Cosby Case Shows Need For More Victims’ Support

By: Eli Verschleiser

It is difficult, but not impossible to believe that the same man who was America’s favorite, funniest TV dad for eight years and served as a role model could be accused of horrible sexual trespasses over the course of his long life as a celebrity.

Nor, sadly, is it hard to accept the possibility since the end of his show in 1992, Bill Cosby spoke out publicly on responsibility and morality, while privately practicing neither.

Abusers can often be very affable and endearing leaders who espouse values they do not embody.

More surprising is the fact that Cosby, if he is guilty of these awful allegations has made it to this stage in his life without facing the consequences of his actions.

AP BILL COSBY A ENT USA PA

Disbelievers may say this increases the doubt – why would victims stay silent when the star was at the peak of his popularity, only to come after him in his sunset years?

But to those of us who are active in the victim advocacy community, the silence of years or decades or even a lifetime is all too common.

Only years after the death of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach, leader of a major spiritual revival movement, did a group of women come forward with tales of improper physical contact.

In the armed forces in particular, women subjected to abuse sometimes wait until they or their abuser have left the service until reporting crimes. In religious communities, fear of ostracization or even consequence from God as a result of accusing a revered clergyman can keep secretes perpetually buried and imperil more people.

And sadly, it’s safe to assume that whether the setting is a college campus, a home, church or yeshiva, a large share of incidents and, possibly the majority, will never be reported at all. In all too many cases, a result can be suicide, as the victim can live no longer with the torment.

When people do find the admirable courage to speak out and accuse the powerful of abuse, there can be a cascade effect, as in the case of Rabbi Baruch Lanner, who for years terrorized children involved in a youth group he ran. When stories emerged in a Jewish newspaper, more victims came forward to press charges that sent the rabbi to jail. That’s what we are seeing in the Cosby case as decades-old walls of silence collapse.

Attorney Gloria Allred, representing some alleged victims, has challenged the comedian to waive the statute of limitations and allow one of the cases against him to tried in court to settle the question of guilt or innocence. But this is more theatrical than realistic.

It’s likely that Cosby will only be tried in the court of public opinion.

So, absent convictions, the best result that can come from this disturbing list of allegations against a beloved figure who may have hoodwinked America about his character is that more victims will feel safe coming forward --  for their own good and for the sake of protecting other potential victims.  To do that, it’s incumbent on society, courts, lawmakers and others to establish better conditions for them.

We must do away with the sense of futility associated with coming forward. If it takes someone years to find the courage, or if they come forward in the interests of protecting others, they should not be hampered by the statute of limitations.

Professor Marci Hamilton one of the United States’ leading church/state scholars has advocated for extending criminal and civil Statutes of limitation (SOLs ) which can vary widely, from two or three years to 30 (as in the case of Connecticut) or no limitations at all as Arkansas and Alaska. These new legislation trends should be encouraged by all.

Another answer is greater education that empowers victims to come forward by teaching them to speak out at an early age. Organizations like Lauren's Kids and Magenu.org educates adults and children about sexual abuse topics through in school curricula and speaking engagements around the country.

Erin’s law, championed by Erin Merryn, promotes legislation for prevention education from kindergarten through high schools.  It is now law in 19 states. A similar law should be passed at the federal level to include all educators in America.

We have come a long way since the days when Bill Cosby’s crimes are alleged to have taken place. Hopefully better awareness and more empowerment will mean fewer people falling prey to these kinds of crimes, but we must do everything we can to ensure that today’s victims won’t be confronting their accusers decades down the road, if they do so at all.

The Familiar Face of Terror, And Resolve

The blood shed from Nov. 18's massacre of 4 rabbis &
one Israeli  at a synagogue in Jerusalem. Photo: Twitter

By: Eli Verschleiser

Living in the Har Nof section of Jerusalem more than 20 years ago, I knew what terror was like. In those days, it was the Scud missiles of Saddam Hussein that brought fear, but also a lesson in faith, determination, and the simple resolve of people that want to live a peaceful life in their country at all costs.

Like other mostly American communities in the Jewish state, Har Nof has only grown tenfold, instead of families running back to the United States where a majority of these residents were born and raised. But as we saw last month, regardless of their desire to do nothing more than live, work, study and pray, there will still be those determined to deprive them of all of the above.

