rebecca Abou-Chedid. She appears in the federal elections records as contributing to J Street’s PAC. Her occupation is listed as “consultant” for “USUS LLC.” But until recently, she was also the national political director at the Arab American Institute where she “was responsible for formulating AAI’s positions on foreign policy … and represented the Arab American community with Congress as well as the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State.” Today, Abou-Chedid is the director of outreach at the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force. [11]
J Street co-founder and Advisory Council member Daniel Levy serves as co-director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation, an institute that benefits from George Soros’ largess and membership on its board.
Heads of other pro-Arab organizations, such as AMIDEAST, and Arab foreign agents are contributors to the PAC. But Mr. Ben-Ami claims that no organizations or foreign governments contribute. They don’t need do; their representatives do.
5: Who drives policy at J Street? It’s difficult to imagine that the unwieldy J-Street 160-member board of advisors directs policy. Some of those members are also foreign agents who worked for Egypt and Saudi Arabia. It also seems unlikely that your big bucks, 50-member Finance Committee provides decision-making guidance. That’s where the heads of the pro-Iranian and Arab-American lobbies sit.
So who directs policy? A hint was provided by a left-wing blogger, Richard Silverstein, who heard the pre-launch spiel in Seattle given by you and “co-founder” Daniel Levy 18 months ago.
“It’s always important with efforts like this to examine the board member names,” Silverman wrote. [12] “There are of course leaders of the main American Jewish peace groups. There are rabbis and academics. But most important there are heavy hitter political donors (Alan Solomont), policy wonks (Rob Malley), U.S. ambassadors to Israel (Samuel Lewis), high level political operatives (Eli Pariser of Moveon), Hollywood liberals (Robert Greenwald), business leaders, George Soros’ top aide (Morton Halperin), and even a former Republican senator (Lincoln Chafee) and former Congressman (Tom Downey). … The group founders believe that Barack Obama and his staff “get” J Street’s perspective while they believe a Clinton candidacy might not advance J Street’s mission as aggressively.” [Note, the briefing was given at the height of the Democratic primaries.]
Soros, the National Journal reported, was present [12] at J Street’s initial strategy sessions.
Anyone reading Soros’ 2007 manifesto, “On Israel, America and AIPAC [13],” will understand that he is the spiritual godfather of J Street, if not its silent sugardaddy.
“I believe that a much-needed self-examination of American policy in the Middle East has started in this country,” Soros proclaimed, “but it can’t make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Some leaders of the Democratic Party have promised to bring about a change of direction but they cannot deliver on that promise until they are able to resist the dictates of AIPAC. Palestine is a place of critical importance where positive change is still possible. Iraq is largely beyond our control; but if we succeeded in settling the Palestinian problem we would be in a much better position to engage in negotiations with Iran and extricate ourselves from Iraq. The need for a peace settlement in Palestine is greater than ever. Both for the sake of Israel and the United States, it is highly desirable that the Saudi peace initiative should succeed; but AIPAC stands in the way. It continues to oppose dealing with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.”
So it appears that Soros has created an organization that competes with AIPAC, calls for inclusion of Hamas, and opposes sanctions against Iran. His people sit on J Street’s board, and his other offspring from the New America Foundation and the National Iranian American Council, work in lockstep. It’s a scary scenario that should attract the attention of the best investigative reporters from national news outlets, but the modern day Lotus Eaters have been lulled and ensnared by J Street.
But just because they won’t ask the tough questions doesn’t mean that they don’t have to be answered.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/showdown-on-j-street/
URLs in this post:
[1] an open letter: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1255450643490&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
[2] proclaimed: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/aipac-still-chosen-one
[3] text of the contract: http://www.fara.gov/docs/5945-Exhibit-AB-20090928-4.pdf%20http://www.fara.gov/docs/5945-Exhibit-AB-20090928-3.pdf
[4] an interview: http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/39884/head-of-liberal-jewish-lobby-pushes-back-against-his-critics/
[5] shows: http://jaystreetcontributors.blogspot.com/2009/10/j-streets-exec-jeremy-ben-ami-was.html
[6] you responded: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418604334&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
[7] adding : http://jta.org/news/article/2009/09/07/1007638/iran-policy-could-leave-some-jewish-groups-without-israeli-constiuency
[8] discovered that he differed: http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/09/16/1007930/j-streets-general-doesnt-always-agree-with-j-street
[9] he exploded.: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/israels-pines-paz-ignores_b_306195.html
[10] YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPBxwTqYPM0
[11] director of outreach at the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force.: http://www.trumanproject.org/programs/fellowship/people/rebecca-abou-chedid
[12] Silverman wrote.: http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/04/17/j-street-new-israel-peace-lobby-launches/
=
I would like to bring to your attention the article below, in which Lenny Ben-David poses some excellent questions to J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami.
