Genocide, Another Name For Murder (originally published Dec. 15, 2008)

The recent horrific events in Mumbai are still too raw for me to react with fairness and reason, but I cannot wait any longer. The Jewish center that was viciously attacked did not exist when I was living uptown by Byculla Bridge many years ago, but I have known the Chabad-Lubavitch movement for much longer than that. I also learned so much from the people of Mumbai and from its ancient Jewish community. Byculla is a crossroads of minority faiths, central to Jews, Catholics and Muslims, and no small number of Hindus.

The absence of inidigenous anti-Semitism is partly the result of the minuscule Jewish existence there compared to hundreds of millions of Hindus and nearly 100 million Muslims. The deep hatred and mistrust of Muslims was exacerbated by the creation of a separate Pakistani state from the remnants of India's Raj borders, and perhaps this (reciprocated) enmity fills the psychological and political void filled by anti-Semitism in many other societies, with or without the presence of actual Jews. The saltwater pool at Breach Candy Swim Trust is still shaped in the outline of oldtime Greater India, as a constant reminder of the power of a pencil and the limits of an idea. Truth be told, most Indians and Pakistanis do not come near Gandhi's pacifist and universalist tendencies. In other words, this attack could have happened in any real-world city.

The Chabad movement follows a strict code of religious practice, and its followers wear black hats and coats. Yet it is a paragon of informed faith and intellectual enlightenment, or openness to the outside world. The Chabad emissaries engage the outside world and are critical participants in general society, without losing their religious identity or their principles of faith. Their love and commitment for fellow Jews do not come at the expense of their responsibility to all humanity in the image of God. One American Jewish friend related to me that her shock was compounded by the notion that any Chabad emissary could be killed, because their pure and holy mission has always seemed to inoculate against physical harm.

Having just heard a speech from Francis Deng, Special Advisor to the UN Secretary-General for the Prevention of Genocide, I have a few additional reflections. Genocide as a legal principle offers an elusive threshold. While we may not wish to see an entire people or nation disappear (or be the target of such an effort), I also have a hidden agenda in fighting genocide, and not just as a Jew whose family arrived in the United States decades before the Holocaust plunged Europe into a human hell. My hidden agenda is to prevent murder or individuals, and to preserve the hope of our place here on Earth. If criminalizing genocide can motivate nations and leaders to take action, then the Genocide Convention is a step forward. But even if mass murder is being perpetrated NOT on the basis of ethnicity or religion, we need to speak out against it.

Human rights begin with individual humans, and worthy arguments about fighting genocide do not preclude us from condemning and halting mass murder. The attacks in Mumbai were criminal. Despite the "global war on terrorism," they may not constitute war crimes, but they are no less criminal and outrageous. Our hearts still ache and the blood of the innocent still cries out. All of us, including my colleagues in the UN Secretariat, must continue doing what we can. And we must continue asking what more we can do. And we must continue to call evil by its name.

J Street - To Be Continued... (originally published Oct. 13, 2010)

J Street is caught between two opposite but equally potent reactions to revelations that it hid the involvement of arch-liberal philanthropist — and Israel critic — George Soros until “outed” by the conservative media. On the right, those who questioned the legitimacy of the liberal lobby’s policies and denied the pro-Israel bona fides of its leadership are gleeful now that Soros’s role and the group’s subterfuge have been revealed. On the other side, many who accepted J Street’s right to diverge from the seemingly monolithic Jewish establishment are feeling betrayed.

Yet another group had seen J Street’s unapologetic, progressive, left-wing offensive as opening more space for their own pragmatic, more center-left approach to issues like Middle East peace and Jewish identity. You might call this third group the intellectual “free riders,” and it would include some “establishment” Jews like myself.

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/132115/#ixzz13y4AsBlr

J Street: A Teachable Moment (originally posted Dec. 29, 2009)

(with Micah D. Halpern)

The rise of J Street has generated a good deal of anxious commentary and criticism in the Jewish community. Instead of seeing J Street as a threat to the American Jewish way of life or to the State of Israel, however, this can become a teachable moment.

Fears that J Street is our new President’s “go to” organization in the community are misleading and counter-productive. Administrations have always played favorites within the Jewish community, based on personal relationships, political support, organizational agendas…and financial contributions. The Obama team is no different. Despite appearances, there is no special loyalty to J Street, or to any other organization.


Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren recently charged that J Street “not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments. It’s significantly out of the mainstream.” The major American Jewish organizations remained silent on this apparent breach of diplomatic protocol, but at least one rushed to condemn a U.S. official who later referred to Oren’s remarks as “unfortunate”. The State Department has now issued a corrective statement praising Ambassador Oren. And yet, every battle the Jewish establishment wins seems to further diminish its influence and prestige.


By raising alarms about J Street, the community establishment has fed a misperception that J Street is the problem. J Street is not the problem. Neither is the Administration. J Street, a new lobbying group which describes itself as “the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement,” is just filling a vacuum left by limitations in the establishment’s bandwidth.

The established organizations have ensured that a mainstream consensus is represented to the U.S. Government based on several assumptions:


– Republican and Democratic administrations have their friends and there is nothing new under the sun.


– Regardless of who gets invited to the Roosevelt Room, at least someone at that table will reflect the community consensus on issues of national and international concern, including Israel. These concerns should not warp or waver just to favor or challenge the sitting President, but often the community does step up to help a President achieve his agenda – and not for partisan purposes.


– No organization has an automatic seat at the President’s table. Relevance needs to be earned, and American Jewry is involved enough in most issues that Jewish organizations and leaders regularly engage in White House statecraft.


– The United States of America has a bilateral relationship with the State of Israel which is defined primarily by contacts between officials of both governments, not community organizations. Nevertheless, American Jews can serve U.S. as well as Israeli interests by intervening at both ends as unofficial facilitators rather than as spoilers.


– Administrations always seek their own counsel on the Middle East, and having those interests around the table with other Jewish organizations can be helpful and adds to transparency.


– The primary goal of a White House meeting is to inform U.S. policies, not to keep score on who is “in” and who is “out”, despite the inevitable contrived intrigue.


– The President of the United States is just that. He is the decider, and he honors the Jewish community by seeking our input, not as lobbyists or complainers but as concerned, patriotic citizens.


J Street offers a credible platform for many of those with different views. Sometimes those views are strikingly different – but it is most unlikely that J Street and their ideas will displace the American Jewish organizational establishment in the immediate future.


Rather than worrying about how much influence they have in American politics and among American Jews, Jewish leaders should be concerned about how little impact they have in areas that Washington now considers relevant. Achieving a lasting Middle East peace in real time is one of those priorities, as is stopping a nuclear Iran, restoring America’s global legitimacy and credibility, economic recovery, health care reform, and climate change.


There are Executive and Congressional initiatives on each of these issues, and the Jewish establishment is letting others lead on what can and should be Jewish concerns – because the future of Israel and of the planet matters to the Jewish community.


As the Presidency and Congress pass from Democratic to Republican control and back again, it is typical for certain Jewish groups to be “in” and others to be “out”. The Obama administration is, admittedly, challenging some of the rules of Washington culture. But over time, the Jewish establishment has itself eroded the post-War non-partisan ethos – that the Jewish community includes Democrats and Republicans, but stands for the collective interests of Americans and Jews.


J Street is not a product of Barack Obama’s election as President, though it may be a by-product of American Jews taking certain things for granted. Most importantly, it should remind the Jewish establishment that if it does not bring innovative ideas that respond to U.S. needs and a broader constituency, others are happy to fill those seats with ideas of their own.