We Jews often pride ourselves on our devotion to memory. It’s a trait that unites Jewish communities everywhere. In the San Francisco Bay Area, for example, Jews are haunted these days by memories of a film screened there this past summer about a 23-year-old American woman who was killed in Gaza in 2003. Some members of the community just can’t get the images out of their minds, and they’re doing their best to make sure that no one else can either.
The documentary, “Rachel: An American Conscience,” looks at the life and death of Rachel Corrie, a Palestinian-rights activist who was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer while protesting a house demolition.
What’s gotten our brethren by the Bay riled up is the fact that the film, though highly unflattering to Israel, was shown at the federation-funded San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, a high point on the local Jewish calendar. What’s more, the screening was co-sponsored by Jewish Voice for Peace, a group that calls for suspending American military aid until Israel “ends the occupation.”
The “Rachel” screening was part of a three-week, 71-film festival. The Talmud says that a substance wrongly introduced where it doesn’t belong — a bit of yogurt spilled in the brisket, for example — may be dismissed as insignificant if it’s less than one part in 60, or batel be-shishim. I don’t remember the Talmud making exceptions for movies, but maybe I missed class that day.
After weeks of protests, the board of the San Francisco’s Jewish Community Federation voted November 19 on a resolution submitted by a group of individuals angered by the film screening. The measure sought to bar any future cooperation or partnership with groups that “defame Israel.” The text was overwhelmingly rejected. Instead, the board approved a milder text adopted recently by the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America. The approved resolution calls for an “effective response” and “proactive strategies” to halt the alarming spread of the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, or, as I like to call it, BDSM.
The federation’s logic isn’t complicated. Nobody in the organized Jewish mainstream is sympathetic to boycotting Israel. But setting out vague, catch-all rules to limit whom mainstream Jewish organizations can and can’t talk to is treading on dangerous ground. Jewish Voice for Peace evidently crossed a red line by urging Washington to use military aid as a weapon against Israel. No surprise there. But what about Peace Now’s criticisms of Israeli activities in the territories? Is that defamation, too? What about Reform and Conservative accusations of Israeli religious intolerance? For that matter, what about those settlers who call the Israeli government “Nazi” every time another illegal settlement outpost is dismantled? If that’s not defamation, what is?
Well, you can just about guess what happened next. Like so many others who have defied the pro-Israel right, the San Francisco federation is under attack, accused of abandoning Israel. But the backlash has an unexpected twist this time. Instead of the usual accusation that the offending organization has failed in its duty to represent American Jewry’s unified support for Israel, the San Francisco federation is under attack for being all too representative of American Jews, who are allegedly abandoning the cause of Israel en masse.
Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick, Israel’s answer to Ann Coulter, penned a withering blunderbuss attack on American Jewry on the day of the federation vote. The charges: voting Democratic, disliking Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and generally following their own flighty whims rather than the interests of the Jewish people. In addition to the San Francisco federation and film festival, she names Hillel at NYU and Berkeley, the Kansas City Jewish Chronicle, the New Israel Fund and even the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL is singled out for publishing a new report on the rise of right-wing fear-mongering since President Obama’s inauguration, preferring “tribal loyalty to the Left” over the organization’s true interests.
In an unintentionally revelatory slip, Glick writes that it is “no longer strange to see Hillels on American university campuses behaving in a manner that is not in line with what might be considered the interests of either the American Jewish community or the Jewish people as a whole.” Good phrase, that: “Might be considered.” No, Ms. Glick, they don’t follow what you “might consider” Jewish interests. Shockingly, they pursue what they might consider their best interests. That’s Glick’s real complaint: American Jews don’t listen to her.
Rabbi Daniel Gordis, famed chronicler of the intifada and now vice president of the right-wing, Sheldon Adelson-funded Shalem Center, reaches much the same conclusions as Glick, but more in sorrow than anger. American Jews, he writes, are trapped in a cycle of Americanization and losing their Jewish instincts. “In today’s individualistic America, the drama of the rebirth of the Jewish people creates no goose bumps and evokes no sense of duty or obligation,” he wrote in October, as the San Francisco fight was heating up.
