RESPONSE FROM ERETZ HAKODESH

BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL OF THE AMERICAN ZIONIST MOVEMENT

MERCAZ USA, Complainant, v.

THE COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR THE JEWISH HOMELAND/ERETZ HAKODESH, Respondent.

TO THE CHAIR AND JUDGES OF THE TRIBUNAL:

The Coordinating Council for the Jewish Homeland (“Eretz Hakodesh” or “EHK”) hereby submits its Reply Brief (“Reply”) to the Mercaz USA Complaint (“Complaint”) seeking to bar the certification of delegates to and discard the over 20,000 paid and registered votes in favor of the Eretz Hakodesh slate. We respectfully request that the American Zionist Movement (“AZM”) Tribunal dismiss the Mercaz USA Complaint, and consider the enclosed Counterclaim regarding rules violations by Mercaz USA.

Mercaz USA, in its Complaint, makes three overarching claims against Eretz Hakodesh:

1. That the vision for Zionism offered by Eretz HaKodesh is illegitimate, and not acceptable for a slate of delegates for the World Zionist Congress under the Jerusalem Program; 2. That Eretz Hakodesh and its leadership made false and misleading statements, declarations and submissions to the Area Election Committee (“AEC”) and AZM itself; and 3. That Eretz Hakodesh and its leadership made false and misleading statements in articles, interviews and advertising materials targeting its potential delegates and voter base.

First of all, the Mercaz Complaint is entirely baseless, as we will explore in detail herein. The initial application of Eretz HaKodesh for a slate in this election, and the endorsement of the Jerusalem Program, were entirely truthful and accurate. The advertising, public relations, and voting were as well.

But even besides the fact that the Complaint was false, it was also futile: Mercaz USA took upon itself an impossible mission. There has already been a case in this election cycle in which it was proven that two slates had endorsed a vision of Zionism less than fully compatible with the Jerusalem Program, and further, had told potential voters they need not truly endorse the ​ ​ Jerusalem Program, but are “simply acknowledging that it is the platform of the WZO” (see “Second Supplement to Complaint Against Hatikvah for Urging Ineligible Persons to Vote” from the ZOA, attached hereto as Ex. V). The head of one of those slates responded that given that the Jerusalem Program is the result of a “negotiated compromise,” “it is not surprising that people are uncomfortable with the specific wording of the Jerusalem Program and the framing of Zionism” (see “Hatikvah response to ZOA complaint re voter ineligibility,” attached hereto as Ex. W). This meant that a person could in theory disagree with each and every detail of the Jerusalem Program, and still, according to that slate, vote legitimately.

And yet the AZM Tribunal ruled, even in that extreme case, that “The Tribunal cannot determine the personal thinking behind any individual’s acceptance of the Jerusalem Program. Therefore, absent any clear statement that a registrant does not accept the Jerusalem Program, there is a presumption that those who indicate on the registration form they accept the Jerusalem Program have done so properly” (see “AZM Tribunal Report 2.24.2020,” attached hereto as Ex. X).

The applicability of that ruling to the accusation of Mercaz USA against Eretz HaKodesh is obvious. Mercaz USA’s false claim against EHK of a “deliberate campaign to seek proposed delegates and voters by stating, repeatedly, that participation… was not really an affirmation of Zionism” is precisely that which was acknowledged to be true by the other slate — and ​ ​ nonetheless the Tribunal stated that it cannot invalidate votes on that basis.

So what, then, is the difference? Mercaz USA argues that in this case, seeking a slate itself was based upon a “blatantly false and misleading statement,” and that “the false and misleading statement of Eretz HaKodesh in its application to submit a slate” is what “precludes application of the assumption that the bona fides of those participating should generally be accepted.”

This is a ridiculous and baseless assertion. If a slate nominated candidates and encouraged voters to vote without approving the Jerusalem Program, as the other slate surely did, then whether the original application was fully sincere is irrelevant. And conversely, it is extremely difficult to argue that simply because the person who filed the original application was not fully sincere, an entire slate of truly sincere candidates and voters should be invalidated.

It is more logical to regard the mindset of the head of the slate as consistent throughout — if the encouragement to vote was based upon a false premise, then the application likely was as well, and vice-versa. And this returns immediately to the pre-existing determination by the Tribunal that it will not engage in mindreading. Thus the Tribunal should have thrown out the Mercaz USA Complaint at first reading.

And finally, it is profoundly offensive for Mercaz USA to demean CCJH/Eretz HaKodesh and its Chairman with this particular accusation. After over twenty years of involvement with the AZM elections as the Executive Vice President of the National Council of Young Israel, Rabbi Pesach Lerner provided an application that fully and honestly detailed the reasons why he was applying to create a new slate. This application was accepted unanimously by the AZM’s Area Election Committee. If, as the Tribunal has already stated, it is impossible to second-guess a person’s sincerity when simply checking a box, this is all the more true when presented with a detailed essay that clearly explains that individual’s position.

So the entire Complaint against Eretz HaKodesh is not merely categorically false and libelous, but also requires a clear and compelling double standard to even entertain. And as we will see, this same obvious lack of objectivity lies behind the details of the Complaint as well. Mercaz USA has offered untenable new interpretations and invented new rules which, if applied uniformly, would genuinely invalidate several of its allied slates, yet not that of Eretz HaKodesh. So what is really happening here?