In the spirit of Ben-David's article, here are two questions which I would like to pose to the SF Jewish Community Federation Board of Directors:
Do you think that choosing a member of J Street's advisory council to be the Federation CEO was a wise decision?
Do you intend to adopt a resolution ensuring that Jewish communal funds will not go to support any organization or event that demonizes Israel, promotes the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement, or lends support or legitimacy to terrorist organizations?
Mr. Koshland, the Federation's inadequate response to the anti-Semitic demonization of Israel and her supporters engendered by the SFJFF "Rachel" event, coupled with the revelation that your former CEO has strong ties to J Street, have led many Bay Area Jews to lose confidence in the Federation and to question their continuing financial support.
Your Board's answers to the questions I have posed could go a long way to addressing this crisis of confidence. I and the thousands of community members who will read this email look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Tammi Benjamin
Showdown on J Street
Lenny Ben-David
October 20, 2009
J Street’s director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, published an open letter [1] to Israel’s Ambassador Michael Oren in the Jerusalem Post this week insisting that he appear at the J Street Conference at the end of the month. Hopefully, Ambassador Oren will continue to deny the supposed “pro-Israel” organization the legitimacy of his presence.
J Street’s goals and policies were revealed when Stephen Walt, co-author of the venomous The Israel Lobby, recently proclaimed [2], “This is a key moment in the debate. It will be important whether Obama gets enough cover from J Street and the Israel Policy Forum so Obama can say, ‘AIPAC is not representative of the American Jewish community.’”
It’s time to call out Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s director, to answer the following questions:
1: You served as Fenton Communications’ senior vice president until you established J Street, launched in 2008. In early 2009, Fenton signed contracts with a Qatari foundation to lead an 18-month long anti-Israel campaign in the United States with a special focus on campuses. The actual text of the contract [3] called for: “An international public opinion awareness campaign that advocates for the accountability of those who participated in attacks against schools in Gaza.”
Did you sever your ties with Fenton when you began J Street? Do you retain any role or holdings in Fenton today? Did you play any role in introducing Fenton to the Qatari agents or play any role in facilitating the contract? Were you aware of the negotiations or the contract signed on March 12, 2009?
These questions are relevant because it’s important to know if J Street’s refusal to support Israel’s anti-Hamas military campaign was influenced by your ties with Fenton, whose promotional material claims: “We only represent people and projects we believe in.”
Were there discussions with Fenton prior to J Street’s refusal to condemn the Goldstone Report on Gaza, a report that certainly serves the Fenton/Qatari interests? Were there communications with Fenton surrounding J Street’s support for Rep. Donna Edwards who refused to sign a congressional resolution supporting Israeli actions in Gaza?
2: You were recently asked in an interview [4] about funds J Street received from Palestinians, Arab-Americans, and Iranian-Americans, to which you answered: “J Street does have some Arab and Muslim donors — about five. These are individuals, not organizations, corporations or foreign countries. Well over 90 percent of our money comes from Jewish Americans and Christians.”
Did you really say J Street has only five Arab and Muslim donors? A partial listing quickly extracted from the U.S. Federal Election Commission shows [5] more than 30 contributors, many with ties to Arab-American organizations.
So far, only J Street’s Political Action Committee has disclosed its contributors, as mandated by federal law. But who are the donors to the main J Street organization? Make that list public, and these pesky inquiries will probably go away.
When asked about J Street’s funding by the Jerusalem Post — the newspaper that ran the original exposé — you responded [6] “at most 3 percent” of contributors were Muslim or Arab. Now you state that the figure may be closer to 10 percent. One tenth of J Street’s budget of $3 million, or $300,000, is a substantial sum. Why do so many Arabs contribute to an organization that purports to be “pro-Israel?”
3: Do any Israelis support J Street’s agenda? How many? Look at the list of Israeli speakers appearing at J Street’s Conference, all losers in Israel’s political arena: Ami Ayalon, Colette Avital, Amir Peretz, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Yuli Tamir, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak. They have all failed to secure support from the Israeli electorate or even from their own parties, so they take their messages to the U.S. and plead with the U.S. government to pressure Israel’s government, make the Israelis do things that their citizens have already rejected. The tactic is patently anti-democratic.
