The Jewish Times |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 1 of 12 | Next |
|
|
Small (250x250 max)
Medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
Full Size
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
THE BOSTON JEWISH TIMES Write the uision and make it plain upon tables HABUKKUK 2:2 TELEPHONE (617) 357-8635 OCTOBER 20, 1988 VOL. XLIV, NO. 3 9 CHESVAN 5749 25c Question 5: Who's Winning? By Susan Bloch BOSTON - The organized Jewish community has adopted a low-key campaign to combat Question 5 on the Newton and Cambridge ballots. While advocates of the two-state solution to the Palestinian problem are proposing debates, Jewish professionals are confining their activities to mass mailings and educational efforts. Only Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has accepted the challenge and will debate Arab-Amercan Institute director James Zogby in Cambridge early in November. In Newton, Question 5 calls on the Massachusetts state representative "to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon the United States government to support: the principles of self- determination for the Israeli and Palestinian people; the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip next to Israel; and security for Israel and the Palestinian state." The referendum question was filed by the Newton Committee for Israeli-Palestinian peace, a recently formed, predominantly Jewish group. In Cambridge, Question 5 calls upon the Massachusetts representative to vote in favor of a resolution calling on Congress and the President "to achieve peace in the Middle East by: demanding that Israel end its violations of Palestinian human rights and its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; stopping all expenditure of U.S. taxpayers' money for Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; and favoring the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with peace for all states in the region including Israel." This referendum question was filed by the Coalition for Palestinian Rights, a Cambrid- ge-based umbrella organization which encompasses a fluid, changing list of left-wing and Arab groups. Last week, the Newton Committee invited representa- tives of the Jewish community to participate in a forum on the ballot question. Appearing at the forum were Dr. Jerome Segal, reputed architect of the PLO declaraton of independen- ce and Dr. Nadim Rouhana, a Palestinian Arab studying at MIT. There were no officals of the Jewish community at the forum. The Coalition for Palestinian Rights sent a letter to Sheila Decter, Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress and Philip Perlmutter, Executive Director of the Jewish Community Relations Council challenging them to participate in a debate "at which all aspects of the issue can be brought out and fully discussed." No date was proposed for the debate. Matthew Gordon, coordinator of the Coalition said he expected Tw �i:K - - ^ -III..... BOSTON - On the same day that President Reagan and Holocaust Council Chairman Harvey M. Meyerhoff dedicated the cornerstone of the United States Holocaust Memorial, the Department of Education announced that it has again denied funds to the Brookline-based Facing History and Ourselves. Commenting on the Department of Education announcement, Presidential spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said, "it would have been better not to have had it come out today." Facing History, a nationwide high school teaching curriculum which is used by almost half a millon students across the United States, was first refused Federal support in 1986 after a Department of Education review panel found the program "unbalanced" because it did not present the Nazi point of view and was inspired by "anti- Christian" sentiment. Margot Stern Strom, executive director of Facing History and Ourselves, appeared before a Congressional committee this week to refute the charges. She is resigned to waiting for a new administration and will reapply for funding under the next president. his invitation to be ignored. But Mrs. Decter told The Boston Jewish Times that she and Mr. Perlmutter were "clearly giving it every consideration." She stated that "there is an incorrect assumption that we are not interested in debating the future of the Middle East. Both of us have spent considerable time on numerous panels and in meetings debating and discussing the issues raised in the referendum question. "In the few short weeks which remain, we are concentrating on an educational campaign around the referendum. Our emphasis is on getting out the message about the fallacies in the referendum question. "If there is time to engage in a Utbaic wc will, but at ilit moment we are concentrating on responding to the referendum to the many voters who would not come to such a forum." Prof. Dershowitz was invited by the Harvard-Radcliffe Democrats to debate Mr. Zogby. He told The Boston Jewish Times that the debate would encompass all the current issues. He said that he was fully aware of the danger of giving a public platform to the man who presented the Palestinian plank at the Democratic National Convention, but felt the time had come to respond to the Palestinian initiatives in a way which has not yet been done. "The Arabs are winning the propaganda war," he said. "It is time to answer falsehood with truth." The Harvard law professor is an accomplished debater and has a history of appearing where Jewish professionals will not. A notable example was his debate See Question 5 page 11 Council Rejects New Jewish Agenda By Susan Bloch NEWTON - At an emotion- filled meeting last week, about 70 members of the Jewish Community Relations Council's