Major Rift in the Bay Area Jewish Community;

The SF Jewish film Festival, the SF Federation,
and the Pro-Israel Community


by Lawrence W. White MD

For many years, the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival (SFJFF) has run films critical of Israel, often with attitudes bordering on anti-Semitism. This year, the film “Rachel” celebrated the life and death of Rachel Corrie. Rachel was an impressionable young student recruited by the International Solidarity Movement, (ISM), a Hamas-supporting group, who was sent to Gaza to aid in the campaign to demonize Israel. She was accidentally killed when she entered a war zone to try to stop the removal of tunnels used to smuggle arms to Hamas. The ISM loves martyrs, and so Rachel became a glorious sacrifice to the cause of demonizing Israel. And so, one of the many ideologically motivated film makers, made a documentary about the life and death of Rachel. And predictably, the SFJFF decided this rather mediocre film was a must showing for their annual festival.


The film festival compounded this provocation by co-sponsoring the film with two anti-Israel groups, and by inviting Rachel’s mother, Cindy Corrie, a mouthpiece for ISM, to speak. .The showing of the film was welcomed by the most vocal elements of the anti-Israel community, who hailed the screening as a milestone in getting American Jews to break with Israel. Pro-Israel spokespersons, such as Michael Harris who was invited to give a short presentation before the film to mollify critics, were booed and harassed. Larry Goldberg, who attempted to ask a question after the Cindy Corrie soft-ball interview, had the microphone snatched from his hands by SFJFF goons.


And then there was the showing of Defamation by the film festival, a film that ridiculed concerns about anti-Semitism as if a guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington had not been murdered recently because of Jew hatred, as if a world-wide outbreak of anti-Semitism has not occurred as a result of solidarity with the Arab masses and manipulation by the Arab sheikdoms. Further, “Defamation” ridiculed teaching about the Holocaust, giving respectability to the views of Norman Finkelstein, a professional anti-Semite and Israel hater, who makes his living speaking to conventions of Holocaust deniers, who refers to the Holocaust as an “industry”, and who ridicules Elie Wiesel as the “clown prince of the Holocaust”. The film mocks Abraham Foxman and the ADL, and glorifies Walt and Mearsheimer, the authors of “The Israel Lobby”.


There are Jewish film festivals all over the country; none have been controversial. The difference is that the others are about film, about Jewish culture, about history, about real people and honest problems. The SFJFF is largely about left wing anti-Israel propaganda. The CEO, Peter Stein, and most of his board, are ideologues who are less interested in Jewish film, culture, and history than in anti-Jewish propaganda.


The result? A major rift in the community between those who support the existence of a Jewish state and want a strong US-Israel relationship, and those whose radical proclivities are far stronger than any feelings for Israel or for the survival of the Jewish people.


For those supporting Israel, there are two main targets that have emerged; the film festival and its director, and the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, which has given its imprimatur year after year to the festival, and contributed funds collected from its donors to the festival.


The SF Federation has not acted in good faith. When the controversy exploded, leaders and staffers in Federation initiated a letter writing program defending the showing of “Rachel”. The director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, an arm of Federation, published a column in J, ridiculing film festival critics and implying that they were a tiny, angry, and vocal minority, who were unconcerned with the issues of the greater community. The SF Federation nominated Peter Stein as a hero of the Jewish community in a contest run by the United Jewish Communities.


The Federation CEO, Daniel Sokatch, a founder of the anti-Israel group "J Street" and a member of their advisory board, complained about muzzling of the “progressive” community. Sokatch, who did untold damage to the reputation of Federation in the larger community, compounded the controversy by defending the film festival. As pro-Israel donors began to consider bypassing Federation with their dollars, Sokatch also bailed out by taking the CEO job at the New Israel Fund, another fringe group which, like J Street, is anti-Israel while claiming to be pro-Israel. Why the Federation chose a far-left wing ideologue as CEO says more about the Federation than about Dan Sokatch. At best, it is a demonstration of naïveté, at worst, an indication of the political inclinations of the Bay area Jewish community.