Mercaz USA has unmasked its own anger and intolerance towards Eretz HaKodesh and our voter base, contrary to the “mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people” mandated by the Jerusalem Program. This is not merely true of the Complaint before the Tribunal. We learned the following while researching our response:

1. A core element of Mercaz USA’s appeal to its own voters was to call for participation “if you object to the ultra-Orthodox’s monopoly on religious life” (see Mercaz Two-Pager, ​ ​ attached hereto as Ex. D). Common Halachic standards shared by all Orthodox Jews, whether charedi or Modern Orthodox, as well as traditional and tradition-minded Jews from Sephardic countries and elsewhere, were depicted as “ultra,” extremist, and this was used to denigrate and demean Eretz HaKodesh and our voter base, and an entire vibrant, identifiable segment of the global Jewish community. 2. Mercaz USA even expressed the belief that charedi Jews do not belong in the democratic process. 3. Despite all of their efforts to convince followers that these elections were absolutely crucial, nearly 99% of the 1.35 million Jews purportedly impacted by their movement (per ​ ​ ​ the home page of the United Synagogue, uscj.org) simply didn’t vote.

Meanwhile, Eretz HaKodesh, a new, all-volunteer slate with no organizational backing, created by those same charedi/“ultra-Orthodox,” garnered over 20,000 votes and the 3rd-largest block of delegates – 36% larger than the tally for Mercaz USA.

This is why Mercaz has now filed a complaint against Eretz HaKodesh, appealing to the AZM Tribunal to turn back the clock and reject a slate that has done nothing more nor less than conform precisely to the vision initially shared with the AZM in May of 2019, when our application to join – including our version of the “unique Zionist philosophy” requested of each slate – was accepted, along with the requisite application fee, without the least qualm or concern.

Our response, then, will consist of four components:

1. Reply Part I - Demonstrating that Eretz HaKodesh made true and accurate statements and certifications to the AZM, the Area Election Committee, and to voters, offering a vision for historical, traditional Zionism that unifies Jewish supporters of Israel and comports with the Jerusalem Program. 2. Reply Part II - Illustrating how other slates engaged in precisely the behaviors that Mercaz USA now wishes to assert are prohibited, and in very obvious fashion. This is true in particular of both the ARZA and HaTikvah slates, which have shared goals and frequently collaborate with Mercaz USA. 3. Reply Part III - Addressing the Complaint allegations filed by Mercaz USA in detail. 4. Filing our Counterclaim against Mercaz USA for clear violations of the rules for this election, that were discovered while performing necessary research in preparation for this Reply brief.

It is important that all sections, especially I through III, be read sequentially, as they build upon each other and reference each other.

We attach, as well, a collection of Exhibits referenced in the above sections, as well as an Addendum, a collection of letters submitted by individual candidates expressing their personal attachment to Israel and the Jerusalem Program.

Section I: Eretz HaKodesh made true and accurate statements and certifications to the ​ AZM, the Area Election Committee, and to voters, in compliance with the Jerusalem Program.

1. There are many definitions of Zionism. The oldest is found in Torah.

The Jerusalem Program specifically references the Jewish People’s extraordinary “bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael.” Whence this particular bond, if not the Torah and the Jewish Bible? The Jerusalem Program says this explicitly as well, stating that Israel’s “unique moral and spiritual character” should be “rooted in the vision of the prophets.”

It is true that many secular Zionists envisioned their beliefs as something apart from traditional Judaism, and certain of them were extremely hostile to traditional Judaism. Rabbinic leaders rejected that model. None of this, however, in any way altered the reverence and love for Eretz ​ Yisrael that traditional Judaism has always taught. ​ Was not the goal of modern Zionism to provide room for all Jews, including those who cling to the traditional model of yearning for Zion? Or was it to deliberately exclude all Jews who cling purely to the beliefs of their ancestors? In a way, that appears to be the decision now placed before the Tribunal. It is shocking to see representatives for an American religious movement arguing that 2000 years of religious yearning for Zion were insufficiently Zionist.

Consider: was Maimonides not a Zionist? Was Rav Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch ​ (the Code of Jewish Law)? Both of them not only moved to Israel, but did so at great personal cost.

What about Rabbi Israel Ba’al Shem Tov (the father of Chassidus), or Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer, the Vilna Gaon (the founder of Lithuanian/”Yeshiva” Jewry)? Neither was able to move to Israel himself, but both sent groups of students to establish communities in the Holy Land that remain part of modern-day Jerusalem.

Yes, those rabbinic figures predated Theodore Herzl and the Zionist Congress — but that is precisely the point. The core idea behind Zionism, that Jews should support, build and live in the Jewish homeland, is part and parcel of traditional Judaism. In desiring to establish their own community in the Holy Land, modern Zionism built upon an ancient model.

This is precisely why Theodor Herzl is regarded as the visionary behind the rebirth of the Jewish ​ ​ State. And it is why David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of the modern State of Israel, regarded the Bible as the third branch of the tripod of Jewish life: people, land and book. ​ ​ The AZM application for a new slate in the elections requires that an applicant “describe the unique Zionist philosophy embodied by the slate.” And as Mercaz USA’s close ally ARZA (Vote ​ Reform) explains on its website, “there are many definitions of Zionism, the national liberation ​ ​ movement of the Jewish people” (attached hereto as Ex. A). ​ The definition of Zionism preferred by the Eretz HaKodesh slate is that which has remained vibrant throughout all Jewish history, and continues to this day as the foundation upon which modern Zionism was built.

2. EHK statements to the AZM and AEC were both honest and entirely forthright.

EHK believes that present circumstances encourage greater engagement between traditional Orthodox Jewry and the global Zionist community, in much the same way that traditional Orthodox Jews in Israel serve as members of Knesset and, more recently, even as ministers in the government. This is what motivated the EHK slate, as was stated explicitly in its application of May 2019, when asked to describe EHK’s “unique Zionist philosophy:”

We believe that Eretz Yisroel, Israel, is home to all Jews. We believe all Jews should be concerned for, supportive of, and have an ability to be involved with Eretz Yisroel, Israel. It is our hope that our slate and platform will enable more Jews (including many Jews whom, to date, have not been involved) to be supportive of Israel and become more involved.