The horrific carnage that erupted inside a Har Nof synagogue on Nov. 19 reminded me of the old adage coined by Abba Eban that those who want to destroy Israel “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

After gaining widespread sympathy during the Gaza war provoked by Hamas rockets last summer, those who embraced or justified this attack, and the vehicular homicides in Jerusalem that shortly preceded it, have brought back a familiar narrative: senseless targeting not of military forces controlling Palestinian areas but the soft underbelly of Israeli society, its women and children and rabbis at prayer who do not serve in the army.

Some have attempted to link the attacks to a so-called “dispute” over the holy Temple Mount and recent moves by some Jews to gain the right to openly pray there (as if this might justify the horrific gun and ax attack).

Since the very idea of this “dispute” is fiction – Prime Minister Netanyahu has rejected any notion of change in religious control of the site – the linkage is even more preposterous.

What’s more likely happening is that Arabs from east Jerusalem, who have free access to the rest of the city, are being prodded by Palestinian jihad groups to pick up the slack in terror attacks caused by the highly successful security barrier. The object of international scorn, this 430 mile fence has nevertheless drastically reduced homicide bombing infiltrations.

Now, instead of bombs we see attacks with cars and construction equipment or, stabbings and shootings.

These attacks are celebrated by some Palestinians, and a Hamas spokesman reacted to the Har Nof attack by saying “The new operation is heroic and a natural reaction to Zionist criminality against our people and our holy places. We have the full right to revenge for the blood of our martyrs in all possible means."

While Fatah Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the attack, he made a desperate attempt at linkage by decrying in the same statement “incursions and provocations by settlers against the Aksa Mosque.”

In a bitter rebuke to Abbas and Israel’s international critics, Ambassador Ron Dermer on Nov. 24 decried the “fog [that] descends to cloud all logic and moral clarity [when the Israel-Palestinian conflict is discussed. ] The result isn’t realpolitik, its surrealpolitik.”

Supporters will claim that the absence of peace talks and harsh rhetoric from Israeli extremists fuel Palestinian rage and invite attacks such as the Har Nof atrocity.

It is clear that Jewish right-wingers do seem to strike great fear in the hearts of Palestinians and their supporters: Meir Kahane of the Kach Party and Rahavam Zeevi of Moledet, who advocated expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank, were assassinated by Arab gunmen in 1990 and 2001, and in October another tried unsuccessfully to kill Rabbi Yehudah Glick for his advocacy of Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount.

But Palestinians know full well the Israeli mainstream is ready for peace and willing to make great sacrifices if they only had a partner that is willing, trustworthy and capable of delivering on promises of coexistence.

To see the likelihood of that, one need look to Gaza, handed over to 1.5 million Palestinians almost a decade ago in the best of hopes, with significant restrictions by Israel that would have surely been eased over time had trust been gained.

Like many people, I would love to one day have an opportunity to visit beach side resorts operated by the Palestinians in Gaza, on one of the most beautiful shores of the Mediterranean, in a state negotiated by the parties with the help of the US.

But the coastline that could have attracted throngs of tourists from Europe and international investment has instead become the object of intense Israeli blockades to keep out weapons shipments from Iran and other terror supporters.

Beautiful, innovative, productive greenhouses built by Jews were destroyed, as labor and creativity was put instead to the smuggling and firing of rockets. Concrete that could have built schools and hospitals above ground instead went to terror tunnels below.

There may well be a large segment of Palestinians who want peace, but they are continuously eclipsed by the more visible and deadly elements for whom the conflict is a nihilistic zero-sum game. In the absence of more attainable goals, killing Israelis is no longer a means to and end for them, but the end unto itself.

Life went on in Har Nof and the rest of Israel after the Scuds fell, and will go on after November’s massacre, and after every other vile murderous outrage that, God forbid, may come after it.

Each time, a lesson in faith and determination from a people who embrace life over death.

Originally Published: The Allgemeiner

Isolate and Contain

By: Eli Verschleiser

Which virus is a bigger threat to the lives of Americans? Ebola, or Islamic fanaticism?

Judging from recent news, both appear to be equally malicious. Almost simultaneously, officials here have been forced to react to a doctor who inadvertently imported Ebola to New York City from Africa, and an outbreak of so-called “lone wolf” terrorism by a jihadi sympathizer who took an ax to two police officers in Queens.