Recently, pro-Israel leaders in the community attempted to find a formula to heal the rift. They asked the Federation to pass a resolution that would deny funds to any organizations that advocated harming Israel via boycotts, divestment and sanctions. At the insistence of Federation, the wording was watered down repeatedly. Zvi Alon, Natan Nestel, and others tried to run an advertisement in the weekly Jewish paper, “J”, advocating for this resolution. Then Federation successfully used its muscle to get “J” to refuse the ad. This time the critics fought back, threatening to expose the behind the scenes censorship by Federation. As a result, “J” backed down and reluctantly ran the ad.


At a contentious meeting on Nov 19, Federation voted against the resolution, promising to reconsider it at their February meeting, and hoping the issue would go away by then. Perhaps they failed to understand that this controversy had now gone international. Media coverage had exposed the rift, and had shown how extreme anti-Israel groups have hijacked both the film festival and the Federation, and acted to accelerate the abandonment of Israel by a growing segment of the American Jewish community.


Rabbi Daniel Gordis, a thoughtful and articulate writer, published an article in the Jerusalem Post on this subject. Pointing out facetiously that the world agrees that “Israel is the primary culprit in the Middle East conflict, the cause of relentless Palestinian suffering and the primary obstacle blocking the way to regional peace” Gordis discusses how the world has instigated a chorus of opprobrium as exemplified by the Swedish organ-snatching blood libel, Norwegian divestment, Turkish severance of military cooperation with Israel, and the US administration notion that the problem in the Middle East can be boiled down simply to the “settlements”, including areas of Jerusalem currently “occupied” by Jews.


And the list seems endless. American Jews have now joined in. According to Gordis, Canadian and American Jews have lashed out at the Toronto International Film Festival for its honoring of Tel Aviv. Two American Jewish sociologists have written that 50% of American Jews under age 35 have stated that the destruction of Israel would not be a personal tragedy for them. And on and on.


As Gordis pointed out:


“In San Francisco, Jewish communal funds were used to support the SF Jewish Film Festival's screening of Rachel, an Israel-bashing "documentary" about Rachel Corrie of International Solidarity Movement fame. Noting that the SFJFF was now effectively in partnership with Jewish Voices for Peace, a well known anti-Israel, pro-boycott organization, many prominent Jews vehemently protested. But the film was shown, anyway.”


So Federation, now an unindicted co-conspirator in the abandonment of Israel, will not agree to withhold funding from those who demonize Israel. And further they hope (expect) that their critics will forget about this by the time of their next meeting. They won’t.


The good news is that this is not a new phenomenon. We have seen this drama many times before. Because Jews from Central Europe preceded Eastern European Jews in immigrating to America by two or three generations, they found themselves suddenly embarrassed by those who clamed to be their fellow Jews. The new arrivals spoke Yiddish, lived in poverty, and were completely unassimilated, while wealthy German Jews, who had fully become a part of the larger American community with leadership positions in government, finance, retailing, and professional life, looked down their noses at their co-religionists as they figured ways to set themselves apart from these aliens..


Then we had the phenomenon of those Jews who put loyalty to Roosevelt ahead of rescue of European Jews. Or Jews who put loyalty to Stalin ahead of saving Jewish intellectuals from show trials and execution.


And again, those elements of the Reform Jewish community who opposed Zionism in the 1940s, formed the American Council for Judaism, and installed Rabbi Elmer Berger as its CEO. Their fear? Accusations of dual loyalty, and a desire to prove beyond any doubt their allegiance to their host nation.


And again, when a fight erupted over community control of schools in New York, wealthy Manhattan Jews wanted to ally with the black community more than they wanted to protect the less influential Jewish teachers and social workers. And again, when Leonard Bernstein and his ilk lionized the black Panthers and radical black anti-Semites.(immortalized by Tom Wolfe in “Radical Chic”). Or recently when Michael Lerner (another anti-Israel propagandist pretending to be pro-Israel) invited the rabid Israel hater Alice Walker to give the Yom Kippur sermon at his temple.


