Israel Focus - J Street U: Dropping the Pro in Pro-Israel ... This IS What it Has Come To

---

There's brave and then there's brave. There's "meeting them where they're at" and then there's "meeting them where they're at." There's also a commitment to honest and open dialogue, and then there's a commitment to honest and open dialogue.

In a recent report by the Jerusalem Post, (J Street's campus branch drops pro-Israel slogan) J Street U has apparently dropped the Pro-Israel from its slogan. According to a more accurate telling of the the policy (J Street: Report of Slogan Change False, but Campus Groups Needn't Be Pro-Israel) it is clear that there never really was an official slogan, nor is there any official name change. In a stunningly honest and reasoned response, J-Street explains that they are simply allowing campus groups to tailor their materials, slogans, and rhetoric as they see fit. In much the same way you don't have to "officially" believe in G-d to be Jewish, J-Street is saying you don't have to avow being "Pro-Israel" to be in support of a two state solution.

Now while this may seem contradictory to some, to those who are true students of Jewish theology or for those who really understand the campus landscape - this is not a contradiction at all. A main precept of Judaism is that two seemingly opposing thoughts can be held in the mind at the same time. (G-d is everything, yet G-d is not one thing - We are made in the image of G-d, yet we are nowhere near close to being G-d). How on earth could one be for Israel and yet not avow, unequivocally that you are Pro-Israel? Well there in lies the rub.

First, one must understand what kind of damage the Pro-Israel movement has done to the phrase Pro-Israel. To be "Pro-Israel" today means (unofficially of course) that you are essentially an unquestioning supporter of Israel and her policies. While people like myself go around the country trying to convince those on the left that you can and should critique Israel while you support her right to exist and fight extremism on her borders, the reality on the ground in America just does not reflect that same right. In the same way President Bush made it almost criminal to question America and her Government (Executive Branch/Military mainly) after 9/11, the mainstream Jewish Organizational world has made it almost impossible to voice criticism of Israel while still being in the "Big Tent" of Pro-Israel organizations.

Just look at criticism of the recent J-Street Conference in Washington, DC. If you have any record of criticizing or not jumping right on the bandwagon of Israel support in congress or elsewhere, you are labeled "clearly not an Israel supporter."

Now don't get me wrong. In my line of work I am more than willing to call people out for being weak or absent in their support for valid defenses of the Israeli government. I am also well versed in those who lean so far to the left that they defend the indefensible in the extremist Muslim/Arab communities. That being said, that is not the majority of the Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace movement. Had mainstream Jewish and self avowed "Pro-Israel" organizations been able to make this distinction years ago, you wouldn't have the current problem or people feeling dirty and often sick by saying the words - Pro-Israel. I personally think it is a beautiful phrase. To me, to be Pro-Israel is to be Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinian. But the inability of any major organizations to hammer that point home has left it well - just about being Pro-Israel and invariably about being almost unwaveringly Pro-Israel.

How can I say this? Well I happen to know that in congregations and boardrooms all over this country, people urging moderation are losing out to those who want to simply berate Muslim and Arab groups, claim Anti-Semitism, and excuse every action of the Israeli Government for the sake of Ideology for some and Solidarity for others. Again, some Muslim and Arab groups DO need to be called out. Anti-Semitism is an integral and viscous part of a GREAT DEAL of anti-Israel sentiment. And AIPAC deserves credit for its cultivation of support for Israel at the highest levels of government. But that can't be the only thing being Pro-Israel is about. And for many years, folks on the left and many disaffected young adults and college students are getting just that message. And they are fed-up with it.

From focus group conversations I have run, it became clear that the most common phrase I could get these disaffected folks to say was "I want to support Israel ... but...." And the but, I knew, was their visceral feeling that they did not identify with those who did say they were Pro-Israel. Interestingly, based on a knowledge of their background, I knew most of them WERE Pro-Israel. They just couldn't bring themselves to say it. In the same way that Zionism has today been robbed of its beautiful origins, Pro-Israel is not longer something someone who has questions can say. I would ask, "What would it take for you to say --- I am Pro-Israel .. but.." After all, isn't that a more accurate reflection of who they were. And it was. And they saw that. And they really wanted to be "Pro-Israel," but it just had been tainted too much.