Two retired senior IDF officers, well-known members of the peace camp, recently went to the U.S. to speak on J Street’s behalf. When they got there they discovered that J Street opposed sanctions against Iran. According to a JTA account, Brig. Gen.(res) Israela Oron called for a “timetable that would be tied to punishing sanctions.”
“The thing that worries me and that worries other Israelis is that [current negotiations are] not limited in time,” Oron said as the faces of her J Street hosts turned anxious, adding [7]“I’m not sure I’m expressing the J Street opinion.”
Maj. Gen. (res) Danny Rothschild discovered that he differed [8] with J Street’s policies on an immediate freezing of settlements, the halting of settlements’ natural growth, and opposing tough sanctions against Iran.
And then Labor MK Ophir Pines-Paz spoke to a Washington gathering in early October sponsored by J Street’s co-founder, Daniel Levy, today of the New America Foundation. When Pines-Paz was told he was wrong in “assuming that everyone on the left is aligned on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and threat, [and in agreement] with Israel’s assessment,” he exploded. [9] “Wake up!” he shouted.
J Street produced a film clip for its site and for YouTube [10] showing prominent Israelis who “speak out in support of a two-state solution and J Street.” But do they actually support J Street? View the clip carefully and discover that only three out of 11 Israelis mention J Street at all — former minister Ami Ayalon and Uri Savir. The third is former MK Colette Avital who is a J Street employee in Israel. Not quite the ringing endorsement J Street had in mind.
Even the leaders of Israel’s opposition have refused to appear at the Conference, according to sources in Jerusalem.
4: How extensive is your interlocking directorship? I believe that is the correct characterization of J Street and its allied organizations. J Street’s contributions from the heads of the Arab American Institute and Iranian lobby NIAC have been documented in these pages. They serve on J Street’s Finance Committee which has a minimum requirement of $10,000. As research continues in the files of various federal agencies, we found that the interlocking relations continue into the second tiers as well.
Take for example, the case of Rebecca Abou-Chedid. She appears in the federal elections records as contributing to J Street’s PAC. Her occupation is listed as “consultant” for “USUS LLC.” But until recently, she was also the national political director at the Arab American Institute where she “was responsible for formulating AAI’s positions on foreign policy … and represented the Arab American community with Congress as well as the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State.” Today, Abou-Chedid is the director of outreach at the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force. [11]
J Street co-founder and Advisory Council member Daniel Levy serves as co-director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation, an institute that benefits from George Soros’ largess and membership on its board.
Heads of other pro-Arab organizations, such as AMIDEAST, and Arab foreign agents are contributors to the PAC. But Mr. Ben-Ami claims that no organizations or foreign governments contribute. They don’t need do; their representatives do.
5: Who drives policy at J Street? It’s difficult to imagine that the unwieldy J-Street 160-member board of advisors directs policy. Some of those members are also foreign agents who worked for Egypt and Saudi Arabia. It also seems unlikely that your big bucks, 50-member Finance Committee provides decision-making guidance. That’s where the heads of the pro-Iranian and Arab-American lobbies sit.
So who directs policy? A hint was provided by a left-wing blogger, Richard Silverstein, who heard the pre-launch spiel in Seattle given by you and “co-founder” Daniel Levy 18 months ago.
“It’s always important with efforts like this to examine the board member names,” Silverman wrote. [12] “There are of course leaders of the main American Jewish peace groups. There are rabbis and academics. But most important there are heavy hitter political donors (Alan Solomont), policy wonks (Rob Malley), U.S. ambassadors to Israel (Samuel Lewis), high level political operatives (Eli Pariser of Moveon), Hollywood liberals (Robert Greenwald), business leaders, George Soros’ top aide (Morton Halperin), and even a former Republican senator (Lincoln Chafee) and former Congressman (Tom Downey). … The group founders believe that Barack Obama and his staff “get” J Street’s perspective while they believe a Clinton candidacy might not advance J Street’s mission as aggressively.” [Note, the briefing was given at the height of the Democratic primaries.]
Soros, the National Journal reported, was present [12] at J Street’s initial strategy sessions.
Anyone reading Soros’ 2007 manifesto, “On Israel, America and AIPAC [13],” will understand that he is the spiritual godfather of J Street, if not its silent sugardaddy.