It is hard to pick up a newspaper without reading some evidence of a rift in the Jewish community. Samuel Freedman has written a wonderful book called “Jew vs. Jew” in which he profiles many examples of internecine battles among Jews in America over the last 50 years. Though this is not a new phenomenon, the Bay area excels at the sort of venom in which the far left seems to specialize.


So what now? Those who want SF Federation to declare their clear intent to deny funding or validation of anti-Israel action or talk are here to stay. At the same time, another group, also large, influential, and well connected, is trying to secure the resignation of Peter Stein. If Stein does not resign voluntarily (which seems unlikely) supporters hope to get funders to withdraw support from the film festival.


Federation loudly defends itself, pointing out that it has been active in promoting Israel. And the film festival defends itself by pointing to some of its other cosponsors and non-controversial films. However, as long as Federation does not declare its intent regarding support for those who defame Israel, and as long as Peter Stein remains stubbornly recalcitrant and continues calling the shots at the SFJFF, the rift will remain.

The SF Jewish Film Festival; Latest Actions

By Lawrence W. White MD



I have previously commented regarding the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, the “Rachel” and “Defamation” disasters of 2009, the controversy over the actions of Peter Stein, and the responses of the Jewish Community Federation and the JCRC. Most recently, (10/26/09) I recommended specific steps to resolve this crisis in our community and get the film festival back on track so that it will once again serve the community. Central to this was to secure the resignation of Peter Stein.


Currently, there are two efforts underway to prevent a repetition of this years events, which not only had a clear anti-Israel message, but also trivialized any effort to oppose anti-Semitism

The first effort is aimed at having Federation take a clear stand against funding any group that supports divestment, boycott or sanctions against Israel. This would actually let the SFJFF off the hook, since as an organization they do not advocate these positions. However, by insisting that any recipient of Federation funding not partner with any group that advocates these anti-Israel measures, this would prevent such actions as the partnership with Jewish Voice for Peace, or the invitation to Cindy Corrie who is a messenger for ISM. Those who are supporting this effort will publish an advertisement in this weeks J, and seek to have Federation adopt a measure to accomplish this stand.

The second measure is aimed directly at the Film Festival. It seeks the resignation of Peter Stein. The clear logic and rationale behind this are spelled out in the statement reprinted below. As long as this is a Jewish film festival, it must be pro-Israel. And as long as the SFJFF is a non-profit, they need to be an arts organization, not a political organization.




Why Peter Stein Should Resign


“If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you…”


Psalms 137, 5-7


We are a group of pro-Israel supporters who firmly believe that the resignation and departure of Peter Stein from his current position as Executive Director of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival (SFJFF) is an essential step to prevent a continuation of the years of films and programs which demonize the State of Israel and its Jewish citizens. This culminated on July 25th with the showing of the film “Rachel” combined with an anti Israel speaker and sponsorship. This is completely unacceptable for an organization which has enjoyed such substantial and generous support from the Jewish community through the 29 years of their existence. The pattern must be changed! No guarantee is possible but we know this is the way to begin.


We do not think that the Federation is the central address for this problem. Rather, we believe that SFJFF and its Executive Director is where the attention should be directed.


It is clear to us that Peter Stein bears personal responsibility for each of the decisions that led to the terrible event at the Castro Theater on July 25th of this year.


In his role as Executive Director of SFJFF, he selected "Rachel" for the Festival in February when he saw the movie in Berlin. He has final and personal authority on the selection of all films shown by the Festival.


Peter Stein decided to build a program around the showing of "Rachel" and selected Cindy Corrie as the speaker.


He decided that the Jewish Voice for Peace and the American Friends Service Committee would be co-sponsors of the program as they had been for a number of times previously. These are both well known anti-Israel organizations.


Mr. Stein personally conducted the Question and Answer session after the showing of the film in a manner that gave Cindy Corrie an extended and favorable setting for her anti-Israeli message.


He has admitted that he did “due diligence” before the event and knew that it would stir a controversy but he went ahead with it anyway. An obvious search request on Google concerning Rachel and Cindy Corrie would show over 32,000 entries.


