The key to the credibility—or lack thereof—of a column in “The Philadelphia Inquirer” was a description of the co-authors.
Moshe Phillips
An op-ed attacking AIPAC, authored by two Jews who oppose the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, would be unremarkable. Two people who hate Israel naturally also deeply despise AIPAC. Nothing surprising in that.
But an op-ed column attacking AIPAC by prominent figures in two mainstream American Jewish organizations—well, that’s something else entirely.
And that may explain what motivated the editors of a major daily newspaper, The Philadelphia Inquirer, to publish a harsh attack on AIPAC on April 24—and to hide the fact that its co-authors are avowed anti-Zionists.
The op-ed demanded that candidates for public office reveal whether they have received contributions from any political action committee linked to AIPAC. It didn’t include any call for candidates to disclose contributions from anti-Israel groups. That’s a curious double standard, to say the very least.
The key to the op-ed’s credibility—or lack thereof—was its description of the co-authors.
Christie Balka was identified as “a member of the Tikkun Olam Chavurah in Northwest Philadelphia.” The Hebrew name no doubt left the average Philadelphia Inquirer reader with the impression that it is a mainstream Jewish institution.
The byline did not explain what the “Tikkun Olam Chavurah” stands for. One has to go to its website to find out. There, the group defines itself as “an anti-zionist (sic), queer-led community,”—meaning that it is part of the tiny fringe in the Jewish community that opposes the existence of Israel.
Balka’s co-author was a local Reconstructionist rabbi, Mordechai Liebling. According to the website of the anti-Zionist organization “Jewish Voice for Peace,” he is a member of its “rabbinic cabinet.”
But Liebling’s byline on the op-ed didn’t mention that. There, he was identified as an ex-professor and “a former member of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.” That lent credibility to the piece by linking Liebling to the mainstream American Jewish community’s major leadership group.
But is that an accurate description? Anybody familiar with the Conference of Presidents knows that it’s a coalition of Jewish organizations, not individuals. (The I.D. line also misstated the Conference’s name, but that’s the least of the problems here.)
Forty years ago, Liebling was hired as executive director of the Jewish Reconstructionist Foundation, a small Jewish organization that happened to be one of the 50-plus organizations in the Conference of Presidents. That position didn’t make him a “member.” It didn’t make him a major Jewish leader. And it doesn’t change the fact that today, he is affiliated with an explicitly anti-Zionist organization. What’s more, no Reconstructionist movement affiliate is a current member of the Conference of Presidents.
What other anti-Israel organizations is Liebling involved with?
The Prayers for Peace Alliance prominently features Liebling on its website. The hate group IfNotNow and CAIR are both “sponsors” of the Prayers for Peace Alliance. The Anti-Defamation League examines the leadership role that IfNotNow has played in anti-Israel protests in its article “Who are the Primary Groups Behind the U.S. Anti-Israel Rallies?” on the ADL website.
On the Prayers for Peace Alliance website itself are accusations of “Israeli military’s campaign of ethnic cleansing” and that “Zionism has … produced a heavily militarized society in which a permanent state of occupation ultimately endangers everyone in the region.”
In 2009, Liebling was involved in the Jewish Fast for Gaza group, an entity that said their events were created “to call for a lifting of the blockade that prevents the entry of civilian goods and services into Gaza.” It was advocacy like this that led directly to the tragic easing of the blockade, allowing Hamas to rearm and expand its terror tunnel network. And we all know what that led to.
Lastly, as mentioned above, Liebling is on the Jewish Voice for Peace’s Rabbinical Council. The ADL has described JVP as a “radical anti-Zionist” and an “anti-Israel activist group” in multiple publications. JVP does not support a two-state scenario, and it is not advocating peace talks and negotiations. JVP calls for an end to the State of Israel.
It’s easy to see just how radical JVP really is with even a very quick review of their website, where they call for the removal of Jews from Israel. The section reads: “We imagine Arab, Middle Eastern and Southwest Asian/North African Jews having ethical and safe access to return to their original homelands.”
Balka and Liebling may hate AIPAC, but their real beef is with Israel itself. The organizations with which they identify, Tikkun Olam Chavurah and Jewish Voice for Peace, and the others, oppose the very existence of the Jewish state.
