I wanted to share the following with you, not so much to offer my own opinion on the matter, but because I think it is interesting, important, and raises questions that are worthy of considered discussion. Click the link to read a full article in Tablet Magazine that provides background to the story and current details.
In summary, there was a very critical response by some in the San Fransisco Jewish community to the showing of a documentary last year at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival about Rachel Corrie. Rachel was a peace protester who was tragically killed in 2003 while blocking the way of a bulldozer being operated by a soldier of the Israeli Defense Forces who were carrying out duties to demolish a Palestinian home. The exact circumstances are still debated. Rachel’s mother, now an activist for Palestinian rights, came and spoke at the Film Festival when the documentary was screened. In response to the voices that protested the showing of the documentary, the San Francisco Federation, after months of deliberating, issued guidelines that would dictate its funding, indicating that they would not provide financial support to ‘programs with groups that do support divestment or that otherwise “undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel.” Within this boundary, though, the guidelines are fairly open-ended. Acceptable, for instance, are “presentations by organizations or individuals that are critical of particular Israeli government policies but are supportive of Israel’s right to exist as a secure independent Jewish democratic state.“‘
So, what is the story here? It does not seem entirely unreasonable for a Jewish Federation to withhold funding from programs that seek to boycott Israel or who deny Israel’s right to exist. Or, in fact, for an appointed board of any Federation to create its own policies that determine how it spreads its grant money – surely they have a right to do that? Of course, a Federation looks to the entire Jewish community to donate to a common pool out of which many organizations and programs are funded. So they do have some responsibility to represent the entirety of that Jewish community if they wish to continue to receive their support.
One concern is that the guidelines will stifle free speech and openness to express opinion within the Jewish community on certain matters. For example, if an organization wants to present a lecture that focuses on sharing Jerusalem in a final peace settlement, some might believe that to propose such an option is ‘to undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel.’ Likewise, if a Jewish group or speaker talks about ‘the occupied territories’, rather than ‘Judea and Samaria’, might this also be interpreted by some as ‘undermining the legitimacy of the State of Israel’? This, after all, is a matter where Israel and the United Nations do not see eye-to-eye. Is a plurality of opinion on this topic permissible among Jews who would like to run programs about Israel? (Clearly the answer is ‘yes’. The question is whether the lack of available funding to some voices from within the community from the Federation is a matter of concern.)
The community most upset by these guidelines is the Academic community in San Francisco (the fuller article in Tablet, linked above, helps to explain why). They have expressed their concerns in an advert taken out in the Forward – you can read it below.
So… what do you think? Is the San Francisco Federation acting responsibly? Is it squeezing out legitimate Jewish voices who want to see Israel safe and successful but have a care and concern for Palestinian human rights too? Does a pronouncement about funding have a silencing effect, leading to Jewish groups self-censoring what they will discuss in public forums? Or are we treading precariously at a time when Israel doesn’t need the American Jewish community adding fuel to fires?
Forward Ad: Prominent Bay Area Jews Warn About SF Jewish Federation Guidelines 4/10I said that I was more interested in raising the questions and hearing responses from others (either via the comments on this blog, or via facebook, or in person at the congregation), but I will offer one thought. I believe that this is not just a black and white issue where the Federation is either right or wrong. Perhaps the Federation realized that too and thought they were trying to find a compromise position. I’m not sure they got it quite right, but I think the complexities of this story are such that knee-jerk responses are not particularly helpful. There is much to pause and consider here.
Rabbi Rachel Gurevitz
Category: Speech
This sermon was delivered at B’nai Israel on Friday, April 9th, for the Shabbat before Yom HaShoah – Holocaust Remembrance Day. It is printed here upon request from several congregants who heard it that evening.
Rabbi Rachel Gurevitz
Warning: You are likely to find the following words profoundly disturbing.
“As recently as 1960, our race was 90 percent of America’s population. Today, true statistics be told, we’re less than half. And we’re dropping fast, while the dark peoples multiply like rats all around us, and as more tens-of-millions of them invade our country from all over the world. Our race is drowning literally in seas of colored mongrels.
… Since 1973, our jew controlled government orchestrated the murders of 40 million helpless white babies thru legalized abortions, and replaced them with twice that many dark aliens. Meanwhile, the jewish controlled mass media (properly called the jewsmedia), promotes race-mixing, 24/7/365.
… “He who has learned of the jew, but refuses to warn his kinsmen of the jewish menace, is an accomplice of the jews, and an accessory in the jewish enslavement and genocide of his own people”
We might imagine that these words, particularly those speaking of Jews, were written in 1930s Germany. In fact, these are words found in America today – the words of Glenn Miller, white supremacist, taken directly from his website. Glenn Miller is running for Missouri representative in the Senate as a ‘write-in’ candidate and has caused a furor in recent weeks because, in becoming a declared candidate, he has a federal right to run unedited political radio ads that spew hatred toward African-Americans, immigrants and Jews.
Glenn Miller is probably the most extreme example of public hate speech currently in the news. But hate speech has been in the news a lot recently, and much of it is coming from elected officials and public figures who use their right to free speech and take absolutely no responsibility for the potential, uncontrollable consequences of their words. TV and radio commentators, likewise, are feeding lines that will, I fear, almost inevitably lead to a radical or unbalanced individual feeling compelled to act upon them.
Just as Billy O’Reilly’s constant references to Dr. Tiller, the doctor who legally performed late term abortions in Kansas, as ‘Tiller the Baby Killer’ and then distanced himself from any responsibility when Dr. Tiller was murdered, so others like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter who are listened to by millions are playing with fire with speech that is not only making targets out of political representatives, but are also fanning the flames of hatred toward minorities – African-Americans, Latinos, and Muslims.