Another film which was also part of the recent festival and almost equally disturbing was “ Defamation.” Attention to it was diminished because of the controversy involving “ Rachel.” The film mocked the efforts of our community to fight anti-Semitism and tried to ridicule the importance of the remembrance of the Holocaust...


Mr. Stein also withheld information about the controversy he was creating from the President of SFJFF and the members of the Board until the Festival program was printed and received in the mail in June.


During the six years of his tenure as Executive Director, he has consistently selected films which have an anti-Israel bias and he has, therefore, nurtured the part of the community which shares this political perspective. The audience that was present on July 25th filled the auditorium and substantially represented this group.


SFJFF is an organization basically run by its Executive Director and the Board plays a supportive but inferior role. They provide no oversight to the Executive Director's authority to select all the films and design the programs. The staff is under Mr. Stein’s personal direction and he exercises final authority and responsibility.


The decision as to whether a film demonizes Israel is a subjective judgment and depends upon the eye of the beholder. If the beholder is Peter Stein, there can be no confidence that the present and past pattern will not be repeated.


To their credit, five members of the SFJFF Board (about one third) including the immediate past President recently resigned. They did so in protest to the actions of Mr. Stein and the other Board members since the current controversy began, as described above.


The remaining SFJFF Board, including a former Acting Executive Director of the Jewish Voice for Peace which was a co-sponsor of the “Rachel” program has a similar political perspective to Mr. Stein and cannot be expected to change either the oversight or his authority. They have been willing partners in the duplicitous and evasive strategy designed by Mr. Stein since the recent controversy occurred.


SFJFF has avoided either accepting responsibility or providing meaningful change from their longstanding pattern of anti-Israel films and programming. Mr. Stein’s strategy, which has been successful so far, is to literally outtalk and outlast those in the community who have expressed deep concern. He obviously wants to stay in control of the film festival so that, with the assistance of a compliant Board, the same political program can be continued in the years ahead.


We cannot ignore the fact that the continuing months of public and private discussion have not led to either an apology by the Festival or reasonable assurance that an event such as this will not occur again.


Therefore, we call for the immediate resignation and departure of Peter Stein from his current position. This is the only way to achieve much needed change. We also believe his resignation would be in the best interest of SFJFF as well as the wider community.

The Sokatch Saga

As we all know, Dan Sokatch and The Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco have parted ways. Mr. Sokatch is leaving and taking a position as CEO of the New Israel Fund.

Many questions are being asked. Did this have anything to do with the Film Festival fiasco? Or with other controversial matters? Is he leaving of his own volition or was he pushed?.

After talking to several people and connecting the dots, here is my assessment of what has happened.

Dan Sokatch is a young, capable, and idealistic man who once studied for the rabbinate, but switched to public advocacy and administration where he thought he could be more effective.

Sokatch founded the Progressive Jewish Alliance (PJA) about a decade ago as a vehicle to “bring the Jewish community into the 21st century” Sokatch can best be situated among those Jews who believe that social justice should be the central organizing principle of American Jewry. And with the PJA he was able to realize many of his core passions.

A little over a year ago, the SF Federation was seeking a new Executive Director. Three features hovered over Federations background that helped color subsequent events

First, donations had been steadily declining, from a peak of 17 thousand families to al little under 11 thousand, in a community of 250,000 Jews. Some way need to be found to turn this around.

Secondly, for the past 20 plus years the San Francisco Federation had developed a reputation as being more left-leaning than comparable Federations in other cities. Some of their allocations went to organizations of the sort that more likely to be supported by the New Israel Fund. Further, the commitment to Israel had been declining, much to the dismay of other Federations around the country, .

Despite this, progressive Jews in the Bay area were suspicious of Federation as being too “old guard”, too committed to Israel with a reluctance to criticize the Jewish state, and demonstrating a long-standing failure to address their concerns. In fact, Federation has always sought consensus and tried to meet the needs of the entire community.

It made some kind of sense to think that someone like Sokatch would be comfortable with the changing philosophy of Federation, would allay the suspicions of the progressive community, and would lead to the involvement of significant numbers of progressives, both financially and personally. And so the job was his.

