[The following is a lengthy report on an event held at Workmen's Circle, Boston on Tuesday evening, "The Gaza Blockade -- Is It Good for the Jews?" Workmen's Circle is the leftist "secular" Jewish organization which has crossed our path here multiple times before. I'm happy to note the discussion concerning Solomonia you will see below, most likely engendered by Hillel Stavis's postings here, for whom the expulsion of the Workmen's Circle from the mainstream Jewish Community (and the cutting off of any CJP funding) has been a particular interest. You'll begin to understand, if you don't already, why it is so outrageous for this group to get Jewish organizational funding as you read and also understand that Alice Rothchild -- a Workmen's Circle official -- is one Boston's most vile anti-Zionist activists.

This is written by Dov Shazeer, who attended the event.]

I attended the Workmen's Circle event entitled "The Gaza Blockade - Is it Good for the Jews".

There was a three person panel, each of whom were allotted 12 minutes for an initial presentation. The moderator stated that after the presentations and until 9:30pm there would be a period for questions and comments.

There were 40 - 50 people in attendance. The room was L-shaped, double wide in the front. There were about 15 rows.

All three panelists held official positions with Workmen's Circle. Alice Rothchild was introduced as an official of Workmen's Circle and an expert on Gaza. The other two, Mitchell Silver and Mike Felsen, were introduced as J Street members and officials.

I did not take notes. I had come to hear a view on Gaza which I expected to be different from mine and to find out about the Workmen's Circle offerings on Yiddish; since I speak Yiddish to two of my grandsons. I did not expect to hear what I did hear; I did not expect to be writing this. So here is a caveat. Where there are quotation marks I am paraphrasing to the best of my recollection. Also none of the panelists used the word "evil". I use the word "evil" to represent descriptive adjectives, nouns, phrases, and sentences which the panelists did utter which accused Israelis and Israel of the very worst actions.

ALICE ROTHCHILD PRESENTATION

It was a slide show of several dozen slides. There was a history which noted only Israeli evils; Israel invaded at this time and at that time, Israel destroyed this, Israel destroyed that. Israel used Gaza for cheap labor, Israel controls everything in Gaza. Many statistics and from every imaginable U.N. agency as well as "peace groups" about the terrible humanitarian situation. Many pictures and stories of people's suffering; she's been to Gaza and has seen it.

I don't believe she said the word Hamas once (I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure). Not a single mention of suicide bombings, not a single mention of rocket attacks. The 2nd or 3rd slide from the end was a graphic with a photo with perhaps a masked Palestinian; Alison (that's what they call her) said something like "there are militants in Gaza, but we need to present the other side as well, not just about militants". That was the shortest slide in her presentation; I estimate that it was shown for less than 5 seconds.

Alison stated several times that there are people in Gaza getting rich off of the tunnels and that this is somehow evil; I couldn't understand why it was evil but I assume she doesn't approve of capitalists.

One slide was a photo on which Alison commented that someone told her that Gaza was an "open air prison". Alison made a big deal that she disagreed with that statement. I expected her to say it was not as bad as all that. She said, and I paraphrase throughout because I did not take notes "in a prison, the guards at least have a responsibility to take care of the prisoners, the Israelis take no responsibility for their horrendous actions". Then she went on with her explanations that Israel is very, very evil.

MITCHELL SILVER PRESENTATION

Mitchell is of note because he is the only person on the panel who mentioned violence against Israelis. He did it twice as follows. In the context of the recent flotilla he said that while Israel killed 9 people and wounded many, a mere two Israelis got beaten up and that this was unfair. This single phrase was amidst a descriptive recounting all of Israel's sins regarding the flotilla raid. In the context of Operation Cast Lead, again the description of the 1,450 Palestinians killed and 5,300 wounded, Mitchell said something like "there were rockets and a mere 6 Israelis were killed". Again he said something about that being unfair.