Eretz HaKodesh’s application was approved unanimously by the AZM’s Area Election Committee. And this is no surprise: the AZM, in its informational election video, highlights the idea that the WZO “builds bridges among world Jewry,” as a cartoon representation of Theodor ​ ​ Herzl brings a secular and obviously Charedi Jew together in friendship.1

The accusations by Mercaz USA that the EHK definition “cannot be squared with the definition of Zionism adopted by the WZO in its Constitution and in the Jerusalem Program” (Complaint, Par. 11b) are not merely false — they deny Jewish history and current reality, and utterly contradict the purpose of inviting diverse new slates to run in the elections. The AZM specifically requires that a new slate articulate a “unique Zionist philosophy” [emphasis added], not be ​ ​ merely a carbon copy of the flavor of Zionism promoted by established slates.

EHK was entirely honest, forthright and clear regarding its endorsement of the Jerusalem Program, and explicitly stated its intent to involve those who might previously have not been involved. It is unreasonable for Mercaz USA to claim that EHK made “false and knowingly deceptive” assertions when EHK candidly affirmed and maintained the philosophy of Zionism used in its original application — one which accords fully with the “many definitions of Zionism” endorsed by Mercaz USA’s partner and ally, ARZA / Vote Reform.

3. EHK statements to voters underscored the very Zionism that Mercaz USA falsely claimed EHK “disregarded.”

Contrary to the complaint by Mercaz USA, Eretz HaKodesh accurately informed voters about the Jerusalem Program. At no time did EHK advise voters to falsely certify acceptance of the Jerusalem Platform, and, on the contrary, Eretz HaKodesh advised them more carefully and accurately than did other slates.

For example, the “About the Vote” page of the Eretz HaKodesh website (attached hereto as Ex. ​ ​ B) is largely comprised of content from the AZM, including the following in its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section:

1 AZM video found on Elections page, https://azm.org/elections, ​ ​ https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=56&v=vLl9maQlMGQ What is the Jerusalem Program?

The Jerusalem Program is a set of ideals and principles that established the foundations ​ ​ of Zionism. It states:

Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, brought about the establishment of the State of Israel, and views a Jewish, Zionist, democratic and secure State of Israel to be the expression of the common responsibility of the Jewish people for its continuity and future.

The above language, including both its link to the AZM Jerusalem Program page and the full quotation from that page regarding Zionism, was present on the EHK web page from months prior to the election until the present day. To our knowledge, EHK is one of very few slates that quoted from and linked to the AZM Jerusalem Program page in this fashion. Dorshei Torah ​ v’Tzion, Israel Shelanu, and Kol Yisrael, for example, apparently make no mention of eligibility ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ requirements or the Jerusalem Program. And this is besides the discussion of Mercaz USA’s close allies, ARZA / Vote Reform and Hatikvah, found in the next section of this reply.

Interestingly enough, even Mercaz USA did not promote the Jerusalem Program to nearly the same extent as did Eretz HaKodesh. The Mercaz Voter Guide (attached hereto as Ex. C) has ​ ​ no mention of the Jerusalem Program, and the Mercaz Two-Page Campaign Overview (Ex. D) ​ ​ has only this to say, under eligibility requirements: “Accepts the ‘Jerusalem Program’ a short statement that expresses a commitment to Zionism.” The Mercaz “Why Vote?” (Ex. E) and ​ ​ Platform (Ex. F) pages don’t mention it either. In fact, there seems to be no page on the Mercaz ​ website linking to either the AZM website or any resource that explains the Jerusalem Program.

Even the AZM itself, in its video promoting the elections,2 does not mention the Jerusalem ​ ​ Program. It is found only in the FAQ, a footnote at the bottom of the page. ​ ​ So Eretz HaKodesh highlighted both the Jerusalem Program and Zionism, which multiple other slates did not mention at all — and gave them far greater prominence than did Mercaz USA itself. EHK did this knowing full well that this would engender greater opposition from factions within the charedi world who objected to any identification with modern Zionism. So the claims by Mercaz USA that EHK claimed that participation “was not really an affirmation of Zionism” or that “the principles of Zionism stated in the WZO Constitution could be ignored” are utterly specious.

4. Eretz Hakodesh and its delegates sincerely view the Jerusalem Program as not merely an ideology, but a Call to Action.

In its materials, Mercaz ally ARZA asserts that “The Jerusalem Program is an ideological statement, not a plan of action” (see Ex. A). Here, we respectfully disagree. If all Zionism required was to offer a toast to a brilliant idea, it never would have brought about the establishment of the State of Israel.

2 See footnote 1. In fact the Jerusalem Program is a core component of the Constitution of the World Zionist Organization, stated as part of Article 2 along with the Zionist Program as defined at the First Zionist Congress in 1897: "The aim of Zionism is to create for the Jewish people a home in ​ ​ Eretz Israel secured by public law."

The Jerusalem Program calls for active fulfillment of the Zionist vision. Aliyah to Israel, ​ strengthening Israel, integration of immigrants, ensuring the future of the Jewish people through Jewish education, struggling against all manifestations of anti-Semitism and settling the country are all examples of actions to execute.

It is one thing to pay lip service to these noble objectives. It is something else entirely to demonstrate the commitment, investment and self-sacrifice necessary to actualize them. It is one thing to talk the talk, and another to walk the walk.

