Trending Topics:

Reform Jewish leader offers alternative to Presbyterian divestment: meet Netanyahu

on 47 Comments
Reform Jewish leader Rick Jacobs speaking to Jewish Voice for Peace members at the Presbyterian convention. (Photo: @lizaveta9/Twitter)

Reform Jewish leader Rick Jacobs speaking to Jewish Voice for Peace members at the Presbyterian convention. (Photo: Christopher Hazou)

The Jewish establishment brought out a big gun Thursday to oppose a measure that would see the Presbyterian Church divest from three corporations that contract with the Israeli military.  Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the head of the Union for Reform Judaism, told Presbyterian delegates that there was something better than divestment: a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Times of Israel‘s Rebecca Shimoni Stoil reports:

“If we are truly partners and you disapprove this divestment overture I look forward to sitting with your leadership in the Prime Minister’s office in Jerusalem. You can chose partnership and engagement or you can choose separation and divestment,” Jacobs said. “We should be partners in leading the interfaith world. These high level meetings are only the beginning of our faith communities working together for a two state solution.”

In response, the Israel/Palestine Mission Network, a Presbyterian group driving divestment, tweeted:

Jacobs, a leader in Reform Judaism–the largest Jewish movement in the U.S.–is set to meet with the rightwing prime minister next week.

The Presbyterian convention is scheduled to vote on the divestment resolution, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the church’s Middle East Issues committee, this afternoon. Jacobs warned the church that divesting from Hewlett Packard, Caterpillar and Motorola Solutions would cause “a painful rift with the great majority of the Jewish community.” That message won him no friends among anti-occupation, pro-divestment Jews at the convention:

Couching his appeal in an acknowledgement that the occupation “causes pain and hardship to Palestinians every single day,” Jacobs tied the divestment measure to the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, and said the movement opposes the two-state solution. 

Linking divestment to the larger BDS movement has emerged as a key strategy for the liberal Zionists at the Presbyterian convention in Detroit.  The hope among liberal Zionists who are anti-divestment is that the BDS movement’s agnosticism on two-states or one-state will make the tactic of divestment a toxic one.  Members of J Street–and the American Task Force on Palestine–have echoed Jacobs in tying divestment to BDS in an effort to defeat the resolution.

The resolution itself is indeed supported by BDS advocates, including Jewish Voice for Peace, which is on the record as supporting BDS but specifically focuses on boycotting and divesting from entities involved in the occupation.  But the language of the Presbyterian resolution to divest only focuses on three corporations involved with the occupation, and specifically calls for a two-state solution.  That call was made because of worries “that divestment would be seen as divestment from Israel,” as the head of the Presbyterian Church’s Middle East Committee said on Thursday.  And the resolution itself states: “This action on divestment does not mean an alignment with the overall strategy of the global BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanctions) movement.”

Jacobs’s stark appeal–divest and harm relations with Jews, or reject it and enjoy comity–comes as all sides mobilize for what promises to be a riveting debate Friday afternoon. Some 1,700 rabbis and other Jewish faith leaders signed a letter stating that “the role of peacemaker is irreconcilable with positions that promote economic coercion through boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS).”  

Jewish Voice for Peace has its own rabbis’ letter, and has also gathered thousands of signatures on an interfaith petition in support of divestment.

In addition to the divestment measure, the Presbyterian delegates will vote on a number of other Middle East-related resolutions.  One calls on the church to review its support for the two-state solution, while another would put the church on record as saying that the publication “Zionism Unsettled”–which has caused a great deal of controversy because of its harsh denunciation of Israel–does not speak for the church.

Alex Kane
About Alex Kane

Alex Kane is a freelance journalist who focuses on Israel/Palestine and civil liberties. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

47 Responses

  1. Sherri Munnerlyn
    Sherri Munnerlyn on June 20, 2014, 9:50 am

    Why would anyone with a soul want a meeting with a soulless war criminal child killing Zionist like Benjamin Netanyahu? Such an offer alone should garner support for votes for divestment. The thought makes me want to puke, it is like contemplating a meeting with Satan.

    • on June 20, 2014, 2:43 pm

      just another stalling tactic like the stall, no i mean peace talks.

    • weareone
      weareone on June 20, 2014, 3:20 pm

      Slam dunk, Sherri. This proposition illustrates the depth of delusion and sheer arrogance of the zionists. How is it that the occupier and oppressor believe that they will have a voice in how THEY will be sanctioned by the world community? Were the Nazis or the racists of the Jim Crow south given that option?….. Absurd.