Sokatch was welcomed into the Federation family with much enthusiasm. Universally, there was good feeling about the hire. But there were two red flags that were ignored.

First, it is never prudent to have a broad based organization like the Federation run by a political operative who represents only one part of the political spectrum. Sokatch’s background was clearly in liberal advocacy, albeit in a Jewish context. When a Federation CEO is not identified with a political bias, the various members of the Jewish community can each project their own personal beliefs and values onto the director.

Secondly, and more specifically, prior to his hiring he had been involved in the founding of J Street, and was on their advisory board. J Street is a progressive political group founded as a vehicle to challenge the strong political support for Israel that had been nurtured for many years by such organizations as AIPAC. In addition, J Street viewed itself as the Jewish cheerleaders for Barack Obama. When the President wanted to lean on Israel, J Street gave them cover within the Jewish community.

While mainstream Jewish activist groups had used their clout to lobby on behalf of the American-Israel relationship in such areas as foreign aid and Iran sanctions, J Street took contrary positions However, for the leaders at the SF Federation, wishful thinking trumped any real consideration that this might be a problem. It was accepted at face value when J Street labeled itself as pro-Israel, despite the fact that it was perceived by many as an alternative to AIPAC, an organization that represents the entire spectrum of pro-Israel orientation. Further, J Street had been organized by persons who had marginal commitments to the welfare of Israel. .

Over the past year, a number of things have happened that caused tension between Sokatch and the lay leaders of Federation.

The first, and the most important of these, was the community-wide outrage at the actions of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival (SFJFF). The festival, under the directorship of Peter Stein, has had a history of showing films that were often considered anti-Israel, and has come under heavily criticism for this. But this year, criticism reached a fever pitch with the decision to show the film “Rachel”. This is a political polemic designed to enhance the martyrdom of Rachel Corrie, a young woman accidently killed by a bulldozer while attempting to stop the IDF from destroying a home in Gaza that was protecting smuggling tunnels.

The problem was magnified by the fact that the festival arranged to have the Jewish Voice for Peace, an outspoken anti-Israel group, and the American Friends Service Committee, as cosponsors

To compound this, the film festival showed a second film, “Defamation”, which mocked concerns about anti-Semitism, ridiculed the Anti-defamation league and Abe Foxman, trivialized the Holocaust, and lionized such figures as Norman Finkelstein, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. The final blow was an invitation from the Film Festival to Cindy Corrie, mother of Rachel and a propagandist for the International Solidarity Movement, a radical group with ties to Hamas.

These poorly conceived decisions by the SFJFF sparked vigorous and broad based outrage, which quickly spread into the national media. . Since Federation was one of the financial sponsors, there was a call for them to defund the festival. Both Peter Stein and the Federation leadership responded to this controversy in a way that can only be described as tone-deaf. They insisted that this was simply an example of “diversity”, and defended the decisions of the SFJFF on\ the basis of catering to a broad range of opinions.

Sokatch was placed in a difficult position. If he spoke out against the Festival, he would antagonize his progressive supporters. But if he failed to do, he risked alienating many of those who considered this to be a moral issue.

Federation and its supporters were determined to hang tough. They were not going to give in to what they thought was simply one more group complaining with little cause about Federation. Further, they attempted to garner support for the film festival director, encouraging letter writing campaigns. One additional piece of support for Stein came when he was nominated for an award by the United Jewish Communities as a community “hero”. All indications are that the nomination originated from within the walls of Federation.

The film festival critics were persistent, and criticism of Stein and the Festival board quickly evolved into a threat to boycott Federation. It appeared that Sokatch might replace Stein as the villain-in-chief.

Secondly, the J Street connection rankled. AS the year went by, J Street was exposed as an anti-Israel lobby group despite their pro-Israel claims. They helped raise money for lawmakers who took critical positions on Israel, and they vocally opposed the Gaza war. The last straw for many came when it was revealed that J Street donors included individuals who had been associated with pro-Palestinian and pro-Iran groups,

At the same time, Sokatch did not entirely sever his connections with J Street, and is slated to be a speaker at their convention in October. It almost seemed as if he were testing the limits of what was acceptable.

