Thursday, the rabbi tries to defend himself (and fails miserably)
Greetings from Paris Charles De Gaulle where once again it is a travel day.
It was a crazy weekend, so I didn't get to post this, but on Thursday someone shared with me a long email received from Rabbi Neil Blumofe of Austin, Texas, trying to defend the itinerary for his 'even-handed' Israel trip that included a visit to the tomb of the father of terrorism.
The email is way too long to post in its entirety, but I want to post part of it and comment. The full email is embedded below.
In our tradition, we have intractable enemies. While we blot out Haman's
name on Purim, we do so as we articulate it. We must find allies and
must not retreat into absolute positions. To be present somewhere is not
to pay homage -- rather it is to say we are still here, reclaiming the
memories of those who Arafat and his followers murdered, and educating
others about the continuing dangers of his legacy. This tomb is a
propaganda tool that is used to shore up mindless support for our
dehumanization. In turn, not to discuss this stymies dialogue, which
leads to our peril. Let us not fall into this trap. To think otherwise
empowers our real enemies and continues to drive us apart, intensifying
our systemic, historical traumas.
Yes, the tomb is a propaganda tool, so why would you visit it? If you want to visit a place to prove the point that 'we are still here,' visit Auschwitz. Remind your congregants what happened when Jews had no place to flee, when there was no State of Israel, and when the British - in competition with France for the second biggest anti-Semites in Europe after the Germans - barred the doors to keep Arafat's uncle (the Mufti al-Husseini) happy. That's saying 'we're still here' - not visiting the tomb of a terrorist that you admit is a propaganda tool.
What dialogue is the rabbi afraid of 'stymieing' if he does not go to Arafat's tomb? Dialogue with the 'Palestinians'? Has the rabbi elected himself Prime Minister of Israel? Why is it that no Israeli government minister and no non-Arab Knesset member would dream of visiting Arafat's tomb except in an IDF tank? Maybe it's because nearly all Israelis - even the Left - understand that paying homage to Arafat, even if it would be 'identifying with the other,' would do precisely nothing to advance the 'peace process'?
Day after day, I speak to people who are concerned about the slackening
of support, and the growing difficulty of advocacy for Israel in our
charged, polarized political climate. We see the dangerous way that the
repugnant BDS movement (Boycott, Divest, and Sanction) movement has made
incursions on our college campuses and I applaud and support those on
these front lines, directly beating back these efforts that seek to
delegitimize Israel and dehumanize our Israeli brothers and sisters.
I'm glad to hear that. But if that's the case, why do you feel the need to cooperate with many of the groups that fund the BDS movement?
I believe that we must do something too. We must learn the language of
those with whom we disagree -- especially those with whom we most
profoundly disagree. We must see the narratives, symbols, and myths --
and question them. We must develop a more sophisticated, critical
understanding of the world around us, as opposed to reducing our
justified fears to an "us versus them" mentality. We must learn to think
for ourselves and not accept whatever we may read that encourages
embitterment and distance. We must learn to have more informed, examined
opinions and hear competing voices so we may be more fully confident
and present in our own story.
The problem is that the average Jew in America - and even many in Israel - have no idea what 'our own story' is. The very suggestion that the 'Palestinians' have an ancient connection to the land of Israel, or that their connection is anywhere near as longstanding as ours, is simply farcical. You've read Tanach. Do you believe it? Where were the 'Palestinians' during the time of the Tanach? Do you think it's acceptable for them to pretend that the Temples just didn't exist? You know they did. Are we obligated to listen to every narrative regardless of how ridiculous it is? Are we required to accord credibility to every narrative?
By the way, have you ever read Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial?
I am sorry that a proposed stop in an internal draft document has caused
such furor. While it was a point of conversation within a larger
itinerary, I certainly do not seek public controversy and upon
reflection, I see it as a misstep in what I was seeking to accomplish.
What I think the rabbi might have missed is that the stop was just one point - the most outrageous one and the easiest one around which to rally opposition - in a very problematic itinerary.
Here's the full email:
Tuesday the rabbi's congregants conducted a witch hunt?