5. The commitment of Eretz HaKodesh to the Jerusalem Program vastly exceeds that of Mercaz USA.

It is not merely baseless but bizarre for Mercaz USA to accuse Eretz HaKodesh of having falsely attested to its endorsement of the Jerusalem Platform.

We did a survey of our delegates to see how they, individually, address the Jerusalem Program. The vast majority responded, even on short notice. The results demonstrate an intense involvement with both Israel and the Jerusalem Program shared by few other slates.

EHK candidates believe that “the unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael, and the centrality of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation” requires neither “interpretation” nor the exclusion of parts of Judea and Samaria from our historic homeland. On the contrary, to EHK candidates that plank of the Jerusalem Program demands that we require international recognition of a united Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Nor would it suffice to say only that every EHK candidate has visited Israel. Rather:

● The majority of Eretz HaKodesh slate members have been to Israel over two dozen ​ times (see Fig. 1). ​ ● Two-thirds have spent the equivalent of at least two academic years living in Israel (see ​ ​ Fig. 2). ● Nine out of ten prays for the return to Zion and the rebuilding of Jerusalem every day, and most of the rest do so at least weekly (see Fig. 3). ● The vast majority also follow the news in Israel most every day (see Fig. 4).

Similarly, Aliyah to Israel is not merely a noble thought in the minds of EHK delegates.

● Seven of ten have an immediate family member already living in Israel, or planning Aliyah, or are planning to do so themselves (see Fig. 5). ● More than one-third have both: a family member or members already in Israel, and one ​ ​ or more planning to move there. Only 5% have neither (see Fig. 5). ● Four out of five EHK delegates with a child over age 14 have had at least one child spend an academic year or more in Israel (see Fig.6).

Besides strengthening Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state by living and studying there, as above, it is also true that:

● The vast majority of EHK candidates purchase Israeli products weekly. All do so at least monthly (see Fig. 7). ● Two-thirds have personally invested over $50,000 in Israel’s economy; nearly half, over $100,000 (see Fig. 8).

When it comes to furthering Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education. This, too, is not merely an ideological statement for EHK candidates. Jewish education is very expensive, and thus:

● Each and every EHK candidate anticipates investing over $50,000 per child on his or ​ ​ her Jewish education, or has done so already (see Fig. 9). ● Every child of every EHK delegate was, is, or is expected to be enrolled in full-day Jewish schooling through high school, if not seminary or yeshiva (see Fig. 10).

How do we fulfill the Jerusalem Program’s mandate of “ensuring the future and the distinctiveness of the Jewish people” — if not through education?

That high level of investment in Jewish education includes fluency in Hebrew. Every EHK ​ candidate speaks at least rudimentary Hebrew (Fig. 11), and 85% could read this ​ ​ Response brief were it written in modern Hebrew (Fig. 12). ​

As for defending the rights of Jews, representing the national Zionist interests, and struggling against all manifestations of anti-Semitism… for starters, every EHK delegate opposes BDS. Opposition to BDS is the baseline requirement for inclusion in the Zionist movement specified in Resolution 1.2 passed at the Zionist General Council 37/5 of October 2019 (see Ex. J). But moreover, because EHK delegates are fluent not only in Hebrew but in Jewish history, each ​ and every EHK candidate identifies the obsessive and abominable “BDS movement” as simply the latest manifestation of the same Anti-Semitism evidenced by the Nazi boycott of 1932 (see Fig. 13). ​ To understand the chasm separating EHK from Hatikvah in this matter, see Section II:4 — and then consider that it is EHK which Mercaz would have you believe is insufficiently Zionist to be included.

And finally, settling the country is also something upon which every EHK delegate agrees. In contradistinction to the Executive Director of ARZA, Rabbi Josh Weinberg, who has committed himself to ending funding to all “settlements” (“Want to End Funding to the Settlements? Vote.” ​ ​ attached hereto as Ex. P), all Eretz HaKodesh candidates support building synagogues ​ and Jewish life in all of Israel, including Judea and Samaria (see Fig. 14). ​

Simply put, EHK’s commitment to actualizing the Jerusalem Program equals or surpasses ​ that of any other slate on the ballot, bar none.

And there is one final point that must be made: the vast majority of those uprooting themselves from their comfortable homes in the American suburbs, today, to board Nefesh b’Nefesh flights ​ ​ to make Aliyah to Israel, are doing so to follow the Zionist vision of Maimonides, Rav Yosef Karo, the Ba’al Shem Tov and the Vilna Gaon in the modern era. To claim that their traditional Zionism is not “Zionist enough,” as Mercaz USA wishes to do, is to claim that Zionism itself has failed, because by that definition, those making Aliyah are not Zionists! ​

Section II: Other slates engaged in precisely the behaviors that Mercaz USA now ​ wishes to assert are prohibited, and did so in obvious fashion. This is true in particular of both the ARZA and HaTikvah slates, which frequently collaborate with Mercaz USA.

1. Mercaz USA’s Allies and others utterly contradict its assertion that the Jerusalem Program is static, and not open to “reinterpretation or qualification.”

The Mercaz USA complaint says regarding the Jerusalem Program that "The foregoing principles and requirements are stated with clarity. They are not invitations for organizational modification or individual reinterpretation or qualification" (Complaint, Par. 6). Putting it in general terms, Mercaz USA appears to argue that the Jerusalem Program requires allegiance not only to the WZO, but to the specific definition of Zionism to which Mercaz itself subscribes. Logically, the Mercaz position specifically and emphatically calls for the nullification of all votes of ARZA / Vote Reform and the Hatikvah coalition.