“I believe that a much-needed self-examination of American policy in the Middle East has started in this country,” Soros proclaimed, “but it can’t make much headway as long as AIPAC retains powerful influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Some leaders of the Democratic Party have promised to bring about a change of direction but they cannot deliver on that promise until they are able to resist the dictates of AIPAC. Palestine is a place of critical importance where positive change is still possible. Iraq is largely beyond our control; but if we succeeded in settling the Palestinian problem we would be in a much better position to engage in negotiations with Iran and extricate ourselves from Iraq. The need for a peace settlement in Palestine is greater than ever. Both for the sake of Israel and the United States, it is highly desirable that the Saudi peace initiative should succeed; but AIPAC stands in the way. It continues to oppose dealing with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.”
So it appears that Soros has created an organization that competes with AIPAC, calls for inclusion of Hamas, and opposes sanctions against Iran. His people sit on J Street’s board, and his other offspring from the New America Foundation and the National Iranian American Council, work in lockstep. It’s a scary scenario that should attract the attention of the best investigative reporters from national news outlets, but the modern day Lotus Eaters have been lulled and ensnared by J Street.
But just because they won’t ask the tough questions doesn’t mean that they don’t have to be answered.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/showdown-on-j-street/
URLs in this post:
[1] an open letter: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1255450643490&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
[2] proclaimed: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/aipac-still-chosen-one
[3] text of the contract: http://www.fara.gov/docs/5945-Exhibit-AB-20090928-4.pdf%20http://www.fara.gov/docs/5945-Exhibit-AB-20090928-3.pdf
[4] an interview: http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/39884/head-of-liberal-jewish-lobby-pushes-back-against-his-critics/
[5] shows: http://jaystreetcontributors.blogspot.com/2009/10/j-streets-exec-jeremy-ben-ami-was.html
[6] you responded: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418604334&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
[7] adding : http://jta.org/news/article/2009/09/07/1007638/iran-policy-could-leave-some-jewish-groups-without-israeli-constiuency
[8] discovered that he differed: http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/09/16/1007930/j-streets-general-doesnt-always-agree-with-j-street
[9] he exploded.: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/israels-pines-paz-ignores_b_306195.html
[10] YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPBxwTqYPM0
[11] director of outreach at the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force.: http://www.trumanproject.org/programs/fellowship/people/rebecca-abou-chedid
[12] Silverman wrote.: http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/04/17/j-street-new-israel-peace-lobby-launches/
=
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Sokatch Saga
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.
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.
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?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
After the Stain, What is to be done?
In 1915, D. W. Griffith presented "Birth of a Nation", a blockbuster film that presented a positive view of the Ku Klux Klan. The film was hailed for its pioneering innovative camera techniques, for its special effects and artistic techniques. It was widely viewed, breaking all existing box office records. Unfortunately, it was also dishonest. It claimed reconstruction was a disaster, that blacks could never be integrated, and that the Clan's violent actions were justified. The film was filled with fabrications, and lack of accuracy. More importantly, it promoted white supremacy and gave sustenance to American racism. It was the catalyst for riots in major American cities as gangs of whites attacked and murdered blacks. Despite this, President Woodrow Wilson described the film as "all so terribly true" Thus we saw the power of film to influence public policy and morality.
I suspect that in 1915 there were well-meaning folk who defended showing "Birth of a Nation" it on the grounds of esthetics, free speech, and the promotion of "healthy dialogue" around "divisive issues". The Cindy Corrie's and Peter Steins of the day undoubtedly claimed that the film promoted healthy dialogue and promoted social justice.
Fast forward to the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival (SFJFF). As the French say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, (the more things change, the more they remain the same). As most of my readers know, the festival chose to screen a documentary film about Rachel Corrie, a young member of the ISM who was accidentally killed after she chose to enter a war zone in which the Israeli army was operating to destroy the infrastructure hiding smuggling tunnels. In addition, the festival invited her bereaved mother, who has been on the lecture circuit preaching hatred, to come and talk about the film. Further the film is not subtle in its condemnation of Israel, presents no context to explain why Israel was destroying the tunnels, or how the ISM deliberately creates “martyrs”. Further, the film is directed by a person well-known for her anti-Israeli bias.
Thus, a film that promotes a point of view both dishonest and dangerous, that uses the tragic death of a naïve and uninformed young woman to further an amoral agenda, has now been shown at a Jewish film festival. Like its predecessor of 1915, it is filled with fabrications, and like its predecessor, it is designed to provoke and inflame the darkest of passions. And the response was, predictably, a near riot resembling a gathering of brown-shirts in 1930s Germany.