Mitchell started off by explaining that while Alison's task was to explain the humanitarian situation in Gaza and Mike Felson's task was to explain the Workmen's Circle position paper regarding, I believe the flotilla (or it could have been the Gaza blockade), he was given no specific task, so he could sound off/philosophize to his heart's content.

Mitchell was the most revealing in terms of the goals of J Street and the Workmen's circle vis-a-vis Israel, and the most interesting of the panelists. Alison stayed true to her advertised role as the "expert" on Gaza, while Mike Felson, who largely I couldn't figure out what he was trying to get across or what he was saying, stuck to explaining the position paper of the Workmen's circle. By the way, no one actually addressed the topic "Is it good for the Jews" which was supposed to be the reason for the panel discussion, other than Mitchell saying that it depends on your point of view; evil Israel thinks it is good, but he thinks it isn't.

Mitchell's presentation I would say was divided into three parts.

I. THE REASON FOR JEWS TO EXIST

He started off by informing us what is the reason for the existence of the Jewish people. Mitchell stated that he could think of three possible reasons. The first was "wacko-bizarro", the second was "paranoid-delusional", and the third was what he believed was the actual reason for the existence of Jews. I'll briefly state his theory.

I'm paraphrasing and am not hitting the actual adjectives he used. The whacko-bizarro reason was to perform these weird rituals from thousands of years ago and to believe in a weird God (he didn't use the word weird but synonyms for weird/wacky).

The paranoid-delusional reason was to avoid extermination. Mitchell had two objections to this. First of all is this really a reason for Jews to exist and to have Israel? He felt this is absurd. Secondly he objected because it was paranoid. There is no threat against the Jewish people or Israel; rather Israel is evil. Mitchell made the point that young Jews say that they feel no threat against them; everything is hunky-dory; that young Jews ask what reason do they have to be Jewish. This is the point at which Mitchell brought in the Beinart article and the real reason for Jews to exist.

The real reason for Jews to exist is to be ethical, to help the community, to be nice to people, to improve the world. He stated a bunch of reasons which I consider to be so vague that they made no impression on me.

COMMENT: I could feel the audience approval and identification with the air of superiority and condescension in Mitchell's body language and tone of voice; the "we're much more educated and sophisticated than the primitive Jews who are wacko-bizarro and paranoid-delusional."

II. SOLOMONIA - COMBINED JEWISH CHARITIES (CJP) - BARRY SCHRAGE

Mitchell perhaps runs Workmen's Circle, because he spent the 2nd part of his presentation obsessing over a Conservative Jewish website called Solomonia. He devoted more time to Solomonia and the CJP and Barry Schrage then to the other two topics. Apparently Solomonia posted an opinion that Workmen's Circle is so anti-Israel that they should not be considered as part of the Jewish community; or something like that.

Mitchell stated that "divergent views" must be allowed in the Jewish community and that it is of utmost importance that Workmen's Circle have "a seat at the table". At one point he said that Workmen's Circle should "lead" the Jewish agenda (he didn't use this exact word) vis-a-vis USA-Israel.

His worry seemed to be the CJP and Barry Schrage, who is the Executive Director of the CJP. Workmen's Circle gets some funding from CJP. Mitchell talked to Barry Schrage and Barry showed Mitchell or talked to him about Solomonia. There was a back and forth and Mitchell is worried about the Workmen's Circle not "getting a seat at the table" of the Jewish community.

The main point here was that "divergent views" must be accepted in the Jewish community and that Workmen's Circle ought to have a "seat at the table".

III. ISRAEL AND PEACE

This was the last and most interesting part of his talk.

Mitchell stated that the biggest problem with the USA is not the $2B in aid which we give to Israel but rather the political support and cover we give to evil Israel. Mitchell said that if the United States were to withdraw its political support from Israel then peace would result immediately. That's because Israel would be totally isolated. The result of the withdrawal of USA support would be a total boycott/divestment of Israel by every country in the world. This would bring about immediate peace because it would force Israel to finally agree to make peace with the Palestinians.