Board of Trustees and Executive Committee voted not to admit the New Jewish Agenda as a member of the local umbrella organization. The New Jewish Agenda application was originally approved by a wide margin by the JCRC membership committee, which recommended the organization to the Executive Committee. At an April meeting of the Executive, the NJA application was again approved, but by a smaller margin. "Any well-established Jewish organization of significant value to the Jewish community and with a minimum of 500 members," may apply for inclusion in the JCRC, which currently encompasses 34 organizations. The New Jewish Agenda was created in 1980. According to its national platform, adopted in 1982, it is dedicated to a variety of liberal causes from a Jewish perspective. Over the summer, the issue of NJA membership was hotly discussed. In September, when the two-state solution to the Palestine problem appeared as a ballot item in Newton and Cambridge, many suspected that the New Jewish Agenda was behind the initiatives, as the group's political philosophy is compatible. New Jewish Agenda spokes- men deny sponsorship of the Newton referendum question, but state that the organization supports the Newton initiative. The New Jewish Agenda is opposed to the Cambridge" referendum question. Nonetheless, the ballot intiative coincided with the meeting at which the Agenda membership application was to be decided. The organized Jewish community has committed substantial resources to fighting both referendum issues. Several people said that if the Agenda wanted to make it into the JCRC, it should not have even endorsed the Newton effort. At the begining of the closed meeting it was announced that members of the New Jewish Agenda had been invited to answer questions about their organization and were waiting outside. A motion was proposed, seconded and overwhelmingly passed that the group not be asked to testify on its own behalf. Every person at the meeting was allowed a maximum of two minutes to present a position. Many in the room felt the New Jewish Agenda should be allowed participation in the JCRC on democratic grounds, although few agreed wth the Agenda's philosophical stances. One participant felt that some who spoke against the Agenda exaggerated the organization's liberal postures. Another described the voting as breaking down into three groups: the See Rejects page 11
Object Description
Title | The Jewish Times |
Alternative Title |
Boston Jewish Times The Jewish Weekly Times |
Publication Date | 1988-10-20 |
Publisher | Grand Rabbi Y.A. Korff |
Volume | 44 |
Number | 03 |
Frequency | Weekly |
Spatial Coverage |
Allston Brighton Brookline |
Subjects |
Newspapers--local editions Jewish newspapers--new england |
Language | English |
Access | Open access |
Rights | User has an obligation to determine copyright or other use restrictions prior to publication or distribution. Please contact the archives at reference@ajhsboston.org or 617-226-1245 for more information. |
Source | American Jewish Historical Society-New England Archives, New England Historic Genealogical Society |
File Format | jpeg |
Description
Title | The Jewish Times |
Alternative Title |
Boston Jewish Times The Jewish Weekly Times |
Publication Date | 1988-10-20 |
Volume | 44 |
Number | 03 |
Access | Open access |
Source | American Jewish Historical Society-New England Archives, New England Historic Genealogical Society |
File Format | jpeg |
Page Number | 1 |
Transcript | THE BOSTON JEWISH TIMES Write the uision and make it plain upon tables HABUKKUK 2:2 TELEPHONE (617) 357-8635 OCTOBER 20, 1988 VOL. XLIV, NO. 3 9 CHESVAN 5749 25c Question 5: Who's Winning? By Susan Bloch BOSTON - The organized Jewish community has adopted a low-key campaign to combat Question 5 on the Newton and Cambridge ballots. While advocates of the two-state solution to the Palestinian problem are proposing debates, Jewish professionals are confining their activities to mass mailings and educational efforts. Only Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has accepted the challenge and will debate Arab-Amercan Institute director James Zogby in Cambridge early in November. In Newton, Question 5 calls on the Massachusetts state representative "to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon the United States government to support: the principles of self- determination for the Israeli and Palestinian people; the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip next to Israel; and security for Israel and the Palestinian state." The referendum question was filed by the Newton Committee for Israeli-Palestinian peace, a recently formed, predominantly Jewish group. In Cambridge, Question 5 calls upon the Massachusetts representative to vote in favor of a resolution calling on Congress and the President "to achieve peace in the Middle East by: demanding that Israel end its violations of Palestinian human rights and its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; stopping all expenditure of U.S. taxpayers' money for Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; and favoring the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with peace for all states in the region including Israel." This referendum question was filed by the Coalition for Palestinian Rights, a Cambrid- ge-based umbrella organization which encompasses a fluid, changing list of left-wing and Arab groups. Last week, the Newton Committee invited representa- tives of the Jewish community to participate in a forum on the ballot question. Appearing at the forum were Dr. Jerome Segal, reputed architect of the PLO declaraton of independen- ce and Dr. Nadim Rouhana, a Palestinian Arab studying at MIT. There