I have previously written about the role of Peter Stein, director of the SFJFF, in this sordid affair. Stein’s presence at the helm of the festival has been the major problem. With more astute guidance, this blunder never would have occurred.
Let me be clear. Peter Stein is not an evil man. In fact, I believe that he is well-meaning. He is knowledgeable about the esthetics and the production of film. Unfortunately, Stein is out of his depth as director of the SFJFF. . He has not a clue about community and group dynamics, and lacks any understanding of the historical and sociological background of the films that he is screening or the audiences to whom he is presenting. He fails to appreciate how film can be used (and often misused or abused) as a polemical device, one that has been dangerous historically. And he is completely unsophisticated about the ethical and moral requirements of a civilized society
Screening this film, inviting Cindy Corrie, and appealing to an audience of anti-Israel folks, were all errors of judgment. And there were many individuals who warned him of these errors. Rather than examining the arguments on their merits, or engaging his critics, he chose to go into lockdown mode, trying to reframe the debate as an issue of free speech, or of esthetic freedom, or of healthy dialogue between different points of view. It never occurred to him that there are some points of view that are simply too abhorrent to be discussed.
Quite apart from the message of hate, this has cast a serious cloud over the Jewish Film Festival. After all, it is the board and funders of this organization who selected Peter Stein and did little to guide him in the need for caution and circumspection
Consider the many mistakes he made. For starters, the selection of the film showed no ability to distinguish between a one-sided political polemic and a serious and informative film. To not understand that this is a propaganda piece designed to discredit the Jewish state, is to fail to be attuned to the needs of the Jewish community.
Secondly, Stein wrote a publicity piece about the film in which he took the inflammatory words of Jewish Voice for Peace and disseminated them as fact in order to promote the film. This material, presumably representing his own point of view, runs contrary to any concept of truth and justice. His positive statements about Rachel Corrie, and about the film director Simone Bitton, his claim that at worst Rachel was "perhaps naive", while on the other side there was an "inadequate military investigation", show an ignorance and bias inappropriate for the director or a major film festival.
Third, after the controversy erupted, he remained oblivious to the consequences of his insistence on showing the film, and of inviting Rachel Corrie’s mother, an activist representing forces of hatred and division. He demonstrated a willful ignorance of the moral implications of his actions.
Fourth, Stein refused to give serious consideration to the many admonitions from community leaders. Most advised against showing the film, and almost all advised against inviting Cindy Corrie. Stein stonewalled, claiming to be an honest broker in trying to promote a dialogue, and insisting that the show must go on. That this would become a hate filled event was no secret to those who warned Stein about the wisdom of showing the film and inviting Cindy Corrie. That he chose not to listen led to the predicted fiasco, one which might have been avoided.
Fifth, Stein did not understand what was happening the night of the showing of the film. It is instructive to watch video of the presentation by Mike Harris prior to the film, to understand how completely this event was simply another hate fest. The people who treated Dr. Harris with rude jeers are reminiscent of the same people who shouted down Dan Pipes when he was in Berkeley and who prevented Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking to a group here a few years ago
Despite the one-sided display by much of the audience packed with Zionophobes, despite the hatred received by Dr. Harris as he attempted to give some balance to the film, Stein chose to lob softball questions at Cindy Corrie after the film, showing no thoughtfulness or reflection about what had just happened.
Finally, anyone can make errors of judgment. But after seeing unequivocal evidence of the error, Stein could not bring himself to acknowledge that he may have made a mistake and suggest positive steps to prevent a recurrence.
What Stein did say was the following;”This has become a lightning rod for a tremendous controversy: Is it appropriate for a Jewish film festival to screen a movie critical of the Israeli government?” (Italics added)
These few words show that either he is attempting to reframe the issue or totally fails to understand the problem. Changing the terms to "critical of the Israeli government", thereby treating it as a legitimate political debate, can best be labeled as "nice try" But he still doesn't get it. The movie is not about the point of view of the Israeli government (at the time of Corrie's death it was a left of center government).
The movie glorifies a woman and organization that were dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state, not the replacement of the government. These are people who support organizations that glorify suicide bombers, and worship a man (Ahmadinejad) who has promised to commit a second Holocaust,
It cannot be ignored that a board member of the festival, Rachel Pfeffer, was the national director of Jewish Voice for Peace, and wrote a letter to "J" referring to the showing of the film as part of the film festival’s message of "social justice"
Let me be clear. Contrary to Stein's claims, this is neither an artistic nor a political issue. Neither is it a “teachable moment”. It can only be described as a moral issue. The pro-Corrie people support organizations that favor annihilation of the Jewish state. The other side seeks a lasting peace for all those living in the Middle East. What is there to debate?
