The ongoing controversy over the actions of Peter Stein and the SFJFF continues to “fester” Below, please find:
1. Letter of Rabbi Doug Kahn, JCRC director, that appeared in J.
2. My comments, deconstructing Rabbi Kahn’s letter.
3. Comments by others, from J web site.
In a later communication, I will make specific recommendations of what is needed to resolve this controversy. These accounts have been posted at SFJFF Watch,
JCRC director says, ‘Rachel’ rousers are off-track with attack on Federation
Even though the “Rachel” event at this year’s San Francisco Jewish Film Festival was more than two months ago, it continues to fester.
Specifically, the S.F.-based Jewish Community Federation, one of many institutions that have supported the festival with modest grants, has been targeted by a small group of activists.
It is one of the most unfair attacks against a Jewish institution I have witnessed in my 30 years as a Jewish communal professional — and I must respond.
Although most of our community has not weighed in about the wrong-headed decision of the SFJFF — a remarkable though sometimes uncomfortably edgy cultural institution — to politicize the showing of “Rachel,” this group of activists has decided to beat up on the Federation repeatedly because it did not capitulate to their demands.
As a result of an e-mail campaign and, most recently, a video that distorted the Federation’s role, the Federation has received waves of e-mails from community members expressing their concern about its alleged support for anti-Israel organizations (along with a considerable number of supportive e-mails).
Some of the critical, and too often uncivil, e-mails suggest that the Federation is encouraging or supporting anti-Israel activism.
Let’s get real. The Jewish Community Federation for decades has done everything possible to build support for Israel, mobilize the community to contribute to special funds during times of crisis, grow the connection between younger Jews and Israel, and strengthen Israeli society.
Our Federation was the first in the country to establish an Israel office to deepen the relationship further and the first to create a confirmation class trip to Israel as a rite of passage. It has one of the most active and innovative Israel Centers in the country. And it continues to present Israel in the Gardens at a time when other communities have quietly eliminated the largest annual show of solidarity with Israel.
In addition, the Federation also dispenses millions of dollars each year to local educational, social service, cultural and other community institutions that touch people’s lives from cradle to grave.
But given the subject of the attack, the focus here is on the Federation’s critical role in sustaining our community’s commitment to Israel.
JCRC receives Federation funds that enable us to mount the most ambitious pro-Israel advocacy campaign in the country — critically important in an area inundated with anti-Israel activism.
Hillels receive funds that enable their staffs to reach out to students to participate in Birthright Israel programs. Day schools receive funds and increasingly incorporate Israel into their curriculum. If the Federation is held responsible for the decision of an agency to co-present films with groups whose views and
behavior on Israel most of us find repugnant, then it should also be credited for every pro-Israel action by an agency it supports. That is only fair.
Let’s look at the facts.
• Many mainstream Jewish organizations and foundations sponsor, co-sponsor and co-present at the SFJFF.
• The Federation made clear its strong concerns about the “Rachel” event soon after the program came to light.
• The Federation does not endorse the co-presenters (American Friends Service Committee and Jewish Voice for Peace) of the “Rachel” event or their views on Israel. Indeed, Federation finds the views anathema and vigorously opposes the boycott/divestment/sanctions movement against Israel.
• The e-mail campaign targeting the Federation has resulted in hundreds of wasted hours — hours that could have been devoted to growing the community instead have been used to respond to unfair attacks.
• The Federation is committed to working with SFJFF leadership to ensure that the kind of polarization that resulted from the 2009 festival does not repeat.
Federation leaders represent a broad diversity of views, but in giving of themselves tirelessly, they have a common goal: to grow the strongest possible Jewish community to secure our future here, in Israel and throughout the world.
In fact, Israel activists should embrace the work of the Federation — now more than ever.
So what should happen now? The SFJFF, an important community institution with a strong following, has to take specific steps to repair the breach and rebuild trust with many in the community who were profoundly and rightfully upset.
The Federation has to ramp up its marketing and outreach efforts about the multiple ways in which it promotes a positive image of Israel.
Also, rather than leave the discussion to those with the strongest and loudest views, the voices of moderation in our community need to weigh in much more.
The vociferous e-mailers need to channel their tremendous energy into disciplined pro-Israel activist efforts so that we can put pressure on Israel’s true detractors rather than some of its champions.
Let’s all step back, take a breath and think about how all those who care deeply about Israel — from left to right — can work together in the coming year to achieve common goals. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.
Rabbi Doug Kahn is the executive director of the S.F.-based Jewish Community Relations Council. JCRC is a beneficiary agency of the S.F.-based Jewish Community Federationeration.
Response by Lawrence W. White MD
I am disappointed that Rabbi Doug Kahn found it necessary to use condescending language, as well as to allege non-moderate behavior by those who disagree with Federation failures. In expressing his "outrage", he has unfortunately confused the issues and added to the feelings of frustration of many in the pro-Israel community.
Rabbi Kahn is a highly capable individual, but cleverness and flowery rhetoric will not cover up the errors of omission that Federation has committed. Let us deconstruct his remarks.
He complains that the issue "continues to fester". This is because it has never been dealt with in an honest and effective manner. When there is significant disagreement, the Federation and the JCRC cannot expect the community to simply accept their "wisdom" without demurral. .
“Targeted by a small group of activists". Contrary to his claim, this is neither a small nor a fringe group, but the great majority of Israel supporters in the Bay area who have finally grown weary of having their concerns regarding the film festival ignored year after year. .
"Unfair attacks against a Jewish institution". The involved Jews have been both patient and fair. We are not a bunch of Molotov cocktail throwing crazies. We simply ask the Federation (and the JCRC) to stop obscuring the issues and deliberately missing the point. Rather we ask that you speak to the legitimate concerns of those of us battling the anti-Israel forces in our community.
“the SFJFF — a remarkable though sometimes uncomfortably edgy cultural institution". Sorry, the board members of the film festival have been selected more on political grounds than any other. Indeed, the film festival is more political than cultural. There was no culture or aesthetics in “Rachel” or in the discussion with Cindy Corrie, who has a single minded agenda. Further the film festival CEO has been disdainful of, and has ignored the criticisms that have occurred, year after year.
"To politicize the showing of “Rachel,” Rabbi Kahn, have you seen this film? It is not the critics who have politicized the showing. The last thing the critics are looking for when they attend screenings of the SFJFF is a political controversy. But in this case, “Rachel” itself is a political screed, and the decision to show it and to invite Cindy Corrie was a political act by Peter Stein that was a serious blow to those of us who seek to promote a fair solution to the conflict in the Middle East
“This group of activists has decided to beat up on the Federation repeatedly because it did not capitulate to their demands.” This wording is very unfortunate, and I expect better from a professional in our community. The statement is gratuitous and completely misses the point.
It’s like saying that the black community beat up on the KKK because they did not capitulate to their demands to stop lynching. No, we are frustrated by the actions of Federation because they are unwilling to act as a moral force in the the Jewish community. Federation has held itself out as being the voice of the community. In this case you failed a large segment of the community.
A key point here is that this is not really a demand, but rather a conviction that we will not continue to donate to Federation, when the money is misused in this way. We can accomplish the same goals by giving directly to the organizations that are focused on the issues that matter to us.
"As a result of an e-mail campaign and, most recently, a video that distorted the Federation’s role” There is no explanation of how Rabbi Kahn believes that the video distorted the role of Federation. This is simply an assertion, not an argument with evidence.