In their joint filing before the Tribunal of February 10, 2020, regarding “Complaint Regarding Vicious Campaigning of ZOA Slate Members and Friends of ZOA” (attached as Ex. H), both the Hatikvah and ARZA slates asserted as follows (unedited):

The Jerusalem Program constitutes a vague set of general principals, that has been and continues to be open to interpretation by all members of the Zionist Community. It does not constitute rigid principals interpreted only by the ZOA. Accordingly, both ARZA and Hatikvah, like the ZOA, have the right to interpret the meaning of the various planks in the platform in a way that comports with their views of Zionism. Such conduct does not constitute the violation of the Election Rules in anyway.

It is patently unfair and unreasonable for Mercaz USA to suffer Hatkvah and ARZA their declared right to interpret the Jerusalem Program as they wish, but to challenge Eretz HaKodesh when our interpretation conforms far more closely to the literal and declared intent of the Jerusalem Program. It is also fundamentally destructive to the goals of the American Zionist Movement.

2. ARZA / Vote Reform makes reinterpretation of the Jerusalem Program to suit its philosophy a core element of its campaign.

ARZA, in fact, makes their ability to reinterpret the Jerusalem Program to suit their will a central element of their case to voters. On its page entitled The Jerusalem Program Explained ​ (attached hereto as Ex. A), it writes: “Here are the six points of the Jerusalem Program and here’s how we interpret each of them.” ​ ​ ​

ARZA expresses its different philosophy of unity itself from that of the “early Zionists,” qualifies and limits “its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael” and “settling the country,” and even claims that Israel has thus far failed to fulfill “the yearning to make of the Jewish state an exemplary society,” among other clear and obvious deviations from the six planks of the Jerusalem Program. ARZA claims that the Jerusalem Program was introduced because “the goals and purposes of Zionism needed to be adjusted” after the founding of the State — which could be true, but in context is used to justify twisting the clear wording of the Jerusalem Program to suit ARZA’s ideology. In short, ARZA engages in precisely the “reinterpretation or ​ qualification” which Mercaz USA argues is completely invalid.

Neither is this in any way merely a theoretical concern. The Reform movement openly ​ opposed the United States’ decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital by moving ​ its embassy to the Holy City (“Reform Movement opposes Trump’s US embassy move to ​ Jerusalem ‘at present’,” attached hereto as Ex. U). It is certainly no small feat to reconcile this ​ with recognizing Jerusalem as not merely the capital of Israel, but central to the life of the nation. The head of ARZA, Rabbi Josh Weinberg, would deny all WZO funding to Jews in Judea and Samaria (see Ex. P), which sounds a great deal like the partial BDS that excludes an individual or group from the Zionist movement (see Section II:4 below).

So while Mercaz makes the false claim that EHK engaged in such “reinterpretation or qualification,” the fact that ARZA declared the right to do so, and did so in actuality, is incontrovertible. This, then, provides for a binary choice: ​

● Option A, “reinterpretation or qualification” is not permitted. In this case, given that this was clearly fundamental to the ARZA campaign, the American Zionist Movement Tribunal must annul the slate of delegates submitted by Vote Reform. ● Option B: “reinterpretation or qualification” is in fact permitted, and the American Zionist Movement Tribunal must reject the Mercaz USA complaint.

3. Hatikvah’s website specifically omits endorsement of the Jerusalem Program in stating voting eligibility requirements

We have noted previously that Mercaz USA itself failed to mention the Jerusalem Program in key web pages and documents about the vote (see Exhibits C-F). But Hatikvah went a step further, specifically omitting the requirement that a voter endorse the Jerusalem Program.

As stated in the American Zionist Movement Rules For the 2020 United States Election To The ​ 38th Wolrd Zionist Congress, the six requirements for participation in the election are ​ straightforward. They are that the prospective voter:

a) is Jewish b) will be at least 18 years of age by June 30, 2020 c) accepts the Jerusalem Program (to be shown) d) resides permanently in the United States e) did not vote and will not vote in the March 2, 2020 Israel Knesset election, and f) this is the first and only time the registrant has registered for the 2020 election to the 38th World Zionist Congress.

Yet the requirements stated by Hatikvah on its Why Vote page (attached as Ex. I) are ​ ​ attenuated:

Any self-identified Jewish person, who is or will be at least 18 years of age on June 30, 2020 and lives in the United States, and who did not vote and will not vote in the March 2, 2020 Knesset election, can vote in the American Zionist election for delegates to the 38th World Zionist Congress.

Only two requirements are left out of Hatikvah’s abridged version. One is clearly self-evident: that a person may only vote once. The other requirement is decidedly less obvious: endorsement of the Jerusalem Program. Eretz HaKodesh specifically highlighted the Jerusalem Program and its endorsement of Zionism. Hatikvah specifically left it out.

4. Hatikvah openly violates a disqualifying resolution of the Zionist General Council, in a way that defies “reinterpretation or qualification.”

With regards to the Hatikvah slate, its violation of the Jerusalem Platform is such that any discussion of “reinterpretation” is unnecessary. Per Resolution 1.2 of the Zionist General Council XXXVII/5, as approved in November 2019 (attached as Ex. J), direct or indirect support for either “‘full’ or ‘partial’ BDS is inconsistent with and shall be deemed a violation of the ​ Jerusalem Program… any organization or person supporting BDS must be excluded from the Zionist movement.” ​

In an Election Forum1 hosted by the Jewish Broadcasting Service, Hatikvah’s Nomi Kolton-Max ​ first stated that “the slate does not support BDS.” But when pressed by moderator Rabbi Mark Golub, she admitted that there are members of the HaTikvah coalition who support boycotts against Jewish businesses in Judea and Samaria beyond the 1948 Armistice Line, but declaimed that “I do not believe that a settlement product boycott alone is support of BDS.”