Fortunately in both cases, the threat was quickly contained. The doctor was brought to Belleview Hospital as soon as he became symptomatic and contagious, and the “lone wolf” was quickly put down by police bullets. He is not believed to have any known connections to organized terror groups.

But neither were any of those who engaged in terror attacks in the 13 years since 9/11: The would-be Newburgh bombers who plotted to attack Bronx synagogues, the attempted Times Square bomber and the Boston marathon bomb brothers are all believed to be sympathizers with Islamic terror rather than part of organized sleeper cells coordinating with al Qaeda or ISIS.

That means that like Ebola or other diseases, jihadi ideology can spread across the United States and infect deranged or socially disaffected people here, thus providing an effective way for ISIS and others to terrorize America without lifting a finger. And just as the administration’s reaction to Ebola, with its reluctance to consider travel bans, has been lacking, it has turned its back for too long on the danger posed from ISIS.

Authorities believe ISIS is actively encouraging lone wolf attacks. A law enforcement bulletin obtained by Fox News warned that ISIS uses social media to encourage sympathizers to find members of the armed forces and attack them (although a Homeland Security spokesman said there was no credible, specific threat.) A man in Oklahoma City charged with beheading a coworker reportedly had pictures of ISIS beheadings on his Facebook page.

“The Internet as well as certain specific Muslim extremists are really firing up this lone wolf phenomenon,” California Sen. Diane Feinstein recently said on CNN. “The multiplicity of [worldwide] attacks in 2014 shows that their propaganda is having some effect.”

Several Americans have been apprehended in the process of trying to join forces with ISIS, including three teenage Denver girls of Somali descent who were stopped in Frankfurt and a Chicago man who was arrested in O’Hare airport. Although the girls were not charged, authorities are probing their online contacts to see who might have been encouraging them. The 19-year-old man told authorizes he met a man online who directed him to fly to Istanbul and wait for further instructions, CNN reported. It also said he had pro-ISIS writings and illustrations in his Bolingbrook home.

Just as we are developing protocols to contain and control Ebola, so to we must take measures to monitor both the spread of jihad sympathy and any inroads ISIS may be making to extend its reach into America’s cities. As we head toward Midterm elections, Americans seem less concerned about being struck by a terror attack here than they are about exposure to Ebola, which by all medical accounts is extremely rare. Analytics from Google show Ebola is the more-searched term than ISIS, and a Pew Poll found that 36% of Americans are following the spread of Ebola, while 31% are following America’s strikes against ISIS.

The answer to both problems is the same: education. As doctors, public officials and the general public learn how Ebola spreads and how it can be contained, we must also look at “lone wolf” terrorism as an epidemic.

Speaking on “Meet The Press” Sunday, Michael Leiter, former director of the United States National Counter terrorism Center, said the only way to contain the spread of lone-wolf terror is to “ramp up our surveillance” to detect people who may “have a crisis in their life, are mentally ill and attach themselves to that ideology.” As in the Ebola crisis, he said, the risk is small, not an existential threat, but one we dare not underestimate.

We always hear about “increased chatter” from extremist groups before and after an event. We should be listening more often and more carefully, and we must continue to work with the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court to find ways to be diligent while respecting the privacy of innocent Americans.

The man shot dead by police after the Queens hatchet attack, Zale Thompson, had an online history that involved rants against America and visits to sites associated with terror groups.

Leiter noted that monitoring is not enough: Authorities and their operatives also need to be able to engage extremist forces through social media to mitigate their impact on others.

Based on what we learned in Dallas from the treatment of Ebola patient Eric Duncan, New York officials were able to learn a great deal that may have saved the lives of the first patient in New York, people with whom he came in contact, and the health care workers treating him.

We must take great care to take similar lessons of prevention and response whenever an outbreak of the pro-jihad virus occurs.

Originaly Published: The Huffington Post

Tough talk on ISIS is not enough

By: Eli Verschleiser

In late 1998, national security officials under President Bill Clinton mulled a strike deep into Afghanistan that may have taken out Osama bin Laden. In the end, Clinton decided the potential cost of hundreds of innocent lives was too high.

No one can be sure that such a strike would have eliminated the al Qaeda terror chief, let alone forestalled the 9/11 terror attack three years later that cost the lives of 2,977 people, most of them Americans.

But Clinton and his military chiefs at the time, some of whom warned that holding back was a mistake, will always have to wonder, as will we all.