"The Federation has received waves of e-mails from community members expressing their concern about its alleged support for anti-Israel organizations" Not alleged. If you give the unfortunate actions of the film festival your imprimatur by donating even a small amount of money, then the support is not “alleged”. The Federation is looked to as a force that showcases the values of the community. (And Federation certainly presents itself as if that is the case) At a time when Israel is being subjected to the worst forms of dishonesty, defamation, and calumny, while the Jewish state is abused with one libel after another, we expect that our Federation will in no way give support to the voices of hatred in our community.
It does no good to say that Federation does not agree with the positions of JVP or ISM, when it supports (and the amount of support is irrelevant) a film festival that has JVP as a sponsor, and invites a representative of the ISM to be an honored guest at a screening.
"Some of the critical, and too often uncivil, e-mails suggest that the Federation is encouraging or supporting anti-Israel activism." There are errors of commission and errors of omission. This is one of deliberate omission. The absence of clear denunciation of the role of JVP and other organizations, and the failure to unequivocally be in the vanguard of those defending the Jewish state, leads to only one conclusion.
"The Jewish Community Federation for decades has done everything possible to build support for Israel” Yes, but past actions are not the point. You are being judged by your failure to react to this issue, one which we consider to be vitally important at a critical time for the Jewish state. No one disputes the good work of Federation in the past. But if Federation also fails in a vital part of its mission, that needs to be judged on its own merits.
“Many mainstream Jewish organizations and foundations sponsor, co-sponsor and co-present at the SFJFF”. Well, yes, and Germany produced Beethoven, Brahms, and Goethe, so why dwell on the National Socialists?
"The Federation made clear its strong concerns about the “Rachel” event soon after the program came to light" No, their concerns were neither strong nor really very clear, and occurred only after criticism came from the community. Federation’s role should be to lead, not react. .
“The Federation does not endorse the co-presenters (American Friends Service Committee and Jewish Voice for Peace) of the “Rachel” event or their views on Israel” Why not say so at the time? Why only now? Why not use your moral standing to get those co-presenters removed?
“The e-mail campaign targeting the Federation has resulted in hundreds of wasted hours.” These wasted hours could have been avoided by being more responsible and less devious"
“The Federation is committed to working with SFJFF leadership" Sorry. We believe these are empty words. The only leadership involved in this fiasco is Peter Stein, who works alone, does not consult his board who were kept in the dark about the two films in question, and has shown no sign of understanding the issues Further, he really doesn't care, as long as you continue to indulge him as you have year after year.
"Federation leaders represent a broad diversity of views" Yes, but there are certain red lines that must not be crossed. . I don’t believe Federation leaders are ready to see Israel go down the tubes, but JVP (whose director was on the board of SFJFF) is willing to. You can’t keep invoking “diversity”.
“So what should happen now? The SFJFF, an important community institution with a strong following, has to take specific steps to repair the breach and rebuild trust “ Unfortunately the film festival CEO believes that it has already done this in their recent mailing containing a non-apology. I have not heard Federation suggest that this falls short. At this point, it is clear that very specific steps are indeed required, the first being to secure Peter Stein's resignation. Anything short of this will only guarantee a repeat further down the line.
Let me be clear. Peter Stein is a decent and intelligent man. But given his actions and inclinations he should not be directing a Jewish film festival.
“The Federation has to ramp up its marketing and outreach efforts about the multiple ways in which it promotes a positive image of Israel." Start by declaring that Federation won’t support in any way those who advocate sanctions boycott, or divestment.
“Also, rather than leave the discussion to those with the strongest and loudest views, the voices of moderation in our community need to weigh in much more”. Most of those who are speaking out on this issue have indeed been voices of moderation. To imply otherwise is an attempt to silence the critics by using pejorative language. That there are many who are displeased by Federation behavior does not make them radicals or extremists. You would be advised to avoid projecting an attitude of scorn and ridicule on those who are concerned about this issue.
“The vociferous e-mailers need to channel their tremendous energy into disciplined pro-Israel activist efforts" More scorn and ridicule being delivered from on high. Well, perhaps you haven’t noticed. The emailers are precisely those persons in the community who have been active in “pro-Israel efforts”. Otherwise they wouldn’t care about this issue.
“Let’s all step back, take a breath and think about how all those who care deeply about Israel — from left to right — can work together in the coming year to achieve common goals. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.” Flowery rhetoric is no substitute for the simple actions that have been urged on Federation. No one has asked for anything unreasonable.
Other Comments
Posted by Abraham Miller
10/10/2009 at 11:40 AM
Let's Get Real
Let’s get real, Rabbi Khan; prior good deeds do not give you license to participation in a program that demonizes Israel (Rachel) and casts aspersions on the work of anti-defamation organizations (Defamation). You compelling logic is equivalent to saying Mussolini got the trains to run on time, so all else is forgiven.
Posted by Zvi_Alon
10/11/2009 at 08:08 PM
Poll the comunity - I will pay
Dear Rabbi Kahn,
I appreciate this type of communication, more than the silence the JCRC and the Federationeration adopted in the last 2 month.
I believe you have made a sincere effort in composing you response – as you said – you had to do it since this issue is “festering” and is driven by a “small” number of “activists”.
So, my dear Rabbi, the use of festering is telling the true story – can you not come out and say – we (I and the JCRC) realize we have made a mistake – this time all lines have been crossed and we did not take the proper action earlier! Hence we are going to fix it once and for all. We now realize what five SFJFF board members who resigned from its board realized that the SFJFF cannot be supported in its current mission and structure and a true change is required.
Let me assure you that this is not a small group of activists, but a large group that wants to work with the JCRC and the Federationeration and jointly set a very clear water mark so that this will NEVER repeat in the FUTURE.
You say most of us find this behavior “repugnant” but you fail to say that YOU (I) find it equality repugnant and you (I) will NOT let this happen again; that YOU will organize the community to stop this and channel the communities energy in the right direction – in other words – apply proper judgment and lead this change personally.
You enumerate the good the Federationeration is doing. Let me share my view, and I am not alone, that I am NOT AGAINST the Federationeration, the SFJFF or the JCRC. All are doing good things – but this is NOT the issue and please stop changing the topic of discussion.
If one ignores a red traffic light only once out of 100 times should they not get a ticket?
If one avoids paying Tax only once out of 1000 times should they not be punished?
If one’s child uses deadly drugs only once in 10000 times should the parents look sideways?
You will answer the above questions the same way we will, the “small” group of “activists”.
Dear Rabbi Kahn,
Start leading, by embracing the fact that a mistake was made. You should lead the effort in getting the Federationeration to adopt a simple resolution that will state very clearly that “The Federationeration should never support organizations, events or participate in funding any activities that demonize Israel or that collaborate with those who call for divestment, boycotts and sanctions against Israel”.
This is not about a marketing campaign you are recommending to lunch, we do not need to get retrained; reprogrammed or re-educated. We need our leaders to have the muscle to do the right thing.
If you think that we represent a small and noisy group, then go ahead and, issue an open poll to the Jewish community which is as simple as the following:
- - - - - - - - -
Dear Jew(?)
Please vote YES or NO on the following question.
Should the Federationeration adopt a simple resolution that reads?
The Federationeration should never support organizations, events or participate in funding any activities that demonize Israel or that collaborate with those who call for divestment, boycotts and sanctions against Israel
Yes ____ No ____
- - - - - - - - -
The results of this poll will help guide you, the Jewish organizations and all of us; if you need help the same resolution can be adopted by ALL Jewish organizations including SFJFF, JCRC and others.