The ZGC Resolution 1.2 of 2019 states the opposite in plain English, that “full” or “partial” BDS is that which targets “Jewish businesses and academic and cultural institutions and Jewish/Israeli individuals, artists and academics in Israel, in territories controlled by Israel, ​ and around the world.”

1 “World Zionist Congress Election Forum #1,” Feb. 26, 2020, on the YouTube JBS Channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsvqKq-UEHs

The resolution points out that “anti-Jewish boycotts and imposts” were described by Theodor Herzl as “types of persecutions against Jews that made a Jewish State necessary” — decades prior to the advent of the Nazi boycott of 1932. That a boycott of settlement products is not only “partial BDS,” but tied to an ancient and hateful anti-Jewish pattern deplored by Herzl himself, is indisputable.

Yet the above is hardly the only evidence of Hatikvah’s support for BDS. In 2016, Hatikvah delegate Peter Beinart helped spearhead a letter calling for “a targeted boycott of all goods and ​ ​ services from all Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories, and any investments that promote the Occupation” in The New York Review of Books (attached as Ex. K). Young delegate Rikki Baker Keusch, an intern at Ameinu, likewise states clearly: “I support a ​ ​ settlement boycott” (article attached as Ex. L) Delegate Daniel Sokatch is the CEO of the New Israel Fund — according to NGO Monitor, the NIF supports “organizations that lawfully ​ ​ discourage the purchase of goods or use of services from settlements” (profile attached as Ex. M), and the NIF opposes the anti-BDS laws enacted in “numerous U.S. states” specifically cited ​ ​ favorably in Resolution 1.2 (sample attached as Ex. N).

In 2018, when AirBNB announced that it would delist only Jewish properties, but not Arab ones, in Judea and Samaria, Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan, whose portfolio includes Israel’s Anti-BDS activities, responded by encouraging Israelis to cease using the AirBNB platform. Five organizations published an open letter (attached as Ex. O) to Minister Erdan claiming that AirBNB’s boycott was “quintissentially pro-Israel” and his condemnations were “baseless rhetoric.” The letter also called upon Erdan to stop requesting U.S. state governors to invoke anti-BDS laws against AirBNB — referring to the state laws which the Zionist General Council Resolution highlighted as productive anti-BDS measures (see Ex. J).

All five organizations on the letter, which directly contravened Israel’s Anti-BDS efforts, are component members of the Hatikvah coalition, and four of the five individual signatories are Hatikvah candidates. And according to the head of the Hatikvah slate, which sat together with ARZA in the previous Congress and expects to do so again, “I can’t think of anything where we and ARZA would be in disagreement” (see “As Zionist Elections Get Underway, the Battle for ​ Progressives’ Votes Heats Up,” attached hereto as Exhibit T), calling into question whether the ​ Reform movement itself can pass the anti-BDS litmus test imposed by the Zionist General Council.

This is, of course, by no means an exhaustive analysis of the positions of other Hatikvah delegates, nor do we consider it necessary or appropriate to research similar, potentially disqualifying statements by members of other slates not yet mentioned. But we do not understand how Mercaz USA can defend filing a complaint against Eretz HaKodesh, when its ally ARZA openly does everything which Mercaz USA has (baselessly) accused Eretz HaKodesh of doing, and its ally Hatikvah both invites voters to support them while omitting any mention of the Jerusalem Program, and even openly violates a Zionist General Council resolution in a manner that should exclude them entirely from the Zionist movement.

We further cannot understand why the AZM chose to entertain this complaint from Mercaz USA, when it is obvious that other slates, and specifically Mercaz allies, have done far, far worse than anything they have attempted to say about Eretz HaKodesh.

Section III: Detailed rebuttal of the Mercaz USA complaint ​

It is important that this section be read following Sections I and II, as those sections provide necessary context. Frequent references to subsections within those will be specified ​ as, for example, “Section I:3.”

Each and every EHK statement cited by Mercaz in its Complaint was in compliance with the Jerusalem Program, AZM and AEC election rules and was made in good faith. To that end, we respond herein to every claim of Mercaz in numerical order.

1. The World Zionist Organization (WZO) is an institution premised on the fundamental principles of Zionism, as defined in the WZO Constitution. That Constitution (Article 1, Section 1) states that the aim of Zionism is to create for the Jewish People a home in ​ ​ Eretz Yisrael secured by public law.” (emphasis added). ​ ​ ​

EHK accepts this paragraph and the World Zionist Organization (“WZO”) Constitution. We note but make no comment regarding the words and phrases Mercaz USA chose to emphasize above others.

2. Implementing that foundation, the WZO adopted “The Jerusalem Program” as Article 1, Section 2 of its Constitution.

EHK accepts and supports this paragraph and the Jerusalem Program. This is why it is cited so clearly on the EHK website (see Section I:3, where we detail the extent to which EHK, over and above other slates, emphasized the Jerusalem Program and clearly quoted the language on Zionism). We again note but make no comment regarding the words and phrases that Mercaz USA deemed more essential than others, as quoted in a-c of this paragraph of the Complaint; we are perplexed, however, by the omission of the very first plank of the Jerusalem Program, which underscores “the unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael, and the centrality of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation.”

3. The World Zionist Congress is established as the parliamentary body of the WZO, to be composed of individuals who declare that they are, in fact, Zionists, as defined in the WZO Constitution by the Jerusalem Program.

For the sake of accuracy, this is incorrect. Individuals must declare that they accept the Jerusalem Program. As described in Section I:3, we underscored this requirement as it pertained to every voter, not merely every delegate. Once again, however, we are perplexed. If Mercaz USA is so concerned about this issue, why have they no problem with the Hatikvah slate that openly opposes a key resolution of the Zionist General Council, which, according to the ZGC, excludes them from the Zionist movement (see Section II:4)? A certain degree of bias is understandable, but not to the point that all objectivity is lost.