“A gaping chasm threatens the American-Israeli relationship, and we’re basically doing nothing,” Gordis concludes. “Try to list the serious Jewish educational enterprises addressing this challenge, asking how American Jewish education can counter America’s unfettered individualism, or what Israel could do to help.
“Can you name even one? Neither can I.”
Hmmm. Let’s see: Birthright. Summer camps. Day schools. Service programs in the underdeveloped world. That’s four.
You want to help? For starters, stop haranguing us and try listening.
Contact J.J. Goldberg at Goldberg@forward.com and follow his blog at blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
As First Maharats Graduate, Orthodox Women Leap Forward
Why a Rabbi Should Not Marry Outside the Faith
Why I Only Date Jewish Guys
Taking Aim at Corporate Jewish Burial Business
Barbra Streisand Visits Western Wall After Landing in Israel With Puppy
You've successfully signed up!
"..That’s Glick’s real complaint: American Jews don’t listen to her"
An extrapolation of that statement would only require substituting "Israel" for Glick. 78% of American Jewry voted for Obama and Israel doesn't like it. Can you believe it? They're actually shocked that American Jews had the temerity to vote in their own interests. Shocking. Absolutely shocking. That they would place accesible healthcare for themselves and their loved ones, securing their economic and financial futures in the midst of the worst finacial crisis since the Great Depression, before considering the real estate needs of settlers and their supporters was beyond the pale. They must be disenfranchised immeaditley, lest their views result in one less villa with a California kitchen and a two car-garage being built for a middle class frumbag family from Lakewood, NJ in search of an interest free mortgage and subsidized utilities ;-)
You did miss that class. The rule regarding the permissibility of a mixture containing a substance wrongly introduced where it doesn’t belong only applies when the prohibited items is added accidentally ("ein mevatlin issur lechatchila"). The Rachel Corrie movie, on the other hand, was obviously added to this film program intentionally.
Interestingly, in your attack on Glick and Gordis you stay away from defending the showing of the movie itself. I guess that you have actually seen it. Injecting "Rachel" into a Jewish film festival is kind of like listing "Der Stuermer" among Jewish newspapers.
"...Rachel" into a Jewish film festival is kind of like listing "Der Stuermer" among Jewish newspapers."
While this is an exaggeration, the jury is still out as to Ms. Corrie's feelings about ALL Jews in general and and her feelings about ALL Israelis in particular. Whether or not she differentiated between settlers and all Israelis is questionable and lends a certain degree of credibilty to the above hyperbole. Contrary to popular belief, the decison to excersise an anti-semitic bias is not conditional upon Israel's behaviour.
I sense a bit of jealousy from Mr Goldberg about Caroline Glick and Rabbi Gordis.
Mr. Goldberg's article, fascinating though it was, had almost nothing to do with the controversy surrounding the SFJFF screening of Rachel. While there are no doubt Israelis and Jewish-Americans who dislike Obama, who would like to build more settlements, or even watch, God forbid, Fox news shows, this is all utterly irrelevant to the ongoing debate. Rachel Corrie was acting under the auspices of the International Solidarity Movement whose goal is the end of Israel as a Jewish state. The film's point is to show her martyrdom for that cause. The audience for the film was predominately people devoted to that cause. When, after negotiations, a speaker offered an alternative view of the events depicted in the film he was shouted down by the audience (it's on Youtube). The SFJFF has never hesitated from criticism of Israel or the many failings of Jews, individually or collectively, but this time is different. This film was made as a tool in the ongoing campaign to delegitimize and ultimately destroy the State of Israel and should not have been shown within the context of a Jewish Film Festival supported by Jewish Community dollars
There are more than enough anti-Israel venues in the world and more coming on all the time. I think a Jewish federation should I don't know, side with Israel over Hamas. But that's just me.