I will finance these efforts and make it very transparent eliminating the need for long approval process by committees etc.
Is this not a true democracy?
Best
Zvi Alon
A very concerned Jew
Posted by john
10/09/2009 at 10:38 AM
Doug Kahn miscasts the issue.
The issue is not the Federationeration it is the Film festival event, and the Federationeration’s lack of proper response.
The Film Festival glamorized the pro-Hamas ISM. It also co-sponsored its Federationeration funded event with the Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). Those extreme anti-Israel organizations repeatedly call for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel.
By virtue of its ongoing support of the Film Festival, the Jewish Federationeration continues to lend legitimacy to those extreme anti-Israel groups with whom the Festival had been collaborating, as well as the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which is glamorized in the event.
The whole issue would be behind us if the Federationeration would adopt a policy ensuring that it will not fund organizations that demonize Israel or that collaborate with extremist anti-Israel groups advocating boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel.
The issue is prolonged because the Federationeration leadership fails to respond to the issue.
One would have expected the JCRC Director to lead the effort to stop the support of organizations that defame the Jewish state, and collaborate with groups that call for divestment and boycotts of Israel.
Instead, Doug Kahn is trying to camouflage the Federationeration’s failure to respond in a fashion which will ensure that the Federationeration support will not be misused as is done at the Film Festival.
The Jewish Federationeration is an important institution in our community, and it is essential that it not support any events that involve groups that advocate boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel. We all have the responsibility to speak up when we believe the Federationeration has misallocated our donations.
That is the issue, and Doug Kahn is evading it!
The Jewish community deserves much better from its Federationeration leadership!
Posted by john
10/09/2009 at 10:58 AM
Can one imagine an African
Can one imagine an African American Federationeration supporting a Film Festival with an event glamorizing the KKK, and co-presenting it with the Aryan Nation? How can the Jewish Federationeration continue to justify allocating donations raised from the Jewish community to fund a Film Festival whose programming is glamorizing the Pro-Hamas ISM and is done in collaboration with extreme anti-Israel organizations?
No mainstream Jewish organization should fund an organization or event that demonizes Israel or that collaborates with extremist anti-Israel groups that advocate boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel.
Posted by Ron Feldman
10/09/2009 at 02:06 PM
Irrelevant Response
I’m glad that Doug has at least taken the time to respond in writing which neither he nor Federationeration representatives did to my e-mail.
However, his response amongst others in the SF Jewish Community is not sufficient and is largely irrelevant. The Federationerations other activities in support of Israel are NOT the issue, it is the Federationeration’s lack of a backbone to stand up for Israel within the San Francisco community that’s the issue.
It’s not the first time and the Federationeration is not alone. Most of the area synagogues and Jewish organizations do not stand up for Israel when it is attacked in our community. Instead they leave it to poorly funded small groups like SF Voice For Israel to be the only strident pro-Israel voice in the community.
As the other commenters mention, all that the Federationeration needed to have done in this instance was come out clearly to condemn the SFJFF and to state unequivocally that future funding for that organization and others that pull similar stunts would be at risk. Instead, to mollify the liberal anti-Israel community at large, the Federationeration and other organizations used bland “diplomatic” language that achieved nothing. Israel is under continuous attack in our country and particularly in SF. If the Federationeration can’t stand up for it, then my money will go elsewhere. Doug - your defense of this grave error is sad and embarrassing.
Posted by Jack Kessler
10/10/2009 at 08:02 AM
Answering a Question with a Question
Della D admits, which Rabbi Kahn does not, that the SFJFF “made a mistake” in showing “Rachel” And we should “get over it”. Does Della realize that this is not an isolated event but a persistent decades long pattern at the Film Festival?
The Film Festival has been running the nastiest anti-Israel films it could find year after year. Every year we object and every year Doug Kahn writes these same evasive denials.
Maybe it’s time that the Film Festival stop making the same “mistake” year after year. Maybe it is time for Doug Kahn to either put an end to it or resign.
What difference does it matter who else funds the Film Festival? How does that excuse Federationeration funding the screening of hate-Israel flims?
How does calling those who object, “bullies” and “martyrs”, excuse the Federationeration’s actions?
How is calling names an argument?
Posted by Jack Kessler
10/10/2009 at 06:27 AM
Why Didn't Federationeration Just Say 'No'?
Rabbi Kahn’s response is a masterpiece of evasion, and changing the subject. The fact is that the SFJFF sponsors an anti-Israel film festival. The Film Festival is anti-Israel EVERY YEAR. And every year we get these double-talk denials. It simply does not matter what else the board does if it persists in funding anti-Israel propaganda.
“Corrie” isn’t “edgy” as Rabbi Kahn so cutely and dishonestly put it. It is a deliberate statement of hatred of Israel.
Since Rabbi Kahn either can’t or won’t take responsibility for his actions, perhaps it is time for someone else to head the JCRC
Showing posts with label JVP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JVP. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Federation Statement and Response via Open Letter
The Federation Statement (a response to the recent video)
For a century, the Federation has worked diligently as the face of collective Jewish philanthropy. As ever, the abiding mission of the Federation remains a positive and hopeful one: to aid the poor, the hungry, the infirm – and to build and strengthen Jewish education, culture and identity here at home and in Israel. To that end, the Federation has supported the Film Festival for 25 years. The Federation objected to the recent Film Festival event that featured Rachel Corrie’s mother as a speaker. The Federation expects its grantees to exercise responsibility and respect with regard to sensitive program choices. We have communicated these concerns to the Film Festival, and expect that they will take them seriously and respond accordingly.
We are many communities with diverse opinions, but we are one people. Rancor and vitriol cast a dark shadow on our commonalities, including our support of Israel. The Federation does not support boycott, divestment, sanctions or delegitimization of Israel. On the contrary, the Federation grants more than $10 million annually to projects designed to strengthen Israel.
Our core beliefs are anchored by a moral obligation to repair the world; toward that great and just end, as we prepare for Yom Kippur, let us begin to repair the breach in our own community and return the community’s attention to our vital work of tzedakah and tikkun olam.
------------------------------------------------------------
An Open Letter to Federation
regarding problems with the statement
Dear Ms Gorowitz;
I have read the statement from the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, and find myself displeased with what is not said, and the unfortunate tone of moral equivalence
While the statement is clear that the Federation does not support boycott, divestment, sanctions or delegitimization of Israel, it makes no mention that the co-presenters of films shown by the SFJFF, such as Rachel and Defamation, do support these measures designed to undermine and destroy the Jewish state. .
You refer to such groups as having “diverse opinions”, as if this is simply a friendly disagreement within the family. In fact, some positions are simply “outside the tent”. Do you really believe that there are no red lines that should not be crossed?
One example; The Jewish Voice for Peace, (JVP), which was a co-presenter of Rachel, is not a supporter of Israel by any criteria.
The JVP lobbies for elimination of US aid to Israel
The JVP demonstrates at anti-Israel events, often with signs that say “Kill the Jews”.
The JVP is the Jewish arm of ISM, a radical, anti-Israel organization that recruits westerners to travel to Israel to obstruct Israeli security operations, and justifies Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians
The JVP believes that the occupation of Arab lands applies to all of Israel
The JVP believes that any attempt by Israel to defend itself is simply a perpetuation of an unjust occupation
The JVP believes that the only obstacle to peace is Israel
Your statement supports the false belief that all those who debate these issues have “commonalities” including support for Israel. The commonalities to which you refer simply do not exist, and it is time to stop trying to fit this into a neat gumbuya/we are all one formulation.
