After Phil Weiss wrote about Occupy Wall Street and faulted Jews for Economic and Racial Justice (JFREJ) for not focusing on the Palestinian issue, Donna Nevel sent him the following note. She gave us permission to publish it.
I was dismayed to read what you wrote JFREJ, without, it seems to me, knowing enough to write what you did. For a little history: JFREJ was originally created (over 20 years ago) by a number of us who were intimately involved with Palestine/Israel politics and were part of a number of different groups, including Jewish ones, focusing on justice for Palestine. Recognizing the extent of increased racism in NYC as well as in the Jewish community and as a result of numbers of conversations with our allies, we thought it would be important politically to have an alternative Jewish voice that focused on issues of combatting racism and economic injustice in NYC–as a radical voice that tackled issues head-on and joined as allies with low income and communities of color fighting against multiple forms of oppression and for social transformation.
So JFREJ did not focus its work on Palestine/Israel though most of us in the founding group were also involved with Palestine/Israel groups and of course saw and understood the connections and intersections amongst the local and global work, which also shaped and informed our work. Also, while JFREJ did not devote its energies to Palestine/Israel, it did have a position against the Israeli occupation that was clearly laid out.
Jumping forward, there were a few years where Jewish Palestine/Israel groups waned in NYC and so when something happened around Palestine/Israel that deserved a response, it felt particularly wrong to many of us that JFREJ didn’t take a public stand. Further, some of us from amongst the founding group (many of whom were no longer actively involved with JFREJ) thought that the original vision of JFREJ and why JFREJ didn’t focus on Palestine/Israel– and the flexibility needed around this issue based on context and other realities–was being lost and that, instead, there developed a rigidity about doing anything, even small things, around Palestine/Israel that seemed to be essential. That is, while we didn’t think their work had to focus on Palestine, we thought it was important for them to make their voices heard at critical times when they did not.
Jumping forward again. There are now many pro-Palestine groups, including Jewish ones, in NYC. JFREJ went through some hard times but now has a new director and is strengthening the foundation it had–which is work it has done consistently over the years with its partners for racial and economic justice in NYC–and is also making new connections and building with different communities standing for justice, including groups standing for justice in Palestine. That does not mean this (Palestine work) will begin to be the focus of the work it does; nor, in my view, should it have to be. Racism, economic exploitation, and many other forms of injustice are more pervasive than ever in NYC and elsewhere. There are multiple needs and JFREJ is fulfilling an important one–but it is also very clearly recognizing the connections between the local and global and the need to stand up and be counted when it should–and, as part of that, they have joined in with the statement (which you published) about Palestine/Israel at Occupy Wall Street and are working in various ways with groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews Say No!, which focus their work on Palestine, as well as with a wide range of Jewish and other social justice groups and as part of Occupy Wall Street.
I think that critiques of all of our groups are fair of course and I think the pull for organizations to hide under the covers when it comes to Palestine/Israel (for all the reasons we know) is something we must address head-on. However, while I am not active within JFREJ now, I have had the opportunity to work together with them on a few different occasions in recent months, and I don’t think your piece gives an accurate or fair sense of who JFREJ is.
What, again, is the definition of “opportunism?”
The worst part of being “on the left” really is…..the other people on the left.
I don’t see any Jewish anti occupation work moving the needle on the ground. The settlements are booming. The money is flowing. Zionism has won.
donna, your essay is a little garbled. i would like to commend all participants who have joined in the i/p @- OWS statement published here.
i think it was fair of phil to write what he wrote unless some part of it is untrue. you did not articulate specifically what it was phil said that you object to. fyi, contrary to your assertion, phil did not say JFREJ ” was not concerned with the Palestinian issue”. here is what he said specifically as it pertains to JFREJ (my bold):
well, JFREJ doesn’t. the group has chosen not to highlight it and you have explained why.
was this correct at the time he wrote the post? perhaps now the group has included the statement on the website.
was it really that phil didn’t ‘know enough to write what he did’ or is it a matter of the group choosing to focus on other areas and not making it publicly available (on the website) there was any concern for i/p. he knew enough to write “there is no reference to Palestine on the JFREJ page” didn’t he?
it seems to me what you have a problem with is phil’s problem which he clearly articulates as leftwing politics in the U.S. that doesn’t highlight foreign policy and the occupation of Palestine. that’s his prerogative and it is mine too just as it is JFREJ’s prerogative to not highlight foreign policy and the occupation of Palestine. and it just so happens there are many many voices objecting to leftwing groups who do focus on highlighting foreign policy and the occupation of Palestine. how many times do we hear ‘but what about china’ and ‘if you focus on palestine it will shut down OWS’.
so what it sounds like here is you want to explain and justify why JFREJ does not highlight the occupation. but no one is accusing the group or individuals of not being concerned with i/p. it is just the expression or lack thereof wrt that concern. iow, express some solidarity on the website and be more inclusive of the issue otherwise people are going to get the impression it is being avoided or resisted.
Thanks to Donna for giving background on JFREJ’s history and positions. I just posted some complementary comments in response to Phil’s original posting, including JFREJ’s “International Position” statement which is now on the JFREJ website. (Thanks, Phil, for pointing out that it had not made the transition to JFREJ’s recently updated website.). The International Position statement clearly, and I think eloquently, outlines JFREJ’s commitment both to the Bundist concept of doykayt and to the need to speak out on I/P, and the inherent tension between these commitments to which the organization has spent many years navigating.
I am very puzzled by Dan’s comment about “opportunism.” I just don’t see any in either Phil or Donna’s postings. Rather I see a healthy and respectful political discussion. Slapping insulting labels on positions that one may not agree with does not move discussion forward. Thanks again to Phil and Donna.
Jon Moscow
I am confused by Dan’s most recent post. JFREJ was formed as a continuation of a long tradition of Jewish radicalism in response to an official Jewish community that had long lost sight of the ethics and radical essence that for many of us are an essential element of our tradition. I like many others learned of the Jewish history of struggle for liberation for ourselves and for others around a childhood seder table. JFREJ is deeply grounded in the richest traditions of Jewish life, as are Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews Say No! One of the characteristics of each of these groups, and of their coalition, Jews Against Islamophobia, is their respect for allies. I am not sure what Dan means by the “Nevels of the world,” but I sure wish there were more of them and I will be delighted to work with Donna (and her literal and figurative families) any time, anywhere! Jon Moscow