He expressed one reservation to this total isolation of Israel, namely, Israel would be in a position of "nothing to lose" and he feared that the Israelis would do something terrible to the Palestinians. He didn't state what that might be, but it hung in the air, it was implied; genocide and expulsion.

Mitchell said that President Obama had the power to impose a peace settlement; he could force the Israelis. The problem is the support for Israel in the Congress. He stated that it is the job of Workmen's Circle and J Street to give cover to President Obama and also to let the Congress know that the majority of Jews don't agree with AIPAC. AIPAC has the political power but not the support of Jews.

Mitchell implied that President Obama wants to impose a settlement on Israel, but he is afraid to do anything now because of the coming elections. Mitchell stated that President Obama fears alienating the Jewish community at this point; he particularly emphasized the fear of losing the big campaign contributions. Mitchell stated that after the elections, watch what President Obama does with Israel (I don't remember if he said 2010 or 2012, but I believe he said 2012). He clearly implied that once President Obama doesn't need the pro-Israel support he'll cook Israel's goose, which is good because that will finally bring peace and harmony to the Palestinians and Israelis.

As I already mentioned, Mitchell criticized Israel for the flotilla raid and for Operation Cast Lead. Mitchell gave his theory as to why Israel raided the flotilla. He had three theories: 1) Israel wants to turn Gaza's population against Hamas. He dismissed this theory because, he stated, the popularity of Hamas increases the more evil Israel does; 2) Israel wants to prevent weapons from reaching Hamas. Mitchell dismissed this theory as absurd because Hamas is getting all the weapons it wants from the tunnels; it's clearly a failed policy; 3) Israel doesn't want the world to know that it doesn't want to make peace with the Palestinians. Israel's strategy is to anger the peace loving Palestinian population to such a degree that they will refuse to make peace with Israel; thus Israel is off the hook. So this third theory plainly was the reason for the attack on the flotilla in international waters and the other violations of international law by Israel.

I didn't take notes but among other statements which Mitchell made is that besides being allowed to vote, Arabs have no other rights in Israel. Also he stated that Israel is a theocracy. He also said that while Netanyahu publicly claims that he accepts a two state solution he is lying. Mitchell stated that this is the most right wing government of Israel in 30 years.

Mitchell stated that he and J Street are pro-Israel and Zionist. He stated that he supports the Saudi plan of a two state solution. For those are unaware, the Saudi plan calls for Israel to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, give up East Jerusalem and allow all Arab "refugees" to "return" to Israel. Under this plan Jews would become a minority in Israel; Israel would cease to exist after the first democratically held election. In that regard and in regard to a discussion which Mitchell had with a cultured, educated, and peace loving Palestinian who was willing to countenance Jews living alongside Palestinians in Israel, Mitchell stated that there could even be a modified right of return for Jews in such a state. Not the full right of return though.

One statement Mitchell made which I consider shocking even after having heard all that I did at this panel discussion was when Mitchell said that Israel is becoming or already is a "fascist" state. Mitchell then added "like Germany". Mitchell started to explain that such a thing happens when a state does evil things. From his facial expression I could see that he thought better of developing this idea any further and dropped the subject.

MIKE FELSON PRESENTATION

Mike reminds me of the poem "As I was walking up the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today, I wish to heck he'd go away".

Mike was the man who wasn't there for me. The reason is that by this time I heard all about how evil Israel is, so Mike piling on no longer impressed. Also I was thinking of what comments I would make and how I could get in the maximum number of points before they'd shout me down.

Mike is a high level employee at Workmen's Circle and he was supposed to talk about the position paper of Workmen's Circle re the flotillas. I can't recall a blessed thing the guy said. Even the crowd made comments about his presentation to which Mike responded that "the position paper is posted on the Workmen's Circle website and I'm not going to read it here".

