RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks was a guest on TLV1's Politely Rough, an Israeli radio show. His segment covers the hot issue of Iran and the Interim Agreement, as well as a discussion on the past, present and future of the Republican Party in the U.S. and its relationship with American Jews and the State of Israel. Listen here!

 

[audio mp3="http://www.rjchq.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/MattBrooksInterviewTLV1PolitelyRough121213.mp3"][/audio]

RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks was a guest on TLV1's Politely Rough, an Israeli radio show. His segment covers the hot issue of Iran and the Interim Agreement, as well as a discussion on the past, present and future of the Republican Party in the U.S. and its relationship with American Jews and the State of Israel. Listen here!

 

[audio mp3="http://www.rjchq.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/MattBrooksInterviewTLV1PolitelyRough121213.mp3"][/audio]

Wednesday, December 5, 2012
By: Noah Silverman, RJC Congressional Affairs Director


A report from Reuters has now confirmed what Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin had discovered last month - that President Obama is considering former Senator Chuck Hagel for a top national security post, likely Secretary of Defense.

Rogin reported that Hagel was "being vetted."  Presumably, that vetting process includes consultations with a range of interested parties.  And presumably, that includes pro-Israel advocates.  Let's hope that anyone on the receiving end of such a query responds forthrightly that for the President to elevate Hagel to a position of trust would be construed as a gesture of indifference - if not outright contempt - toward Jewish Americans and every American who supports a strong U.S.-Israel alliance.

In the past, Jewish leaders have made their concerns about Hagel clear.  The last time President Obama had to pick a new Defense Secretary, in 2010, a report by the Washington Jewish Week included red-flag quotes from numerous community sources - including pro-Obama Democrats:

• D.C. Jewish community professional who is in contact with the White House: "I have to think that the mainstream Jewish communal organizations would have meaningful problems with it"

 

• Washington PAC Director and former AIPAC Executive Director Morris Amitay: "Hagel would be in a position to reinforce the worst aspects of the administration's current Middle East policies, which would be very dangerous for Israel"

 

• A longtime Jewish political operative: "Given his long, questionable record and the clear problems his nomination would cause -- not to mention the volumes of criticism by other Democrats for his rank hostility to Israel -- it is hard to believe that the White House would want to make such a risky choice at precisely the time we are asking the Israeli to 'trust us' on Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict."

 

• Democratic operative who campaigned for Obama in the Jewish community: "If he was in fact appointed, I would find his appointment difficult to reconcile with my views of the administration."

In fact, some of the most forceful criticism of Hagel's record on issues of concern to American Jews and other pro-Israel Americans has come from the National Jewish Democratic Council, "the national voice of Jewish Democrats."

When Hagel considered running for President in 2007, NJDC signaled that they planned to call him to account for a record that included numerous departures from the pro-Israel mainstream.  To wit:

• In August 2006, Hagel was one of only 12 Senators who refused to write the EU asking them to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

 

• In October 2000, Hagel was one of only 4 Senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.

 

• In November 2001, Hagel was one of only 11 Senators who refused to sign a letter urging President Bush not to meet with the late Yasir Arafat until his forces ended the violence against Israel.

 

• In December 2005, Hagel  was one of only 27 who refused to sign a letter to President Bush to pressure the Palestinian Authority to ban terrorist groups from participating in Palestinian legislative elections.

 

• In June 2004, Hagel refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran’s nuclear program at the G-8 summit.

 

• And here’s what the anti-Israel group, CAIR wrote in praise of Hagel: “Potential presidential candidates for 2008, like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Joe Biden and Newt Gingrich, were falling all over themselves to express their support for Israel. The only exception to that rule was Senator Chuck Hagel…” [Council on American-Islamic Relations, 8/28/06]

And Hagel's history of pronouncements and other actions is, if anything, even more alarming.  Hagel wrote in a 2002 op-ed in the Washington Post that the President Bush erred in refusing to meet with Yassir Arafat and that Arafat and his support for terrorism against Israel were not the real issue. He wrote: "...we cannot hold the Middle East peace process hostage by making Yasser Arafat the issue.... Palestinian reformers cannot promote a democratic agenda for change while both the Israeli military occupation and settlement activity continue."