  2. amigo
    amigo on June 20, 2014, 9:59 am

    “Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the head of the Union for Reform Judaism, told Presbyterian delegates that there was something better than divestment: a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”

    More delaying tactics.

    WTF is nietanyahu going to do.Stop illegal settlements.I doubt talking to him would change anything except put off the inevitable.

    Boycott now.Divest now.Sanction now.

  3. just
    just on June 20, 2014, 10:03 am

    Rabbi Rick is yet another threatening Zionist who is incapable of rational dialogue or introspection.

    He waits until the last minute, cries foul, and proposes a most ridiculous “solution”!

    I posted earlier from the article in Haaretz:

    “Jacobs said he shared the Presbyterians’ concerned about settlement policy.

    “We are against settlements,” he said. “We are for a two-state solution, but we can’t fight alone. We need each other, and if you choose partnership over divestment and BDS, together we can change the world.”

    The proposed divestment resolution had been modified to explicitly distance itself from BDS, or the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, which many in the Jewish community see as advocating for the dismantling of Israel. However, Jacobs said this was not enough, especially in light of an anti-Zionist tract published this year by a church committee.

    “The document, which is being sold through your online church store, is a vicious attack on Judaism, the Jewish people and the State of Israel,” he said. Jacobs, who is scheduled to meet next week with Netanyahu, has not yet received a response from the church leaders. ”

    • seafoid
      seafoid on June 20, 2014, 10:41 am

      “The document, which is being sold through your online church store, is a vicious attack on Judaism, the Jewish people and the State of Israel,”

      This so dangerous. The Jewish people and the State of Israel are separate .
      Israel is a liability. Lashing its fate to Judaism is incendiary.

      • just
        just on June 20, 2014, 10:44 am

        I agree completely. It’s thoroughly mad.

      • Kay24
        Kay24 on June 20, 2014, 11:17 am

        This is insane, but they think it must be working, or else they will not be peddling this “anything against Israel and it’s policies, is anti-semitism.”
        Let’s face it, many Americans do feel intimidated by this ridiculous threat, and many do cave in. Take that opera at the Met for instance, where again, the threat of anti-semitism was mentioned. The result is, immediate withdrawal so as to not upset the zionists. This is an intimidating and threatening tactic, to shut the criticism up, and keep the victim flag flying. Time someone with a spine called them on it, and told them to go jump in the Dead sea. Despite all the claims that they are not afraid of BDS, their actions belie their words.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka on June 20, 2014, 11:30 am

        The cowardice of the Met (actually, I suspect that the real answer is that its General Manager, Peter Gelb, is simply a bigot of one kind or another) is worse than that: they claim that they “don’t think the Opera is antisemitic, but {mumble, mumble, mumble, concern, mumble, mumble, mumble, Europe, mumble, mumble, mumble, antisemitism, mumble, mumble, mumble, Foxman}” therefore they cancel it.

      • seafoid
        seafoid on June 20, 2014, 12:11 pm

        They are really afraid of BDS. They can handle violence but they have no answer to well worded arguments now that the hasbara divisions have been encircled.

    • Chu
      Chu on June 20, 2014, 11:29 am

      Yahu is more of a gangster. He’ll try and strong arm the Christian group to bend to his will. Rabbi Jacobs is the ‘good’ cop.

  4. amigo
    amigo on June 20, 2014, 10:03 am

    “These high level meetings are only the beginning of our faith communities working together for a two state solution.” Jacobs

    Delusional at best.

    More likely dishonest.Anyone who still thinks the 2SS is still alive is off their rocker and should not be roaming the streets without a minder.

  5. amigo
    amigo on June 20, 2014, 10:23 am

    ” Some 1,700 rabbis and other Jewish faith leaders signed a letter stating that “the role of peacemaker is irreconcilable with positions that promote economic coercion through boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS).”

    And the role of peacemaker is irreconcilable with land theft, ethnic cleansing and a coterie of other criminal acts by Israel.

    These people are loonies.

  6. Shmuel
    Shmuel on June 20, 2014, 10:24 am

    We need each other, and if you choose partnership over divestment and BDS, together we can change the world.

    So no violent struggle, no non-violent struggle and no Palestinians, but Jacobs and non-divesting Presbyterians are going to change the world. Might as well meet with Netanyahu — so he can thank you in person for your support.