So I don't know what the Workmen's Circle position paper says and I don't care; it ain't good for Israel for sure.

QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD

I decided I'd wait for a few people to question/comment so that I could "get the lay of the land"; perhaps there were other Israel defenders in the room; plus I'd get a feel for the crowd.

After a few questions I noticed the moderator pointing at people going "you're one, you're two, you're three, you're four". So I quickly raised my hand and he pointed at me "you're five".

I had with me the flyers I had prepared and distributed at a Code Pink sponsored event at a Unitarian church in Essex where a Col. Wright, one of the "peace activist" on the Gaza flotilla, spread blood libels about the United States and Israel. I was shouted down at this event with "shut up" and "sit down". Jews were accused of being thieves; one guy said that it was the Jews, not the Turks who committed the Armenian genocide. That "peace" event prepared me for the Workmen's Circle event in the sense that I expected to be shouted down. I had also printed out my letter to the Jewish Journal of the North Shore, which had some quotes from the Hamas Charter. I had these in hand and had been glancing at them periodically to remind myself where the quotes were located.

I guess the guy behind me noticed. When it was my turn, I walked out to the front of the room which was about 4-5 steps so that I could see the panel and everyone in the room. People had been rising to ask their questions but no one had gone to the front of the room.

So the guy sitting behind me commands me bellowing "go back to your seat, go back to your seat, go back to your seat". I explain that I can see everyone from where I stood and appealed to the moderator and panel. The moderator indicated that he agreed with this guy who kept ordering me vehemently to go back to my seat. I took two steps, so that I was in front of the first row of chairs and asked how about here? This is a seat. The guy, in stentorian tones, bellows vehemently "no, go back to your seat, go back to your seat, go back to your seat".

So I went back to my seat. My choice now was either to face the panel and the front part of the L shaped room or to turn my back on the panel and face the back part of the room. So I addressed the panel and front part of the L shaped room; I couldn't see the people in the back.

Although I did get shouted down by the crowd, the panel to their credit, did not join in. In fact Mitchell said something to the effect why don't you wrap up and I added about 2-3 more sentences because I noticed that the crowd was not in any mood to hear more from me.

Also, to their credit, in their response to me, the panel did not resort to ad hominem attacks. They each stated that we'll have to agree to disagree. Also after the talk everyone was polite and I did not feel unwelcome. There even were refreshments.

The first thing I said was that in regard to why do Jews exist, Judaic values are the basis of Western civilization. That the cornerstone of Judaism, yetsi'at mitzra'im, the exodus from Egypt, is Individual Liberty, which is the cornerstone of Western Civilization.

Later it occurred to me that what I had wanted to say was that Judaism is the first and the only revolutionary ideology in the history of humankind. All subsequent ideologies (and I exclude Christianity because it is the daughter religion of Judaism which holds to the same values) are counter-revolutionary, and in particular all Leftist ideologies which are inherently totalitarian are counter-revolutionary. I was feeling stressed and this didn't come to my brain and I regret not saying it.

I then reminded everyone that Mitchell had talked about the importance of allowing divergent views to be expressed in the Jewish community and I had a divergent view from that of the panel; the panel nodded in understanding.

I said that from what I heard tonight, Israeli Jews are very very very evil people; one or two of the panelists nodded a 'no' in disagreement.

Then I listed the words which had not been spoken by the panelists like suicide bombers, 6000 - 8000 rockets raining down on southern Israel, and Iran. I stated that if we discussed the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and made no mention of the Germans we'd have to say that the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto threw firebombs at the Germans and did some very evil things.

Then I informed the crowd about the situation in Gaza. I mentioned that the NYT and WaPo both stated that the shelves are stocked fully in Gaza shops and that the NYT quoted Gaza residents as saying that the lifting of the blockade would improve life but only at the margins.

I then went quickly through the statistics re Gaza, the life expectancy, the standard of living, the infant mortality rate.