With respect to Iran, Hagel has argued that, "Whether we like it or not, there will be no peace or stability in the Middle East without Iran's participation."  And he has explicitly ruled out the military option Obama has supposedly 'kept on the table.'

In a devastating 2010 post on Commentary's blog, Jennifer Rubin called attention to more problematic items in Hagel's record.

• "In 2006, when Hezbollah’s attacks provoked Israeli retaliation and the war in Lebanon, Hagel screeched for the president to demand an immediate cease-fire, arguing it was essential in order to 'enhance America’s image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East.' Our credibility, in his eyes, depends on the United States’s preventing Israel from defending itself."

 

• In 2009, "Hagel signed a letter urging Obama to open direct negotiations with Hamas..."

 

• "In 2007 Hagel wanted to open direct, unconditional talks with Iran. (“It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West.”) In 2007 he voted against designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization."

 

• In 2008, Hagel single-handedly killed an Iran sanctions bill in the waning days of the congressional session. (The bill in question was actually sponsored by then-Senator Obama!)

Rubin went on to quote an account of an incident that suggested Hagel's stances reflected not just substantive disagreements - but also  more visceral sentiment:

In an interview quoted in Aaron David Miller’s book on the peace process called The Much Too Promised Land, Hagel said: “The political reality is that … the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here."

Hagel then described a meeting he had in New York with a group of supporters of Israel, one of whom suggested Hagel wasn’t supportive enough of Israel. Hagel said he responded: “Let me clear something up here if there’s any doubt in your mind. I’m a United States Senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States Senator. I support Israel. But my first interest is, I take an oath of office to the constitution of the United States. Not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel."

This led Rubin to predict that "Hagel is a nominee who would thrill the Walt-Mearsheimer Lobby."  In apparent confirmation of this prediction, anti-Israel commentator M.J. Rosenberg opined on Twitter that it "would be great" if Obama picked Hagel for a high-powered administration post.

Similarly, a Hagel admirer interviewed by Rogin emphasized his expectation that a Cabinet appointment would afford Hagel a more prominent perch from which to continue "feeding tough-love messages to Obama... on the Middle East" something the source said Hagel had been doing from the outside "for some time."  And naturally, the notoriously Israel-averse former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski endorses Hagel as someone who could help Obama "follow through" notwithstanding "the influence of lobbies" and other annoying impediments.

The Reuters report suggests that picking Hagel would somehow demonstrate bipartisan goodwill on Obama's part, but undercuts this by admitting that since his retirement from the Senate, "Hagel has been a big critic of his own party." Indeed, Hagel's only endorsements have been endorsements of Democrats, notably 2010 Senate candidate Joe Sestak and 2012 Senate candidate Bob Kerrey, who was running in the state Hagel once represented in the Senate. (In both instances, voters declined to take Hagel's suggestion.)

Interestingly, the Nebraska Republican party offered evidence that Hagel's Republicanism is of the in-name-only variety - a photograph of Hagel's lawn, with signs touting Obama and local (Virginia) Democrats on prominent display. Asked about the signs at the Kerrey endorsement press conference in Nebraska, Hagel gamely responded that his wife put up the signs, but he didn't protest too much.  Indeed, he took the occasion to slam the GOP yet again.

How much will pro-Israel groups protest if Obama taps Hagel despite all the problems in his record?  It will be a real gut check moment.

In 2010, NJDC's then-Executive Director Ira Forman defended the Obama administration's decision to appoint Hagel to an advisory panel, but seemed to draw a red line in an interview with the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb:

He suggested that NJDC would publicly oppose Hagel's nomination for a position with more authority. "If [Hagel] was taking a policy role, we'd have real concerns," Forman said. And Forman indicated that his group would oppose Hagel's appointment to any position that had influence over U.S.-Israel relations.

Based on Hagel's record, it's clear those 'real concerns' are greatly warranted.  (How seriously the administration will take them is a separate question; Rogin reports that Hagel has already been offered important posts, "including secretary of homeland security, director of national intelligence, and ambassador to China.")

