While the new policy adopted by the Federation shows merit and potential, the J shows only editorial bias and enslavement to the Federation by providing a nearly one-sided report to a story which everyone in the community knows has many facets and complexities.  Most obvious of all is the fact the Federation would never have adopted any policy if so many donors had not shown their anger and disgust at the Federation’s initial mishandling of the Rachel screening by withholding a wealth in donations.  Unofficial reports are that the Federation’s current annual campaign is down by millions of dollars, and it is no small coincidence that the Federation’s Board adopted this new policy just a few days before Super Sunday.  Another angle the J leaves glaringly absent from this article, by dictate of its overlord the Federation, is how this policy would never have been adopted at all were it not for the heroic efforts of former Federation Board member Anat Pilovsky, who showed the courage and conviction to introduce an initial resolution that had the core elements of the current policy.  She resigned when the Federation Board rejected that proposal unanimously.  Now the Federation and its egotistical leaders want to take all the credit for the new policy, one again only adopted for economic considerations, but in reality this policy would never have been considered in the first place were it not for true leaders like Pilovsky and Zvi Alon.  Shame on the J for losing its journalistic freedom because of its enslavement to the Federation.  J - we know who butters your bread!

Dear Oyvey2,

It’s a good thing you’re not a lawyer, and more likely a J-style journalist, because you fail to point-out a single fact in my initial comment that was not accurate. Instead, your post is merely an attempt to obfuscate the trust with distractions.

The mere fact that Federation Board meetings are scheduled a year in advance does not mean that the February 18 Board meeting was not singled-out in advance as the targeted meeting for approval of the new “pro-Israel” policy, just a few days ahead of Super Sunday.  Unofficial reports make very clear that the Federation’s primary motivation for undertaking and adopting the new policy was the fact that it was hemorrhaging from a loss of donor funds.  You may say it was the economy; I may say it was the Rachel debacle and the economy.  The simple fact of the matter is that the Rachel debacle and controversy surrounding it regarding the Federation provided donors with a very convenient (and, I would submit, a legitimate) reason to withhold their funds.  The Federation begrudgingly adopted the new policy only after a successful activist campaign was launched by numerous individuals including Pilovsky, Alon and Nestel.  However, the only one of these who paid a real price for her convictions was Pilovsky, who indeed resigned in protest to the way the Federation refused to consider the initial resolution, as I mentioned in my initial post.  And, by the way, just where are you getting your information that Nestel drafted the resolution?  It was published in a J ad prior to Pilovsky introducing it to the Federation Board.  Unofficial reports are that Alon paid for the J ad; not Nestel.  Isn’t that why the J keeps interviewing Alon and not Nestel?  And just who are you, oyvey2, to know so much about the underlying facts, while still being such a proud defender of the Federation and its agencies?  Might you be a representative of the Federation or one of its agencies? 

I stand by my recitation of the facts, and suggest that your post is merely an attempt to obfuscate the truth.  The J is a mouthpiece for the Federation, and until the J is independently funded and has an independent
Board of Directors (some of whom also currently sit on the Federation’s Board), the J will not have any editorial or journalistic freedom when it comes to matters involving the S.F. Federation or Bay Area Jewish community.  No amount of semantic obfuscation can refute this simple truth.

Every organization in the community that gets any money from federation has at least one representative on the federation’s board of directors. And that representative has no voting power.  They are there only to observe.

Your defense of Anat is weak at best. If she wanted to have an influence in this community, she would have remained on the board. Remember, her resolution was voted down by EVERYONE. Not a single board member supported her. But she took her jacks and ran rather than fight for another day.

By the way, since when is it a shanda to defend the work of Jewish agencies who are educating our youth, helping people find jobs, taking care of the ill and infirm, etc etc? If you can support that, well then I’m wasting my time with you.