    • Donald
      Donald on June 20, 2014, 10:50 am

      “So no violent struggle, no non-violent struggle and no Palestinians, but Jacobs and non-divesting Presbyterians are going to change the world”

      Whatever one thinks of the 2SS, it’s clear that there are two types of 2SS advocates.

      Type 1 really believes in it and is willing to use pressure on Israel to bring it about. They understand clearly that Israel will keep expanding unless there is some sort of cost involved.

      Type 2 splits into two subsets

      Type 2a really does believe in a 2SS if it can be obtained with uncoerced Israeli consent, but thinks any pressure of any sort on Israel is morally wrong and equivalent to the Nazis boycotting Jews. The banned RW seemed to think that way. And it seems to be a really common view. The only way to reach a 2SS is to persuade Israeli Jews to grant one of their own free will. If that takes another 30 years or 50 or 100, so be it.

      Type 2b doesn’t believe in a 2SS, but uses it as cover for continued expansion, claiming that there can’t be a 2SS until Israel has a partner for peace.

      In practical terms, 2a and 2b are the same. Both unite in believing that Israel’s right to expand until they decide they don’t want to do so anymore trumps any rights Palestinians might have. And in the meantime, the US should give them its full support.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on June 20, 2014, 3:58 pm

        What you have described Donald is simply J Street’s position too.

    • seafoid
      seafoid on June 20, 2014, 12:15 pm

      We need each other, and if you choose partnership over divestment and BDS, together we can change the world. And I promise that if you become pregnant I’ll look after the baby. I know I have walked away from many pregnant women in the past but I really mean it this time. You are so special, Ms Presbyterian.

      • Shingo
        Shingo on June 20, 2014, 4:04 pm

        Yes Seafoid,

        Even though Bibbi snubbed Kerry and spat in Obama’s face then bragged, along with his coalition, about averting peace, this time things will be different.

      • seafoid
        seafoid on June 20, 2014, 4:12 pm

        And if Ms Presbyterian does as much as look sideways at anyone he’ll break her legs.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones on June 20, 2014, 4:41 pm

        If Bibi doesn’t listen to the Pope, Kerry, the World Council of Churches, Churches for Middle East Peace, or J Street, maybe he will listen to U.S. Presbyterians? It might not work though, because with all that bad will the Presbyterians have generated with divestment. You know how “divisive” that is.

        But actually, I have a very strong suspicion that in the last 20 years Presbyterian clergy have met with Netanyahu.

        Has speaking out really damaged interfaith relations so bad? If so, then Netanyahu won’t listen to a meeting and the best choice is BDS. If it hasn’t damaged relations, then it is an effective tool without a serious downside.

        Rabbi Jacobs wants the Presbyterians to do the same thing he does: go hat in hand to the leader. But Jacobs is committed primarily to the Israeli political system on cultural and religious grounds. It is a family way of thinking. My relative is abusing his neighbor, so my answer is for the neighbor’s relative to go with me and talk with my relative, like I (and the neighbor) have been doing for the last 20 years, to ask my abusive relative to stop.

  7. seafoid
    seafoid on June 20, 2014, 10:40 am

    A meeting with Bibi. what a waste of time

    He’ll just ask for some time in good faith and then betray them, like has everyone else. Or maybe he’ll try to intimidate them by means of a sex video.

  8. bilal a
    bilal a on June 20, 2014, 10:42 am

    apparently there is no dialogue possible; the crux of the issue is whether salvation goodness comes from righteous conduct , or from blood. Conduct superseding Blood is anathema to the reform rabbis, because they have rejected Torah and Halaka (Judaism’s definition of righteous conduct) , leaving only blood ties to their Deity ?

    Ideas have consequences.

    Calling Jews racists and abusers means that the leaders of this Church respect nothing about Jewish striving, and have changed their attitudes toward Jews not a bit since their founder, Martin Luther, called for the burning of synagogues. Jews are being sent not to the back of the bus, but to the trash-heap of history.

    PCUSA’s brand of “Zionism is Racism” will reignite the sparks of supersessionism that never were fully extinguished. Its toxic teachings will seep across the Protestant aisle, into the evangelical world and beyond
    Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, Simon Wiesenthal Center

    Jew-Hating US Church Goes Progressively Medieval

    • W.Jones
      W.Jones on June 20, 2014, 4:25 pm

      PCUSA’s brand of “Zionism is Racism” will reignite the sparks of supersessionism that never were fully extinguished.

      Supersessionism is denounced by almost everyone who discusses it, but in reality it is inextinguishable when it comes to Christianity.