Further, the “rancor and vitriol” to which you refer is a direct consequence of the support and legitimacy given to the SFJFF by not declaring clearly that you will not support financially or in any other way groups that demonize Israel and work against the survival of the Jewish state.
It is time for the Federation to cease and desist from giving any kind of legitimacy to those whose goal is the destruction of the Jewish state. Organizations such as ISM and JVP must be held accountable, not subsumed under the rubric of “commonalities”
JVP (and other organizations that the film festival courts and collaborates with) is not a part of our “one community”. It is, in fact, a disgrace to our community, and this needs to be made clear in a forthright manner. And lest you believe that you need to be diplomatic to avoid antagonizing your donors, I can assure you that JVP acolytes will not be among the donors to Federation.
Your challenge now is to do those things required to prevent losing a large segment of the pro-Israel community from your donor rolls. Many Jews, unhappy with your actions regarding the SFJFF, have already decided to earmark their contributions and give directly to selected organizations outside of the Federation banner.
You certainly are aware of the problem. By now, you know that the Jewish Film Festival expects that your objections regarding the Cindy Corrie invitation are meaningless; they will do as they wish. It is time for Federation to make a simple declaration that you will not support, financially or otherwise, any individual, organization or event that supports boycott, divestment, sanctions or delegitimization of Israel.
For a century, the Federation has worked diligently as the face of collective Jewish philanthropy. As ever, the abiding mission of the Federation remains a positive and hopeful one: to aid the poor, the hungry, the infirm – and to build and strengthen Jewish education, culture and identity here at home and in Israel. To that end, the Federation has supported the Film Festival for 25 years. The Federation objected to the recent Film Festival event that featured Rachel Corrie’s mother as a speaker. The Federation expects its grantees to exercise responsibility and respect with regard to sensitive program choices. We have communicated these concerns to the Film Festival, and expect that they will take them seriously and respond accordingly.
We are many communities with diverse opinions, but we are one people. Rancor and vitriol cast a dark shadow on our commonalities, including our support of Israel. The Federation does not support boycott, divestment, sanctions or delegitimization of Israel. On the contrary, the Federation grants more than $10 million annually to projects designed to strengthen Israel.
Our core beliefs are anchored by a moral obligation to repair the world; toward that great and just end, as we prepare for Yom Kippur, let us begin to repair the breach in our own community and return the community’s attention to our vital work of tzedakah and tikkun olam.
------------------------------------------------------------
An Open Letter to Federation
regarding problems with the statement
Dear Ms Gorowitz;
I have read the statement from the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, and find myself displeased with what is not said, and the unfortunate tone of moral equivalence
While the statement is clear that the Federation does not support boycott, divestment, sanctions or delegitimization of Israel, it makes no mention that the co-presenters of films shown by the SFJFF, such as Rachel and Defamation, do support these measures designed to undermine and destroy the Jewish state. .
You refer to such groups as having “diverse opinions”, as if this is simply a friendly disagreement within the family. In fact, some positions are simply “outside the tent”. Do you really believe that there are no red lines that should not be crossed?
One example; The Jewish Voice for Peace, (JVP), which was a co-presenter of Rachel, is not a supporter of Israel by any criteria.
The JVP lobbies for elimination of US aid to Israel
The JVP demonstrates at anti-Israel events, often with signs that say “Kill the Jews”.
The JVP is the Jewish arm of ISM, a radical, anti-Israel organization that recruits westerners to travel to Israel to obstruct Israeli security operations, and justifies Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians
The JVP believes that the occupation of Arab lands applies to all of Israel
The JVP believes that any attempt by Israel to defend itself is simply a perpetuation of an unjust occupation
The JVP believes that the only obstacle to peace is Israel
Your statement supports the false belief that all those who debate these issues have “commonalities” including support for Israel. The commonalities to which you refer simply do not exist, and it is time to stop trying to fit this into a neat gumbuya/we are all one formulation.
Further, the “rancor and vitriol” to which you refer is a direct consequence of the support and legitimacy given to the SFJFF by not declaring clearly that you will not support financially or in any other way groups that demonize Israel and work against the survival of the Jewish state.
It is time for the Federation to cease and desist from giving any kind of legitimacy to those whose goal is the destruction of the Jewish state. Organizations such as ISM and JVP must be held accountable, not subsumed under the rubric of “commonalities”
JVP (and other organizations that the film festival courts and collaborates with) is not a part of our “one community”. It is, in fact, a disgrace to our community, and this needs to be made clear in a forthright manner. And lest you believe that you need to be diplomatic to avoid antagonizing your donors, I can assure you that JVP acolytes will not be among the donors to Federation.
Your challenge now is to do those things required to prevent losing a large segment of the pro-Israel community from your donor rolls. Many Jews, unhappy with your actions regarding the SFJFF, have already decided to earmark their contributions and give directly to selected organizations outside of the Federation banner.
You certainly are aware of the problem. By now, you know that the Jewish Film Festival expects that your objections regarding the Cindy Corrie invitation are meaningless; they will do as they wish. It is time for Federation to make a simple declaration that you will not support, financially or otherwise, any individual, organization or event that supports boycott, divestment, sanctions or delegitimization of Israel.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Disingenuous: Peter Stein, CEO of the SFJewish Film Festival
Disingenuous; –adjective
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere, cynical, or calculating
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Unaware or uninformed; naïve.
Peter Stein has just sent out a fundraising letter on behalf of the SF Jewish Film Festival. I reprint it here;
------------------------------------------------
Dear
What does independent film mean to you?
If you answer the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, you’re not alone. Here’s why:
SFJFF films explore themes that humanize the Jewish experience -stories
of what it feels like to be a misunderstood bat mitzvah, of the process of learning to accept yourself for the size and shape that you are, of the delicate dynamics of a Holocaust survivor's family
SFJFF films tell little-known Jewish stories- tales of Ethiopian Jews caught between tradition and assimilation, of a group of Jewish alumni from Newark who cared enough to restore their high school to its former glory, of how young Orthodox filmmakers document their experiences.
‘SFJFF films entertain- stories of brazen and hilarious civil disobedience, spontaneous mid-life adventures and cutting-edge animation from Israel.
SFJFF films ask challenging Jewish questions- whether idealism can make a difference in the Middle East conflict, of what solace can be found when a loved one is held captive, of the Jewish response to anti-Semitism.
It is precisely for these reasons --- for being an arena for art, d\dialogue, and independent ideas, that SFJFF is renowned as a world leader. It is why we are able to attract the highest quality films and the respect of filmmakers.-.why we are the only Jewish film festival that the National Endowment for the Arts regularly supports. and why our audience is among the most discriminating. Unfortunately, it is also for these reasons that our critics are threatening to defund us. Today, more than ever, we must rely on people like you for support.
If this year's San Francisco Jewish Film Festival left you feeling entertained, touched, intellectually, stimulated or positively moved, please take this moment to support us financially.
Gifts from people like you make up 75% of our budget. Please reach deep and give all you can. Gifts can be made through our website- fest.sffiorg/about/membership or via the enclosed.
With profound gratitude,
Peter L. Stein
Executive Director
-------------------------------------------------------
Either Peter Stein doesn't get it, (or he gets it but assumes that his audience is too dense to get it)
Does he really believe that these are the reasons why some are working to remove his funding? Those who wish to see him cut off from community funds base their commitment on deeply held principles, and not on the trivial reasons given by Mr. Stein.