Will we face the same kind of hindsight in the future if, God forbid, the savages of ISIS (or ISIL, as the US calls the radical terror group) are able to infiltrate our borders and carry out a large-scale attack here?

As we mark the 13th anniversary of the worst attack on America in history, Americans are worried about new carnage, with a recent NBC News poll finding that nearly half (47 percent) of respondents saying we are less safe now than before Sept. 11, 2001, up substantially from 28 percent last year and, amazingly, up from 20 percent just a year after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Another poll by NBC and the Wall Street Journal founds 61 percent of Americans, nearly two out of three, support increased military action against the Isis militants. No doubt they have been affected by videos showing mass executions in Syria, including children and the be-headings of American captives, and news of missing Libyan passenger jets likely commandeered by militants.

President Obama has an opportunity, and an obligation to reassure Americans. In his speech from the White House on Sept. 10, the president seemed to deviate between trivializing ISIS and beating the war drums. First he de-legitimized its religious roots, noting that it has harmed mostly other Muslims and emphasizing that ‘Islamic state’ is recognized by no government.

Then, sounding more like the Republican predecessor that invaded Iraq and Afghanistan than the domestic-minded Democrat who vowed to wind down those wars, Obama vowed that “America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat” and warned that those who attempt to harm Americans “will find no safe haven.” This is an echo of the Bush doctrine that America will not distinguish between terrorists and the governments that harbor them.

Ultimately the speech showed the president at his most determined, promising to “degrade and destroy” the capability of the militants and recognizing that “small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm.”

But are 475 new soldiers in Iraq on a non-combat mission, increased air strikes in Syria and more aid to the rebels fighting ISIS enough to accomplish those goals?

The president’s ability to take executive action as commander in chief is limited, and he needs strong support from both houses of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, to fully prosecute the mission of neutralizing Isis and its allies.

It’s not at all clear that he’ll get it from a war-weary and deeply partisan Congress. Many members will have to be convinced that arming rebels and minority groups resisting Isis – which is so extreme that al Qaeda distances itself -- is in our interest; others will fixate on blaming the president for failing to leave a sufficient interim force in Iraq, which could have stemmed the Isis tide, or failing to back the rebels in Syria in toppling Bashir Assad.

Others will simply urge sitting on our hands. Voters will be influenced by commentators who note that as bad as doing nothing sounds, acting ineffectively, or counter-productively, is worse.

“Maybe it’s time for America to stop taking the bait,” says Fox News host and commentator John Stossel. “Islamic militants do monstrous things all over the world. We cannot stop it all. Why do we assume that government doing something is always an improvement over government doing nothing?”

Stossel noted that Clinton launched Tomahawk missiles at Osama Bin Laden, missed and was mocked as a paper tiger.

But the problem with inaction vs. action is that the result in the former case is almost guaranteed: Isis will rise in popularity, adherents from all over the world, including the U.S., will continue traveling to the Middle East to join the fight or form terror cells in the West. The more we shirk away from our role as the world’s leading policeman against terror, the likelier the possibility we will live to regret it.

Originally Published: The Hill

Does Obama 'have the back' of our children, too?

By: Eli Verschleiser

President Barack Obama deserves credit for making the war against sexual assault on college campuses a top priority of his administration. In January, he created a task force of senior officials to coordinate federal enforcement efforts. And this month he created a government-run web site, notalone.gov, which will provide resources for students, help for victims and help track enforcement efforts.

Photo: D2L

“Perhaps most important, we need to keep saying to anyone out there that has ever been assaulted: you are not alone,” said President Obama. “We have your back. I’ve got your back."

It’s time for the White House to show it also has the back of children who undergo the horror of sexual abuse, by taking real action.

The White House Council on Women and Girls was created in response to members of Congress repeatedly sounding appropriate alarms about sexual assaults, mostly against women, in the military and on college campuses, leading to the president’s stronger posture.

What grassroots group is applying similar pressure to stamp out the scourge of children who are abused by relatives, teachers, authority figures and others to whom they have difficulty saying no, or reporting to their parents or police after they are victimized?

Consider the following:

• 1 in four girls and 1 in six boys under the age of are sexually violated before age 18.

• Every year more than 3 million reports of child abuse are made in the United States involving more than 6 million children.

• The United States has one of the worst records among industrialized nations – losing on average between four and seven children every day to child abuse and neglect.