      Religion and society develop in stages. Every new stage by definition supersedes its predecessor. Reform Judaism, for example, succeeds or supersedes ancient Judaism. If the new stage did not come after its predecessor its predecessor, it would not be distinguishable. And yet Reform Judaism and Christianity are in fact distinguishable from their predecessors, even as they, naturally, carry them along. Even “Christian Zionism” is supersessionist.

      The only way to do otherwise is to turn back the clock, in a “reactionary” way, to return to unchanged pre-ceding stages of development. And that is very difficult to do.

  9. seafoid
    seafoid on June 20, 2014, 10:59 am

    There is a BB scorpion who wants to cross the BDS river and he offers the frog a meeting

    • just
      just on June 20, 2014, 11:10 am

      Great post and video.

      I know the fable, and this video nails it wrt Israel’s “nature”!

  10. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka on June 20, 2014, 11:21 am

    I wonder if Mr. Jacobs ever met with not only the Palestinian and Muslim leadership, but regular Palestinians who are oppressed every single day by Netanyahu? Ever stood for a moment and experienced that which they are forced to endure the IOF’s terrors? My guess is that Mr. Jacobs is a hypocrite and that the answer is “no.” He seems to think that “interfaith” means “the Christians permit themselves to be used to advance Israel’s goals against the Palestinians.”

  11. Chu
    Chu on June 20, 2014, 11:23 am

    You can talk to the godfather, Netayahu. what a parody.

  12. Pixel
    Pixel on June 20, 2014, 12:12 pm

    Suggesting they meet with Bibi about this is like asking Typhoid Mary to be the chef at your next interfaith dinner

  13. piotr
    piotr on June 20, 2014, 1:03 pm

    “Overture 0404 […] is a vicious attack on Judaism, the Jewish people and the State of Israel.”

    Viciousness aside, the way Reform Judaism is now, it seems to me that it is basically secular Zionism. After removing tribal and ritualistic aspects, Reform Judaism was not much different from unitarians, and while there was nothing wrong about that, it was too little to keep congregations together (and donations), so they put the “tribal” back. Perhaps my impression is based on unrepresentative group of people I know, who were formally Reform Jews but in actuality had fully secular worldview. Zionism was kind of natural, given the relatives in Israel. If Reform Judaism had any philosophical, ethical and theological aspects, they did not seem to care.

    Thus questioning Zionism implies questioning Reform Judaism as it functions now (say, 70% of congregants and 90% of the budget, totally unscientific estimate). One may ask, why Rav Shmuel did not show up? Just a thought experiment, but I think that while Boteach is not the brightest lamp in the store, he can figure that either he would convince the pius Presbyterian delegates to recommend harshest sanctions on Israel in the church disposal, or he would totally alienate his top benefactors like Adelson (mentioning occupation, suffering of Palestinians etc.). So we see Rav Rick instead who is obviously thorn between the need to show some humane impulses and the fiduciary responsibilites for his denomination (1st Commandment: do not alienate the donors, who are Zionist; for that matter, Reform donors probably do expect some humanistic small talk, it is their point of pride that they are not some stupid Chabadniks or some such).

    • Xpat
      Xpat on June 21, 2014, 9:16 pm

      Rick Jacobs looks like a Presbyterian pastor. He doesn’t have a messy beard or wear outlandish ritual objects. One of the pro-Israel commissioners pointed out that Jacobs has the same liberal commitments as Presbyterians. The one exception to Reform Judaism’s mainstream Protestantism is Jewish nationalism, the supreme value which trumps all else. Reform Judaism has managed to dupe itself into believing that Zionism trumps liberal values and that their otherwise liberal values gives them room to indulge in Israeli racism, apartheid and theocracy. Pastor Jacobs almost pulled it off.
      The fact that the Presbyterians invited Jacobs to speak to the plenary and to distribute his letter and anointed him as an honorary commissioner should be enough to dispel Jewish accusations. The Presbyterians handicapped its pro-divestment camp, and they still won.
      It’s time for Jacobs (his post yesterday), the AJC, and all the other Jewish orgs to stop attacking the Presbyterians. The mainstream Jews played with an advantage and still lost.
      Quit whining.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel on June 22, 2014, 2:28 am

        The mainstream Jews played with an advantage and still lost.
        Quit whining.