The co-authors and the editors of the Inquirer should have been upfront about that.
Moshe Phillips is national chairman of Americans For A Safe Israel, AFSI, (www.AFSI.org), a leading pro-Israel advocacy and education organization.
“The rabbis training clergy to oppose Zionism have a name: T’ruah
Jewish institutional credibility is the method, and Jewish institutions are the point of entry.”
MELISSA BRODSKY
“…The communities that receive these clergy don’t necessarily know their rabbi was trained by an organization whose stated campaign goal is ending Israeli control of Judea and Samaria, or that the same rabbi completed a program designed to interrogate the foundations of Zionism…”
https://www.jns.org/opinion/melissa-brodsky/the-rabbis-training-clergy-to-oppose-zionism-have-a-name-truah
My comment: First off, congratulations to Melissa Brodsky – who was just effectively deplatformed by FB – on joining JNS. She still posts but they took away most of her following. Hers is an important voice and her column on FB is like Ted Belman’s “Jews: Who Knew” on Israpundit. I’ve reposted some her FB posts there in the comments section. It lives on after him. She also has a subscription paid substack column in which she provides greater detail to her historical FB posts.
–
As to what the article is talking about it reminds me of the name recognition premise of the Eddie Murphy satire, “The Distinguished Gentleman” (1992). As usual, I disagree with the critics. I thought it was a very insightful film, and fun in a Capraesque way.
“The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) is a political comedy film starring Eddie Murphy as a con man who gets elected to Congress by running under the same name as a deceased congressman, only to find the political world is just a bigger con game. Directed by Jonathan Lynn, the movie follows Murphy’s character, Thomas Jefferson Johnson, as he uses his new position to get rich, but unexpectedly develops a conscience while investigating corruption, clashing with a powerful lobbyist played by Lane Smith. Despite a strong cast and a premise that many found relevant, it received mixed-to-negative reviews but was a box office success. “
Also the boring from within debate dramatized in the film, “Reds”(1981). and Rudy Dutshke’s “March through the institutions”
In other words, the Trojan Horse strategy.
“If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” (and undermine them from within.
Marcuse and Gramcsi.
“ Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) was an Italian Marxist philosopher, journalist, and politician who co-founded the Communist Party of Italy. He is widely recognized as one of the most influential political theorists of the 20th century, best known for breaking away from traditional economic determinism to emphasize the power of culture, ideas, and institutions in maintaining political power.”
Watching it again on Prime. Murphy has a conversation in Yiddish.
atrocities.If you want to dive deeper, let me know if you would like to explore:Paul Robeson’s broader relationship with the Yiddish language and Jewish culture.How the Cold War era and his political views impacted his life in the United States.Specific resources on the execution of Jewish intellectuals on the Night of the Murdered Poets.Let me know which of these areas you’d like to narrow down.”
Slightly different translation than Robeson’s rendition. Robeson sings it in English and then in Yiddish.
Once again: https://youtu.be/7s52vSRsVM4
I think he changed “amidst crumbling walls” to “fires of hell” because he didn’t catch the obvious Jerusalem|Temples reference. Just occurred to me.
Every Jew should know this history. It may be repeating in a different form. I suspect Many don’t. I was shocked to learn that an elderly American Progressive of my acquaintance did not. Also google: Doctor’s plot, Ambassador Golda Meir’s reception by Soviet Jews, Stalin’s reaction and aftermath, Soviet Jews-the Black Years, Birobidjan intended Soviet replacement for Eretz Israel.
A Trot review of Arkady Vaksberg’s “Stalin Against the Jews” which, despite its own blindspot summarizes important developments including Stalin’s own planned Holocaust cut short by his death and acknowledges Vaksberg’s revelation of previously unknown documents drom the opened Soviet Archive showing how Stalin purged Jews while covering it up by honoring some from the very beginning. Communist Jews.Reviewer doesn’t acknowledge Lenin’s destruction of non-Communist Jews. Sound familiar?