I believe the J quoted Zvi Alon because a) he probably paid for the ad (you say) and was considered to be one of the leaders of the movement and 2) decided to continue to withhold his contribution until he is satisfied that the resolution is being implemented.

By the way, if you quiz Natan Nestel he will tell you he sometimes works in the background and helps other leaders fight the fight. He and Zvi succeeded in getting the federation to examine this issue VERY closely and adopt this resolution. Let’s give credit where credit is due. Zvi and Natan deserve it as well as John Rothman,

Let me also add that if the J is in federation’s pocket,  why did the newspaper choose to quote Alon—someone who was negative about the resolution when they could have found lots of people who would praise it?

hmmmm. Maybe your facts are all screwed up. Didn’t I say that already?

Who am I? The lone ranger. Ok kimasabee?

To my knowledge, the Federation has over 80 beneficiary agencies—the J being only one of them.  YOU are the “lone ranger” because YOU are the only one who is wrong on the facts.  The Federation Board does not consist of 80+ “observing” members, and indeed the J has _two_ members of its Board on the Federation’s Board.  I challenge you to deny that at least one of these Board members does in fact have voting power on the Federation Board, so there is in fact an interlocking directorship.  So it is YOU, “long ranger,” who is misleading the public here and who is wrong on the facts.

With the respect to the J’s treatment of the Federation’s new policy, none of the facts I have stated are incorrect.  In my second comment, I identified Pilovsky, Alon and Nestel as all leaders of the movement to bring pressure to bear on the Federation to force the Federation to develop a policy to deal with incidents like the Rachel debacle.  Why the J quoted Alon is because without at least one critic in the story it would be obvious that the J is a captured publication, and the story would be boring and nothing more than a sheer advertisement.

And just what exactly is it that you have against Anat Pilovksy?  She had the courage to take the core essence of the current resolution and put it before the Federation Board three months ago.  The fact that everyone else on the Board voted that down without _any_ discsussion says more about the egos and the internal politics of the S.F. Jewish Federation than it says anything about Anat Pilovsky.  Have you never heard of a member of a Board resigning out of disgust for the misguided politics which the Board and the organization it purports to lead are undertaking?  That is why Pilovsky resigned, as the J reported at the time.  The J has left Pilovsky out of the story now only by dictate of the Federation which is now punishing her becaus so many people sympahthized with Pilovsky’s resignation that the Federation lost even more donations at the time.  Indeed, on the issue of resignations, it was the resignations of some of the board members of the S.F. Film Festival Board which began to give this story traction in the J almost nine months ago.  How quickly we forget.  Usually such resigning members are hailed as hero’s, as should be and is the case with Pilovsky.  Why you insist on singling her out for criticism is a mystery beyond the most likely possibility that I, as a submitter here, have criticized the J’s editorial bias in favor of the J, and you are actually an employee of the J who is doing nothing more than trying to criticize one person whom I have singled out for praise because the J has consciously decided to exclude her views from this story.  Like deserves like, right?  Even if one has nothing to do with the other. 

I know you, lone ranger.  You are indeed alone, because you are misguided, misleading and underhanded in your tactics.  You are also, most obviously, an employee of the J who has engaged in your furious, emotional stream of comments for no reason other than the fact that I have touched on a raw nerve—called the truth—and you will stop at nothing, including even deception and undignified criticism of a most dignified lady and hero—to try to undermine what are undeniable facts.  Yes, I have stated facts, and you have failed to refute a single one.  As noted, you have done nothing more than to obfuscate them.  Any intelligent reader will see straight through your game and realize that you are flat on your back in an emotional and baseless defense against the undeniable truth:  the J is a biased mouthpiece and podium for the Federation to propogate its self-serving advertisements because the Federation pays your (the J’s) bills.

I am the lone ranger because I write here not representing any organization or j. I write here as someone who believes in the truth.

The idea that the federation controls j is laughable. Just ask any member of the federation board to see if they feel they have any control over j.