Of course the true sad part is that - as opposed to Zionism which has been tainted largely by the anti-Israel world, the phrase "Pro-Israel" has been tainted by the Jewish and "Pro-Israel" organization world. J-Street confronts these problems honestly, because to do otherwise would continue the status-quo and of course - that is exactly what can't be allowed to continue - in the US or in the Middle East.

Many will have a big problem with allowing Campus Groups to play with the phrase as they see fit. But again, those who understand the nature of education and the state of College campuses right now will see that this really is a brave way to open up the dialogue around Israel and bring people under the tent who have been outside for way too long.

Israel Focus - Goldstone at Brandeis ... The Question of Context

---

According to the Boston Globe, "Brandeis to host Gaza violence forum," South African Judge Richard Goldstone, author of a fiercely controversial report issued by the equally controversial UN Human Rights Council, will speak at Brandeis next month as part of a forum addressing the report and the issue of violence surrounding the Gaza incursion last winter.

The article reflects the commonly held belief about the report - that it is controversial because it places heavier blame on Israel for human rights violations during the war.

But as with similar discussions surrounding the report - and the war in general - the press story only tells a fraction of the story. First and foremost, the article says nothing of the recent backtracking from Goldstone, as he tries to distance himself from the report. What people don't often hear is the frequency with which "respectable" men like Goldstone are duped and co-opted by the incredibly biased bodies of the United Nations. There are many with a very sincere desire for peace and "the truth" whose respectability - and often their being Jewish - feeds into the cause of those who seek to demonize Israel. And in good form, once the individual duped realizes this, they distance themselves from demonization. But of course by then, the damage has been done and Israel has already been condemned in the global community - once again - for crimes it has not committed.

And the sad part of all of this is that, because these UN Reports lack credibility, it is almost impossible for any honest analysis of real abuses to take place. It is true that Israel conducts their own investigations of such military actions. It is also true that they are thorough and often do reveal problems. But an independent review is not a bad idea. It just can't come from a body that has a documented and pervasive bias for Israel - bordering on pervasive hatred and anti-Semitism. A student of the UN and International law will take that last statement as a systemic fact rather than a reactionary opinion. It is simply undeniable that many of the countries who make up the general assembly and the committees of the UN are still in a very understandable but immature stage of awareness when it comes to Israel and Jews in general. If you accept that bigotry against Jews exists in this country, and is even more prevalent in places with less exposure to Jews, you have to acknowledge that this is the truth about most of the world.

If you needed more proof of this bias - just ask why the context for the Brandeis forum is "Violence" and the context for the UN report was "War Crimes". The Brandeis forum is attempting to be unbiased and exporatory. The UN Report wanted to feed the flames of a global presumption.

But of central importance here is not the bias of the UN but that the content of the report has not been properly reported. Goldstone, in his comments to the press, would have you believe that the report simply calls out Israel for things like inappropriate bombings of factories essential to daily life. Well maybe that is an abuse, and we could talk about that, but that does not accurately reflect the report. The same is true of outlets like the Globe - they merely report the popular opinion and do no real investigative journalism. And how common is it that the Globe comments on the Arab-Israeli conflict without trying to get the facts or even dig beneath the surface at all?

Even a cursory reading of the report reveals a no-holds-barred compilation of accusations surrounding the entire breadth of complaints against Israel. What is tackled is the everyday actions of Israeli police, the very "occupation" of the West Bank itself, and the actions in Gaza. What is tackled on the Palestinian side is the bombing of southern Israel - but nothing else. There is no discussion of the complex issue of Hamas - an organization aimed at eradicating Israel. There is no discussion of Hamas acting in opposition to the Palestinian Authority their supposed partners in governing.

What is also not mentioned is the intractable nature of fighting an enemy who stages attacks from civilian locations. How balanced could a report be when it does not specifically challenge accusations already leveled. Israel was condemned during the war for firing on a UN school. What has been documented since is the reality that the school had been taken over by Hamas militants precisely because it might avoid Israeli attacks. As Israel often does, they opted for the effective rather than the politically correct and targeted the school - with no students in it when they attacked. But that, of course, was not what was reported.