4. The American Zionist Movement (AZM) is the representative body of the WZO in the United States and is responsible for the regulation and administration of the electoral process in which organizations that are Zionist bodies and have confirmed that they are Zionist bodies accepting the Jerusalem Program are authorized to put forward slates of proposed Congress delegates for election. All such proposed delegates are similarly required to confirm, in writing, that they are Zionists within the meaning of the Jerusalem Program.

Once again, Mercaz USA is rewriting the rules of the WZO and the AZM. Delegates and voters are required to accept the Jerusalem Program, not more and not less. The statement that they must “confirm, in writing, that they are Zionists” is simply not the case.

5. An individual wishing to vote in the election of Congress delegates is required to be a member of a body “affiliated with the World Zionist Organization” (WZO Constitution, Article 22). In the United States, that membership is signified by accepting the rules established by the recognized national Zionist Federation and its Area Election Committee for voters, which includes acceptance of the Jerusalem Program. (Rules for the 2020 Election to the 38th World Zionist Congress, Section I, par. 2).

Here Mercaz USA returns to the actual requirements set by the WZO. And the more Mercaz USA quotes objective rules and standards, the more relevant it becomes to question their motives. Again, the Hatikvah slate’s candidates openly support partial BDS, a boycott of Jews living in Judea and Samaria — in obvious contravention of Resolution 1.2 of the Zionist General Council XXXVII/5 in Nov. 2019 (see Section II:4) — and Mercaz USA is complaining, instead, about a slate whose commitment to the Jerusalem Program is not merely on a par with any other, but vastly exceeds their own (see Section I:5).

6. The foregoing principles and requirements are stated with clarity. They are not invitations for organizational modification or individual reinterpretation or qualification.

Now Mercaz USA has returned to claiming rules for which we can not find any source or validation. In fact, acceptance of this paragraph as factually accurate would invalidate the ARZA and Hatikvah slates. ARZA and Hatikvah are the ones who said that the Jerusalem Program is merely “a vague set of general principals [sic], that has been and continues to be open to interpretation by all members of the Zionist Community” (see Section II:1). ARZA, in particular, offers up a full page on which it explains “Here are the six points of the Jerusalem Program and ​ here’s how we interpret each of them” (see Ex. A and Section II:2). ​

These sentiments are obviously antipodal, meaning that they cannot simultaneously be true. Either one must accept the Jerusalem Program (per paragraph 5, above, of the Mercaz USA complaint) and a slate must be comprised of Zionists within the meaning of the Jerusalem Program (per paragraphs 3 and 4) without “organizational modification or individual reinterpretation or qualification,” and thus Mercaz USA would have the Tribunal invalidate the ARZA and Hatikvah slates for their open defiance of this categorical requirement, or Mercaz USA must withdraw this statement as an entirely erroneous description of the requirements for a slate, as ARZA so amply demonstrates, and therefore withdraw their complaint.

EHK, by contrast, highlighted the Jerusalem Program on its “About the Vote” page (see Ex. B ​ ​ and Section I:3) without modification.

7. In applying to put forward a new slate of proposed delegates to the 38th World Zionist Congress, CCJH-Eretz HaKodesh, by letter dated May 22, 2020 [sic, 2019] signed by Rabbi Pesach Lerner, its Chairman, stated, without qualification or equivocation, that ”The CCJH-Eretz HaKodesh expresses its full acceptance of and compliance with the WZO Constitution, the Jerusalem Program and the AZM Constitution.” (Appendix, Ex. A).

Again, for the sake of accuracy, the words “without qualification or equivocation” do not appear in the letter. Are those words anywhere in the documents of any other slate? Are they present in Mercaz USA’s own documents?

8. In agreeing to have their name listed on the Eretz HaKodesh slate, each proposed Congress delegate registered to vote in the Zionist elections and accepted the Jerusalem program, without qualification or equivocation

There they go again. We have not found “without qualification or equivocation” in the WZO Constitution, the Jerusalem Program, or any associated resource. And as discussed in Section II, other slates obviously and emphatically qualified and equivocated.

Eretz HaKodesh, on the other hand, did not try to explain away the Jerusalem Program. Rather, candidates of the Eretz HaKodesh slate clearly and dramatically outperform those of many other slates in their fulfillment of the Jerusalem Program, as detailed in Section I:5.

9. The representations of Eretz HaKodesh to the AEC were false and knowingly deceptive.

This is slanderous nonsense, as we wrote in Section I:2: EHK was entirely honest, forthright and clear regarding its endorsement of the Jerusalem Program, and explicitly stated its intent to involve those who might previously have not been involved. It is dishonest and unreasonable for Mercaz USA to claim that EHK made “false and knowingly deceptive” assertions when EHK candidly affirmed and stood by its commitments throughout the election.

10. Further, Eretz HaKodesh misrepresented the qualifications required of delegates and voters in a manner that permitted, if not also encouraged, individuals listed on its slate and voters to ignore the terms of the Jerusalem Program, misrepresenting themselves as Zionists within the meaning of the WZO Constitution and the Jerusalem Program.

Again, this is false and slanderous, without foundation in fact. Every individual who signed as a delegate or who voted for EHK made his/her own personal choice to support the Jerusalem Program. Each delegate fully understood the election, the process, and their requirements.

EHK not only made and encouraged entirely honest statements (Section I:2), but also highlighted the Jerusalem Program as per Section I:3 — often to its own detriment. EHK deliberately provided information for the sake of honesty and integrity, knowing that it would deter certain potential supporters from voting.