If Obama does end up nominating Hagel for one of these key positions, we'll see if NJDC and other administration-friendly folks in the pro-Israel camp have the integrity to reiterate their concerns.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012
By: Noah Silverman, RJC Congressional Affairs Director


A report from Reuters has now confirmed what Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin had discovered last month - that President Obama is considering former Senator Chuck Hagel for a top national security post, likely Secretary of Defense.

Rogin reported that Hagel was "being vetted."  Presumably, that vetting process includes consultations with a range of interested parties.  And presumably, that includes pro-Israel advocates.  Let's hope that anyone on the receiving end of such a query responds forthrightly that for the President to elevate Hagel to a position of trust would be construed as a gesture of indifference - if not outright contempt - toward Jewish Americans and every American who supports a strong U.S.-Israel alliance.

In the past, Jewish leaders have made their concerns about Hagel clear.  The last time President Obama had to pick a new Defense Secretary, in 2010, a report by the Washington Jewish Week included red-flag quotes from numerous community sources - including pro-Obama Democrats:

• D.C. Jewish community professional who is in contact with the White House: "I have to think that the mainstream Jewish communal organizations would have meaningful problems with it"

 

• Washington PAC Director and former AIPAC Executive Director Morris Amitay: "Hagel would be in a position to reinforce the worst aspects of the administration's current Middle East policies, which would be very dangerous for Israel"

 

• A longtime Jewish political operative: "Given his long, questionable record and the clear problems his nomination would cause -- not to mention the volumes of criticism by other Democrats for his rank hostility to Israel -- it is hard to believe that the White House would want to make such a risky choice at precisely the time we are asking the Israeli to 'trust us' on Iran and the Arab-Israeli conflict."

 

• Democratic operative who campaigned for Obama in the Jewish community: "If he was in fact appointed, I would find his appointment difficult to reconcile with my views of the administration."

In fact, some of the most forceful criticism of Hagel's record on issues of concern to American Jews and other pro-Israel Americans has come from the National Jewish Democratic Council, "the national voice of Jewish Democrats."

When Hagel considered running for President in 2007, NJDC signaled that they planned to call him to account for a record that included numerous departures from the pro-Israel mainstream.  To wit:

• In August 2006, Hagel was one of only 12 Senators who refused to write the EU asking them to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

 

• In October 2000, Hagel was one of only 4 Senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.

 

• In November 2001, Hagel was one of only 11 Senators who refused to sign a letter urging President Bush not to meet with the late Yasir Arafat until his forces ended the violence against Israel.

 

• In December 2005, Hagel  was one of only 27 who refused to sign a letter to President Bush to pressure the Palestinian Authority to ban terrorist groups from participating in Palestinian legislative elections.

 

• In June 2004, Hagel refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran’s nuclear program at the G-8 summit.

 

• And here’s what the anti-Israel group, CAIR wrote in praise of Hagel: “Potential presidential candidates for 2008, like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Joe Biden and Newt Gingrich, were falling all over themselves to express their support for Israel. The only exception to that rule was Senator Chuck Hagel…” [Council on American-Islamic Relations, 8/28/06]

And Hagel's history of pronouncements and other actions is, if anything, even more alarming.  Hagel wrote in a 2002 op-ed in the Washington Post that the President Bush erred in refusing to meet with Yassir Arafat and that Arafat and his support for terrorism against Israel were not the real issue. He wrote: "...we cannot hold the Middle East peace process hostage by making Yasser Arafat the issue.... Palestinian reformers cannot promote a democratic agenda for change while both the Israeli military occupation and settlement activity continue."

With respect to Iran, Hagel has argued that, "Whether we like it or not, there will be no peace or stability in the Middle East without Iran's participation."  And he has explicitly ruled out the military option Obama has supposedly 'kept on the table.'

In a devastating 2010 post on Commentary's blog, Jennifer Rubin called attention to more problematic items in Hagel's record.

• "In 2006, when Hezbollah’s attacks provoked Israeli retaliation and the war in Lebanon, Hagel screeched for the president to demand an immediate cease-fire, arguing it was essential in order to 'enhance America’s image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East.' Our credibility, in his eyes, depends on the United States’s preventing Israel from defending itself."

 

• In 2009, "Hagel signed a letter urging Obama to open direct negotiations with Hamas..."