Then I laid out very succinctly who Hamas is; that their charter identifies them as the Muslim Brotherhood. I was moving along at a fast clip because I expected to get shouted down so I didn't include everything. I told the crowd that the Muslim Brotherhood instigated pogroms against the Jews of Palestine in the 1930s, that they were allies of the Nazis in the Final Solution, that after the birth of Israel they instigated riots against the Jews who had lived in the Middle East for Millenniums before the advent of Islam, that Arab mobs chanting Itbach al yahood, slaughter the Jews raged through the Muslim lands, that the Jews were forced on ships with just the clothes on their backs and shipped to Israel, and that nearly half of the population of Israel are descendants of these Jews.

I then stated that the Hamas Charter states that Israel is a waqf, an Islamic endowment until the end of time as is any country which the Muslim ever conquered; countries conquered in part or in whole by Muslims include Romania, Austria, France, Spain, India, and China.

Then quickly I read three quotes from the Hamas Charter, namely that peace is contrary to their religious beliefs, that they believe in the murder of every Jew on earth and the Hamas slogan.

+++++++

That's when the crowd started screaming things like "sit down", "we've heard enough from you", etc. To his credit Mitchell after a while shushed the crowd and asked me to wrap up. I said that Tel Aviv is 40 miles north of Gaza; if Iran ever slips a nuclear bomb into Gaza then most of Israel's Jews will die because neither Hamas nor Iran has any compunction about annihilating Jews.

The panelists devoted quite a bit of time responding to me. The panelists had shown me respect by not interrupting me and I intended to do the same even though I knew that there would be no more pro-Israel statements heard. I did blurt out thrice during their response but very briefly.

Alison was first. She said that we'll have to agree to disagree; that we have different facts (which is correct). She said that she believes the U.N. reports; that's who she trusts. I blurted out that I don't trust the U.N. and got shouted down. Her defense of Hamas was that it was democratically elected, I was thinking that so was Hitler but she hadn't interrupted me so I returned the courtesy. She also said that Israel had promoted Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO. She maintained her role as the Gaza expert not venturing beyond that for the entire evening.

With the exception of Alison stating that she agrees with the U.N. rather than with what I had to say about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, no other challenge was made to the assertions I had made.

Mitchell spent the most time responding to me. He started off by stating that while Individual Liberty is certainly a fine Jewish value that there are several others good ones like being nice to the stranger and social justice and a few more. I blurted out that those are certainly nice values but that Individual Liberty is the central value of Judaism.

Next Mitchell indicated that he was more flexible than Alison regarding the situation in Gaza. And then I heard the word Hamas (outside of my use of the word) for perhaps the third time in the evening; and the first time with any negative connotation. Mitchell said that he dislikes all religious fanatics so he doesn't like Hamas. Also he is "almost a pacifist" so he mentioned a bunch of things which Hamas does which he doesn't like; they don't treat women well, etc. I blurted out the third and final time that there are videos of Hamas executing unarmed Fatah fighters in the streets of Gaza; again the crowd reacted against me. I really tried to respect the right of the panelists to have their say uninterrupted.

The only other thing of particular note which Mitchell said, was that Hamas is more complex than I make it out to be; there are peace loving folks in Hamas; I shouldn't look at Hamas in a black or white manner (I'm paraphrasing).

Mitchell also said that if Israel stopped attacking Hamas and dropped the blockade and allowed Hamas to do whatever it liked then the people of Gaza would notice that Hamas is mean to women and would notice all of their other faults, and the people of Gaza would get rid of Hamas. Getting rid of Hamas according to Mitchell is quite simple.

Mike Felson also spoke but nothing worth noting here.