The film festival has always been free to do as it wishes artistically. However, when the films it shows cross the line into partisan politics, use dubious arguments, and rely on polemics, then the festival is no longer serving up art but rather is in the business of indoctrination.
And when that indoctrination is contrary to the interests of the Jewish community and our core values, it is very appropriate to sit up, take notice, and work to fix the problem.
To understand the real reasons for opposing funding for Peter Stein, all one needs to do is read through the offerings on SFJFF watch , or read the articles by Jennifer Rubin, Abraham Miller, Ronald Radosh, Jamie Glazov, David Hornik, and others. These writers have explained clearly why many of us wish to deny community dollars to Peter Stein and his questionable agenda. Stein would certainly be advised to educate himself on these issues; he owes the community no less.
The film “Rachel”, directed by Simone Bitton, has a political agenda, and is fundamentally dishonest. It is designed to glamorize the work of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and to use an unfortunate young woman as a martyr to oppression of the Palestinians by Israel. Along with the accompanying visit by Rachel’s mother, who tours the country on behalf of ISM, it helps spread the gospel of hatred.
Peter Stein invited Cindy Corrie, Rachel’s mother, to speak after the screening in San Francisco. Because of strong protests, Stein brought in Dr. Michael Harris, who was given five minutes before the screening to make the case against the film, and more importantly to give the appearance of fairness. As many predicted, the film attracted a disproportionate share of Israel bashers, who were there to worship Rachel and the ISM. As one would expect, Dr. Harris was booed, while the Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad was applauded. By contrast, Cindy Corrie answered softball questions for over an hour from an obsequious Peter Stein.
Dr Abraham Miller has revealed the real agenda as follows;
"the documentary tours film festivals along with Cindy Corrie, Rachel’s mother and a propagandist for the likes of Hamas and the International Solidarity Movement — groups committed to Israel’s destruction.
Peter Stein, the festival’s director, knew exactly what he was doing in selecting this film. Stein was familiar with both Bitton’s work and her politics. He invited the American Friends Service Committee, now helping with the boycott of Israeli goods, to participate in the showing. Stein also had on his board Rachel Pfeffer, the interim director of Jewish Voice for Peace — a group committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. (Since Rachel Pfeiffer’s outing as JVP director, her biography on the festival web site has been thoroughly cleansed.)"
The other problematic film, “Defamation”, is in many ways an even more dangerous film. It is a diatribe against Holocaust memorializing, and makes the fight against anti-Semitism seem like a small-minded endeavor, pursued by foolish and petty people. . It trivializes those concerned with these matters, depicting the ADL and its staff as buffoons, showing those Israelis who are concerned about the Holocaust as dinosaurs living in the past, and strongly suggesting that Yad Vashem exists to make Jews angry so that they will persecute Palestinians.
The heroes of the film are John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the two individuals who attacked the “Israel lobby”, indirectly raising issues of dual loyalty, and implying that it was impossible to have a rational discussion about Israel. (This is the same message given by Jimmy Carter, who schleps his book all over the country and has a forum wherever he wishes)
Walt and Mearsheimer are portrayed as calm, rational academics, shown in serene book filled offices, working against the hysteria of those who uncritically support Israel.
The film lionizes Norman Finkelstein, a man who once suggested that Elie Wiesel was the clown prince of the Holocaust and has written a book to the effect that the Holocaust is simply an "industry" rather than the central tragedy, physical and psychic, for Jews born in the 20th century.
Finkelstein, though not a Holocaust denier, has become the darling of deniers, and of a gaggle of anti-Israel groups who love to hire him to speak at their functions (Speaking of an industry; Finkelstein is doing very well at this endeavor)
Many of us grew up in the shadow of the Holocaust. The fears thereby engendered are not ancient history. We believe fervently in the survival of a Jewish state. We consider this to be a moral issue. And while those who work against that goal are free to have their beliefs, we are not obligated to have them promote those messages on our dime.
The issue here was framed by Jamie Glazov who asked:
“Why is a Jewish film festival giving a platform to a documentary and to an individual that serve the cause of anti-Jewish hate?”
Why indeed. And herein lies the real reasons why we believe the community should not fund the SFJFF, not the reasons given by the ever duplicitous Peter Stein.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere, cynical, or calculating
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Unaware or uninformed; naïve.
Peter Stein has just sent out a fundraising letter on behalf of the SF Jewish Film Festival. I reprint it here;
------------------------------------------------
Dear
What does independent film mean to you?
If you answer the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, you’re not alone. Here’s why:
SFJFF films explore themes that humanize the Jewish experience -stories
of what it feels like to be a misunderstood bat mitzvah, of the process of learning to accept yourself for the size and shape that you are, of the delicate dynamics of a Holocaust survivor's family
SFJFF films tell little-known Jewish stories- tales of Ethiopian Jews caught between tradition and assimilation, of a group of Jewish alumni from Newark who cared enough to restore their high school to its former glory, of how young Orthodox filmmakers document their experiences.
‘SFJFF films entertain- stories of brazen and hilarious civil disobedience, spontaneous mid-life adventures and cutting-edge animation from Israel.
SFJFF films ask challenging Jewish questions- whether idealism can make a difference in the Middle East conflict, of what solace can be found when a loved one is held captive, of the Jewish response to anti-Semitism.
It is precisely for these reasons --- for being an arena for art, d\dialogue, and independent ideas, that SFJFF is renowned as a world leader. It is why we are able to attract the highest quality films and the respect of filmmakers.-.why we are the only Jewish film festival that the National Endowment for the Arts regularly supports. and why our audience is among the most discriminating. Unfortunately, it is also for these reasons that our critics are threatening to defund us. Today, more than ever, we must rely on people like you for support.
If this year's San Francisco Jewish Film Festival left you feeling entertained, touched, intellectually, stimulated or positively moved, please take this moment to support us financially.
Gifts from people like you make up 75% of our budget. Please reach deep and give all you can. Gifts can be made through our website- fest.sffiorg/about/membership or via the enclosed.
With profound gratitude,
Peter L. Stein
Executive Director
-------------------------------------------------------
Either Peter Stein doesn't get it, (or he gets it but assumes that his audience is too dense to get it)
Does he really believe that these are the reasons why some are working to remove his funding? Those who wish to see him cut off from community funds base their commitment on deeply held principles, and not on the trivial reasons given by Mr. Stein.
The film festival has always been free to do as it wishes artistically. However, when the films it shows cross the line into partisan politics, use dubious arguments, and rely on polemics, then the festival is no longer serving up art but rather is in the business of indoctrination.
And when that indoctrination is contrary to the interests of the Jewish community and our core values, it is very appropriate to sit up, take notice, and work to fix the problem.
To understand the real reasons for opposing funding for Peter Stein, all one needs to do is read through the offerings on SFJFF watch , or read the articles by Jennifer Rubin, Abraham Miller, Ronald Radosh, Jamie Glazov, David Hornik, and others. These writers have explained clearly why many of us wish to deny community dollars to Peter Stein and his questionable agenda. Stein would certainly be advised to educate himself on these issues; he owes the community no less.
The film “Rachel”, directed by Simone Bitton, has a political agenda, and is fundamentally dishonest. It is designed to glamorize the work of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and to use an unfortunate young woman as a martyr to oppression of the Palestinians by Israel. Along with the accompanying visit by Rachel’s mother, who tours the country on behalf of ISM, it helps spread the gospel of hatred.