 

• "In 2007 Hagel wanted to open direct, unconditional talks with Iran. (“It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West.”) In 2007 he voted against designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization."

 

• In 2008, Hagel single-handedly killed an Iran sanctions bill in the waning days of the congressional session. (The bill in question was actually sponsored by then-Senator Obama!)

Rubin went on to quote an account of an incident that suggested Hagel's stances reflected not just substantive disagreements - but also  more visceral sentiment:

In an interview quoted in Aaron David Miller’s book on the peace process called The Much Too Promised Land, Hagel said: “The political reality is that … the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here."

Hagel then described a meeting he had in New York with a group of supporters of Israel, one of whom suggested Hagel wasn’t supportive enough of Israel. Hagel said he responded: “Let me clear something up here if there’s any doubt in your mind. I’m a United States Senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States Senator. I support Israel. But my first interest is, I take an oath of office to the constitution of the United States. Not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel."

This led Rubin to predict that "Hagel is a nominee who would thrill the Walt-Mearsheimer Lobby."  In apparent confirmation of this prediction, anti-Israel commentator M.J. Rosenberg opined on Twitter that it "would be great" if Obama picked Hagel for a high-powered administration post.

Similarly, a Hagel admirer interviewed by Rogin emphasized his expectation that a Cabinet appointment would afford Hagel a more prominent perch from which to continue "feeding tough-love messages to Obama... on the Middle East" something the source said Hagel had been doing from the outside "for some time."  And naturally, the notoriously Israel-averse former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski endorses Hagel as someone who could help Obama "follow through" notwithstanding "the influence of lobbies" and other annoying impediments.

The Reuters report suggests that picking Hagel would somehow demonstrate bipartisan goodwill on Obama's part, but undercuts this by admitting that since his retirement from the Senate, "Hagel has been a big critic of his own party." Indeed, Hagel's only endorsements have been endorsements of Democrats, notably 2010 Senate candidate Joe Sestak and 2012 Senate candidate Bob Kerrey, who was running in the state Hagel once represented in the Senate. (In both instances, voters declined to take Hagel's suggestion.)

Interestingly, the Nebraska Republican party offered evidence that Hagel's Republicanism is of the in-name-only variety - a photograph of Hagel's lawn, with signs touting Obama and local (Virginia) Democrats on prominent display. Asked about the signs at the Kerrey endorsement press conference in Nebraska, Hagel gamely responded that his wife put up the signs, but he didn't protest too much.  Indeed, he took the occasion to slam the GOP yet again.

How much will pro-Israel groups protest if Obama taps Hagel despite all the problems in his record?  It will be a real gut check moment.

In 2010, NJDC's then-Executive Director Ira Forman defended the Obama administration's decision to appoint Hagel to an advisory panel, but seemed to draw a red line in an interview with the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb:

He suggested that NJDC would publicly oppose Hagel's nomination for a position with more authority. "If [Hagel] was taking a policy role, we'd have real concerns," Forman said. And Forman indicated that his group would oppose Hagel's appointment to any position that had influence over U.S.-Israel relations.

Based on Hagel's record, it's clear those 'real concerns' are greatly warranted.  (How seriously the administration will take them is a separate question; Rogin reports that Hagel has already been offered important posts, "including secretary of homeland security, director of national intelligence, and ambassador to China.")

If Obama does end up nominating Hagel for one of these key positions, we'll see if NJDC and other administration-friendly folks in the pro-Israel camp have the integrity to reiterate their concerns.

Going back to 1972*, Democratic Platform Affirmed Jerusalem as Capital of Israel

Washington, D.C. (September 5, 2012) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition announced today the release of a print ad asking, "What is Missing from Obama's 2012 Democratic Platform?" The ad shows that several pro-Israel provisions in the 2008 Democratic platform are missing from the 2012 document.

The ad will run as a full page in Thursday's Charlotte Observer and then in Jewish papers next week in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Nevada.

This year, Democrats stripped out language that appeared in their 2008 platform saying that Jerusalem "is and will remain the capital of Israel" and language saying the issue of Palestinian refugees should be resolved by their settlement in a Palestinian state, not in Israel. The Democrats also removed language from 2008 calling for the isolation of Hamas and weakened the provision about ensuring that Israel retains a qualitative edge for self defense. The platform also stripped out language, which had previously been included, calling Israel "our strongest ally in the region."

RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said:

This will run as a full-page ad in the Charlotte Observer on Thursday, so that we can send a special message to Pres. Obama and the Democratic Party during the Democratic National Convention. Then it will run in Jewish newspapers in Florida, Ohio, Nevada, and Pennsylvania next week.

The changes to the Democrat Party platform raise serious questions about Pres. Obama's and the party's commitment to Israel. It is clear from the platform that the Democrats are backing way from Israel at a critical time. This is yet another reason why Jewish support for Democrats continues to erode.

Click the image below to see a full-size pdf of the ad.



 

* With the exception of 1988. (Details here).

Going back to 1972*, Democratic Platform Affirmed Jerusalem as Capital of Israel

Washington, D.C. (September 5, 2012) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition announced today the release of a print ad asking, "What is Missing from Obama's 2012 Democratic Platform?" The ad shows that several pro-Israel provisions in the 2008 Democratic platform are missing from the 2012 document.

The ad will run as a full page in Thursday's Charlotte Observer and then in Jewish papers next week in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Nevada.

This year, Democrats stripped out language that appeared in their 2008 platform saying that Jerusalem "is and will remain the capital of Israel" and language saying the issue of Palestinian refugees should be resolved by their settlement in a Palestinian state, not in Israel. The Democrats also removed language from 2008 calling for the isolation of Hamas and weakened the provision about ensuring that Israel retains a qualitative edge for self defense. The platform also stripped out language, which had previously been included, calling Israel "our strongest ally in the region."

RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said:

This will run as a full-page ad in the Charlotte Observer on Thursday, so that we can send a special message to Pres. Obama and the Democratic Party during the Democratic National Convention. Then it will run in Jewish newspapers in Florida, Ohio, Nevada, and Pennsylvania next week.

The changes to the Democrat Party platform raise serious questions about Pres. Obama's and the party's commitment to Israel. It is clear from the platform that the Democrats are backing way from Israel at a critical time. This is yet another reason why Jewish support for Democrats continues to erode.

Click the image below to see a full-size pdf of the ad.



 

* With the exception of 1988. (Details here).

Washington, D.C. (August 22, 2012) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) today released the next ad in its "My Buyer's Remorse" series, entitled "Brad."

"Brad" is an attorney who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and even donated money to his campaign. But now he says: "I don't think we can afford another four years of an administration that thinks it can create economic opportunity and growth by taxing people into submission.... I wish I didn't have to say it, but where we are right now and the situation we are in, domestically, and in my view internationally, I think we can do better than Barack Obama."

The new video is part of an ongoing series, in which real people tell their stories of why they voted for Barack Obama in 2008, how they became disillusioned with him, and why they won't vote for him in 2012.

RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, "The recession, unemployment, and the lack of opportunity in this economy are serious concerns for voters this year, including Jewish voters. Candidate Obama made a lot of promises about jobs and taxes and economic growth that President Obama has failed to keep. There is an increasing sense in the Jewish community that we're on the wrong track, and the RJC is letting individuals with buyer's remorse express that to a national audience."

The new ad and previous ads in the series can be seen at http://www.MyBuyersRemorse.com.

Washington, D.C. (August 22, 2012) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) today released the next ad in its "My Buyer's Remorse" series, entitled "Brad."

"Brad" is an attorney who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and even donated money to his campaign. But now he says: "I don't think we can afford another four years of an administration that thinks it can create economic opportunity and growth by taxing people into submission.... I wish I didn't have to say it, but where we are right now and the situation we are in, domestically, and in my view internationally, I think we can do better than Barack Obama."

The new video is part of an ongoing series, in which real people tell their stories of why they voted for Barack Obama in 2008, how they became disillusioned with him, and why they won't vote for him in 2012.

RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, "The recession, unemployment, and the lack of opportunity in this economy are serious concerns for voters this year, including Jewish voters. Candidate Obama made a lot of promises about jobs and taxes and economic growth that President Obama has failed to keep. There is an increasing sense in the Jewish community that we're on the wrong track, and the RJC is letting individuals with buyer's remorse express that to a national audience."