It almost goes without saying that no mention is made of the efforts Israel makes to avoid the loss of innocent life. But I think the focus on that takes away from the larger problem of a UN report that takes broad swipes at Israel having nothing to do with Gaza. That is why the Palestinian Authority eventually accepted the report. They realized the benefit of having documented language of arguments in their larger conflict with Israel far outweighed the slaps on the wrist they would have to take in regard to Gaza.

It will be interesting to see how much of these larger issues will be discussed at the forum. Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the UN will respond to Goldstone, and it would be a shame if all he talked about was the way in which Israel sent in humanitarian aid, and texted people to let them know their building would be shelled. A real discussion would include asking Goldstone why the report diverges so much from its alleged focus on Gaze and asking Dore to explain some of the questionable sites Israel chose to target (not the sites that had satellite imagery and documentation of militants launching missiles into Israel.) An honest discussion can be had about Gaza. Just not with a UN Human Rights Council report as its focus.

Health Care Reform - The Need to Speak Out TODAY!

---

Keven Cullen writes in his Globe article "Pre-existing conditional," of a common health care story in America. It is the story of people facing hard economic times who have to confront exorbitant health care costs. I have no issue with the article or its point. In fact I applaud it. My only problem is WHY stories like these haven't been appearing throughout the United States, in multiple media formats, all day, every day.

The question posed is a simple one. What is it that our legislators are so scared of when it comes to health care reform? What is it that they don't get about the severity of the problem?

What has paralyzed movement on this issue for decade is actually a combination of factors. The themes is a common one. The people who are the most vulnerable in our society just can't seem to get the rest of the country to acknowledge their problems.

After numerous conversations with upper middle class friends and colleagues who have had relative but consistent job security they say that they literally do not see those problems. They do not have to worry about things like pre-existing conditions, out of network Doctors, and escalating costs. Our current system works out just fine for them. Again - the common themes in modern America. If it isn't broken FOR ME - then I guess it isn't broken. That's why, in the Cullen column, the featured family gets the sense that congress thinks the system isn't broken. As always, if something does not impact the upper classes who contribute to campaigns, run for elected office, and belong to all the boards and leadership organizations, then - it just can't be a major concern for our government.

It is the "there but for the grace of god argument" so few really get. If you have no experience with the fringes of our society or have never been on the fringes of our society, you just don't get it. Right now, that is still the biggest difference between fiscal conservatives and liberals - in my opinion. If this were the only problem, however, health care reform may just have a chance.

Unfortunately, this reality combines with a number of other factors that contribute to a number of constituencies acting against their own self interest. Interestingly, the very problems that exist in the current health care system are being used to demonize possible solutions. Sit around the table with any group adversely impacted by problems in the system will speak of:
1) Losing health care when they lose their job
2) Being denied health care for pre-existing conditions
3) Not being able to go to the Doctor of your choice because he or she is "out of network."
4) Not having access to the best care

These are commonly known problems, yet people seem to forget that when they are brought up as problems with a future government plan.

Another longstanding problem is that people who are just one bad stroke of luck away from the fringes of society don't always see themselves that way. It is not because of a lack of foresight but is often, frankly, much more about politics, culture and race. Noted politicos have often commented that almost 75% of Americans consider themselves in either in the "middle or upper middle class" or see themselves realistically getting there. And because of that, policies that seem to benefit "the poor" and ask more of those with means, are often looked down upon by this very group of at risk individuals. Conservative politics prey on this reality and that is how a party that has little to do with the "common man" garners so much support from them. Ad to this trend the underlying racism and/or classism it represents, and you have a recipe for disaster. I would tend to call it the "Post Populist" moment.

Historically, the populist movement has always included some of these contradictions. But it seems these contradictions have reached their zenith in the 21st Century with the election of the country's first Black President. The town meetings we have been privy to have revealed an ignorance of and hostility to "big government" of an almost unprecedented nature, which can only be explained by a heightened sense of us versus them. The us of course, is the white American ideal of prosperous, middle class folks. The them is the immigrant, the undocumented (illegal) immigrant, the minority, the criminal, and the poor who are leeching off of hard working Americans. Of course no mention is ever made of the benefits all those same "folks" get and expect from the big, bad government. That can be seen no more clearly than in the inexplicable exhortations to the government to get their hands of people's medicare. This was both the exemplar of the problem and hopefully, the very eccentricity that can send us back in a better direction. Just as it was hard to hear (for some) Obama described as a Muslim, a "friend" of Muslims, and a "terrorist"/friend of terrorists - it has been hard to hear all these false and erroneous claims. And it is still difficult to hear the cultural and racial comments re-released for used in the health care debate. That is how we know culture, race, and class still matter. We are not in a post-racial world yet. To think otherwise is naive. But we may very well be in the post-populist age I spoke of where what it means to be against big-business is so blurred and turned on its head.