Peter Stein invited Cindy Corrie, Rachel’s mother, to speak after the screening in San Francisco. Because of strong protests, Stein brought in Dr. Michael Harris, who was given five minutes before the screening to make the case against the film, and more importantly to give the appearance of fairness. As many predicted, the film attracted a disproportionate share of Israel bashers, who were there to worship Rachel and the ISM. As one would expect, Dr. Harris was booed, while the Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad was applauded. By contrast, Cindy Corrie answered softball questions for over an hour from an obsequious Peter Stein.
Dr Abraham Miller has revealed the real agenda as follows;
"the documentary tours film festivals along with Cindy Corrie, Rachel’s mother and a propagandist for the likes of Hamas and the International Solidarity Movement — groups committed to Israel’s destruction.
Peter Stein, the festival’s director, knew exactly what he was doing in selecting this film. Stein was familiar with both Bitton’s work and her politics. He invited the American Friends Service Committee, now helping with the boycott of Israeli goods, to participate in the showing. Stein also had on his board Rachel Pfeffer, the interim director of Jewish Voice for Peace — a group committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. (Since Rachel Pfeiffer’s outing as JVP director, her biography on the festival web site has been thoroughly cleansed.)"
The other problematic film, “Defamation”, is in many ways an even more dangerous film. It is a diatribe against Holocaust memorializing, and makes the fight against anti-Semitism seem like a small-minded endeavor, pursued by foolish and petty people. . It trivializes those concerned with these matters, depicting the ADL and its staff as buffoons, showing those Israelis who are concerned about the Holocaust as dinosaurs living in the past, and strongly suggesting that Yad Vashem exists to make Jews angry so that they will persecute Palestinians.
The heroes of the film are John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the two individuals who attacked the “Israel lobby”, indirectly raising issues of dual loyalty, and implying that it was impossible to have a rational discussion about Israel. (This is the same message given by Jimmy Carter, who schleps his book all over the country and has a forum wherever he wishes)
Walt and Mearsheimer are portrayed as calm, rational academics, shown in serene book filled offices, working against the hysteria of those who uncritically support Israel.
The film lionizes Norman Finkelstein, a man who once suggested that Elie Wiesel was the clown prince of the Holocaust and has written a book to the effect that the Holocaust is simply an "industry" rather than the central tragedy, physical and psychic, for Jews born in the 20th century.
Finkelstein, though not a Holocaust denier, has become the darling of deniers, and of a gaggle of anti-Israel groups who love to hire him to speak at their functions (Speaking of an industry; Finkelstein is doing very well at this endeavor)
Many of us grew up in the shadow of the Holocaust. The fears thereby engendered are not ancient history. We believe fervently in the survival of a Jewish state. We consider this to be a moral issue. And while those who work against that goal are free to have their beliefs, we are not obligated to have them promote those messages on our dime.
The issue here was framed by Jamie Glazov who asked:
“Why is a Jewish film festival giving a platform to a documentary and to an individual that serve the cause of anti-Jewish hate?”
Why indeed. And herein lies the real reasons why we believe the community should not fund the SFJFF, not the reasons given by the ever duplicitous Peter Stein.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Open Letter to Dan Sokatch, CEO SF Jewish Community Federation
Dear Mr. Sokatch;
I am writing because I am disturbed at the direction that the Federation has taken in its support for the SFJFF, of Peter Stein, and of their programs.
I will not recount the damage done by the screening of "Rachel" and of "Defamation", the use of Cindy Corrie, the sponsorship by JVP, and the unfortunate use of language by you, as well as attempts to reframe the issue by Peter Stein. Others have gone over these issues in great depth.
To claim, as you have, that the SFJFF is independent and that you do not interfere in their programming may be technically true, but misses the point. This would be true de facto if no money from the Federation, or any other form of support, was given to them. However, as this is not the case, you are in part responsible for their actions and any harm that they do to our community. And this being America, you of course can do as you wish; you have only to accept the consequences.
It is certainly true that the SFJFF has done much good over the last 29 years, including reaching out to unaffiliated Jews. However, if they are not careful, all of the good done over 29 years will be annulled by a few bad choices. And I speak of really bad choices, not just films that are edgy or present a somewhat marginal point of view.
If the festival selects films based on the politics of their director and executive committee, they have a responsibility to display caution and due diligence. Not every film that elicits opposition is automatically provocative and deserving of a "discussion". I doubt that we would agree to screen a film that defended the practice of lynching (Birth of a Nation), or glorified Hitler (Triumph of the Will). Would Peter Stein claim that these are wonderful films, with outstanding directors (as they were considered at the time), and though controversial, should provide food for thought?. There are some things that are simply beyond the pale, no matter how many persons may want to see them. . The fact that some may like these films is irrelevant; morality is what matters.
You have received many letters from Federation donors expressing their strong feelings, and their determination to withhold support from Federation. I understand you believe that the Federation can tap the pocketbooks of "progressive" Jews who have not previously been involved, thereby expanding your base of donors. Anyone who has been involved in community work, in politics, or in non-profit fundraising, knows that ignoring your base is always a mistake. I suspect that you will lose far more than you will gain from the few, if any, progressives who decide to support Federation.
What to do?
First, you need to stop using buzz words like "diversity", or "depth of feelings and convictions", and start treating members of the community as adults.
Secondly, you need to stop taking actions to defend and promote Peter Stein. Recently, the UJC recieved a nomination for Peter Stein as a community hero; there are strong reasons to believe that the nomination came from Federation. This, along with a letter writing campaign by staffers, must stop. Federation must not take sides in such a volatile dispute, especially when the side that you take is that of persons who do not wish our commuhnity well.
These issues are too important. Your choice of hanging tough rather than recognizing this as the serious crisis that it is serves no one.
I understand that you believe that this is just another instance of a sour dissident group unhappy with Federation, who are balanced by those who support the SFJFF. Let me assure you that those who are upset with your actions are thinking persons of substance, and that this is a much larger crisis than you seem to believe. It is one which you ignore at your peril. Pandering to our enemies (I am not overstating the case) will achieve a loss of respect for you personally, and ultimately a loss of dollars for Federation.
Lawrence W. White MD
I am writing because I am disturbed at the direction that the Federation has taken in its support for the SFJFF, of Peter Stein, and of their programs.
I will not recount the damage done by the screening of "Rachel" and of "Defamation", the use of Cindy Corrie, the sponsorship by JVP, and the unfortunate use of language by you, as well as attempts to reframe the issue by Peter Stein. Others have gone over these issues in great depth.
To claim, as you have, that the SFJFF is independent and that you do not interfere in their programming may be technically true, but misses the point. This would be true de facto if no money from the Federation, or any other form of support, was given to them. However, as this is not the case, you are in part responsible for their actions and any harm that they do to our community. And this being America, you of course can do as you wish; you have only to accept the consequences.
It is certainly true that the SFJFF has done much good over the last 29 years, including reaching out to unaffiliated Jews. However, if they are not careful, all of the good done over 29 years will be annulled by a few bad choices. And I speak of really bad choices, not just films that are edgy or present a somewhat marginal point of view.
If the festival selects films based on the politics of their director and executive committee, they have a responsibility to display caution and due diligence. Not every film that elicits opposition is automatically provocative and deserving of a "discussion". I doubt that we would agree to screen a film that defended the practice of lynching (Birth of a Nation), or glorified Hitler (Triumph of the Will). Would Peter Stein claim that these are wonderful films, with outstanding directors (as they were considered at the time), and though controversial, should provide food for thought?. There are some things that are simply beyond the pale, no matter how many persons may want to see them. . The fact that some may like these films is irrelevant; morality is what matters.
