Muzzlewatch breaks Beinin story, ADL gets busted by the media
Posted on January 31 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under ADL , JVP , Joel Beinin , Media.A collective gasp of disbelief could be heard some weeks back in the Bay Area progressive community when it was discovered that the ADL was putting on a conference - by and for progressives - on anti-Semitism on the left.
I say discovered because nowhere on the registration page did it actually say who was organizing the event. The only contact information was a gmail address. Also conspicuous was the fact that of the 50 or so co-sponsors, the Bay Area’s most prominent progressive Jewish groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, Tikkun and Progressive Jewish Alliance were nowhere to be seen. AIPAC and BlueStar PR, however, were.
Was this really a conference to address anti-Semitism on the left? Or was it a blatant ADL ploy to silence dissent by appropriating the “progressive” label and calling all criticism of Israel anti-Semitic?
The truth probably is somewhere in between. In fact, many excellent, thoughtful people did participate, and we think anti-Semitism on the left is a real issue that needs to be addressed. (So, by the way, is Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism. We’re waiting for the ADL to put on that conference.) But a quick glance at the program left no doubt that there would be ample discussion about things like fighting divestment and “emphasizing what’s right in Israel” from BlueStarPR, the folks who have perfected the art of promoting Israel by simply dissing the entire Middle East.
What was remarkable about this conference was that virtually none of the media outlets were buying just the ADL’s take on the “new anti-Semitism”. Check out these more thoughtful stories on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle and in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
And this archive of a 1 hour show on San Francisco’s KALW that we did with Rabbi Jane Litman, the rabbi the ADL brought in to organize the conference. After the conference, we were contacted by even more reporters from both the Jewish and corporate press.
This San Jose Mercury News article is notable not only for delving into the complexities of the issue, but for mentioning Muzzlewatch. In fact, it mentions the story we reported earlier about Professor Joel Beinin being booted at the last minute from a Harker School speaking engagement due to pressure from a parents group, with some kind of involvement by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Silicon Valley (though they have not responded to a request for a statement), that was no doubt, fulfilling its mission as a “protector of Israel.”
(Here at Muzzlewatch, we reject the term “pro-Israel” because many of the groups who proudly use that moniker are blindly marching Israel down the path of self-destruction. Further, it insinuates that if you care about Israelis, you don’t care about Palestinians. At Muzzlewatch, and Jewish Voice for Peace, we take the sadly radical position that you can and should care equally about both. We’re pro-humanity.)
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
January 31st, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Excellent point about not using the divisive and falsely dichotomous term “pro-Israel.”
Now if we can all agree to laugh out loud every time someone uses the ludicrous term “self-hating Jew,” just as we would if some earnest soul called one a “poopy pants.” Terms have power only because we let them.
February 1st, 2007 at 1:06 am
Regarding the Harker School’s rejection of Joel Beinin, the above comment is wonderful as coded communication. If you’ll remember the Rachel Corrie incident, the director of the NY THeater Workshop wanted to delay staging the play because he felt it needed to be better “contextualized” for NY’s Jewish community.
In other words, if it raises hackles among Jews STAY AWAY! All I can in reply is “UGH!”
February 1st, 2007 at 11:50 am
You might find this article interesting. It appears in an unlikely place.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4504931.html
February 1st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
You might find this article interesting. It appears in an unlikely place.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4504931.html
February 1st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Thanks for this post. I looked at this conference program, and it looks like yet another attempt to try and persuade Jews and non-Jews that criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitic.” Not every session but some seem like an effort to reinforce barricades that have already been crashed. To conflate criticism of the Israeli occupation, now in year 40, with anti-Semitism or to even try and claim criticism of Zionism is anti-Semitic just won’t fly. Which is probably why there are mounted campaigns to assert it.
Instead of attacking people, those at this conference should be working to end Israel’s occupation.
February 1st, 2007 at 11:48 pm
You obviously have no clue about BlueStarPR: “BlueStarPR, the folks who have perfected the art of promoting Israel by simply dissing the entire Middle East.”
Anyone who is familiar with our work, knows we are about promoting what is right in Israel, and we never put the Palestinians down. In fact, I challenge you to find even one instance of “dissing” on our site: http://www.bluestarpr.com
We’ll be waiting.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Debbie, you said “I looked at this conference program, and it looks like yet another attempt to try and persuade Jews and non-Jews that criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitic.”
I attended this conference and paid careful attention. Your characterization of it is simply wrong and you owe them a public apology.
The introductory and keynote speakers were adamant that not all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. The stream sessions I attended were aligned with that notion.
In fact I cannot remember anyone calling all criticism of Israel anti-semitic.
But practically every day I see critics of Israel claim they are being called anti-semitic simply for criticizing Israel. This is bizarre.
Food for thought: would you agree that it’s anti-semitic to tell LIES about Israel to generate hatred of Jews? Or to mislead people, tell half-truths, for the purpose of generating hatred of Jews? Or to apply human rights standards selectively against Jews? My personal opinion is that these kinds of activities might well be considered anti-semitic.
However, I’ve yet to run into anyone claiming that “all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic”, as you suggest.
And this was certainly not the theme of the conference.
February 10th, 2007 at 12:46 am
http://www.bluetruth.net/2007/02/joel-beinin-and-muzzlewatch-expose.html
The JVP project “Muzzlewatch” claims it “broke” the story of anti-Israel former Standford professor Joel Beinin being “muzzled” by the JCRC and being prevented from giving a talk at a private school. At the time, they referred to the JCRC as an “outside advocacy organization.”
http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?p=18
They then stated:
Professor Joel Beinin being booted at the last minute from a Harker School speaking engagement due to pressure from a parents group, with some kind of involvement by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Silicon Valley (though they have not responded to a request for a statement), that was no doubt, fulfilling its mission as a “protector of Israel.”
http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?p=50
Turns out this is the classic example of a lie upon a half truth.
Here is the real story from an anonymous source within JCRC.
The Harker School wanted a discussion of the Arab-Isareli conflict. To that end, they brought in an anti-Israel Arab to speak. To balance the discussion, they wanted to bring a Jewish voice to the table. Unfortunately, according to my source, a person with “malicious intent” suggested the Jewish voice be Joel Beinin. The organizers of the event did not know that Beinin, despite being Jewish, is notoriously anti-Israel.
The organizers may have not have known, but they found out. The school’s parents also found out and protested loudly over this obvious mistake. Realizing that the planning committee has erred, the principal cancelled Beinin’s invitation. By the time the Silicon Valley JCRC called the principal, the principal had already made his decision.
This was another classic case of the anti-Israel forces trying to put on what they call a “balanced” presentation – that is “balanced” between an anti-Israel Arab and an anti-Israel Jew. When the duplicity was discovered, Beinin was rightly booted from the panel.
JVP suffers a severe credibility problem which, more than their political agenda keeps them out of mainstream discourse. This case is yet one more nail in the coffin of JVP’s credibility.