Deeply Flawed Proposed "Resolution to Define and Address Antisemitism": Please contact the County Council and County Executive

 This is an important issue in Montgomery County for anyone who wishes resist antisemitism (which is principally a problem coming from the right-wing), to protect freedom of speech, and to block attempts in some quarters to suppress, chill, or censor certain views on how to protect those who live in Israel and Palestine from the unfairness and brutality which has made it so difficult to find a peaceful and just resolution in that troubled part of the world.  

Below is the letter I wrote to the Montgomery County Council.  Anyone moved to chime in -- and action is needed before Tuesday morning -- should reach out to these officials:

Councilmember Sydney Katz - Office: (240) 777-7906,

email: Councilmember.Katz@Montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Gabe Albernoz - Office: (240) 777-7959,

email: Councilmember.Albornoz@montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Evan Glass - Office: (240) 777-7966, 

email: Councilmember.Glass@montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Tom Hucker - Office: (240) 777-7960,

email: Councilmember.Hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Will Jawando - Office: (240) 777-7811,

email: Councilmember.Jawando@montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Nancy Navarro - Office: (240) 777-7968,

email: Councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Craig Rice - Office: (240) 777-7955,

email: Councilmember.Rice@montgomerycountymd.gov

Councilmember Hans Riemer - Office: (240) 777-7964,

email: Councilmember.Riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov

Council: ember Andrew Friedson - Office: (240) 777-7828,

email Councilmember.Friedson@montgomerycountymd.gov

County Executive Marc Elrich - Office: ​​(240) 777-0311

July 23, 2022

 

Gabe Albornoz, President

Montgomery County Council

Councilmember.Albornoz@montgomerycountymd.gov

 

RE:  Resolution to Define and Address Antisemitism

 

Dear President Albornoz:

 

I am writing to express my deep concern about the Resolution to Define and Address Antisemitism, scheduled to come before the Council this coming Tuesday, because the particular definition selected would result in serious harm to other values we cherish. The Resolution, while well-intended, would be divisive within the Jewish Community, as well as among other groups who sincerely seek a just peace in the Middle East.  I urge you to remove the Resolution from Tuesday’s agenda so that the Council and the community can grapple with the dangers of using the proposed definition.

 

As a long-time active member of the Jewish Community in Montgomery County, a past Board member of my Reform Congregation, and as a member of the Commission on Social Action of the Union for Reform Judaism, I certainly support a reaffirmation of the County’s commitment to counter antisemitism, discrimination, and hate.  But I strongly oppose the Resolution’s codification of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s “working definition” of antisemitism – a definition which the IHRA itself describes as a “a non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism.”

 

At the outset, it is imperative to note that the Union for Reform Judaism – the umbrella organization of the largest segment of American Jewry -- explained last year why the IHRA “working definition,” while having positive uses, should never be codified into law (see full statement here):

 

Our commitment to principles of free speech and concerns about the potential abuse of the [IHRA] definition compel us to urge its use only as intended: as a guide and an awareness raising tool.  The definition should not be codified into policy that would trigger potentially problematic punitive action to circumscribe speech, efforts which have been particularly aimed at college students and human rights activists. If the effect of application of the IHRA definition is to limit free speech, it threatens to divide the broad coalition needed to combat antisemitism.

 

IHRA’s opening words introducing the “working definition” clarify the intent that it serves as a “non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism” with examples as a “guide.”

[Emphases added]

 

The IHRA definition includes eleven “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere.”  The proposed County Council Resolution, at Action Item 1, specifically provides that “Montgomery County adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism, including the eleven contemporary examples, and endorses the use of the working definition as a framework to identify discrimination rooted in antisemitism.” And it does so in the context of the statement at Background Item 5, which notes that “Discrimination on the basis of religion, race, and ethnicity is unlawful under the County’s human rights law, as well as under state and federal law.” The Resolution thus contravenes the IHRA’s stated intention that its “working definition be “non-legally binding” and opens up the potential mischief that the Union for Reform Judaism statement warned against.

 

While most of the “contemporary examples” in the IHRA “working definition” are uncontroversial, some can easily (and improperly) be used to label people of good faith – including Jews – as anti-semites.  That is why the IHRA calls its entire document a “non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism.” See also, I Drafted the Definition of Antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are Weaponizing It, by Kenneth Stern (2019), responding to former President Trump’s efforts to stamp out dissent through use of the IHRA definition examples.  