The new ad and previous ads in the series can be seen at http://www.MyBuyersRemorse.com.

Friday, July 13, 2012
By: Shari Hillman, RJC Communications Director

**Update** Rabbi Lance Sussman told JTA that that Keneseth Israel is committed to having an event with a prominent Republican speaker in the near future. He has been in touch with the RJC to move that program forward. We look forward to working with him to provide some balance in a future program.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is scheduled to speak Monday night at Keneseth Israel, a large Reform synagogue in a suburb of Philadelphia. The announcement on the synagogue's web site says that DWS and local Democratic elected officials will speak, "in support of President Obama and his relationship to the Jewish community and the State of Israel." Oh, and, "Representatives of Governor Romney are being asked to speak at a later date (tba)."

Now look at the official invitation to the event:

[image: http://freebeacon.com/politics-and-the-bimah/]

It shows that the event is sponsored by "Jewish Americans for Obama" and "Organizing for America-Pennsylvania" – in other words, the Obama reelection campaign. The event is clearly a campaign rally.

To be fair, Keneseth Israel has expressed openness to working with the Republican Jewish Coalition to bring in a Republican speaker in the future. And the synagogue's announcement does say that Romney representatives "are being asked to speak" – but not, "have been asked to speak." That would imply that the synagogue has good intentions, but hasn't yet laid the groundwork to provide the balance that a Jewish non-profit organization should.

It would benefit Keneseth Israel and other synagogues to take concrete steps to ensure balanced programming in advance of any announcements.

Everyone knows that the Jewish vote is up for grabs in this election and that Republicans have the opportunity to make real inroads in the Jewish community this year. When a Jewish synagogue or non-profit hosts a one-sided event like Keneseth Israel's, without showing real effort to provide a comparable opportunity to the other party, it's wrong. It opens the synagogue or organization up to severe and justified criticism for engaging in campaign-related activities that could cost them their non-profit status. We'd rather those groups opened their doors to Republican speakers, so that the community can hear from both sides of the aisle. We're not looking to silence anyone; we're looking for balance and the opportunity to be heard.

Friday, July 13, 2012
By: Shari Hillman, RJC Communications Director

**Update** Rabbi Lance Sussman told JTA that that Keneseth Israel is committed to having an event with a prominent Republican speaker in the near future. He has been in touch with the RJC to move that program forward. We look forward to working with him to provide some balance in a future program.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is scheduled to speak Monday night at Keneseth Israel, a large Reform synagogue in a suburb of Philadelphia. The announcement on the synagogue's web site says that DWS and local Democratic elected officials will speak, "in support of President Obama and his relationship to the Jewish community and the State of Israel." Oh, and, "Representatives of Governor Romney are being asked to speak at a later date (tba)."

Now look at the official invitation to the event:

[image: http://freebeacon.com/politics-and-the-bimah/]

It shows that the event is sponsored by "Jewish Americans for Obama" and "Organizing for America-Pennsylvania" – in other words, the Obama reelection campaign. The event is clearly a campaign rally.

To be fair, Keneseth Israel has expressed openness to working with the Republican Jewish Coalition to bring in a Republican speaker in the future. And the synagogue's announcement does say that Romney representatives "are being asked to speak" – but not, "have been asked to speak." That would imply that the synagogue has good intentions, but hasn't yet laid the groundwork to provide the balance that a Jewish non-profit organization should.

It would benefit Keneseth Israel and other synagogues to take concrete steps to ensure balanced programming in advance of any announcements.

Everyone knows that the Jewish vote is up for grabs in this election and that Republicans have the opportunity to make real inroads in the Jewish community this year. When a Jewish synagogue or non-profit hosts a one-sided event like Keneseth Israel's, without showing real effort to provide a comparable opportunity to the other party, it's wrong. It opens the synagogue or organization up to severe and justified criticism for engaging in campaign-related activities that could cost them their non-profit status. We'd rather those groups opened their doors to Republican speakers, so that the community can hear from both sides of the aisle. We're not looking to silence anyone; we're looking for balance and the opportunity to be heard.