Every year, during a unit on ethical issues, I run a discussion with our eighth grade class about hate speech and free speech. We place the conversation in the context of Jewish ethical teachings about lashon hara – literally ‘evil speech’, which often gets summarized as ‘gossip’ but actually refers to much more than that. Lashon hara is any kind of speech that causes harm. It is an aspect of Jewish spiritual practice that I care deeply about, and we have rich wisdom teachings in our tradition about the power of speech to create and destroy that challenge many of the dominant and negative trends in our broader society regarding the abuse of free speech.
Whenever I teach this class, my students, who have clearly already been well-educated in the American constitutional right to free speech in middle school, have absolute clarity that free speech is a fundamental right, even when people say things that we find offensive and distasteful. I grew up in a country where the principle of free speech was tempered somewhat by shades of gray. A radical Muslim cleric, Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal was jailed by British authorities in 2003 for seven years after being convicted of inciting his followers to kill Christians, Hindus, Jews and Westerners and for encouraging them to use chemical weapons against their enemies. One of the suicide bombers who detonated devices in London in July 2007 had attended the south London mosque where al-Faisal was Imam, as had Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber” who attempted to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight.
In recent weeks we’ve heard that Ann Coulter was taken to task in Canada and reminded by the vice-president of the University of Ottowa prior to the speech that she later cancelled there due to student protests, that she should review what constitutes hate speech under Canadian law. For instance, he told her, ‘promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.’
So, forgive me, and please do feel free to debate me on this issue – maybe its because I grew up in a different country with a different culture – but I’m ok with someone being arrested for using blatantly hateful words that provide the inspiration for others to carry out actual hate crimes. I’m ok with clear and unequivocal statements that denounce the use of our God-given gift of speech to lessen the status and deny basic rights and safety to groups of people based on a category of identity. I believe that human life takes precedence over being able to say whatever you like about another group of people.
Now, I know that I am citing some of the most extreme examples to be found in recent months, but I also know that many of you are equally aware of the inflammatory statements and distortions coming from the lips of some politicians that are similarly dangerous. Earlier this week I was speaking on a panel at Norwalk Community College reflecting on 12 years since the murder of gay teen, Matthew Shepard. To claim no relationship between the ways that homosexuality is presented in some political and religious arenas, and the violent acts and verbal attacks perpetrated against GLBT people, is simply a lie – it is to shirk responsibility for the power and influence of words. Jewish teachings on lashon hara demand that we take responsibility for how words have the ability to create and destroy worlds.
We Jews know this well. While I do not wish to make false comparisons between the hate speech of radical individuals and state-sponsored hate speech and propaganda, I do believe that there is a connection. The hate speech and propaganda of the Nazis began years before Jews in Europe found that there was no route of escape. It was unimaginable that those words could lead to the horrors of the Holocaust. Only words. Likewise, it was only words on the radio, describing the tutsi as cockroaches, that contributed to the 100 day genocide by hutus against tutsis in Rwanda. It began with ‘just words’.
When we pause each year and remember the Holocaust, we remember the genocide and destruction of generations of our people, the loss of whole communities and cultures. We remember what humanity is capable of doing. But when we say ‘Remember; Do not forget; never again’ but think of a historical event, specific to one time and place, then we have learnt very little.
Baruch she-amar v’hayah ha-olam, baruch Hu. From our morning liturgy – Blessed is the One who spoke and the world came into being. And, I would add, cursed be the one who speaks and brings about hurt, murder, and destruction.
Do you think you could go a whole month without saying a sharp or unkind word? Without expressing frustration or impatience? Without sharing gossip? Could you do it for a week? Perhaps a day? Perhaps an hour?
It’s a tall order and, in many ways, as we look at our society and our media, extremely counter-cultural. But speaking with mindfulness is a deep spiritual practice that can be cleansing and centering, as well as helping each of us to play our part in creating the kind of community, and the kind of family that we wish to live in. Mindful speech is a spiritual practice that we find in Jewish teachings, such as the study and practice of Mussar, and many approaches to Jewish meditation, as well as rabbinic ethical teachings that warn of the damage we cause both spiritually and to our community when we engage in gossip, and other forms of negative speech (lashon hara). So central to living a spiritual and centered life, teachings on mindful speech are also found in the wisdom of many other faith traditions. For example, this year, Elul coincides with Ramadan for Muslims. You may be familiar with the sunrise to sundown daily fasting that is required during Ramadan, but did you know that refraining from speaking or listening to negative speech is also central to the spiritual practices of Muslims during this month?
Today is the first day of Elul – the month that invites us to begin our preparations for the Jewish New Year. Just as our Biblical story tells us that God created the world with words, so we too, created in the likeness of God, create, and also destroy, worlds with words. Just take a look at a very specific aspect of public discourse at the moment – the health care debate – and it is quite evident that thoughtful, ethical and loving speech is absent among many who are speaking on this issue. And it is quite clear how dangerous and destructive some of that speech is.
This blog is also an experiment in the power of words. Over the coming month, by offering daily postings for reflection and practice, and by inviting anyone to add their own reflections and experiences via the ‘comments’, we have another way to engage in ‘big talk’ (as opposed to ‘small talk’) about living spiritually, Jewishly meaningful lives as individuals and as a community.
As we begin to prepare ourselves for the High Holydays, try to begin each day with a personal affirmation to speak mindfully in the day’s interactions. No doubt, each of us will slip, but mindfulness practices are not about getting it right every moment. The ‘success’ is each moment that we are awake enough to recognize that we slipped, take responsibility for apologizing to the person we may just have been sharp or impatient with, and re-commit ourselves to the way we wish to speak today.
Rabbi Rachel Gurevitz