You have received many letters from Federation donors expressing their strong feelings, and their determination to withhold support from Federation. I understand you believe that the Federation can tap the pocketbooks of "progressive" Jews who have not previously been involved, thereby expanding your base of donors. Anyone who has been involved in community work, in politics, or in non-profit fundraising, knows that ignoring your base is always a mistake. I suspect that you will lose far more than you will gain from the few, if any, progressives who decide to support Federation.
What to do?
First, you need to stop using buzz words like "diversity", or "depth of feelings and convictions", and start treating members of the community as adults.
Secondly, you need to stop taking actions to defend and promote Peter Stein. Recently, the UJC recieved a nomination for Peter Stein as a community hero; there are strong reasons to believe that the nomination came from Federation. This, along with a letter writing campaign by staffers, must stop. Federation must not take sides in such a volatile dispute, especially when the side that you take is that of persons who do not wish our commuhnity well.
These issues are too important. Your choice of hanging tough rather than recognizing this as the serious crisis that it is serves no one.
I understand that you believe that this is just another instance of a sour dissident group unhappy with Federation, who are balanced by those who support the SFJFF. Let me assure you that those who are upset with your actions are thinking persons of substance, and that this is a much larger crisis than you seem to believe. It is one which you ignore at your peril. Pandering to our enemies (I am not overstating the case) will achieve a loss of respect for you personally, and ultimately a loss of dollars for Federation.
Lawrence W. White MD
Where is the Outrage; Hatred Comes to the Bay Area Jewish Community and it Comes From Some Jews
I have lived in the Bay area since 1995. I have seen many instances of anti-Semitism coming from Jews, including demonstrations by members of Jewish Voice for Peace, Women in Black, and others, often in collaboration with Palestinian groups. I remember how some of these groups shut down a speech by Benjamin Netanyahu in Berkeley about eight years ago, and the claim by a Jewish leader of one of these organizations (MECA) that “not everyone deserved free speech”. I remember demonstrations in front of the Israel consulate which threatened to turn violent. I have read anti-Semitic diatribes in the pages of the Berkeley Daily Planet.
But for the first time, the larger community has reacted vigorously to these outrages. The catalyst was the showing of the film “Rachel” by the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, and co-sponsored by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). The JVP has nothing to do with peace and is questionably Jewish; it has become an ostensibly Jewish mouthpiece for the allies of Hamas. Along with the showing of Rachel, Cindy Corrie, a flak for the International Solidarity Movement, was gently interviewed by Peter Stein, the Jewish film festival director. You will read below how that showing degenerated into a hate fest.
Despite the clear outrage, the SFJFF believes that they simply started a dialogue about something with two presumably equally valid points of view. (By their reckoning, Birth of a Nation, which defended the Ku Klux Klan, or Triumph of the Will, which glorified Hitler, might also be merely controversial and deserving of discussion). The Jewish weekly, “J” ran a point-counterpoint spread presenting both sides of the argument (see Larry Goldberg’s article below). “J” saw no need or value in taking sides. The Film Festival, controlled by a director and board who are far left ideologues, has issued no apology and defend their actions on grounds of aesthetics and free speech (The film was a political polemic, not a well crafted documentary with aesthetic value)
And the Federation of SF? They are not taking sides either. Their new CEO comes from a progressive background, and is one of the founders of the far-left “J Street”. Presumably he does not wish to alienate his base. Perhaps he really believes that there is nothing wrong in showing propaganda put out by a pro-Hamas group. Perhaps he believes that progressive Jews who hate Israel will suddenly start giving money to the Federation.
Federation’s minimal response consisted of carefully chosen non-committal words, along the lines of ‘Hey, not us. We have no control over what they do’ Well, never mind that the Federation gives partial funding to the SFJFF. And never mind that the community donates its dollars to that same Federation. And never mind that we expect some leadership on moral issues that affect our community. Is there not some reason to expect our leaders to express some judgment regarding this anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate fest? Where is the outrage?
But for the first time, the larger community has reacted vigorously to these outrages. The catalyst was the showing of the film “Rachel” by the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, and co-sponsored by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). The JVP has nothing to do with peace and is questionably Jewish; it has become an ostensibly Jewish mouthpiece for the allies of Hamas. Along with the showing of Rachel, Cindy Corrie, a flak for the International Solidarity Movement, was gently interviewed by Peter Stein, the Jewish film festival director. You will read below how that showing degenerated into a hate fest.
Despite the clear outrage, the SFJFF believes that they simply started a dialogue about something with two presumably equally valid points of view. (By their reckoning, Birth of a Nation, which defended the Ku Klux Klan, or Triumph of the Will, which glorified Hitler, might also be merely controversial and deserving of discussion). The Jewish weekly, “J” ran a point-counterpoint spread presenting both sides of the argument (see Larry Goldberg’s article below). “J” saw no need or value in taking sides. The Film Festival, controlled by a director and board who are far left ideologues, has issued no apology and defend their actions on grounds of aesthetics and free speech (The film was a political polemic, not a well crafted documentary with aesthetic value)
And the Federation of SF? They are not taking sides either. Their new CEO comes from a progressive background, and is one of the founders of the far-left “J Street”. Presumably he does not wish to alienate his base. Perhaps he really believes that there is nothing wrong in showing propaganda put out by a pro-Hamas group. Perhaps he believes that progressive Jews who hate Israel will suddenly start giving money to the Federation.
Federation’s minimal response consisted of carefully chosen non-committal words, along the lines of ‘Hey, not us. We have no control over what they do’ Well, never mind that the Federation gives partial funding to the SFJFF. And never mind that the community donates its dollars to that same Federation. And never mind that we expect some leadership on moral issues that affect our community. Is there not some reason to expect our leaders to express some judgment regarding this anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate fest? Where is the outrage?
Friday, September 4, 2009
Memo to Peter Stein; SFJFF Screening for 2010
To: Peter Stein;
From: Lawrence White;
Subject; It is not too early to consider screening for next year.
I recommend that for 2010, SFJFF consider the film described below. There is no downside to doing this.
Jewish Voice for Peace, which advocates talking to Hamas, will support it. The Corrie family, who spend a lot of time in Gaza, will love it. The ISM, active in hiding terrorists, will co-sponsor it along with Women in Black. This will serve to expand the ranks of our viewers, garner more controversy, more publicity, and more viewers. .
And for the rest of the Jews? Federation will not get involved, except to throw money raised from the community at us. They will tell us that SFJFF is an independent organization, they will not tell us what to screen,
A little discussion/dialogue within the community is a healthy thing, and this movie will certainly accomplish this. We need to get past bland pro-Israel programming and look at the issues that divide our community. These differences must be aired. Not everyone is pro-Israel, and we need to accept that we are American Jews, not Israeli Jews, and our concerns are different.
It is time to look at other voices. This film was made in Palestine. The director is a gifted young man educated in Germany. It has received applause and praise from viewers in Gaza. It will likely be shown at Cannes,
We have shown many films made in Israel. What's wrong with one film from Palestine?
Perhaps we can invite someone from CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood to discuss the movie in a Q and A led by you (Peter Stein) , (microphone to be carefully guarded so comments only from those who love the movie.) And oh yes, if those pesky Zionists make a lot of noise, we will let them have a few minutes before the film to air their tired grievances. (What's wrong with those people? Don't they have lives?)