It makes no difference that federation board members sit on j’s board or any other agency board in the Bay Area. If you knew about Jewish life in the Bay Area, you’d know that board members tend to be on lots of board and they are recycled from one board to another. That means at any given time, there are bound to be federation voting members on every agency board.

Anyway there are better things to do in retirement than to spend any more time answering you. G’bye Mr. lawyer.

I would say that we all need to unite on the next project that will test the federation’s will to implement the new all encompassing policy.

I would like to see the federation address in an open and honest approach the current ongoing situation at the Berkeley University Hillel

Get this story propagated

Zvi Alon is right.  The next test for the Federation is Berkeley’s Hillel, a place that won’t even fly an Israeli flag, as most Hillel buildings do. Hillel partners with Students for Justice in Palestine.  That is crossing the red line.  And Hillel has made pro-Zionist students feel unwelcome, which is why people should contribute to Campus Chabad.  They have stepped into the breach. 

As for Anat Pilovsky, she was a real hero and instrumental in bringing this change about.  To characterize as a messenger is disgraceful. Sure she resigned.  People who agreed to support her viciously turned on her at the meeting, and the Federation brought in a lawyer to the meeting to intimidate and harass anyone who thought of discussing the meeting’s substance. NOW THAT IS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION FOR YOU, SHOWING THE SPIRIT AND SUBSTANCE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND ITS RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE REST OF US.  Yes, the economy is down and contributions are down across the board, but the SFJFF episode caused people who could afford to make contributions withhold them. The JFED has become the embodiment of Robert Michaels’, Iron Law of Oligarchy. Those of you who are supposed to be the leaders of our community should stop circling the wagons—as you always do in defense of the JFED—and start reforming the organization. The mentality you possess would have kept Nixon in the White House. Does it not occur to you that the need for a community organization to bring a lawyer to a meeting is a sign of its internal decay?

Why was a lawyer at the federation board meeting. The answer is simple. The lawyer was there to remind board members that what happens in the board meetings is legally private to the board. Federation didn’t want to be working on a sensitive resolution while various board members were chatting about it without authorization to do so.

But you are right. Federation didn’t need a lawyer there. Half the people in the room were lawyers anyway

I assume Oyvey2 jests.  The board is a community group, not functioning in executive session, and has Oyvey2 knows, had present people who were not members of the board.  Where was the expectation of privacy?  The lawyer was there to intimidate and harass. It is a bad statement, and it shows that the board desperately needs to be reformed, as indeed does the professional staff.  Can one imagine the community group of any other ethnic group having the SFJFF problem in the first place and then needing a whole series of meetings and committees and more than half a year to deal with it.  I assure you, if the African-American film festival showed Birth of a Nation, which it wouldn’t, it would take the African-American institutions all but twenty-four hours to put the matter right.  The JFED would probably need a year to figure out if Hillel should fly the American flag, and a team of lawyers to intimidate everyone not to discuss the proceedings. The JFED is a bad joke, and I am not smiling.  Neither should you.  It is tragic.

You are forgetting one VERY important fact.

When this controversy began, the federation was suddenly under new management. Jennifer Gorovitz did not have any previous experience as a head of a federation. She came from the Endowment side. And she’s a lawyer, which translates into be cautious and take things slowly.

I wonder why it’s necessary to criticize what federation didn’t do in seven months rather than reflect on what they did accomplish—the most thorough resolution of any federation in America. Did it take a long time? Yes. Was it worth it? Yes.

A little praise goes a long way.

And by the way, why bash the federation on Hillel? Go bash Hillel at Hillel.org
Hillel is a national organization.

Anat Pilovsky’s relentless efforts to move the Federation in the right direction, and the courageousness of her stand in resigning from the Board, make her a true Jewish hero in my book.  There can be no question but that the Federation’s new policy would not exist without Pilovsky’s prodding, and it is a shame that the J did not cover this part of the story in its article.