were no officals of the Jewish community at the forum. The Coalition for Palestinian Rights sent a letter to Sheila Decter, Executive Director of the American Jewish Congress and Philip Perlmutter, Executive Director of the Jewish Community Relations Council challenging them to participate in a debate "at which all aspects of the issue can be brought out and fully discussed." No date was proposed for the debate. Matthew Gordon, coordinator of the Coalition said he expected Tw �i:K - - ^ -III..... BOSTON - On the same day that President Reagan and Holocaust Council Chairman Harvey M. Meyerhoff dedicated the cornerstone of the United States Holocaust Memorial, the Department of Education announced that it has again denied funds to the Brookline-based Facing History and Ourselves. Commenting on the Department of Education announcement, Presidential spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said, "it would have been better not to have had it come out today." Facing History, a nationwide high school teaching curriculum which is used by almost half a millon students across the United States, was first refused Federal support in 1986 after a Department of Education review panel found the program "unbalanced" because it did not present the Nazi point of view and was inspired by "anti- Christian" sentiment. Margot Stern Strom, executive director of Facing History and Ourselves, appeared before a Congressional committee this week to refute the charges. She is resigned to waiting for a new administration and will reapply for funding under the next president. his invitation to be ignored. But Mrs. Decter told The Boston Jewish Times that she and Mr. Perlmutter were "clearly giving it every consideration." She stated that "there is an incorrect assumption that we are not interested in debating the future of the Middle East. Both of us have spent considerable time on numerous panels and in meetings debating and discussing the issues raised in the referendum question. "In the few short weeks which remain, we are concentrating on an educational campaign around the referendum. Our emphasis is on getting out the message about the fallacies in the referendum question. "If there is time to engage in a Utbaic wc will, but at ilit moment we are concentrating on responding to the referendum to the many voters who would not come to such a forum." Prof. Dershowitz was invited by the Harvard-Radcliffe Democrats to debate Mr. Zogby. He told The Boston Jewish Times that the debate would encompass all the current issues. He said that he was fully aware of the danger of giving a public platform to the man who presented the Palestinian plank at the Democratic National Convention, but felt the time had come to respond to the Palestinian initiatives in a way which has not yet been done. "The Arabs are winning the propaganda war," he said. "It is time to answer falsehood with truth." The Harvard law professor is an accomplished debater and has a history of appearing where Jewish professionals will not. A notable example was his debate See Question 5 page 11 Council Rejects New Jewish Agenda By Susan Bloch NEWTON - At an emotion- filled meeting last week, about 70 members of the Jewish Community Relations Council's Board of Trustees and Executive Committee voted not to admit the New Jewish Agenda as a member of the local umbrella organization. The New Jewish Agenda application was originally approved by a wide margin by the JCRC membership committee, which recommended the organization to the Executive Committee. At an April meeting of the Executive, the NJA application was again approved, but by a smaller margin. "Any well-established Jewish organization of significant value to the Jewish community and with a minimum of 500 members," may apply for inclusion in the JCRC, which currently encompasses 34 organizations. The New Jewish Agenda was created in 1980. According to its national platform, adopted in 1982, it is dedicated to a variety of liberal causes from a Jewish perspective. Over the summer, the issue of NJA membership was hotly discussed. In September, when the two-state solution to the Palestine problem appeared as a ballot item in Newton and Cambridge, many suspected that the New Jewish Agenda was behind the initiatives, as the group's political philosophy is compatible. New Jewish Agenda spokes- men deny sponsorship of the Newton referendum question, but state that the organization supports the Newton initiative. The New Jewish Agenda is opposed to the Cambridge" referendum question. Nonetheless, the ballot intiative coincided with the meeting at which the Agenda membership application was to be decided. The organized Jewish community has committed substantial resources to fighting both referendum issues. Several people said that if the Agenda wanted to make it into the JCRC, it should not have even endorsed the Newton effort. At the begining of the closed meeting it was announced that members of the New Jewish Agenda had been invited to answer questions about their organization and were waiting outside. A motion was proposed, seconded and overwhelmingly passed that the group not be asked to testify on its own behalf. Every person at the meeting was allowed a maximum of two minutes to present a position. Many in the room felt the New Jewish Agenda should be allowed participation in the JCRC on democratic grounds, although few agreed wth the Agenda's philosophical stances. One participant felt that some who spoke against the Agenda exaggerated the organization's liberal postures. Another described the voting as breaking down into three groups: the See Rejects page 11 |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for The Jewish Times