The Jewish Times

              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