Yehuda Kurtzer, director of the Shalom Hartman Institute in the United States, published a lengthy and whiny piece in the Times of Israel complaining about the 'witch hunts' that are allegedly being conducted against 'my friend and colleague Rabbi Neil Blumofe — a great rabbi, leader, and
lover of Zion — was brutally smeared and defamed due to a perfidious
interpretation of how he built the itinerary for a congregational trip
to Israel.' That's a story I covered here.
For those who have forgotten, Blumofe canceled the itinerary, and promised that a new one would be issued that would not include a stop at Arafat's grave. Kurtzer brushes over that:
Rabbi Blumofe has expressed his regret for the decision to have his
synagogue stop at Arafat’s grave, as well as for the circulating widely
of a complicated itinerary that — taken out of context — was
misrepresented as the manifestation of an insidious agenda. One could
well imagine an aggrieved congregant who trusted Rabbi Blumofe’s
character taking issue with some of the trip’s content, express the
grievance, and then bring about a positive change. Once the grievance is
translated into the public sphere, however, even the capacity to bring
about change on the issue begins to decline.
The problem is that while the congregant who publicly took issue with Blumofe chose to focus on the Arafat stop - the most outrageous item - there was plenty more on the itinerary that a true 'lover of Zion' would find objectionable. Look at the itinerary above, and tell me that it doesn't reek of a political agenda that doesn't reflect 'love of Zion.' Look at the 'extra' descriptions in the entries for June 8 and June 13. Note the lack of politics in the June 14 and 15 descriptions. Which sounds more like 'If it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium'?
This evening, I received by email the following reply to the Kurtzer article from Sloan Rachmuth, one of the people who demolished an attempt by a rabbi in Raleigh, North Carolina to visit Arafat's tomb (covered originally here):
Rabbi K - why the rabbinical panicked hysteria in the face of communal opposition? Here you decry public objections to percieved rabbinical toʿevahs as "witch hunts." But in a marketplace of ideas this is called "opposition."
Opposition to these two rabbis occurred when they took a stand by publicly advertising (for money) a trip they had each planned, which included meeting with pro-Hammas groups topped off with a tribute to Arafat's grave to "understand his legacy." Our opposition to the actions of these two rabbis is not a withchunt, but a marketplace reaction best described by Newton's Law: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
And this reaction did not happen overnight. Members in both the Norh carolina and Texas communities wrote letters and had persoanl meetings with these rabbis months before the media learned of these two controveries. We sought to understand why these rabbis would lead delegations from our states that clearly endorsed a pro-terror, anti-Israel message. The rabbis igored us, they refused to answer our questions on more than a dozen occasions.
Rabbi Solomon in Raleigh has now gone on the attack against us, publicly shaming us as haters and "right-wing extremists" and demands we shut up and stop asking questions about the trip. Rabbi Solomon recently implored the community in his shul to do whatever it takes to silence his opposition (us).
Was Rabbi Solomon's reaction here in Raleigh also a with hunt? Or opposition?
To great credit of Rabbis Solomon and Blumofe, they raise their voices in opposition to issues of civil righs violations here in the south. They both understand that they have a resposibility to raise their moral voices to the markeplace of ideas regarding racial justice and equality. These rabbis know that taking a stand has its rewards and, sometimes, opposition.
By taking the premeditated action to plan, promote, and now defend a trip with a pro-terror narrative while Israel and the world is seeing extremist terror first-hand; these two rabbis are experiencing opposition. Not a witch hunt.
In case you were wondering about Yehuda Kurtzer's pedigree... I asked. He is the son of former US Ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer, who was twice called a Yehudon ('little Jew') a decade ago, and who had a lengthy history of interfering in Israel's internal affairs during his term here (same link).
'Dozens' of American universities slam American Studies Association boycott
While only two universities have thus far withdrawn from membership in the American Studies Association as a result of its anti-Semitic boycott of Israel, 'dozens' of universities have issued statements slamming the boycott, and many of them are considering withdrawing from membership in the group.
Schools including Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Princeton
and Boston universities and the Universities of Pennsylvania,
Connecticut and Texas at Austin and others have slammed the boycott,
issuing statements similar to one by Harvard President Drew Faust that
said that academic boycotts “subvert the academic freedoms and values
necessary to the free flow of ideas, which is the lifeblood of the
worldwide community of scholars.”