 

For instance, the 8^th example is “[a]pplying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”  Many American Jews vigorously oppose actions of the Israeli Government regarding Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and East Jerusalem, and, according to a poll taken by the American Jewish Committee, an overwhelming majority want Israel to be willing to dismantle some or all of the settlements as part of a two-state solution. They expect Israel to act better because, to use the famous Hebrew National advertising phrase, “we answer to a higher authority.”  They oppose certain Israeli government actions not in spite of being Jews, but because they are Jews.  They expect more of their Israeli cousins. That, surely, does not make them anti-semites. And it certainly should not be a basis to bring legal actions for discrimination.

 

The 7^th example is “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a ‘racist endeavor.’”  In our own country, we are now engaged in painful, but needed, discussions as to the degree to which the United States, through European Americans’ extermination of indigenous peoples and the building of an economy on the backs of enslaved Africans, was (and continues to be) a “racist endeavor.”  Recognizing such embarrassing elements in our history and present-day circumstances does not make people anti-American.  As the American statesman Carl Schurz proclaimed a century and a half ago, “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” Those who point out a nation’s flaws – whether that nation is the United States, or Israel, or any other nation – in order to help it get on the right track are not enemies of that nation.  And pointing out such problems certainly should not be a basis to bring legal actions for discrimination.  I am certain that no one on the Council would criminalize statements about observations concerning racism in America.  The same should certainly apply with respect to Israel.  

 

I am also certain that no one on the Council, including the Resolution’s sponsor, Councilmember Friedson, intends such a result with respect to discussions about Israel.  But, as explained above, on close examination the implications of unanticipated consequences are clear.

 

While the Resolution is well-intentioned, we should not include in our County’s reassertion of its unalterable opposition to anti-semitism a “working” definition that does more harm than good.  Codifying it into law would open the door to abuses for which it was never intended. So any resolution that includes the IHRA “working definition” examples should be rejected.

 

I am cc’g the other members of the Council and County Executive Elrich.

 

Sincerely,

 

David S. Fishback

Olney MD

 

CC:  County Councilmembers Friedson, Glass, Hucker, Jawando, Katz, Navarro, Rice, Riemer

        County Executive Elrich (via County Executive portal)

 

Montgomery County Executive Primary: The Developers Strike Back

In 2018, wealthy developer Charles K. Nulsen III headed up a group calling itself County Above Party to defeat Marc Elrich in the general election, after Mr. Elrich defeated David Blair in the primary.  At that time, I wrote about the earlier iteration of “County Above Party", noting its origins in misleading Republican-backed attacks which resulted in a Republican takeover of County Government in the 1962 election.  See here.  

Mr. Elrich won the general election with 64.7% of the vote. See here.

Now Mr. Nulsen is spear-heading similar, misleading efforts against Mr. Elrich, who is now running for reelection.  See here.   In recent weeks, anyone watching television (or Democrats with mail boxes)  have become familiar with the dark attack ads run and distributed by Mr. Nulsen's groups -- ads which typically do not clearly identify the source.  Mr. Blair's campaign, sadly, has stooped to similar advertising.

Leaders from across Montgomery County, including former County Executive Ike Leggett, are denouncing these developer efforts. See here.  See, also last Friday's WAMU Politics Hour with Kojo Namdi (the portion beginning at 12:27:50; portions of the printed transcript are muddled, but the audio is clear).  

Those who have not yet cast their votes for the July 19 primary should consider the sources of these attacks. 

Endorsements for the July 19 Primary Election

Every election cycle, I am asked by many friends, “Who are you voting for?” 

 

BOARD OF EDUCATION

 

Mostly, I am asked about the Montgomery County Board of Education contests, since I have been an activist in Montgomery County Public Schools matters since 1984.  I started as Co-President of the Rosemary Hills Primary Magnet Integration School PTA and later served as Public Affairs Director of the Gifted and Talented Association (a terrible name for what was often a very useful organization).  In this Century, I have been proponent of constructive policies on LGBTQ+ matters, first as Chair of the Board of Education’s Family Life and Human Development Committee and then as Metro DC PFLAG’s Chair and then Co-Chair for Maryland Advocacy.  In that latter role, I helped develop candidate questionnaires for BOE candidates on LGBTQ+ issues.

 

I have always been concerned that candidates who are anti-LGBTQ+ might seek to fly under the radar in the down-ballot Board of Education races, in which voter turnout is lower than in other contests.  That was very much the case in 2010, but we were able to bring that to light, and to defeat the “stealth candidate.”  See pp. 15-16 of this report.

 

The answers to this year’s Metro DC PFLAG questionnaire may be found at the following hyperlinks:

At-Large 

District 1 

District 3 

District 5 

 

After reviewing the questionnaire answers and attending virtual campaign forums, I have decided to vote for incumbents Karla Silvestre (At-Large), Scott Joftus (District 3), and Brenda Wolff (District 5), as well as for Grace Rivera Oven (District 1).  (Long-time District 1 member Judy Docca is retiring.) 