The idea that the best care in this country is available to all is a myth. And to hear conservative use the supposed "mediocre" care in other countries as a scare tactic is the height of hypocrisy. To think that what people get in other countries, as part of their social compact, paid for by their taxes, is any less than what the vast majority of people get in this country is - frankly - a crime.

It is therefore up to us - for causes including but not limited to health care - to right the ship of populism and progressivism. If you have a job, and have never had a brush with being un-insured, please take the word of all who will tell you - it is a huge problem with life destroying consequences. Yes, cost calculations don't mean much when they are just a random number next to a small co-payment or a "zero due" balance. But they are critical when you have to pay them yourself. And yes, the idea of a "public option" may have been so colored as to sound like a bad government program - but it needs to be thought of as no different then medicare or medicaid - the very program so many depend on.

And for all those people who want to know where the money would come from, I propose two items for your consideration. First, as I suggested in an earlier post, is it really about the money? Is there really anything that could be more worthy of our tax dollars? Do you also ask that same thing about war? Do you even get to? No you don't - you just pay for it and go back to your life. Why can't a public option for the uninsured be the same? Second, I propose a radical postulate. I propose a look a the US Postal Service. In its inception, the government saw some value in a populace that could communicate efficiently with each other. They saw it as an essential tool for business and a continuation of a long legacy of the sharing of knowledge and the advancement of human understanding. Is the health of children and our most vulnerable any less important or noble? And yes sometimes it IS about the children. But if you are still unconvinced, well then, why not close the postal service and use those funds for a public option for health care. I mean really, in the year 2009 is there really anything the post office does that FedEx, UPS, and the Internet can't already do for us?

For your consideration ....

Policy Focus - Reflections on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

---

The recent flare up over the military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been both revealing and encouraging - on many levels. Two recent articles on the topic have taken somewhat unique angles on the issue.

James Carrol, in his October 5th column, "Behind the folly of don't ask don't tell", didn't just rehash the usual moral objections and ritualized hypocrisy of the policy. He actually tried to clear up some History. And of course, anyone who tries to do that - and succeeds - will always get my attention.

Carroll reminds us that it was actually the Military brass that brought this issue at the advent of the Clinton administration. Just as they have done recently, they clearly stated that gays do serve in the Military and that the country should get their act together, get over it, and let them serve openly. They said this in the '90's and they are saying it now. Carroll correctly points out that it was the conservative congress (yes even the democrats) that wanted to hold the line on this issue. They pushed it on the country, framed it as something the military did not want and could not function with, and leveraged the issue to paint Clinton as out of touch with the testosterone infused military we all want to believe in. You know, the one that Colonel Jessup tried to sell us (You don't want the truth! You can't handle the truth!)

Well as it turns out, especially in the age of dwindling recruits, the military does want us to know the truth and thinks we can handle the truth. And the truth is that having gays serve openly will be liberating. Carroll reminds us, as many do, that when the military was desegregated, the military followed orders. What he didn't remind us of however, was that even though the military desegregated it remained - on many levels - a place where racist, sexist, homophobic, and religious slurs could be used to make fun of, ridicule, berate, and demean any minority group you could possibly identify.

Now as much as I don't like the fact that this is the way the military often motivates (breaks down to build up) troops, and is something I would like to see changed, you can see how, in the context of the this issue, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" just didn't make sense. People knew they were serving side by side with lesbians and homosexuals. And just like in the rest of society, they often had to guess about sexual orientation (because not everyone is "out") and they often voiced their suspicions openly, loudly and with general acceptance, regardless of any real knowledge about the target. What the military was simply saying - in the '90s and this month - was that we know some of us are gay and we are actually ok with it - or to be more precise - some of us like them and some of us hate them, but how is that any different than the blacks, jews, mexicans, puerto- ricans, etc.

