Jews are dishonored by a blind defense of Israel

'Two Jews, three opinions,' is the old adage. On 'everything but Israel,' is the present reality.
By Alan Levine

Now that the City University of New York board of trustees has reversed course and approved an honorary degree for Tony Kushner, it is time for the Jewish establishment to reflect upon its failure to speak out. Jewish history tells us that silence is complicity. While individual Jews and progressive Jewish organizations, such as Jews Say No!, Jewish Voice for Peace, Jews Against Islamophobia, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, the Shalom Center, and J Street joined those protesting CUNY's earlier decision to withdraw its initial offer of an honorary degree to Kushner, not one of the mainstream Jewish organizations seemed to think the trustees did anything wrong in punishing someone for his dissenting views on Israel. Neither the American Jewish Committee nor Congress, not the Anti-Defamation League, not the Jewish Community Relations Council, not Hillel.

It is not the first time. Prior to the Kushner fiasco, two front-page controversies erupted in recent years over actions by New York public officials against persons believed to be critical of Israel. In each case, the major Jewish organizations were either actively complicit or, by their silence, tacitly complicit, reflecting a mindset that dissent on Israel is bad for Israel and bad for the Jews. The position is wrong as a matter of strategy. More important, it is wrong morally, and represents a profound betrayal of the Jewish ethical commitment to open inquiry and to justice.

The first controversy involved Debbie Almontaser, an esteemed educator who was selected by the city's department of education in 2007 to head the new Khalil Gibran International Academy, the nation's first Arabic dual-language school. Because she was an Arab and a Muslim, she was subjected to a relentless, bigoted smear campaign. Nevertheless, her supporters remained firm, until a front-page New York Post article appeared describing the sale of "Intifada NYC" T-shirts. Although it was clear that Almontaser had no connection to the T-shirts, she was pursued by a Post reporter, who asked her for the root of the word "intifada." She said that its Arabic root is a word meaning "shaking off."

The next day, August 6, 2007, the Post published an article headlined "City Principal Is 'Revolting,'" which reported that Almontaser had "defended" the "pro-violence shirt." The JCRC and the ADL, which had previously admired Almontaser's work, weighed in against her. Teachers union president Randi Weingarten questioned Almontaser's fitness to be a school principal because she had not condemned the intifada, an unprecedented suggestion that a New York City educator be required to take a pro-Israel loyalty oath. By the end of the week, the mayor and the schools chancellor had demanded her resignation.

remainder: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/jews-are-dishonored-by-a-blind-defense-of-israel-1.362926

Mine certainly does.

The "intifada" was a self-granted permission to murder Jews, wasn't it? Heaven forfend anyone condemn that.

defending a pro violent T- shirt?? That is the issue here. If you read what happened, she answered a
question related to the meaning of intifada.

You in support of that activity?