On the previous posting (article by Leila Beckwith), the question was raised about the attitudes of Mazin Qumsiyeh, a Palestinian-American activist who is involved in the UC-Irvine Olive Tree Initiative. I have been referred to the below two links from the Volokh Conspiracy web site edited by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh.
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1206746685.shtml
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1207190707.shtml
So the question begs; should pro-Israel donors (Jewish or non-Jewish) contribute money so that Jewish students from UC-Irvine or other UC campuses can travel to the Holy Land and meet with people like Qumsiyeh and get their take on the Israel-Palestinian conflict?
I guess that is ultimately up to those who contribute to OTI.
8 comments:
As to whether any given person should donate to OTI, that remains a matter for donors to OTI, not for "the Jewish community" to make some kind of group decision about.
It would be worthwhile for Jewish students to hear Qumsiyeh, not to learn "The Truth," but to recognize that this is the kind of thinking generated by growing up in Palestine under present conditions. To simply continue the present Israeli occupation is not an option - in ten years, or fifty years, or one hundred years, Israel will lose a war, and it will be disastrous.
Of course he is wrong that Ashkenazhi and Sephardic Jews are unrelated to each other. It is also wrong to think they are one common gene pool. Ashkenazhi trace their Jewish roots to the Babylonian population, which remained after the Exile, while Sephardim trace theirs to Judea. I'm not sure where the Galilean population fits in, but perhaps some of them were the Jews still living there when Ashkhenzahi showed up from Europe, or perhaps some converted and are among the Christian Arabs of the region.
It is also true that Jews everywhere in the diaspora share genetic characteristics of the populations among whom they have lived.
"Next year in Jerusalem" is a religious commitment, not a national right. There are Jews who firmly support Israel simply because so many Jews are now there, who believe Zionism was a mistake, by a bunch of secular-minded socialists. I wonder sometimes whether the Zionists haven't played into Nasrullah's hands...
If I were sending Jewish students to study Occupied Europe in 1944, would I want them to see Auschwitz? Or would I want them only to go to Theresienstadt? The analogy is not exact - Qumsiyeh at least can maintain that he had nothing against Jews until they settled in the land where his family already lived.
But what he offers is not helpful. The population of Israel is no more going to move back to Germany than the population of Milwaukee is. Nor is he offering to help resettle Tunisian Jews safely and honorably in their previous homes. We have to deal with what exists now, not with ideological preferences.
Siarlys,
The problem is, the Federation claims to represent the Jewish community and be its voice. If the Federation stops doing that, then yes, the Jewish Community won't be able to dictate what the Federation does. As long as the Federation claims it represents the Jewish community, then it is in fact subject to the desires of the Jewish community.
The Federation doesn't use communal money to support OTI, so your argument is invalid anonymous. The Rose Project is a group of individual donors that choose to support OTI, not any portions of public donations.
I guess they decided that investing in students like Isaac Yerushalmi was worthwhile.
For the readers' benefit, Issac Yerushalmi is a former UCI student, president of Anteaters for Israel, and one who has participated in an Olive Tree trip. He is a supporter of OTI and has written in its support.
I don't know Isaac well, and have only met and talked with him a couple of times. I know as a student, he was in the forefront of engaging with Muslim students in Israel's defence. He also organized counter-protests during Israel Apartheid week at UCI. I have great respect for him and his view-points.
I never said anything about communal funds, read carefully next time. The Rose Project is a project under the Federation, so the Federation is responsible for what happens with it. Communal funds are not the issue, the Federation support of OTI is. Additionally, the Federation uses its Rose Project to promote itself, often in an effort to raise funds for the Federation in general.
If it is all individual donors, who wish to keep funding the program, then do it outside of the Jewish Federation, and free the Federation from this mess.
To the extent that Anonymous 1 knows what s/he is talking about, perhaps the Federation would like to spin off the Rose Project and sever affiliation, whatever their may be. That would be an appropriate act of Free Speech on the part of the Federation. However, as I am neither Jewish, nor a member of the Federation, it is none of my business, nor much of anyone else's. It would seem such a step would have little impact on OTI, which is sustained by donors who know what they are donating to, and approve of it.
Gary, your carefully balanced comments on Issac Yerushalmi are balm to a weary soul. We need more people who can participate in a project like OTI, listen carefully to Palestinian as well as Israeli voices, stand up firmly to students (Muslim or otherwise) who indiscriminately attack Israel, and are willing to advocate a better policy for Israel than it currently pursues. And yes, the Palestinian side could use a lot more Issac Yerushalmi's of their own.
Siarlys,
Who's business is it then?
In the United States of America, the decision to make an individual voluntary donation is the business of the individual making the donation, and the intended recipient of the donation.
When there is a collective organization involved, such as The Jewish Federation, it is the business of each and every duly signed member (individual or organizational) to participate in defining policy and goals for which they all came together in the first place.
The rest of us can say "I like that" or "I don't like that," and make our own decisions about our own time and money. It is none of our business to tell other people what to do with their own time and money, or how to set policy for organizations they belong to, that we don't.
If "the Federation" claims to "represent the Jewish community," any bona fide Jewish person proclaiming "they don't represent me" nullifies that claim. It doesn't change the policy of the Federation, which is actually set by those who affiliated, not those it claims to speak for.
Post a Comment