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/backiss/vol6/no2/flewers.html
“Stalin’s Secret Pogrom, the Post-War Inquisition of the Jewish Anti-Facist Committee” – Many of the show trial transcripts
edited and introductions by Joshua Rubenstein and Vladimir P. Naumov.
Various used book sellers have them online, including Amazon.
My comment: First off, congratulations to Melissa Brodsky – who was just effectively deplatformed by FB – on joining JNS. She still posts but they took away most of her following. Hers is an important voice and her column has been like “Jews: Who Knew” on Israpundit. I’ve learned a lot.
–
As to what the article is talking about it reminds me of the name recognition premise of the Eddie Murphy satire, “The Distinguished Gentleman” (1992). As usual, I disagree with the critics. I thought it was a very insightful film, and fun in a Capraesque way.
“The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) is a political comedy film starring Eddie Murphy as a con man who gets elected to Congress by running under the same name as a deceased congressman, only to find the political world is just a bigger con game. Directed by Jonathan Lynn, the movie follows Murphy’s character, Thomas Jefferson Johnson, as he uses his new position to get rich, but unexpectedly develops a conscience while investigating corruption, clashing with a powerful lobbyist played by Lane Smith. Despite a strong cast and a premise that many found relevant, it received mixed-to-negative reviews but was a box office success. “
and:
“ lenin boring from within”
“ The phrase “boring from within” is a prominent political term historically used to describe subversive infiltration—the strategy of entering an institution, trade union, or government from the inside to weaken or radicalize it.While the concept is deeply tied to Vladimir Lenin’s tactical directives, the exact English idiom “boring from within” was popularized primarily by American labor leaders and anti-communist investigators rather than being a direct quote from Lenin himself.1. Lenin’s Actual Philosophy (The Concept)Lenin did not write the exact English words “boring from within,” but he fiercely advocated for the exact behavior it describes. In his famous 1920 pamphlet, “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder, he strongly rebuked “ultra-left” communists who refused to work within mainstream, conservative, or bourgeois organizations.Lenin argued that revolutionaries must infiltrate existing systems:Infiltrating Trade Unions: He explicitly commanded communists to join reactionary trade unions, stating they must resort to “all sorts of stratagems, artifices, and illegal methods” to remain inside them and influence the working class.Parliamentary Participation: He insisted that revolutionaries should run for seats in bourgeois parliaments, not to support them, but to destroy and disintegrate parliamentarianism from within.2. Origin of the English PhraseThe specific phrasing “boring from within” emerged prominently in the early 20th-century United States labor movement:William Z. Foster: The leader of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) frequently used this terminology to describe his strategy of radicalizing the American Federation of Labor (AFL) from the inside, citing Lenin as his direct tactical inspiration.The Tenney Committee (1947): During the Red Scare, California State Senator Jack Tenney published a highly publicized report titled Red Fascism: Boring from Within, by the Subversive Forces of Communism. This consolidated the phrase in American political vernacular as a description of stealthy communist subversion.3. Summary of MisconceptionsDid Lenin coin the phrase? No, it is an English idiom used to describe his strategy.Did Lenin teach the strategy? Yes, he mandated that communists work inside hostile institutions to collapse or convert them.”
It featured prominently in the film “Reds”
“movie reds boring from within debate”
“ The “boring from within” debate in the 1981 film Reds refers to a real-life political conflict among the American radical left, specifically whether socialists should engage with mainstream politics to enact change or push for immediate, hardline revolution.In the film, John Reed (Warren Beatty) and other American radicals clash over this very issue. While Reed is drawn to the militant Bolshevik model in Russia, other factions argue over whether the movement should remain domestic or take its cues entirely from the Communist International.For viewers, debate surrounding this aspect of the movie is mixed. Some critics and audiences have found these lengthy, cramped political debates tedious, arguing that they interrupt the romantic and emotional momentum of the film. Conversely, many viewers and scholars praise these sequences for historical accuracy, seeing them as essential commentary highlighting the perennial divisions and infighting within leftist movements.”
Anti-Zionists? So what?
We give them too much sense of their own importance.
If anything happens to these actors, it’s Israel’s fault, as usual. The remaining question is if it’s worth Israel’s time to deal with these people before they cause even more damage. They may get a change of mind…