Again, I hope people are reading this knowing how much I hate that what we pay lip service to stopping in our school hallways and sports fields is actually a way of life in the military. That battle will take a little longer to fight, but until then, some very intelligent and rational people are saying, lets just have everyone serve - what we do to them after that is another story - the real don't ask don't tell. Plus, once people are out, just think how much fun and "OK" it will be to be made fun of and demeaned as a "Real"homosexual" as opposed to someone we just all think is a little feminine and we like making fun of.

The tongue in cheek approach is so prevalent here because of how ironic I think it is that people are fighting so hard to be open about their sexuality knowing exactly how much heat they will get for it - again - just like every other minority group. But how wonderfully American is that? Equal opportunity to be demeaned and ridiculed for who you are - as long as you get treated equally along those lines. I think this is essentially the on going punch line of "Rescue Me" and Dennis Leary's stand up comedy - and Howard Stern for that matter. But it is also much of America - people not really loving each other - for rediculously superficial reasons - yet being close in many other ways because of the common mission, job, or bond they have found through being "in the trenches" with one another. This is the powerfully transformative nature of American life and it is about time more people are realizing the benefit of that instead of seeing the segregationist instincts that are so common on the reactionary right.

And speaking of the reactionary right - and the transformative power of America - another article on this issue also got me thinking. In Ellen Goodman's October 9th piece "The Texas two step on gay-divorce" she thoroughly enjoys relating how, in the midst of the tide of states acknowledging gay marriage, Texas finds itself in the awkward position of SUPPORTING GAY MARRIAGE. Yes, that is correct. In Texas, they are battling a state court decision that would allow gay DIVORCES in other states to be recognized in Texas. How AWESOME is that! If you are married in a state where Gay marriage is legal, and want to dissolve that union in Texas, they will make you stay together. Granted, I am playing fast in loose with the legal arguments about consistency and precedent (you can't really acknowledge gay divorce if you are not acknowledging gay marriage in the first place), but you would think for just this kind of thing - the dissolution of something they find morally reprehensible - they would make an exception. I love it.

But to be honest, this article got me thinking about something else. What struck me more was that contrary to even five years ago, there is actually a tide moving more states toward acknowledging gay marriage. And why is that happening? Not necessarily because of strong grassroots efforts in the states that are now in play. I believe the tide is turning because of two things. One - the issue has NOT actually been placed squarely in front of the faces of people who are vehemently against it. Two - as my comments above suggest - and as Barney Frank often says - gay people got married and the world didn't end. This is really what I call the transformative power of America. This country can be changed kicking and screaming, or it can be changed as it was in its beginnings - a small group of brave leaders making bold changes and letting the rest of the country see that they can live with the change. They may not "love" everything about the change, but they can live safely, securely, and morally, even as others live a different lifestyle.

This is why more and more, on a very systemic level, I am becoming a huge fan of the "states rights" cop out - I mean argument. Seriously, I do think it is somewhat of a cop-out that what I find morally clear cannot simply be enacted by the federal government on everyone else. But implicit in that statement is the "everyone else." It may not be a perfect system - to let 50 somewhat arbitrary gatherings of people decide their own laws so that the country can gradually decide its own fate rather than all at once. But given our current culture and division of Red and Blue states, it may actually make more sense than many would believe. As I said, it is not perfect. And it does seem wrong in some ways when people thing moral absolutes are in place. But that sword cuts both ways and as a political junky, the imperfect but slow that still validates the rights of the other opinion, may actually be a brilliant system for change as opposed to a flawed system for maintaining the status quo.

Now let me be clear, I am not saying the hard work of activists generating support for the cause of LGBT rights are not important - because they are of vital importance. But the balancing of that work with the ability of America to reflect on gradual change has always been an amazing and potent combination. This is whey I am a "passionate moderate." There are people that say the change is too slow, some who say the change is too fast. But when I see articles like the one above, as much as I feel for those in other states who have not gotten their "change," I still see an America changing in a way that is long lasting, consistent, and respectful to those who deserve our patience - the other side. Change is difficult, but as Smokey Robinson said beutifully, "Change is gonna come!"