• More than 90 percent of juvenile sexual abuse victims know their perpetrator in some way. 

I know the president takes these matters very seriously. He declared April National Child Abuse Prevention Month, vowing that “We all have a role to play in preventing child abuse and neglect and in helping young victims recover,” and encouraging Americans to look for warning signs such as changes in behavior and performance, untreated physical or medical issues, lack of adult supervision, and constant alertness.

Resources are also available on the Administration for Children and Families’ web site.

But just as it was important to up the ante against date rape or assaults in the military, it’s past time for tougher action, on both the federal and state level against the abuse of the weakest segment of our society. The president could start by calling on states to take a tougher stand and meet established federal benchmarks in fighting abuse.

The White House could hold state governments accountable by tying federal education funding to their efforts, commitment to and progress toward anti-abuse awareness programs.

The federal government could also mandate education both for teachers and students in abuse awareness and prevention, the same way they do to establish standards in math, science and other disciplines.

Another measure that could be implemented on the federal level would be mandating that “sexual predator” is stamped on the driver’s licenses of convicted offenders via the REAL ID act, similar to a recent provision in the state of Florida. Florida’s bundle of exemplary new laws make it the harshest in the country for sexual predators.

According to the Sun-Sentinel in south Florida -- which conducted an investigation by mining records in state databases, police reports and court documents -- nearly one quarter of sex offenders attacked again within six months of being released.

And these numbers do not include people living in Florida convicted in other states or federal court and those arrested but still awaiting trial for new sex crimes. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS,) in a study released in 2003 claims that compared to non-sex offenders released from state prisons, released sex offenders were four times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

“One person re-offending when you have innocent victims is too many,’’ said Lauren Book, founder of Lauren's Kids, which advocates for victims of childhood sexual abuse and is an ardent supporter of Florida’s civil commitment efforts.

"These are children. And so I fight every day to make it so that these monsters, these sexually deviant behaving individuals are as far away from our children as humanly possible,” she said.

Isn’t the ability to quickly identify unsafe situations, loudly and clearly say “No!” to a potential abuser and/or quickly tell a trusted adult about the abuse of equal importance to our children’s future as the mastery of scholastic skills? Even more so, when we consider that children who suffer abuse will often not only fall behind academically but are more prone to dysfunctional or even criminal behavior as adults, including the abuse of others.

I hope Obama will go beyond awareness months and speeches and begin to treat sexual and other forms or abuse against children as the public health hazard that it is.

Originally Published: The Hill

An act of Desperation: John Kerry

By: Eli Verschleiser

John Kerry

It is unfortunate that Secretary of State John Kerry put himself in the middle of the superficial, gossip-laden, "he said, he said" death spiral of the latest nine-month peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. By now, his "apartheid" remark, warning of the consequences for Israel if the Palestinians don't get their own state, has gone viral and pandemic. He's even apologized publicly, rightly so. More troubling than his use of a very sensitive term, is what it suggests about his disposition. 

The bigger point here is that Kerry maybe acting out of desperation. He has invested tremendous effort and political capital toward getting the Israeli and Palestinian sides to agree on basic terms for security and borders, leading to a Palestinian state. For the duration, that process was dominated by public claims that one party or the other was undermining trust and acting unilaterally. Kerry kept plowing forward, even as Ukraine, Egypt and Syria blazed. 

Kerry's commitment to this effort whether you believe in his ability or not have been nothing less than admirable. This is part of what makes his comment so regrettable.

Kerry however, acted out of desperation. Only in a fantasy world would Kerry not know that his use of the word would automatically reach the press, infuriate Israelis and American Jews, and cloud out all other considerations. 

Israel is a big boy, and can handle whatever anyone throws at it, whether it's Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert each warning of an apartheid future on their own, or Kerry himself. But by invoking apartheid, Kerry shows just how far he is willing to go, if not further. What is his fallback, or did he just lash himself to the mast to ride out the storm of the century, known as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? 

We at The American Jewish Congress have worked to promote joint economic efforts between Jews and Palestinians, regardless of where the peace process happens to be in any given moment. These kinds of projects build trust and lay the foundations for an eventual final status agreement. Resorting to drama and reckless initiative undermines such an outcome.

