The Relevancy Standard
By Jeffrey Goldberg
The Forward, March 13, 1998
There are only two issues of overwhelming importance facing the American Jewish community today: the survival of Israel in the face of Iranian and Iraqi nuclear, biological and chemical terror, and the survival of the American Jewish community itself, in the face of intermarriage, assimilation and general ennui. The rest, as the saying goes, is commentary. Or something even less than that.
Here is some commentary from a document entitled “Agenda for the 1998 JCPA Plenum,” the JCPA being the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, which is the new name for NJCRAC, the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council. The JCPA recently held its annual plenum in Fort Lauderdale. Fewer people are said to have attended this year’s plenum than ever before. The following statement, taken from a draft proposal being considered by the JCPA’s “Task Force on Israel and Other International Concerns,” might explain why.
“The JCPA is greatly concerned with the senseless slaughter of innocent men, women and children that has occurred during the civil unrest in Algeria. While we feel U.S. governmental objections to the slaughter is sic needed, we also encourage our national and local member agencies to seek out coalition partners for dialogue and action on this issue.”
Let me state for the record that I am opposed to the slaughter of innocent men, women and children in Algeria. I am also opposed to toxic dumping, mink farming and smokeless tobacco, and I strive, whenever possible, to use soy-based ink. As a free Jew in America, I am allowed to protest whatever I choose to protest, and most advocacy organizations these days welcome Jews as members. Since Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International do not bar Jews from membership (there’s even a rumor that the head of Human Rights Watch is Jewish), I will let them formulate Algerian policy for me. What I need for Jewish groups to do is not waste time on Algeria — unless it is to condemn Islamic fundamentalism as a threat to Israel — and focus instead on the two basic concerns that are relevant to the Jewish people. But lately, relevancy has not been the JCPA’s concern.
Each year, the JCPA confirms for me that it richly deserves its number-one ranking on my annual list of the 20 Jewish Organizations We Would Be Better Off Without. This year, two items from the plenum — besides the Algerian addendum — leap to mind in confirmation. One is the fight over a resolution in praise of Israel, but more on that in a moment. The second item is the survey, conducted at the JCPA’s own behest, that proves something many Jewish leaders have long suspected: that leaders of the Jewish community relations councils that make up the JCPA membership are significantly more liberal than the people they claim to represent. According to a recent article in this newspaper, “On domestic public policy issues including affirmative action, welfare reform and government size, the community relations council leaders expressed viewpoints markedly more liberal than their constituencies, represented in the poll by federation donors.”
An assumption a casual reader might make is that, in response to the survey results, the leaders of the JCPA would try to recalibrate their positions to bring them more in line with those of their supposed constituents. But that is expecting too much of Lawrence Rubin, the executive vice chairman of the JCPA. Mr. Rubin interpreted the survey this way: “I don’t think there is really an inconsistency,” going on to say that the difference in the numbers “may reflect (the community relations council leaders’) deeper involvement with the nuances of an issue.”
In other words, if only those Jews surveyed were as smart and nuance-sensitive as Larry Rubin, they would think like Larry Rubin.
Rubin is a deeply unpopular figure in Jewish circles: part of his unpopularity stems from his recent power-play (if you can call it that) to gain himself an office in Washington, D.C. (which is a wise use of money, since what Washington so obviously lacks is Jewish organizational representation). Part of his unpopularity stems from his treatment of the legendary Abraham Bayer, who was my friend and mentor. Bayer was NJCRAC’s longtime director of international concerns, a one-man Jewish liberation army who, while battling cancer, was nearly hounded from his job by Rubin.
Rubin’s unpopularity in many circles can be explained, too, by the sort of arrogance he displays in his interpretation of the survey results. But his arrogance is not unusual among the unelected Jewish leadership; what makes it interesting is that it is the arrogance of the impotent.
As proof of the JCPA’s impotence, witness the tortured debate over the wording of the JCPA resolution praising Israel for reaching its 50th birthday. Hadassah, a constituent agency of the JCPA (and a rare example of a Jewish organization of real and great accomplishment) proposed a resolution praising Israel’s commitment to the ideas expressed in its Declaration of Independence. But another agency, in a huff over Israel’s handling of the so-called “pluralism” debate, insisted that Israel hasn’t yet fulfilled its early promise.
After lengthy discussions, a watered-down resolution was passed. And then, nothing. The controversy did not resonate anywhere. No one in Israel cared, and no one in America cared. The truth is that the JCPA passes dozens of resolutions, and no one cares. It is an irrelevant organization, a Model U.N. for grownups. I can’t think of a single example of a discussion I’ve had with anyone on Capitol Hill, or anywhere else, in which the JCPA position on an issue was ever mentioned, or sought.
It is not in the nature of the Jewish community to shed irrelevant organizations. Which is why there are still, 50 years after the Zionist movement made itself irrelevant by succeeding in creating a Jewish state, a minyan of Zionist organizations in America that do everything but encourage aliyah, and why there are still organizations advocating for “Soviet” Jewry.
But the Jewish community is changing: the major philanthropists who are increasingly driving the agenda have focused on issues of intermarriage and assimilation, and not on social policy issues, as keys to the Jewish future. And in any case, the Federations have largely taken over the policy advocacy portfolio from the community relations councils. Jewish groups should be held to a relevancy standard: if their work influences no one, or does nothing to improve the likelihood of Jewish survival into the next century, then they should go. By that measure, the JCPA could take its first-ever bold stand, and pass a resolution putting an end to its existence. The morning after, I absolutely believe that no Jew would be any worse off. Nor, for that matter, would any Algerian.