"You want to help? For starters, stop haranguing us". Are you kidding, Mr Goldberg? If there's one thing that the American Jewish community needs, it's a good dose of serious criticism. Surely, a newspaper such as the Forward - which can give a good, healthy dose of criticism when it comes to the issues of the State of Israel - should be eager to hear some real criticism as well. In your answer to Rabbi Gordis' question about serious Jewish education, you name four projects. The one project, "service programs in the underdeveloped world", is not even an educational program of the Jewish community. The other program, "Birthright", is a mere ten day visit to Israel. Call it a meaningful experience - but let's not pretend that a serious Jewish education is provided in a week and a half. The summer camp project and the day school are educational programs, but surely you are aware of the simple fact that just a small minority of American Jews participate in such frameworks. The clear majority of Jews in America do not receive any kind of serious or standard Jewish education (nor do they go on Birthright or service programs). Rabbi Gordis has an important point of concern and criticism - and instead of being so defensive, you should try listening.
More on "Frisco Film Fest" from MuzzleWatch ["Tracking efforts to stifle open debate about US-Israeli foreign policy]:
1] "Will the Jewish Federation of San Francisco drive more people into the arms of BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanction)? Judith Butler, Ronnie Gilbert and Aurora Levins Morales respond"
Excerpt: "When institutional Jewry’s so-called leaders stand so brazenly against the entire human rights world, as they have time and time again; when they plug their ears while singing “nah nah nah nah” as more and more land and lives are taken; when they fight every mild effort to get Israel to stop its settlement expansion and repression of Palestinians and, increasingly, Israeli human rights activists, what exactly do they expect? That good, decent, compassionate people who care deeply about equality and justice for both Palestinians and Israelis, will shut up and go away? No, we will escalate our nonviolent methods."
http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2009/11/16/san-francisco-jewish-federation-about-to-drive-more-people-into-the-arms-of-bds-boycotts-divestment-and-sanction-judith-butler-ronnie-gilbert-and-aurora-levins-morales-reply/
2] "Yes! San Francisco Jewish Federation does drive more into arms of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions"
Excerpt: "To hammer home the obvious, again and again, the Federation has absolutely nothing to say about an alternative approach to ending Israel’s universally acknowledged illegal settlement project. If they can’t provide a good alternative to ending the occupation, and they’re not even trying, then they might as well pack their bags and go home, because they just can’t win through old fashioned shunning of groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and, heaven forbid, the pacifist Quakers. People are too smart for that. Their own children, who understand pretty clearly the idea of equality, are too smart for that.
Bottom line: the Federation may be able to control what groups can go in and out of the campus Hillel, but they can’t stop people from meeting and debating and reading and visiting the West Bank, from talking to progressive Israelis and Palestinians, from thinking for themselves.
It is precisely this shutting down of doors, without any optional path for ending the occupation, which leads to more and more joining the BDS movement."
http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2009/11/23/yes-san-francisco-jewish-federation-does-drive-more-into-arms-of-boycott-divestment-and-sanctions/
You know mike levin I love that you use the 3 amigo's has an example of what, I don't know. You see here is the thing, It's really not that complicated. Jews are divided into two camps. One wants to see the continued existence of Israel and actually don't mind being Jewish. The others, you, and the JVP. Want to see the destruction of Israel and I'm betting can't remember the last time they saw the inside of a synagogue. The rest is just semantics. I don't think an American Jewish federation should subsidize the showing of a film that demonizes Israel. CAIR, the holy land foundation, and Obama's pals the Khalidi's canb handle that.
Michael Levin,
Thanks for linking to and excerpting the excellent report on the film festival in MuzzleWatch, which is one of the best sources of information on these efforts to silence and intimidate the progressive Jewish movement.
bill Pearlman,
You've got your categories confused. Mike Levin, the JVP, J Street, the Jewish progressive movement and I all want to see the continued existence of Israel and don't mind being Jewish.
Jews are, however, divided into two camps:
(1) Those who believe that the killing of innocent Palestinian children of 3 and 5 years old by the IDF, as documented in the Goldstone report, is a crime that should be punished and never happen again.
(2) Those who deny or defend the killing of Palestinian children, and refuse to criticize Israel for it or demand that it stop.
Choose your camp.