Then the evening returned to questions by other members of the crowd. There were two older ladies. To one of the remarks that I believe Mitchell made, one of the ladies blurted out that her daughter in Israel had to live in a bomb shelter with her kids. She got shushed up quickly. The moderator told her that she'd have to wait her turn. She asked for a turn and the moderator was imminently fair but she kept trying to her say and the moderator and the crowd kept telling her that it wasn't her turn. Finally she and her friend got up and left. I grabbed two of my flyers and followed them out. They took my flyers. They were flummoxed; they were blubbering "what kind of people are these?" I explained to them that "Jews are the dumbest people on earth". They looked very frustrated as they thanked me for speaking up for Israel. They seemed to be in shock that no one else had.

Of note was an orthodox Jew present. He thanked Mitchell profusely and then launched into an explanation of an article he read about some Arab who had proposed some kind of peace deal. This guy babbled for a lot longer than I did and he was incomprehensible to me. Mitchell asked him to clarify but I didn't even understand Mitchell, it was so bad. But no one asked this Orthodox Jew to stop. There was at least one other person who spoke as long as I and he didn't get shouted down. Also people blurted things without anyone shushing them.

In the crowd were a bunch of Workmen's Circle employees who made comments. Everyone of them had been to Gaza and had seen the "terrible conditions" there. The lady sitting in front of me was the director of children's education (she's been to Gaza). Her comment was that the most popular Workmen's Circle program with the kids was "social justice"; the comment was in support of Mitchell's finding that the raison d'être of the Jews was to be "ethical". Mitchell, in regard to Jews being ethical, talked about "speaking Truth to Power", Truth being the agenda stated by the Workmen's Circle and the J Street agenda and Power being evil Israel.

Many (most) of the questions after my comments were puzzling to me. People kept bringing up that Israel is a theocracy. One person asked if Israel being a theocracy was the reason that Israel attacked the flotilla. One person asked if perhaps the Arabs in Israel with their high birthrate would become the majority soon. Mitchell fielded that one, noting sadly that the Orthodox birthrate is nearing the Arab birthrate so no chance of that. There was snickering about the Orthodox birthrate. Mitchell neglected to point out that the Arab birthrate is also decreasing (I believe that's due to increased affluence of the Arab population). Israel being an apartheid state was also discussed in some detail; the segregation of the Jewish and Arab population and Israel creating "Bantustans" in the West Bank.

The thing that Mitchell emphasized, in my opinion, throughout the evening was the need for Workmen's Circle members and Progressive Jews to give cover to President Obama and people in the Congress to vote against what Israel wanted and against the AIPAC agenda; that it was important for these people to know that they would get the Progressive Jews' votes and financing. Mitchell talked about such a Congressman in PA that J Street is financing. On this point Alison stated that Sharon didn't want to leave Gaza; that it was Condi Rice who told Sharon that he had to leave. Alison and the crowd chuckled over that one. The point being that I got out of this is that evil Israel which doesn't want to make peace with the Palestinians, can be made to do so by the United States, thus alleviating the suffering of the Palestinians who do want to make peace.

AFTER THE PANEL DISCUSSION

The moderator came over and apologized for cutting me off; he blamed it on the format of the evening . I believe that he was sincere and I told him not to worry about it. Then Mitchell came over and also apologized. I believed he also was sincere. He explained that the purpose of the evening was to inform the members of Workmen's Circle its position regarding the flotilla and Gaza. Had I known that, I wouldn't have shown up; that's not how Workmen's Circle advertised the evening. He then asked me about my two friends who had left earlier; I explained to him that I had never met those ladies. The moderator came back and apologized again about cutting me off. Then Mitchell said that it wasn't that Israeli Jews are very, very bad; it's the government. Mitchell also stated that he wasn't anti-Israel; he has lived in Israel and has family in Israel. The moderator and Mitchell actually had interrupted a convesation I was having with a psychologist from Cambridge who had engaged me in regard to Hamas. I was struck by the tone and the exact phrasing of his comments that this gentlemen doesn't believe that Hamas actually means what it says. I found myself saying to a point he was making "you mean Hamas' intentions toward Israel rather than its language".

It was an intense evening for me.