See you at the movies.
Hamas goes to the movies
From The Independent
By Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza
The audience in the Gaza Strip clapped and cheered as the actor delivered the movie's most memorable line – "To kill Israeli soldiers is to worship God".
Imad Aqel, which premiered at the weekend, is the first feature film produced by the Islamist Hamas movement and the title is the name of a Palestinian militant whom Israel held accountable for the deaths of 13 soldiers and settlers.
Director of Hamas feature film hopes it will air at Cannes Film Festival
ALEX SORIN and JPOST STAFF , THE JERUSALEM POST
Hamas's first dramatic feature film depicting the life top Hamas operative Emad Akel was aired publicly on Monday to cheering crowds in the Gaza Strip, Al Jazeera reported.
The film's director Majid Jundiya who studied film in Germany said that he hopes the film will be shown in the Cannes Film Festival, and added that the film is one of Hamas's first attempts at breaking into the media industry.
The film received applause and praise from the viewers in Gaza.
The $200,000 budget movie tells the story of Emad Akel, commander of the Hamas military wing, who was killed in a firefight with Israeli troops in Gaza in 1993.
Akel, 23 at the time, was known as "the ghost" for his many disguises, including dressing up as a Jewish settler with a skullcap. In the early 1990s, he topped Israel's wanted list for his suspected role in killing 11 IDF soldiers, an Israeli civilian and four Palestinian informers in a series of attack.
From: Lawrence White;
Subject; It is not too early to consider screening for next year.
I recommend that for 2010, SFJFF consider the film described below. There is no downside to doing this.
Jewish Voice for Peace, which advocates talking to Hamas, will support it. The Corrie family, who spend a lot of time in Gaza, will love it. The ISM, active in hiding terrorists, will co-sponsor it along with Women in Black. This will serve to expand the ranks of our viewers, garner more controversy, more publicity, and more viewers. .
And for the rest of the Jews? Federation will not get involved, except to throw money raised from the community at us. They will tell us that SFJFF is an independent organization, they will not tell us what to screen,
A little discussion/dialogue within the community is a healthy thing, and this movie will certainly accomplish this. We need to get past bland pro-Israel programming and look at the issues that divide our community. These differences must be aired. Not everyone is pro-Israel, and we need to accept that we are American Jews, not Israeli Jews, and our concerns are different.
It is time to look at other voices. This film was made in Palestine. The director is a gifted young man educated in Germany. It has received applause and praise from viewers in Gaza. It will likely be shown at Cannes,
We have shown many films made in Israel. What's wrong with one film from Palestine?
Perhaps we can invite someone from CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood to discuss the movie in a Q and A led by you (Peter Stein) , (microphone to be carefully guarded so comments only from those who love the movie.) And oh yes, if those pesky Zionists make a lot of noise, we will let them have a few minutes before the film to air their tired grievances. (What's wrong with those people? Don't they have lives?)
See you at the movies.
Hamas goes to the movies
From The Independent
By Nidal al-Mughrabi in Gaza
The audience in the Gaza Strip clapped and cheered as the actor delivered the movie's most memorable line – "To kill Israeli soldiers is to worship God".
Imad Aqel, which premiered at the weekend, is the first feature film produced by the Islamist Hamas movement and the title is the name of a Palestinian militant whom Israel held accountable for the deaths of 13 soldiers and settlers.
Director of Hamas feature film hopes it will air at Cannes Film Festival
ALEX SORIN and JPOST STAFF , THE JERUSALEM POST
Hamas's first dramatic feature film depicting the life top Hamas operative Emad Akel was aired publicly on Monday to cheering crowds in the Gaza Strip, Al Jazeera reported.
The film's director Majid Jundiya who studied film in Germany said that he hopes the film will be shown in the Cannes Film Festival, and added that the film is one of Hamas's first attempts at breaking into the media industry.
The film received applause and praise from the viewers in Gaza.
The $200,000 budget movie tells the story of Emad Akel, commander of the Hamas military wing, who was killed in a firefight with Israeli troops in Gaza in 1993.
Akel, 23 at the time, was known as "the ghost" for his many disguises, including dressing up as a Jewish settler with a skullcap. In the early 1990s, he topped Israel's wanted list for his suspected role in killing 11 IDF soldiers, an Israeli civilian and four Palestinian informers in a series of attack.
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
SFJFF: Brutus, and Jewish Voice for Peace.
In Shakespeare’s "Julius Caesar” Mark Antony gives the famous "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" funeral oration. In this speech he repeatedly condemns Brutus, but each condemnation is followed by "But Brutus is an honorable man" implying that Brutus' actions are virtuous.
As we all know, the now infamous showing of "Rachel" was cosponsored by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). This organization routinely describes itself as a "supporter of Israel." This is the same distortion used by J Street. The formula is to take the most dangerous positions on Israel, then add "but we are pro-Israel" I refer to this as "the Brutus disclaimer".
The words and actions of JVP show this to be grossly inaccurate. The JVP has been pushing for boycotts, sanctions, divestment, and withdrawal of US aid to Israel. This is a strange form of "support". The JVP regularly delegitimizes, demonizes, and slanders Israel. It makes common cause with Hamas. It provides a platform to avowed anti-Zionists and anti-Semites who wish for annihilation of the Jewish state. It routinely collaborates with the most extreme anti-Israel organizations, including ISM and ANSWER.
By co-sponsoring Rachel with JVP, the film festival is collaborating with Israel haters. It is of interest that selections of persons to serve on the film festival board are not based on knowledge of film or of Jewish culture, but rather whether one has sufficient left wing credentials. Zionists are not allowed.
Funding by the San Francisco and the East Bay Jewish Federations provides the imprimatur of community support. In addition to a waste of our valuable dollars, they are thereby providing respectability and legitimacy.
Anyone who doubts the role of Federation should go to the following website;
http://www.jewishcommunityheroes.org/nominees/profile/peter-l.-stein/
Surprised? Shocked? I was. I will have more to say on this. Stay tuned.
As we all know, the now infamous showing of "Rachel" was cosponsored by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). This organization routinely describes itself as a "supporter of Israel." This is the same distortion used by J Street. The formula is to take the most dangerous positions on Israel, then add "but we are pro-Israel" I refer to this as "the Brutus disclaimer".
The words and actions of JVP show this to be grossly inaccurate. The JVP has been pushing for boycotts, sanctions, divestment, and withdrawal of US aid to Israel. This is a strange form of "support". The JVP regularly delegitimizes, demonizes, and slanders Israel. It makes common cause with Hamas. It provides a platform to avowed anti-Zionists and anti-Semites who wish for annihilation of the Jewish state. It routinely collaborates with the most extreme anti-Israel organizations, including ISM and ANSWER.
By co-sponsoring Rachel with JVP, the film festival is collaborating with Israel haters. It is of interest that selections of persons to serve on the film festival board are not based on knowledge of film or of Jewish culture, but rather whether one has sufficient left wing credentials. Zionists are not allowed.
Funding by the San Francisco and the East Bay Jewish Federations provides the imprimatur of community support. In addition to a waste of our valuable dollars, they are thereby providing respectability and legitimacy.
Anyone who doubts the role of Federation should go to the following website;
http://www.jewishcommunityheroes.org/nominees/profile/peter-l.-stein/
Surprised? Shocked? I was. I will have more to say on this. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