Finally, significant donations from the progressive Jewish community did not materialize. Since this was one of the main reasons for his hire, this failure was not helpful.

Despite the fact that there was tension, and that Sokatch became progressively more controversial, his leaving appears to be his own decision. The position as CEO of the New Israel Fund became available; he initially turned it down, but as things became more sticky, he accepted it. There is no reason to believe that he was pushed out,,and he is leaving with considerable good will.

Dan Sokatch is a decent and highly capable person. He is sincere about his commitments, and believes strongly that he is doing the right thing for the future of American Jewry. However, I believe that there are significant problems with Sokatch’s thinking.

The first has to do with his belief that social justice should be the core organizing principle for American Jewry. There is little dispute that social justice is an important component of Jewish thought and action. But if it is to be the central principle, then the question can be asked; why be Jewish? There are many secular organizations that do excellent work in the realm of social justice. And while we must be aware of and attend to social justice as an important feature of Judaism, there are other enduring features, such as religious belief, study of Torah and other texts, and a commitment to the existence of the Jewish state as part of our heritage. We are a diverse people, and not all Jews will be comfortable with all these roles. But without any of these things, and with only a strong commitment to social justice, why not simply join “Ethical Culture” or be active in the ACLU?.

In addition, Sokatch appears to be a man who is unable to recognize that those who disagree with him on some matters are not all simply reacting reflexively and without thought in the name of support for outmoded policies There is reflexive uncritical thinking across the entire political spectrum, and brilliant ideas come from individuals of both the left and the right. If Dan Sokatch can absorb this, he will go far.

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.

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.

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

Peter Stein as a "hero" of the Jewish community

As we all know, Peter Stein is the director of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival. It was he who decided to screen "Rachel" and "Defamation". And he was the one who invited Cindy Corrie, mother of Rachel and supporter of ISM, to appear with the film "Rachel".

Now there appears to be a desperate rogue operation to honor Peter Stein. The United Jewish Communities, the umbrella group for the various Federations as well as successor to the UJA, is running a competition for heroes within the community. This year, Peter Stein, director of the SFJFF has been nominated.

See http://www.jewishcommunityheroes.org/nominees/profile/peter-l.-stein/
(In response to demands from the community, by the time you read this the nomination may have been removed)

On the UJC website, it appears that the nomination came from the East Bay Federation. However, the CEO of the EB Federation states they had nothing to do with the nomination, and indeed his other statements about the film festival confirm that. At this point, no one knows where the nomination came from.

I was one of those who mistakenly sent out emails about this, that held the East Bay Federation responsible. This was based on the entry on the UJC website, as well as the funding for the film festival by both the East Bay and the SF Federations. Mea culpa, I apologize, The question now is how did this happen?

Here is what the nomination says:
"Peter L. Stein directs the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, the oldest and largest Jewish film festival in the US. He has brought the festival through countless storms. Most recently, he stood his ground in introducing a controversial film, "Rachel," to the festival's audiences. Stein deserves to be celebrated because he sees the role of a Jewish community organization and its leader as grappling with the complexity of modern Jewish life, not circling the wagons in defense against it. Peter Stein has been a peacemaker. When the Jewish community was divided politically, as it often is, he has refused to take sides but has been willing to bring people -- and ideas -- together."

Can you believe this?

Stein and some of the powers within the SF Federation have been busy getting people to write letters in support of Stein, the film festival, and the Federation. (See recent issues of "J") So the question is, did some of these same supporters enter this nomination as a desperate measure, basically attempting to "make a purse out of a pig's ear", (pardon the metaphor), i.e. to turn a deteriorating situation into something brave and "heroic"?

Both Federations have known of this since last week, but as of this morning have not removed the nomination or tried to learn who was responsible. Some persons in the community suspect that one or both CEOs are trying to have it both ways.

Federation is bleeding donors as a result. This is tragic, since with the exception of the film festival, the Federations do outstanding and important work. But the CEOs have mishandled this. Even though it appears to be a rogue operation, they have been slow to respond, raising further suspicions. Nothing will stop this except full candor and full disclosure.