 |
       |
 |
|
July 10th, 2008 Lorne Bell, The Jewish Advocate Cambridge Peace Commission Refutes Anti-Israel Allegations Local activists cite e-mails and partnerships as evidence of bias. Cambridge is well known as a bastion of liberal politics and activism. And since 1982, the Cambridge Peace Commission has symbolized the city’s progressive, leftist values. But the commission recently came under fire after a series of e-mails revealed what some critics are calling an anti-Israel agenda.
“As a Cambridge resident, I am well aware of the Cambridge Peace
Commission’s intense anti-Israel activities,” said Hillel Stavis, a
local freelance writer and pro-Israel activist. “For 25 years, they
have hosted nothing but anti-Israel speakers. This is their pattern.” Stavis posted an e-mail exchange on the pro-Israel blog, Solomonia, on June 27, in which the commission’s former director, Cathy Hoffman, expressed her disappointment with Boston Globe correspondent Victoria Cheng. The e-mails were written in January and referenced an article Cheng wrote about the Cambridge-Bethlehem People to People project, a local organization that supports Palestinians affected by Israel’s security wall. The project is not officially affiliated with the CPC, although the commission provided the group with meeting space and the two organizations share several members, including Hoffman. Cheng’s article documented the project’s travels to Bethlehem, where delegates witnessed the social and economic effects of Israel’s security wall. She also included a brief quote from Nancy Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Boston, who noted that the wall was a “temporary measure” and had drastically reduced suicide bombings in the Jewish State. “As others have mentioned, [Kaufman’s] quote (did you actually speak to her) is not only inaccurate – it really undermines our story…,” Hoffman wrote to Cheng. Cheng responded by expressing her regret at having to include Kaufman’s perspective, and she blamed her editor for insisting that she seek out an opposing viewpoint. “I understood the problems with what [Kaufman] said at the time, and want to assure you that I would have included more nuanced contextualization of her quote if not for the extremely tight word count,” Cheng wrote. Neither Cheng nor Hoffman returned the Advocate’s requests for comment. Cheng’s editor at the Globe, Dean Inouye, would not explain the editorial decisions that led to the inclusion of Kaufman’s quote. But, he said, the newspaper received numerous complaints from the People to People project after the article was published. “People associated with that group thought [Cheng] had presented the views of a supporter of the wall that they said shouldn’t have been included,” Inouye said. “This wasn’t going to be an exhaustive examination of the wall, but we wanted to get a sense of why some people think it belongs there.” But the response to the Globe’s article is just one indication of the People to People project and the Cambridge Peace Commission’s anti-Israel agenda, according to Stavis. He noted that the CPC has hosted numerous pro-Palestinian groups over the years, many of which advocate violence against Israel. And the organization’s focus on the Palestinian cause, he said, has come at the expense of other peace efforts in Darfur, Tibet and elsewhere. “I suggested to Hoffman on numerous occasions that Darfur be a part of the agenda of the CPC, and she brushed me off,” Stavis said. “Only with the new director has the commission responded to that crisis. It’s unconscionable.” Charles Jacobs, president of The David Project Center for Jewish Leadership, agreed. “Currently, the CPC is organizing protests against possible U.S. action against Iran, but they never protested when Iran threatened Israel with annihilation,” Jacobs said. “I think that says a lot.” CPC Executive Director Brian Corr, who took over when Hoffman resigned in March, said he has never heard allegations of anti-Israel activity from anyone except Stavis. He would not comment on his predecessor’s decisions to take up one cause or another, but said any charges that the commission is targeting Israel were “unfair and unreasonable.” “I can’t speak to the details of what happened before I started here, but at our last meeting we had representatives of the Save Darfur Coalition and discussed possibly working together in the future,” Corr said. “As a city department we are devoted to peace and social justice and supporting fully the rights of all people. And we don’t advocate violence in any way, shape or form.” The commission also counts many Jews among its members, including Martin Federman, co-chair of the Boston Chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace. “The way that this is being framed by certain people is terribly inaccurate,” said Federman. “I don’t know anyone on the Cambridge Peace Commission that is anti-Israel. And I would contend that I advocate for Israel and that much of what I do is based on what I think is best for Israel, [though] not necessarily for the government of Israel.” Still, the controversy over Hoffman’s e-mails has provided additional fuel for critics of the commission. And as a city-funded organization, Stavis and Jacobs questioned the commission’s use of Cambridge’s resources. “Why is this happening with tax payer dollars, and do citizens know that their money is being used to support people that are connected to those who advocate for violent resistance [against Israel]?” asked Jacobs. “It would be interesting if someone raised a legal claim.” |