Penn State University at Harrisburg and Brandeis University have said
they are withdrawing their memberships from the American Studies
Association, and other schools are considering doing the same thing. In
addition, two major associations of institutions of higher education,
the Association of American Universities and the Association of American
University Professors, have issued statements rejecting the boycott.
At least three university Presidents have issued statements in response to the boycott. Here are two of them.
President Susan Herbst University of Connecticut
The recent votes of two scholarly societies — the American Studies
Association and Association for Asian American Studies — to endorse the
Palestinian boycott of Israeli academic institutions is contrary to both
academic freedom and the international exchange of ideas. The
University of Connecticut joins the American Association of University
Professors in firmly opposing all such boycotts. Choosing one nation for
a boycott is patently unfair and represents a disturbing philosophy
among some segments of the academy.
...
Academic leaders at UConn will continue to visit Israel and Arab
nations, invite Israeli and Arab scholars to our campuses, encourage our
students and faculty to study in these nations, and pursue research
collaboration with the many outstanding Israeli universities. We do this
with pride and a productive focus on social justice, to forge the very
critical dialogues that will someday lead to the peace we all seek.
...
BOSTON UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT ROBERT A. BROWN
I am disappointed and concerned that the American Studies
Association, invoking the principle of academic freedom, would vote to
boycott Israeli academic institutions. Research, teaching, and
scholarship flourish through robust exchange of ideas, across borders
and among institutions in different parts of the world. Universities and
their faculties can often transcend even profound political
differences. It is ill-advised to make academic institutions the
instrument with which to promote a political agenda by attempting to
isolate students and scholars. Boston University cannot support this
boycott.
I hope that there will be a serious discussion within our American
& New England Studies Program, which has an institutional membership
in the ASA that, obviously, is funded by the University. This
institutional membership does not come with a vote that is exercised by
either the program or the University. The poll taken by the ASA
represents the votes of individual members of the organization. We are
not prepared to suggest (implicitly or explicitly) to faculty members
who hold individual memberships (some of which are funded out of
professional funds allocated to individual faculty members) how they
should vote. That would lead us onto a slippery slope.
I do hope the faculty in the American & New England Studies
Program will consider whether or not continuing membership in the ASA
will create the opportunity for a temperate and thoughtful
reconsideration of the wisdom of the boycott.
Would a hemorrhage of members leaving cause them to reconsider? Or will they get funding from 'our friends the Saudis' instead?
Sderot Media Center's Noam Bedein had a nasty experience with anti-Semitism in Austin, Texas.
I had never been to Austin before but had heard about the Texas State Capital and its blend of 19th and 21st Century architecture, Universities, high-tech industries, with rolling hills and forests surrounding the city that, according to a friend in Israel who once lived there, are remarkably similar to the hills and forests that I travel from Sderot to Gush Etzion and Hebron.
The campus event was titled ‘Iran in Sderot’s backyard’. The presentation focused on the human side of the story, relating the daily reality of living in Sderot under the constant threat of aerial attacks from Gaza.
My talk concentrated on the the two years since ‘Cast Lead’, the massive build up of bomb shelters, and the moral dilemma of fighting terrorists who launch their rockets from behind the collective human shield of Gaza's civilian population.
Entering the building on the Austin campus where the presentation was set, I was met by a number of pro-Palestinian protesters holding signs reading NO OCCUPATION = NO ROCKETS, How is Gaza not like Warsaw?, and 1417 Palestinian killed in Gaza vs 13 Israelis.
It isn't the first time I’ve encountered protesters demonstrating against me just because I’m Israeli Zionist. In Austin, the protesters would enter the auditorium and try to provoke me with demonizing questions and comments they attempted to disguise under the slogan "We want to open a dialogue".
...
The PSC [Palestine Solidarity Committee] representative filmed my Sderot audiovisual presentation, and pared it down into two 9-minute videos, showing their protests against my appearance on campus and disfiguring my face from a normal human being into something of a monstrous demon, with glowing red eyes. Not one word from the actual presentation appears in the video. Take a look at this video:
There are two more videos - one from Austin and one from Michigan. Make sure to watch here.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
