Can Jewish leaders take 'yes' for an answer?

It's happening again... The Obama administration is inviting American Jewish leaders into the White House for substantive, high-level consultations on matters integral to U.S. and Israeli national interest, and (some of) these American Jewish leaders are publicly trash-talking the Administration within the same news cycle. 

During President Obama's first term, this happened a few times, when organizational leaders leveled complaints and demands to the President's face and to reporters. Last year, Jewish leaders were so critical of the President's nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, they gave journalists 'anonymous' negative quotes during the President's own Hanukkah party -- and trust me, that's no easy invite to snag.

This week, the President's National Security and other senior advisers met with Jewish leaders to discuss the Administration's approach to nuclear negotiations with Iran. Even as the White House guests described the meeting as "constructive", one of those same leaders was blasting Secretary of State John Kerry for publicly refusing to "succumb to fear tactics" by critics of the U.S.-Iran talks.

If the Secretary of State states something on Monday, and you're meeting the National Security Adviser on Tuesday, why not use that meeting to raise your concerns? Especially if your bone with the Secretary is that -- if he had any implied criticisms of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu (the perennial Cassandra on Iran) -- he "should have made them privately." 

Substantively, there seems to be no alternative to talks with Iran, since a military solution is at best costly, and unlikely to achieve a decisive outcome. It's Obama, and not Bush or Netanyahu, who succeeded in instituting "crippling" multilateral sanctions against Iran, all for the purpose of securing a realistic halt to Iran's weapons-oriented nuclear projects. If Netanyahu and Obama (and Kerry) have a difference of opinion, do they really need an American Jewish arbitrator?

In this case, the particular Jewish leader's concern was that friends don't need to air their disagreements in public. By this measure, various Jewish leaders don't appear to be "friends" of the President or his administration, or his Secretary of State. But as loyal Americans and Israel advocates, they might consider which is the best path to securing our shared future, one based on trust and humility, not grandstanding and paranoia.

Does Israel get to define "anti-Semitism"?

A true Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism should not be sponsored by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which understandably has its own agenda -- and limitations -- regarding the fight against anti-Semitism. The Israeli Government's priority has to be promoting and defending the State of Israel, which explains why Prime Minister Netanyahu's video greeting stressed anti-Semitism as the motivation for criticism of Israel, including the common claim that Israel isn't pursuing peace; he barely mentioned anti-Semitism as a phenomenon targeting Diaspora Jews.

With Senator (then-Rep.) Ben Cardin
at OSCE's 2004 Berlin Conference

A true Global Forum should be sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and Simon Wiesenthal Center, with local Jewish communities and national governments, including Israel. Multilateral organizations, especially the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Organization of American States (OAS), ought to facilitate. 

Politicians should attend and deliver opening remarks, but only bonafide and relevant experts should present. This means people with credentials in research and polling, media, law enforcement, education, and human rights training. The role of community leaders and lobbyists should be to get people in the room, respond to the presentations with real-life concerns, and help implement the best practices which emerge from the proceedings.

When it comes to anti-Semitism, Israel hardly has all the answers, and it carries a clear conflict of interest -- its national interest. It's not a bad idea to have periodic assemblies devoted to ensuring effective hasbara ("explaining" or promoting Israel). But that's a far cry from the nuts and bolts of overcoming anti-Semitism. If Israel owns the "anti-Semitism" brand, then it will ultimately be about Israel and hasbara, not about combating anti-Semitism on the ground. And in our real world, that makes it far less appealing to the very governments we need on board. We can't fight anti-Semitism and defend the State of Israel in the same place at the same time, and expect to succeed in both, or perhaps either one.

On "Ground Zero mosque," religious freedom is... simple (originally posted Aug. 6, 2010)

(with Joseph K. Grieboski)


The motto atop the Anti-Defamation League’s website reads, “To stop the defamation of the Jewish people… to secure justice and fair treatment to all.”What could compel such a venerable institution to set this aside and oppose an Islamic coexistence center and mosque located two blocks from the World Trade Center site?

According to ADL’s National Director, the anguish of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 “entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.” America is a free country, where everyone and anyone is entitled to a bigoted position. But the rest of us need not follow or even pre-empt those positions.

While it is difficult to measure how much an organization like the Anti-Defamation League represents American Jews, it is fairly easy to judge whether it is true to its own prime directive.

"The potential implications of this decision for general religious practice in this country are significant and disturbing." – This 1997 statement by the Anti-Defamation League reacted to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was unconstitutional. In the same statement, the ADL leadership said, "We are particularly disappointed with this decision since RFRA merely sought to restore the 30-year-old standard requiring states to show a 'compelling interest' in order to justify a restriction on an individual's free exercise of religion." Subsequent legislation has been found constitutional, so the ADL got its wish.

It remains difficult to imagine how any human rights or religious-oriented organization could find the time to come out against a religious facility devoted to coexistence. Many of those politicians opposing the Cordoba House would usually insist that outsiders allow local government to decide matters from abortion and gun rights to the delineating of electoral districts. Religious freedom is no less of a right under the U.S. Constitution. ADL's National Director told The Jerusalem Post, “The fact that there are bigots who espouse a position that you have doesn’t mean you’re a bigot.” But it does impose a responsibility to recognize that "nuanced" messages work to bolster the bigots at the expense of their targets. The first step in promoting reconciliation is calling on the bigots and those reinforcing them to stand down. Full stop. No nuance. Loud and clear.