BDS and civil discourse cannot coexist
I have read with interest but a high level of distress the recent columns, letters and editorials concerning federation funding guidelines and their application to the request by Jane Kahn and Michael Bien to fund Jewish Voice for Peace and American Friends Service Committee from their donor-advised fund. As the editorial notes (“Agreeing to disagree, with respect — that’s the Jewish way,” Feb. 12), the discourse has been remarkably civil, particularly in the polarized and generally uncivil world in which we live.
That being said, when are we all going to drop our political correctness and start telling the truth? The BDS movement embraces every principle that Americans should and do find abhorrent. The proponents of BDS are the ones who are racist, anti-liberal, anti-democratic and bigoted. They make no secret of their ultimate goal, one that is centuries old but given a modern twist — the destruction of the State of Israel and a 21st-century holocaust that aims to eliminate any Jewish presence in the Levant.
The proponents of BDS claim their movement is a response to Israeli occupation of Palestine. In fact, it is a modern variant of the Arab League boycott, one that was put in place long before the 1967 war and the so-called occupation. If the proponents of BDS oppose occupation of Palestine, why weren’t they protesting the occupation of Gaza by Egypt, and of the West Bank by Jordan, both prior to June of 1967? It distresses me greatly that any Jew would think JVP or AFSC is a legitimate organization that deserves their support.
Eric Horodas | Oakland
Israel’s right to exist is not negotiable
Regarding the recent op-ed “JCF guidelines don’t work for us” (Feb. 5), we at the Oshman Family JCC are constantly evaluating our role in how we foster love and support for Israel. Last fall, we hosted Zionism 3.0, a conference that brought speakers from the far right to the far left. This conference challenged us, including me, to engage respectfully with speakers with whom we may vehemently disagree.
However, with as wide a tent as we created, we did erect firm tent poles on each side: We did not invite speakers on the left who represented the viewpoint that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state, and none on the right who espoused the view that Palestinians should be expelled from their lands.
I believe the Jewish federation also needs to draw lines in the sand about what organizations it will support, which is why I agree with its funding guidelines.
While many issues of Jewish life are nuanced, one that is absolutely not negotiable is BDS. The underlying goal of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. Therefore, supporting organizations that support BDS is tantamount to undermining the legitimacy and economic security of the Jewish state.
As the umbrella organization of Jewish life in the Bay Area, the federation should feel no compunction to assist any organization that seeks to undermine Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. I also understand why some people might, therefore, choose to move their donor-advised funds elsewhere, though I wish it were not so.
If King Solomon were alive today, I don’t know what his decision would be. But I do know mine: I support the federation in setting parameters and keeping watch over how our precious Jewish resources are allocated. And I also respect those who choose to be the sole arbiters of how their charitable funds are applied.
Zack Bodner | Palo Alto
CEO, Oshman Family JCC
Federation showing good leadership
Should the federation make allocations or program grants to an organization supporting the BDS movement? That’s really the question here.
When one puts their philanthropic dollars into a donor-advised fund (JCF or otherwise), those dollars are then the communal dollars of that organization and the original donor becomes the “adviser.” When the dollars go out the door as grants, they go out on federation letterhead as a grant from the Jewish Community Federation.
Should the federation be more consistent with regard to organizations on both ends of the spectrum working to undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel? Of course. But is the need for scrutiny on the right a justification for lack of scrutiny on the left, specifically regarding BDS? No.
Process notwithstanding, I congratulate federation leaders, both professional and lay, for their leadership on behalf of the community.
Aaron Katler | Berkeley
All grant recipients need equal scrutiny
The op-ed by Jane Kahn and Michael Bien raises important questions about federation grants made through its donor-advised funds. Are all grant recipients acting according to the fund’s guidelines, including advocating views that do not “endorse or promote anti-Semitism, bigotry, violence or other extremist views”?
In his response, federation CEO Danny Grossman justly notes that the American Friends Service Committee and Jewish Voice for Peace were rejected because they support BDS. But he does not say why the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the American Freedom Defense Initiative and the American Freedom Law Center were funded. Under the guise of being pro-Israel, these organizations do much to stir up racist feelings and build anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiments.
Do other recipients of federation grants support bigoted and anti-democratic programs across the Green Line in the occupied territories? I hope not.
Jon Kaufman | Berkeley
‘Good Palestinians’ as irrelevant as ‘good Germans’
I have nothing but respect for the contributions made by Jane Kahn and Michael Bien and for their desire to “do the right thing.” But the facts do not support the position taken by the American, liberal, left, progressive Jews regarding peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
The “good Germans” were completely irrelevant to the horrors of World War II. The only people who counted were the German leaders and their followers who were willing to slaughter the Jews. The “good Palestinians” who are willing to live next to Jews in peace are as irrelevant as the “good Germans.”
Moreover, terror attacks on Israelis began long before there were any settlements, unilateral withdrawal from Gaza only brought missiles, and Netanyahu was nowhere in sight when the opening peace offers by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert were flatly refused by the Palestinians.
Most important, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah all state daily that the only acceptable solution is “no Israel and no Jews.” What is it that Jane Kahn and Michael Bien don’t understand when our enemies say they want to annihilate us?
David Mullens | Palo Alto
Sharansky is a Jewish hero
Feb. 11, 1986 was a historical date in modern Jewish history: It’s when the Soviet Union released Natan (Anatoly) Sharansky from the gulag. He had been unjustly imprisoned for almost nine years. He was arrested because he was one of the leaders of the refusenik community in Moscow (“Unlikely pairing at Stanford,” Feb. 12).
Unable to live as a Jew in the USSR, he tried to emigrate as a Jew and be reunited with his wife Avital in Israel. But instead, he was imprisoned.
The San Francisco Bay Area was a recognized leader in the campaign to free Sharansky during the time he was unfairly imprisoned. A significant percent of his incarceration was spent in solitary confinement and under “strict regime” conditions. His courage, religious faith and incredible tenacity enabled him to survive this inhumane treatment, though his health suffered.
Natan is a modern-day Jewish hero. In the three decades he has lived in Israel, he has written several profound books and has dramatically affected life in Israel and here in the diaspora. This Shabbat, raise your wineglass and propose a toast to him. He’s earned it.
Morey Schapira | Sunnyvale
Hero now an apologist for Israeli policies
Who could have imagined that the refusenik hero Natan Sharansky, who suffered so much at the hands of the Soviet authorities, would become an apologist for the oppressive policies of the Israeli government in the West Bank?
Danny Yanow | San Francisco