No one is forgetting anything, oyvey2.  Gorovitz tookover in the _middle_ of the controversy after Sokatch resigned because the Federation had botched its handling of the Rachel debacle so plainly.  Gorovitz improved things in only one area—spin control.  In all other respects, she has continued down the same road of self-delusion.  The only reason the new policy exists is because of the pressure exerted by the community, as led by Alon, Pilovsky and Nestel.

And Messrs. Miller and Alon are not “bashing” the Federation “on Hillel.”  Once again, oyvey2, you attempt to obfuscate the truth.  Berkeley Hillel is a beneficiary agency of the SFJCF.  Indeed, in 2008-2009, it received five times the funding from the SFJCF than did the SF Jewish Film Festival.  And what thanks did the Bay Area Jewish Community get for that money?  In addition to the issues in the comments above, among other things, Berkeley Hillel made fun of an Orthodox couple’s wedding photo on a _Valentine’s_ Day Speed Friending invitation!  And last Passover, Berkeley Hillel’s walls bore signs that said “matzah sucks.”  These and other incidents at Berkeley Hillel are flagrant violations of the Federation’s new policy against anti-Israel, anti-Semitic events and activities.  So Berkeley Hillel is, indeed, a perfect test case for the new Fed policy.

As for the Fed sending in a lawyer to squelch free debate and open community speech about the policy discussion in the November Board meeting, who was the Board member that the lawyer was most precisely aimed at intimidating and harassing?  Anat Pilovsky—the director who was slated to present on that day the key resolution which, after some tweaking, details and conditionalizing, has now become the Federation’s new trumpeted policy.  So, yes, a little praise does indeed go a long way.  But that praise should be directed at Alon, Pilovsky and Nestel who led the charge to get the policy enacted, and without whose leadership this Federation would have never in a million years adopted such a policy.  But no praise is owed to a Federation that sends lawyers in to intimidate and harass its own.  It is indeed the sign of a decaying and decrepit organization.  And you are kidding yourself if you really think Gorovitz is calling the shots.  Ever heard of Jim Koshland?  John Goldman?  Richie Rich?

Hang it up, oyvey2, and maybe you _should_ quit the J and go into retirement or at least start getting ready for Shabbat; that is to say, please give it a rest.

How about I just go read the J. Gotta see what’s in this week’s issue besides the resolution article.

Do you really think I write well enough to get a job there? Thank you…maybe;)

Let’s all agree to disagree and meanwhile have a Shabbat Shalom y’all

Tired of long diatribes from SV lawyer. Obviously not a lawyer with many billable hours.

Another hit man from the J or the Federation, huh?  Great menschlichkeit you display.  Glad you had the time to read my posts.  Nobody forced you to.

I’m concerned about a few things from this article.

First is the lack of more than one opinion presented. Why wasn’t someone from Jewish Voices for Peace quoted? Surely, they aren’t happy that that the JCF is censoring one side of the debate in the issue, by using their power of the purse. Since when are we opposed to a diversity of opinions?

Second, am I the only one who finds it ironic that that article ends with the quote, “but to me, what was missing was a very clear enforcement component. I would not donate. I want to see what actually happens in reality.”

Mr. Alon is critical of BDS, yet how is boycotting the JCF any better? Clearly, funds raised by the foundation go to needy causes in the Bay Area that have nothing to do with the Israel debate. So why penalize these organizations?

And just so someone says it - I think JCF’s new policy is sickening. Unconditional support for the Israeli governments’ actions is not a pre-requisite to be a part of our community.

What ever happened to 2 Jews, 3 opinions?

The Federation’s guidelines most certainly do not reflect “mutual respect and diversity within Jewish life.” One can come inside their “broad and inclusive tent” only if one holds their same perspective on Israel. And here I always thought we Jews welcomed debate. We’re talking about words and ideas here. Shame on the Federation!

The article states that JVP supports BDS in certain cases.