I applaud Michael Harris for being willing to enter the belly of the beast and face the derision of modern day yahoos and ISM groupies, The hostile crowd might have become violent at any time. Dr. Harris’ words after the event bear repeating. As he put it
"The question that this poses to the Film Festival, and its supporters and funders, is this: Is it appropriate programming for the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival if it attracts an audience that not only boos a pro-Israel speaker, but applauds not only at the mention of boycotts/divestment/sanctions against Israel but even worse, at the mention of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?"
That is the key question that should be addressed. Instead Peter Stein is still making excuses.
If the perpetrator is Peter Stein and those on his board and staff who supported him, the victim is the Jewish film festival. An annual event that ought to be grounds for celebration has been badly stained. Not every controversy merits discussion; a civilized society does not debate the pros and cons of racism, of slavery, of genocide. . Sometimes dialogue lends credibility to matters that should be kept under a rock.
Stein’s bad judgment and obstinacy have brought discredit to the SFJFF. The festival board, the Jewish community, the San Francisco and East Bay federations, the funders and the various organizations that support the festival need to ask themselves how they permitted this to happen and more importantly how they can rectify it to prevent any continued deterioration in the reputation of the film festival
An initial step would be to replace Peter Stein and consider changing the composition of the film festival board
I suspect that in 1915 there were well-meaning folk who defended showing "Birth of a Nation" it on the grounds of esthetics, free speech, and the promotion of "healthy dialogue" around "divisive issues". The Cindy Corrie's and Peter Steins of the day undoubtedly claimed that the film promoted healthy dialogue and promoted social justice.
Fast forward to the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival (SFJFF). As the French say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, (the more things change, the more they remain the same). As most of my readers know, the festival chose to screen a documentary film about Rachel Corrie, a young member of the ISM who was accidentally killed after she chose to enter a war zone in which the Israeli army was operating to destroy the infrastructure hiding smuggling tunnels. In addition, the festival invited her bereaved mother, who has been on the lecture circuit preaching hatred, to come and talk about the film. Further the film is not subtle in its condemnation of Israel, presents no context to explain why Israel was destroying the tunnels, or how the ISM deliberately creates “martyrs”. Further, the film is directed by a person well-known for her anti-Israeli bias.
Thus, a film that promotes a point of view both dishonest and dangerous, that uses the tragic death of a naïve and uninformed young woman to further an amoral agenda, has now been shown at a Jewish film festival. Like its predecessor of 1915, it is filled with fabrications, and like its predecessor, it is designed to provoke and inflame the darkest of passions. And the response was, predictably, a near riot resembling a gathering of brown-shirts in 1930s Germany.
I have previously written about the role of Peter Stein, director of the SFJFF, in this sordid affair. Stein’s presence at the helm of the festival has been the major problem. With more astute guidance, this blunder never would have occurred.
Let me be clear. Peter Stein is not an evil man. In fact, I believe that he is well-meaning. He is knowledgeable about the esthetics and the production of film. Unfortunately, Stein is out of his depth as director of the SFJFF. . He has not a clue about community and group dynamics, and lacks any understanding of the historical and sociological background of the films that he is screening or the audiences to whom he is presenting. He fails to appreciate how film can be used (and often misused or abused) as a polemical device, one that has been dangerous historically. And he is completely unsophisticated about the ethical and moral requirements of a civilized society
Screening this film, inviting Cindy Corrie, and appealing to an audience of anti-Israel folks, were all errors of judgment. And there were many individuals who warned him of these errors. Rather than examining the arguments on their merits, or engaging his critics, he chose to go into lockdown mode, trying to reframe the debate as an issue of free speech, or of esthetic freedom, or of healthy dialogue between different points of view. It never occurred to him that there are some points of view that are simply too abhorrent to be discussed.
Quite apart from the message of hate, this has cast a serious cloud over the Jewish Film Festival. After all, it is the board and funders of this organization who selected Peter Stein and did little to guide him in the need for caution and circumspection
Consider the many mistakes he made. For starters, the selection of the film showed no ability to distinguish between a one-sided political polemic and a serious and informative film. To not understand that this is a propaganda piece designed to discredit the Jewish state, is to fail to be attuned to the needs of the Jewish community.