Norman - You once tried to tell us that Hamas would be willing to live in peace with Israel. Hamas is on record that it wishes to destroy the State of Israel and to murder the Jewish people - so instead of quoting a Hamas source, you quoted some outside observer. That was a deliberate attempt to be deceptive (since you obviously couldn't find a quote from Hamas itself about accepting Israel's existence, you had to adopt someone else's quote as a Hamas position). It is hard to understand how anyone could support or defend an organization that has a declared policy of genocide. But that's the style of the anti-Israel group: if the Hamas verbal abuse and threats were directed against anyone else, only then it would be worthy of your notice and condemnation.
Now you tell us that you "want to see the continued existence of Israel". Again, you are being insincere. You are making yourself sound as if you are part of the Jewish mainstream, but in truth you have grave doubts over Israel's legitimacy. In past talkbacks (answering Raed Kami), you stated "I don't know enough about international law to know whether Israel's creation complies with international law." You explain to Raed in that comment that you "don't think we can realistically move the Israelis out of the land within the 1967 borders" (see Mr Fein's article "The Rope Goldstone Threw to Israel"). In other words, Israel's existence in your eyes is not a matter of principle or a matter of right. You present her as a kind of mishap that one has to live with - not as a normal, legitimate state that had the obvious right to come into existence.
Since you have misled us in the past with quotes about Hamas, and since you justify Hamas resistance against Israel as something to be likened to the resistance against the Nazis ("I can't deny armed resistance in principle, since Jews engaged in armed resistance during the Second World War" - a comment to Raed in Mr Fein's article "The Goldstone Standard") - one can assume that your desire "to see the continued existence of Israel" is not very honest. Perhaps you feel that your hostility towards Israel will be more convincing to a Jewish audience if you pretend that you are not calling for its demise.
Norman - "Hamas officials have already agreed to recognize Israel, according to Atran and others" is the exact comment that you made in the talkback to Mr Fein's article "The Rope Goldstone Threw to Israel" (Oct 21, 2009). It wasn't a quote from Hamas, obviously, since Hamas has made it clear that it will NEVER recognize Israel. That was manipulative. That was meant to leave the impression on us that Hamas is reasonable (whereas Israel is "extreme"). Your declared desire "to see the continued existence of Israel" was also meant to leave the impression of being a moderate (although, in fact, you're not). The only reason that you are willing to ignore (and disguise) the evil declarations of Hamas is that you yourself are extremely hostile towards Israel.
my next project is to bring anti-zionist crusader and artist Gilad Atzmon to the SF film festival
Yes, I believe that Hamas would recognize Israel and make peace, if we treated them as we would like others to treat us. For proof, search Google for the articles by Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, who have interviewed top leaders of Hamas and Israel -- which you have not.
But as I said before, the "existence of Israel" loyalty oath is a red herring.
We're talking about which Jews are allowed to express their ideas at a Federation-funded event.
The issue here is whether you are among
(1) those Jews who can accept the IDF's killing of innocent 3- and 5-year-old children, as documented in the Goldstone report (and elsewhere) or
(2) Those Jews who believe that it is a crime that should be prosecuted and should never happen again.
It is clear that you are in camp (1).
Right on point to J.J. Goldberg's column, I just heard Cecilie Surasky from Jewish Voice for Peace and MuzzleWatch http://www.muzzlewatch.com/ on WBAI-FM's radio program, Beyond the Pale http://www.beyondthepale.org/ (which broadcasts live at Noon every Sunday). Surasky will now be giving a commentary on Beyond the Pale every month.
Surasky discussed the SF Film Festival and other efforts by the Jewish "McCarthyite right" to censor people they don't agree with, by cutting off the funding to groups that don't comply with the censorship.
It's an undemocratic process, said Surasky. A big funder calls the board of an organization and tells them that he will pull all his money unless they comply with his censorship demands. "It's power leveraged through money."
"These are far from empty threats." Big funders have pulled millions of dollars. (I couldn't get all the numbers down but she's given details on MuzzleWatch. I think she said that the SF Film Festival lost $45,000 and the Federation lost $2 million when big right-wing contributors pulled out.)
For example, the Boston affiliate of National Public Radio lost a substantial amount of money in a boycott.
Another example, which Surasky wrote about on MuzzleWatch, was a group of students at Goucher college, who invited 2 Jews who were critical of Israel. Goucher president Sanford Ungar, former host on All Things Considered, who teaches a class on free speech, canceled the visit.