(NOTES: 

My endorsements are as an individual, not as a representative of Metro DC PFLAG.  

Although District candidates must live in that District, all Montgomery County voters may vote in all the contests.)

 

All the incumbents have excellent records on LGBTQ+ matters and have been responsible for the enormous progress made by MCPS in recent years.  With respect to other issues, I believe they have done well, including on matters that have not had obvious resolution – notably with respect to the Covid pandemic.  All of them will certainly stand up to the kind of attacks that we are seeing from right-wingers in other jurisdictions.  That the incumbent candidates are willing to stand for reelection speaks to their dedication and stamina.  The last couple of years had to have been hell for them. 

 

My review of her answers and my conversations with Ms. Rivera Oven convince me that she would be the best addition to the Board from District 1.

 

Candidates Valerie Coll, Domenic Giandomenico, Jay Guan, and Julie Yang gave very good answers, as well.  And from what I know of them, they all would make good members of the Board of Education.  It is encouraging that so many candidates understand the needs of the community on important LGBTQ+ matters.  Still, for me, at the end of the day, the experience of Ms. Silvestre, Ms. Rivera Oven, Dr. Joftus, Ms. Wolff warrant their election.

 

I can only assume that the three candidates who failed to respond to the Metro DC PFLAG questionnaire at all would have had answers that would have been an anathema to those who care about LGBTQ+ students and staff and their families.  I made every effort to enable them to respond.  Some other candidates provided answers that suggested some ambiguity. Hostility or ambiguity as to LGBTQ+ matters at this stage of the public discussions in Montgomery County are, for me, veto points.  All students must be protected, included, and made to feel welcome in our MCPS community.

OTHER CONTESTS

As a registered Democrat, living in Congressional District 8, Legislative District 14, and Council District 7, here is how I will be voting:

Governor:  Tom Perez

Attorney General:  Anthony Brown

Comptroller:  Brooke Lierman

Senate:  Chris Van Hollen

Congress:  Jamie Raskin

State Senate:  Craig Zucker

House of Delegates:  Anne Kaiser, Eric Luedtke, Pamela Queen

County Executive:  Marc Elrich

A prefatory note on the County Council contests: I am a long-time member of Jews United for Justice and I participated in most of JUFJ Campaign Fund (JUFJ C-4) interviews for the At-Large and District 7 candidates.  In so doing, I learned a lot about the candidates. (Tom Hucker did not file as a candidate for County Council until after the JUFJ C-4 process had closed.)  If anyone is interested, a list of the JUFJ C-4 endorsements may be found here. The JUFJ Campaign Fund did not make an endorsement for District 7.

I will be voting as follows:

County Council At-Large:  Evan Glass, Tom Hucker, Will Jawando, Lauri-Anne Sayles

As for the County Council District 7 race, some candidates declined to respond to the JUFJ C-4 questionnaire and to be interviewed.  That sent a signal to me that they likely were so far out of line with JUFJ's progressive values that I would not find them to be good choices.  I was particularly impressed with two of the candidates who were interviewed:  Dawn Luedtke and Ben Wiker.  In addition to the formal interview with the JUFJ C-4 Committee, I had follow-up one-on-one conversations with both of them. Each would bring different strengths to the Council.  

Ms. Luedtke, a Maryland State Assistant Attorney General, clearly knows a lot about local governance and has handled a number of important matters in outgoing AG Brian Frosh's office, including the training of police who are assigned as School Resource Officers.  She understands the challenges of such training, and is very committed to seeing that program work.  I differ with her as to whether the traditional SRO programs inevitably do more harm than good. But this is a matter over which reasonable people can differ, and her experience would be an asset to the Council. Her website is here.

Rev. Wiker is a newcomer to governmental matters.  But as pastor of a diverse upcounty church, he founded the Equity Center in Lake Forest Mall, which has worked to help those in need as a result of the pandemic.  In these efforts, he has learned how important county governmental support is -- and how difficult it can be to access that support.  In my conversations with him, I found him to be a sincere, open-minded, progressive person.  He does not have fully-formed views or experience on most governmental issues, but his experience and voice as a grass-roots, hands-on activist for those in need would be an asset to the Council.  We probably should not have a Council made up of 11 Ben Wiker, but it might be a very good idea to have at least one.  His website is here. 

I do not know whether Ben has been able to put together a strong enough campaign to make him a contender in this seven-candidate field.  So I am still undecided as between Ben and Dawn. I hope these short analyses will help others decide.