Secondly, Stein wrote a publicity piece about the film in which he took the inflammatory words of Jewish Voice for Peace and disseminated them as fact in order to promote the film. This material, presumably representing his own point of view, runs contrary to any concept of truth and justice. His positive statements about Rachel Corrie, and about the film director Simone Bitton, his claim that at worst Rachel was "perhaps naive", while on the other side there was an "inadequate military investigation", show an ignorance and bias inappropriate for the director or a major film festival.
Third, after the controversy erupted, he remained oblivious to the consequences of his insistence on showing the film, and of inviting Rachel Corrie’s mother, an activist representing forces of hatred and division. He demonstrated a willful ignorance of the moral implications of his actions.
Fourth, Stein refused to give serious consideration to the many admonitions from community leaders. Most advised against showing the film, and almost all advised against inviting Cindy Corrie. Stein stonewalled, claiming to be an honest broker in trying to promote a dialogue, and insisting that the show must go on. That this would become a hate filled event was no secret to those who warned Stein about the wisdom of showing the film and inviting Cindy Corrie. That he chose not to listen led to the predicted fiasco, one which might have been avoided.
Fifth, Stein did not understand what was happening the night of the showing of the film. It is instructive to watch video of the presentation by Mike Harris prior to the film, to understand how completely this event was simply another hate fest. The people who treated Dr. Harris with rude jeers are reminiscent of the same people who shouted down Dan Pipes when he was in Berkeley and who prevented Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking to a group here a few years ago
Despite the one-sided display by much of the audience packed with Zionophobes, despite the hatred received by Dr. Harris as he attempted to give some balance to the film, Stein chose to lob softball questions at Cindy Corrie after the film, showing no thoughtfulness or reflection about what had just happened.
Finally, anyone can make errors of judgment. But after seeing unequivocal evidence of the error, Stein could not bring himself to acknowledge that he may have made a mistake and suggest positive steps to prevent a recurrence.
What Stein did say was the following;”This has become a lightning rod for a tremendous controversy: Is it appropriate for a Jewish film festival to screen a movie critical of the Israeli government?” (Italics added)
These few words show that either he is attempting to reframe the issue or totally fails to understand the problem. Changing the terms to "critical of the Israeli government", thereby treating it as a legitimate political debate, can best be labeled as "nice try" But he still doesn't get it. The movie is not about the point of view of the Israeli government (at the time of Corrie's death it was a left of center government).
The movie glorifies a woman and organization that were dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state, not the replacement of the government. These are people who support organizations that glorify suicide bombers, and worship a man (Ahmadinejad) who has promised to commit a second Holocaust,
It cannot be ignored that a board member of the festival, Rachel Pfeffer, was the national director of Jewish Voice for Peace, and wrote a letter to "J" referring to the showing of the film as part of the film festival’s message of "social justice"
Let me be clear. Contrary to Stein's claims, this is neither an artistic nor a political issue. Neither is it a “teachable moment”. It can only be described as a moral issue. The pro-Corrie people support organizations that favor annihilation of the Jewish state. The other side seeks a lasting peace for all those living in the Middle East. What is there to debate?
I applaud Michael Harris for being willing to enter the belly of the beast and face the derision of modern day yahoos and ISM groupies, The hostile crowd might have become violent at any time. Dr. Harris’ words after the event bear repeating. As he put it
"The question that this poses to the Film Festival, and its supporters and funders, is this: Is it appropriate programming for the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival if it attracts an audience that not only boos a pro-Israel speaker, but applauds not only at the mention of boycotts/divestment/sanctions against Israel but even worse, at the mention of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?"
That is the key question that should be addressed. Instead Peter Stein is still making excuses.
If the perpetrator is Peter Stein and those on his board and staff who supported him, the victim is the Jewish film festival. An annual event that ought to be grounds for celebration has been badly stained. Not every controversy merits discussion; a civilized society does not debate the pros and cons of racism, of slavery, of genocide. . Sometimes dialogue lends credibility to matters that should be kept under a rock.
Stein’s bad judgment and obstinacy have brought discredit to the SFJFF. The festival board, the Jewish community, the San Francisco and East Bay federations, the funders and the various organizations that support the festival need to ask themselves how they permitted this to happen and more importantly how they can rectify it to prevent any continued deterioration in the reputation of the film festival
An initial step would be to replace Peter Stein and consider changing the composition of the film festival board
Peter Stein as a "hero" of the Jewish community
As we all know, Peter Stein is the director of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival. It was he who decided to screen "Rachel" and "Defamation". And he was the one who invited Cindy Corrie, mother of Rachel and supporter of ISM, to appear with the film "Rachel".