Philadelphia Hillel canceled a talk by Jeff Halper, head of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. The same week, they invited Effie Eitam, a "vicious racist" who has called for the expulsion of Arabs, both residents of the territories and Israeli Arab citizens, said Surasky.
"Jewish students and Hillel do great work," said Surasky. But then outside institutions and donors get involved.
Some of the victims of censorship are "extremely moderate," like Hannah Rosenthal, from the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, said Surasky.
At the J Street conference, said Surasky, people had to preface every statement with "I love Israel."
Surasky noted the irony of fighting the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, with boycott, divestment and sanctions of Jewish institutions that defy their censorship.
The other big censorship story is the effort by some right wingers to shut down the Berkeley Daily Planet with a boycott that has turned out to be effective and damaging. http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-11-25/article/34184 This was recently covered in the New York Times.
The issue is whether the Berkeley Daily Planet should print letters and columns from all points of view, or just the points of view that the boycotters agree with. The Planet has published many letters and op-eds from the people behind the boycott, but that wasn't enough for them. They wanted to silence those who disagree with them as well.
If they can boycott the Berkeley Daily Planet, why shouldn't we boycott the illegal settlements?
Norman - Did YOU interview top Hamas officials and hear from them that they would make peace with Israel? You quote Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges only because you can't quote the Hamas (actually, you don't even quote them - you just claim that there is some quote). Have you read the very basic document, the Hamas Charter? They have a declared policy of genocide. They declare it every day (you couldn't write your name in Arabic and neither can your "experts", Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges). You are an apologist and a propogandist for people who have an ideology of mass-murder. That is really evil.
1) There are those people who are willing to deceive others ("I want to see the continued existence of Israel") in order to promote their political agenda.
2) There are others who are so proud of their ideology that they must declare it openly ("takun filastin maqbarat il-sha'ab il-yahudi" - "Palestine will be the graveyard of the Jewish people"), no matter if it damages their PR.
You belong to (1) and Hamas belongs to (2).
Norman speaks of the "muzzling" of criticism. He also speaks of the Goldstone Report. It's hard to understand how the two concepts go together. Not only does the Goldstone Report make its accusations, but it was so widely reported.
The UN-HRC fact-finding team that wrote the Goldstone Report included a member, Christine Chinkin, who expressed her predisposition to find Israel guilty of war crimes. Mr Goldstone himself and two other members of his panel were among a group of jurists who had written to the secretary-general of the United Nations, expressing their "shock" about the events in Gaza. Not only does this suggest a predisposition, it was essentially a request to volunteer for the job of investigation - and to come up with the "correct conclusions". The UN-HRC is very much focused on Israel which it regularly condemns. The UN in general has condemned Israel in innumerous decisions. In a normal, objective investigation, not only should have Christine Chinkin disqualified herself - an organization such as the UN-HRC should disqualify itself.
It should be added that the Goldstone Report found it necessary to deal with Israel's Law of Return. How strange. The mandate was only to investigate Israel's "crimes", but actually it wished to point a finger of accusation at Israel's very identity, her very raison d'etre, as a Jewish state.
It's interesting to read the view of the anti-Israel people such as Norman. Their views are so widely expressed in the press and in the international community, but they complain of being muzzled.
Norman - You are participating in a war-effort. Your participation is in the realm of propaganda, obviously, but it is a type of war nonetheless. When you go to war, sometimes you win a battle and sometimes you lose a battle. With the Goldstone Report, you have won your propaganda battle against Israel. With the boycott movement, you have lost your propaganda battle. It's not very becoming of a soldier who decides to go to battle to cry about how difficult the fight is. Your crying about "muzzling" or "censorship" is really strange narishkeit.
Since the SF Jewish community is aging and dying out (note the references to Ronnie Gilbert, Judith Butler and Aurora Levins Morales), a lot of this doesn't matter.
Wonder if the SFJFF will show a film about their own community's slow demise?
Young Palestinian women are being forced to into prostitution in brothels, escort services, and private apartments in Ramallah and Jerusalem, according to a report released Wednesday. The Palestinian organization SAWA (All Women Together Today and Tomorrow) published the paper, the first of its kind, urging Palestinian society to break its silence over its sex industry.