        Unlike JVP, Jacobs and the “mainstream Jews” never recognised the good faith of the participants or the democracy of the process. He may not have been wearing one of those nasty t-shirts, but Jacobs’ message (and the AJC’s and the ADL’s) was certainly “love me or leave me”, i.e. any decision other than the one we demand will not be respected, as we do not consider a decision to divest legitimate and we do not recognise the right of the Presbyterian Church or anyone else to take such a decision. This attitude makes the deference and respect shown to Jacobs by the assembly even more misplaced.

  14. just
    just on June 20, 2014, 1:15 pm

    Is that a wire that Rabbi Rick is wearing on his left lapel?

    (I like the lady’s t-shirt!)

  15. ritzl
    ritzl on June 20, 2014, 1:20 pm

    I sure would love to be a fly on the wall in the Jacobs-Netanyahu meeting. Or maybe just see a leaked agenda.

    What would they talk about?

    Jacobs: Well, I know you’re not going to stop settlements (and heck, I’m not even 100% sure you should), and I know that my daughter will never be able to get legally married here, and I agree that a few more Palestinians will have to be killed (insert feigned sadness here) in order to truly domesticate them into accepting our historical rights to the land they live on, but how can I help you make all that and Israel look better in the US? How can I help sell it?

    • piotr
      piotr on June 20, 2014, 2:02 pm

      I surely would not like to be that fly. And since there was a meeting in public, with Netanyahu gracing a Reform meeting through a satellite link, we have a pretty good idea what they would talk about.

      Number one, the Kotel, how to decrease the number of Reform women arrested for improper behavior (clearly, Netanyahu cannot do anything on that, but there was an exchange of pleasantries concerning that issue). Second, top Israeli security concerns of the moment, last time it was Iran, now, perhaps massive and brazen kidnappings of 80 Turks and 40 Indians by a movement operating just next to Israel? Or some minor kidnapping with totally unknown perpetrators? Or about Netanyahu bedside visits to cheer up terrorists recuperating from wounds? Concerning Palestinians, one could make a betting pool if the discussion would take less than 10 seconds or more? I would put 10 bucks for “less”, but I would commit 100 bucks for “under one minute”.

      Would it be simply a meeting with Jacobs, I would expect a stern lecture that Reform movement may find itself irrelevant due to its slothful lobbying on the issue of Iran. But if Jacobs was merely an escort to a Presbyterian delegation, I would expect that it would start with presenting the guests with copies of the book in Spanish Inquisition by Netanyahu, which would nicely direct the conversation toward the Massacre of York and related issues.

  16. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka on June 20, 2014, 1:45 pm

    If Mr. Jacobs is so opposed to the settlements, why is he so willing to meet with Netanyahu who has championed stealing more and more of the Palestinians’ land to build those demonic settlements?

  17. oldgeezer
    oldgeezer on June 20, 2014, 1:51 pm

    What a ludicrous suggestion. A half century of talking and trying to make Israeli’s feel accepted has done nothing but increase the oppression heaped upon the Palestinians.

  18. just
    just on June 20, 2014, 2:08 pm

    A most unhelpful rant, imho:

    “Europe must face up to the new antisemites
    The rising tide of hostility towards Jews across Europe must be stopped. We can all help in the fightback

    First, from the far right, for whom antisemitism is a long-established part of their manifesto. Second, from the liberal left, whose often knee-jerk anti-Zionism serves to fan the flames of antisemitism, all too frequently expressing its hostility to Israel in language and imagery traditionally deployed to attack Jews.

    Jews around the world, even those who disapprove of some of the Israeli government’s policies towards Palestinians, find it hard to understand why Israel, a democracy in which women and gay people are treated equally, is singled out for academic boycotts, divestments and sanctions by many such supposed liberals – rather than Saudi Arabia or Qatar, say, countries where homosexuality is punished by death and rape victims risk being charged with adultery.

    And finally but no less disturbingly, Jews face attack from an increasingly violent cadre of Islamist extremists. With radicalisation appearing to be on the increase, this is a problem that looks likely to grow in Europe in the next few years.

    These three constituencies are not always separate. You’ll see the troika in the audiences of French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, whose “jokes” include the belittling the Holocaust and references to gas ovens. At a typical anti-Israel demonstration there will be members of the far right and the political left as well as Islamist extremists. The new antisemitism is rainbow coloured, and its heterogeneity makes it an especially fearsome foe. Europe’s governments need to act unreservedly and without delay. A pan-European plan to deal with antisemitism online, as part of a broader package to deal with online racism, is urgently needed. I for one won’t be reading the social media posts that are likely to follow this article. I am talking about legislation with teeth.


