January 17, 2014

Leadership is acting ‘jealously’

The response by the rabbis led by Rabbi Howard L. Jaffe (The Jewish Advocate,
Jan. 10) to Alexandra Lapkin’s article concerning the controversy over the Islam-
inspired teaching materials in theNewton schools tells us nothing about the
integrity or competence of either Ms. Lapkin or of The Advocate. But it tells us
much about the motives and attitudes of the rabbis.

The rabbis express their purpose clearly. The rabbis admonish The Advocate for
publishing an article that displeases them and they issue an implied threat: The
Advocate is expected to do better because the rabbis lead “congregations” and
“other Jewish communal organizations and institutions” that they will turn against
The Advocate.

I am confident that Ms. Lapkin has the courage and competence to deal with
threats more than adequately.

The ongoing personal attacks in these pages against Americans for Peace and
Tolerance (APT) that appear, at first glance, as arising merely over their different
views of Newton school and Northeastern University issues actually are based
upon fundamental issues of control that concern every member of the Jewish
community. A review of the exchanges reveals that the struggle is over the
following, fundamental questions for the Jewish community:
Who is entitled to define anti Semitism? Which statements, acts, and failures to
act by individuals and institutions are anti- Semitic? Which of them must be
endured as expressions protected by the First Amendment or those within the
parameters of academic freedom?

Who is entitled to craft the plan, the methods and the means of combating anti-
Semitism?

Who is entitled to execute the plan for combating anti- Semitism?

The Jewish establishment jealously answers all of the above questions with “the
Jewish establishment,” and Charles Jacobs acts independently, thus questioning
their monopoly on power, on funds and on control.

ROBERT SNIDER, Attorney

Framingham