The report was compiled with support by UNIFEM, the United Nations Development Fund for Women, which allotted resources for research on the subject. SAWA conducted research and interviews for the study in the beginning of 2008, but for a variety of reasons has only now been published. The report, which is titled "Trafficking and Forced Prostitution of Palestinian Women and Girls: Forms of Modern Day Slavery," was released in conjunction with the ?Global 16-day Campaign to Combat Violence Against Women." Advertisement
The report claims that women are trafficked from different areas of the West Bank, in particular urban areas, as well as from the Gaza Strip and Jerusalem. Women from Eastern Europe who are sold into the sex trade in Israel are also occasionally brought to the West Bank, where they work in designated apartments. There are a number of legally registered hotels and cleaning companies that offer "double services," which include sexual services for men.
Researchers only spoke with a small number of people for the study, among them several women, cab drivers, lawyers, hotel owners, and Palestinian police investigators, and came away with the impression that trafficking in the Palestinian territories is not run by a sophisticated network. Researchers also spoke with Palestinian women pimps in their 40s and 50s, who themselves are former prostitutes. One of these pimps had a Jerusalem identity card and owned four apartments. She allowed the women working for her to go out freely, but used intimidation to ensure that they would return.
The report notes that like in other places around the world, women are forced into prostitution due to economic hardship, the Palestinian cases brought to their attention mainly stemmed from incidents of sexual violence, and occasionally forced marriage at a young age. Some of the women mentioned in the report are students at institutions of higher education in the West Bank, and some are high school students. In a number of cases that came to the authors' attention via the press, fathers sold their daughters through "back door" marriages, in which an announcement of marriage is made without the involvement of a religious official. When one girl is seen to be married repeatedly in the same way, it is clear that it is a cover for sex trafficking.
While the authors of the report stress that the prostitutes' clients range from "rich businessmen to young people," they do not give any further details as to their identities and backgrounds.
The report urges the Palestinian authorities and Palestinian society to acknowledge the existence of the problem. It calls on Palestinian non-governmental organizations to propose a bill that would treat prostitution as sexual violence and to work for the enactment of this law. The report also encourages the rejection of the stance that prostitution is a "choice;" and proposes the training of law enforcement authorities to treat the women with respect and fairness. The report also calls for the creation of shelters, as well as more support for existing shelters, where women forced into prostitution can find refuge.
Sawa was founded in 1998, and provides services, including an emergency hotline for women and children. It provides teaching and training in schools and with the police on the issue of violence against women
Yehuda mentions the genocidal Hamas Charter. Here are a couple of citations from that charter:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).
"Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious."
HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:176] Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "
This last one is especially important because it is considered sacred by all religious Moslems. This is proof that the conflict over Israel is not a matter of drawing lines on a map; the conflict is, in fact, an Islamic war against the Jews. The Koran and the sayings of Muhammad call for violent subjugation of the Jews and for killing them if they do not submit. Islam cannot permit Jewish sovereignty. This explains why the entire Islamic world, most of which is not Arab, is against the existence of Israel. Virulent anti-Semitism is rampant throughout the Moslem world. It all comes from the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad. Muhammad, by the way, committed genocide against the Jews of Arabia. And, in the Koran, Allah orders all Moslems to follow Muhammad's excellent example. The religion-ideology of Islam is thoroughly and irretrievably anti-Semitic. Those who are interested should read Andrew Bostom's comprehensive "The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism".
In a democratic society, it's necessary to allow all kinds of viewpoints to be openly expressed, no matter how vehemently people disagree with them. Having seen parts of the film "Rachel Corrie: An American Conscience", I think they had a right to show that film, plus, although I favor Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, I also favor the two-state solution, where the Palestinians can have a nation-state alongside Israel, which is comprised of West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. I don't argue that the Palestinians and the Arab countries, too, have contributed, even in the not-so-distant past, to the predicament of statelessness and oppression that the Palestinians are in right now, but Israel must be taken to task for and forced to cease the occupation of West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem if Israel is to survive and preserve its Jewish majority and character. The time is long overdue, and it must be right now.