    But fighting antisemitism cannot just be a top-down initiative. Each of us has to take responsibility for this project. This means being mindful about language and the imagery we accept. It means standing up to the use of the word “Yid” at football stadiums or the person at the dinner party who says: “Well, they are tight, aren’t they?” and sniggers. It means being careful to keep criticism against Israel fair and legitimate – evidence based, politically balanced and absent of racial overtones – so that it doesn’t demonise Jews. It means understanding our own latent biases, so that we can consciously address them.

    The Death of Klinghoffer neither condemns nor condones the execution of the American Jew Leon Klinghoffer by Palestinian terrorists. In the world of opera this may be acceptable. This may be the prerogative of art. In the real world not taking a stand against antisemitism is categorically not an option.”

    Gee thanks, Noreena Hertz. Did I miss your rant about combating the rampant Islamophobia that is on the rise?

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka on June 20, 2014, 2:38 pm

      This woman’s column is exactly the kind of offensive, Orwellian nonsense that we were discussing in the “permission” column, including, disgustingly enough, instructing people as to what is and is not important enough for one’s concerns. (Oh, and if you have to ask, according to Hertz, we can care about the treatment of Palestinians only AFTER there is no longer a concern (presumably anywhere in the world) about how women and homosexuals are treated.) And even though she calls for “political balance” in criticizing her holy Israel, she never once — NOT ONCE — suggests that the Zionists have a duty to balance or to police themselves for their anti-Arab bigotry.

      The most infuriating part of this disgusting column is the plain fact that the manner in which Palestinians are treated in Palestine and Israel is far, far worse than how Jews are treated in Europe. Yet you will never, ever see someone like Hertz argue that “not taking a stand against Israel is categorically not an option.”

      So, to Noreena Hertz, I say, Go to hell and don’t presume to tell me what to think and how to think it.

    • piotr
      piotr on June 20, 2014, 6:28 pm

      Noreena is really something. If the opera that does not take a stand against anti-Semitism were broadcast, soccer fans will keep shouting “Yid” and jihadists will radicalize further. As we all know, these are two audiences particularly vulnerable to subliminal messages in operas. By carefully and properly selecting the operas for broadcast we may decrease incidence of these ugly phenomena. What is missing from the article are positive recommendations.

  19. piotr
    piotr on June 20, 2014, 2:26 pm

    By the way, as I checked on the conversation of Jacobs and Netanyahu, my web search landed at Times of Israel, a website a tad less annoying than Jerusalem Post, and the latest issue had a tail of Rav Shmuel about his persuasive exploits in Europe, where he talked with officials of the European country that is currently most friendly toward Israel, the Czech republic. Rav Shmuel clearly grated the nerves of his interlocutor so he cheerfully concluded that “We do not need Europe”. Adelson’s edition of Hasbara is perhaps the best glimmer of hope for Palestinian (remember that Rav Shmuel and the Prime Minister share Adelson as the benefactor).

  20. Hostage
    Hostage on June 20, 2014, 8:31 pm

    there was something better than divestment: a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    The only way I’d agree to go through the routine strip search to see Netanyahu with Jacobs in Jerusalem is to ask them both to please kiss my ass. Apparently the Presbyterians felt the same way.

  21. pjdude
    pjdude on June 20, 2014, 11:27 pm

    why should they go meet netanyahoo. they can stay stateside and run into zionists aholes here.

  22. RobertB
    RobertB on June 21, 2014, 11:33 am

    “A meeting with Netanyahu “….for what reason? May be for a …zionism persuasive lecture session with 6 or more Holocaust survivors in attendance…or just for those Netanyahu’s hasbara tactic methods…”Jesus was here and he spoke Hebrew”…you know those Moslem terrorists….hamas…you know 9/11…the Jewish people & Israel are partners with the USA…Israel wants “piece”…

  23. wondering jew
    wondering jew on June 21, 2014, 1:31 pm

    Jacobs and 2 state Israel supporters are trying to beef up their bona fides with Netanyahu and mainstream American Jewish support for Israel (which ends up since 77 to be support for likud, for the most part). The rejection of J street by the council of presidents is certainly a factor here. Jacobs is on the forefront of those wounded by the rejection of J street. and thus he and J street are taking the front in some BDS battles to show that they are the front line against BDS and thus should be in the tent and not outside it. I don’t know that so much is in flux to justify Jacobs offering a meeting with Netanyahu to deflect a BDS vote, but apparently this is the dynamic of the moment.

Leave a Reply