Now there appears to be a desperate rogue operation to honor Peter Stein. The United Jewish Communities, the umbrella group for the various Federations as well as successor to the UJA, is running a competition for heroes within the community. This year, Peter Stein, director of the SFJFF has been nominated.
See http://www.jewishcommunityheroes.org/nominees/profile/peter-l.-stein/
(In response to demands from the community, by the time you read this the nomination may have been removed)
On the UJC website, it appears that the nomination came from the East Bay Federation. However, the CEO of the EB Federation states they had nothing to do with the nomination, and indeed his other statements about the film festival confirm that. At this point, no one knows where the nomination came from.
I was one of those who mistakenly sent out emails about this, that held the East Bay Federation responsible. This was based on the entry on the UJC website, as well as the funding for the film festival by both the East Bay and the SF Federations. Mea culpa, I apologize, The question now is how did this happen?
Here is what the nomination says:
"Peter L. Stein directs the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, the oldest and largest Jewish film festival in the US. He has brought the festival through countless storms. Most recently, he stood his ground in introducing a controversial film, "Rachel," to the festival's audiences. Stein deserves to be celebrated because he sees the role of a Jewish community organization and its leader as grappling with the complexity of modern Jewish life, not circling the wagons in defense against it. Peter Stein has been a peacemaker. When the Jewish community was divided politically, as it often is, he has refused to take sides but has been willing to bring people -- and ideas -- together."
Can you believe this?
Stein and some of the powers within the SF Federation have been busy getting people to write letters in support of Stein, the film festival, and the Federation. (See recent issues of "J") So the question is, did some of these same supporters enter this nomination as a desperate measure, basically attempting to "make a purse out of a pig's ear", (pardon the metaphor), i.e. to turn a deteriorating situation into something brave and "heroic"?
Both Federations have known of this since last week, but as of this morning have not removed the nomination or tried to learn who was responsible. Some persons in the community suspect that one or both CEOs are trying to have it both ways.
Federation is bleeding donors as a result. This is tragic, since with the exception of the film festival, the Federations do outstanding and important work. But the CEOs have mishandled this. Even though it appears to be a rogue operation, they have been slow to respond, raising further suspicions. Nothing will stop this except full candor and full disclosure.
Now there appears to be a desperate rogue operation to honor Peter Stein. The United Jewish Communities, the umbrella group for the various Federations as well as successor to the UJA, is running a competition for heroes within the community. This year, Peter Stein, director of the SFJFF has been nominated.
See http://www.jewishcommunityheroes.org/nominees/profile/peter-l.-stein/
(In response to demands from the community, by the time you read this the nomination may have been removed)
On the UJC website, it appears that the nomination came from the East Bay Federation. However, the CEO of the EB Federation states they had nothing to do with the nomination, and indeed his other statements about the film festival confirm that. At this point, no one knows where the nomination came from.
I was one of those who mistakenly sent out emails about this, that held the East Bay Federation responsible. This was based on the entry on the UJC website, as well as the funding for the film festival by both the East Bay and the SF Federations. Mea culpa, I apologize, The question now is how did this happen?
Here is what the nomination says:
"Peter L. Stein directs the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, the oldest and largest Jewish film festival in the US. He has brought the festival through countless storms. Most recently, he stood his ground in introducing a controversial film, "Rachel," to the festival's audiences. Stein deserves to be celebrated because he sees the role of a Jewish community organization and its leader as grappling with the complexity of modern Jewish life, not circling the wagons in defense against it. Peter Stein has been a peacemaker. When the Jewish community was divided politically, as it often is, he has refused to take sides but has been willing to bring people -- and ideas -- together."
Can you believe this?
Stein and some of the powers within the SF Federation have been busy getting people to write letters in support of Stein, the film festival, and the Federation. (See recent issues of "J") So the question is, did some of these same supporters enter this nomination as a desperate measure, basically attempting to "make a purse out of a pig's ear", (pardon the metaphor), i.e. to turn a deteriorating situation into something brave and "heroic"?
Both Federations have known of this since last week, but as of this morning have not removed the nomination or tried to learn who was responsible. Some persons in the community suspect that one or both CEOs are trying to have it both ways.
Federation is bleeding donors as a result. This is tragic, since with the exception of the film festival, the Federations do outstanding and important work. But the CEOs have mishandled this. Even though it appears to be a rogue operation, they have been slow to respond, raising further suspicions. Nothing will stop this except full candor and full disclosure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