On a global scale, we should also be worried that a Secretary of State who's ready to sacrifice all just for the sake of a chance at progress in one arena will find himself distracted from other, less containable crises in the Middle East and beyond. With Iran, specifically, how much will Kerry or the White House be willing to risk -- in ways that expose Israel as well as the United States -- to secure some long-term agreement with Iran? 

Desperation is not an isolated trait, and it's one that too often leads right back to despair. We have enough of that as it is.

Originally Published: The Jerusalem Post

Putin's Jewish Card

By: Eli Verschleiser:

The Kremlin's questionable claim of widespread anti-Semitism, which was used as partial justification for the annexation of Crimea, should not obscure the fact that President Vladimir Putin has genuinely championed the cause of Russian Jewry. This includes recognition and active support for a thriving Jewish community at home and close ties to Israel's top politicians, especially within the current ruling coalition.

More than 1 million Russians are now living in the Jewish state, giving Putin plenty of reasons to care about what happens there. If he is willing to throw caution to the wind and risk Western opprobrium on the presumption of threats to Jews and ethnic Russians, there are additional ways Putin can safeguard these strategic priorities.

As such, Putin should move against Iranian-backed terror networks around the world, and prepare a contingency for neutralizing Iran's nuclear facilities, in the event the P5+1 negotiations fail. Iran presents a strategic threat to Israel, and its terrorist clients target Jews in Israel and across the globe. These actions could even be coordinated with Washington in a way that helps re-establish Moscow's leadership credentials.

In addition, Putin should facilitate the orderly transition to a stable government in Syria. The world's largest humanitarian disaster is unfolding on Israel's doorstep. Unless Moscow intervenes, it is likely that any future Syrian regime will be hostage to unchecked terrorist forces eager to attack Israel's population centers. Putin is in a unique position to pressure or incentivize Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down and then help push Syria down the path toward peace and stability.

Putin can ensure that if Israel follows Russia's example by launching its own attack on Iran or taking unilateral actions to defend Jewish — and Russian — citizens in the West Bank or anywhere in Israel, it can offer support in the United Nations Security Council. Using Putin's own playbook, Israel should be within its rights to undertake serious but necessary measures that will not win it many friends in the global arena. The wisdom of such decisions will have to be weighed by Israeli leaders as the need or opportunity arises.

During this period of Russian-Ukrainian tension, Putin should make every effort to avoid singling out Ukraine's Jewish industrialists and community leaders. There should be no need to pit Russian Jews against Ukrainian Jews, or to paint Ukrainian Jewish leaders as anti-Russian. This will not lead to positive outcomes for Jews anywhere, including within Russia.

The best way for Putin to lock in his status as the best friend of the Jewish people would be to remove the Jewish card from the table. He should continue asserting Russia's national interests vis-a-vis Ukraine, which he should do regardless of international reactions. Invoking Jewish concerns, whether worthy or not, does not do Jews any favors and will not win any world leaders to its side. But the real danger is that it may stigmatize Jews as his puppets.

Moscow will act in its country's best interests, regardless of what the West says or does. But there may be ways to do so while reducing the negative fallout — for Russia, Jewish people and others worldwide.

Originally published by The Moscow Times

Black-and-White Boycotts Defy a Technicolor Middle East

By: Eli Verschleiser

The subtleties beneath Scarlett Johansson’s controversial endorsement of SodaStream products should blunt the euphoria of pro-Israel advocates, who celebrate the Hollywood star’s choice to abandon Oxfam in favor of her new West Bank-based patron. More fundamentally, the fallout in this case reveals the all-out assault on Israel’s very existence, and should give everyone pause about making facile judgments about right and wrong in a complex situation. The world is never black and white, and it's just such binary, zero-sum thinking that perpetuates the Israeli-Palestinian impasse in the Middle East.

Scarlett chose to stick with a model of Jewish-Palestinian coexistence within the West Bank, rather than accept the dogma against conducting any business involving Israeli settlements over the 1949 Green Line. The reactions against her decision demonstrate that the sophisticated effort to condemn and boycott Israel’s West Bank settlements without demonizing pre-1967 Israel has largely failed, both in the popular imagination and in the pronouncements of other high-profile celebrities. Any well-intentioned supporters of the West Bank boycott must realize that the so-called “BDS” movement (pushing for boycott, divestment, sanctions) against the entire State of Israel is coopting their message for a greater cause – eliminating the Jewish state.

I vehemently disagree with those choosing to deny Israel their patronage for items produced in the West Bank until the entire dispute is resolved, but I can also understand their moral premise. But as the SodaStream controversy has highlighted, many BDS activists see Jewish independence anywhere in historical Israel as illegitimate and offensive. What could have been a principled abstaining from the fruits of the West Bank is now a witch hunt, boycotting or intimidating anyone who sees the world differently, or without the same black-and-white filter.

Well-meaning people who support Palestinian rights in the West Bank while accepting Israel's right to exist within secure and negotiated borders should understand that this level of nuance is beyond the comprehension of many Israel-haters. Possibly against its own better judgment, BDS has seamlessly conflated a boycott against Jewish settlements over the Green Line with boycotting all Israeli people and products.

Make no mistake: Plenty of BDS activists would attack Scarlett for representing SodaStream even if it were based in the heart of Tel Aviv. An official BDS website, representing two dozen groups identified as Palestinian, celebrated the fact that Scarlett Johansson stepped down as an Oxfam Ambassador, “following public outcry,” and

Every entity which agrees to boycott Israeli companies doing business with the West Bank represents a victory for the BDS movement. And such a secondary boycott is hardly some new innovation meant to punish Israel’s current right-wing government for not moving fast enough to abandon the West Bank. The boycott of Israeli products, and of companies that do business with Israeli companies or use Israeli products, goes back decades. It gathered steam after the 1973 surprise attack against Israel by Egypt and Syria, when the Arab Gulf states imposed an oil embargo against countries dealing with Israel.

It’s not just Palestinians or Arabs who recognize no Green Line. For Pink Floyd front man Roger Waters, Israel is illegitimate and unjust on either side of the Green Line, so it doesn't even matter that SodaStream is based in the West Bank. In an open letter on Facebook, he lectures Johansson about Israeli human rights violations against non-Jews inside the Green Line – which international law recognizes as Israel – and champions the return of a Palestinian refugees, not to the West Bank but to Israel proper. He also objectifies people like Scarlett, having once pegged her as "anti-neo-con" and now labeling her a turncoat, all because of personal choices she has made. When the world, and the people in it, disappoint our neatly tailored expectations, that's not necessarily a crime against humanity.

Beyond Waters, for years hundreds of intellectuals and artists have also been promoting a “cultural boycott of Israel”. While only comprising a slender minority of the Western cultural elite, led by such notables as Booker Prize winner John Berger, this movement (also titled “The Electronic Intifada”) promotes the isolation of Israel – not as an extension of the West Bank-related campaign, but as a continuation of the longstanding boycott of Israel.

More recently, the American Studies Association (ASA) joined the list of academic groups boycotting Israel for its West Bank policies, its actions in Lebanon, and even this shocking reason: “Armed soldiers patrol Israeli university campuses, and some have been trained at Israeli universities in techniques to suppress protesters.” Such twisted reasoning should offend anyone who’s seen the long list of terror attacks on Israeli institutions, from which many Palestinian BDS leaders received their own degrees. Anyone who thinks Israelis enjoy needing soldiers to patrol their universities… should probably join the ASA.

In its ultimatum to Scarlett Johansson, Oxfam comes across as anti-Israel, or at least as anti-occupation, and its overt political style has overshadowed its record of feeding millions sound the world. Now, its political choices have definitely tarnished the hunger brand in ways that could impact a million or more innocent, hungry humans who depend on voluntary donations via Oxfam.

One humane West Bank factory does not undo all the grievances of Palestinians, but that also doesn't make the company (or its spokesperson) a villain for coloring outside the lines imposed by one ideology or the other. Ironically, SodaStream is a rare example of how Jewish-Palestinian coexistence could actually succeed. Including this company among Israel’s crimes against Palestinians undermines the already dubious case for a single bi-national state as advocated by Waters and so many others would-be do-gooders. And yes, there are many.

The American Jewish Congress has made it a high priority on our current agenda to challenge the BDS movement to de-legitimize and isolate Israel, as we continue the agency’s efforts to bring about peace in the Middle East.

One lesson we might all take from this latest ripple is that, even if SodaStream and BDS remain problematic, most Jews and Palestinians on the ground are increasingly seeing their grievances and aspirations in full color, not as a take-no-prisoners battle to the death. Anyone who claims to want peace in that part of the world should not be allowed to think any less broadly than they do.

Originally Published: The Allgemeiner