Mercaz, by comparison, omitted details of the Jerusalem Platform from its voters, describing it only as a “a short statement that expresses a commitment to Zionism” at the end of its two-pager (see Ex. D and Section I:3). Hatikvah specifically omitted acceptance of the Jerusalem Program from the eligibility requirements (see Section II:3), while many other slates made no mention of the eligibility requirements at all.

11. During the course of the Zionist elections, the leadership of CCJH-Eretz HaKodesh made statements, sponsored advertisements and produced videos aimed particularly at persons they describe as haredim or other frum individuals whose beliefs did not accommodate the fundamental principles of Zionism defined by the WZO and the Jerusalem Program.

The claim by Mercaz USA that EHK produced advertisements “aimed particularly at persons… whose beliefs did not accommodate the fundamental principles of Zionism” is a perfect example of Mercaz USA imposing its value system upon the Jerusalem Program. On the contrary, Eretz HaKodesh produced advertisements reaching out to “haredim or other frum individuals” — plus Jews who define themselves in a myriad of ways such as “Traditional Sephardic (non-frum),” “Sephardic,” “Bucharian,” “Mizrachi,” and, of course, “Just Jewish,” telling them that they must begin to express their pre-existing love and yearning for Eretz Yisrael by expressing their voice in this election.

Quite to the contrary, those charedim whose beliefs “did not accommodate the fundamental principles of Zionism defined by the WZO and the Jerusalem Program” did not vote. It is no secret that this election was a matter of considerable internal controversy, with leading public figures coming out for and against the vote. The vast majority of those who felt conflicted, of course, sat out the election. Thus one can be certain that those who did vote saw real value in joining the elections and were comfortable accepting the Jerusalem Program.

11 a. In a February 22, 2020 podcast (David Lichtenstein,#250)1, Rabbi Lerner argued that no one should assume that Zionism means what the Jerusalem Program expressly states, that it is a “loose document” and it can be interpreted to be limited to one particular Torah-based meaning, an assertion that is wholly contrary to the Jerusalem Program.

Having listened to the interview twice, EHK is at a loss to explain what Rabbi Lerner said, might have said, or could have been heard as saying, that the Jerusalem Program is a “loose document.” Perhaps, with prophetic insight, Mercaz USA knew that ARZA and Hatikvah would soon jointly insist that the Jerusalem Program is merely “a vague set of general principals [sic], that has been and continues to be open to interpretation by all members of the Zionist Community,” as detailed in Section II:1, but misattributed this sentiment to Rabbi Lerner.

It is certainly true that Rabbi Lerner said — like most every slate on the ballot — that people may be uncomfortable with various parts of the Jerusalem Program, but that it can be interpreted in ways that comport with the core beliefs of EHK delegates and voters. Mercaz USA cannot state that this is in any way inappropriate without calling into question all ARZA and Hatikvah delegates, as those slates used this language in a much more emphatic and absolute sense, and explained in Section II. In fact, how does Mercaz USA know what its own voters were thinking as they cast their ballots?

11 b. Rabbi Lerner cited a Rabbi who shouted “Ani Tzioni” (“I am a Zionist”), and when asked how he could make that claim responded by quoting the Siddur “v”techezena aynaynu b’shuvcha l’Tzion b’rachamim”, referencing our prayer that in the future we will be able to witness God’s mercy and God’s return to Zion. That is, to be sure, a fervent religious belief, but if that is the individual’s definition of Zionism, it is one that cannot be squared with the definition of Zionism adopted by the WZO in its Constitution and in the Jerusalem Program, which Rabbi Lerner represented was “fully accept[ed] by CCJH-Eretz HaKodesh.

That the rabbi cited by Rabbi Lerner did indeed make these statements is correct. It is telling, though, that Mercaz USA does not quote the full context of the rabbi’s remarks. What Rabbi Lerner quotes him as saying, after repeatedly saying “I am a Zionist,” is as follows: “OK, let’s discuss what Tzioni means. To me it is “v”sechezena aynaynu b’shuvcha l’Tzion b’rachamim,” that’s the kind of Tzioni I am. You have a different definition? OK, let’s have a conversation!”

It is important to note that this phrase from the Amidah is in the most recent editions of the ​ ​ Conservative and Reform prayer books as well — see for example Mishkan T’filah, p. 92, and the Lev Shalem Siddur pp. 50, 164, and 189.

In other words, the Rabbi was saying that Zionist can be defined in multiple ways, as stated by ARZA (see Section I:1) and explicitly authenticated by the AZM itself in seeking a “unique Zionist philosophy” for any new slate (Section I:1 and I:2). So not only is Mercaz USA’s claim that this statement somehow does not “accommodate the fundamental principles of Zionism” and “cannot be squared with the definition of Zionism adopted by the WZO” utterly contradicted by Mercaz USA’s own allies, but, on the contrary, the rabbi said this in order to engage other Zionists and other Torah-observant Jews by demonstrating that they stand on common ground. It is absurd for Mercaz to assert that one who is Zionist out of fervent religious belief is somehow less authentic than someone who makes the claim for some other reason. The yearning of Jews for thousands of years to return to their homeland is both inculcated by and reflected in the Siddur’s statement of yearning; this is not a contradiction of the Jerusalem Program, but constant encouragement to fulfill it (see Section I:4 and I:5).

The Mizrachi-Vote Torah slate (and its functional predecessors) engaged with the Zionist movement nearly 75 years before the founding of Mercaz USA. Mizrachi is a religious-Zionist slate whose members actively promote Aliyah and IDF service and who, we imagine, would be most surprised to learn that Mercaz USA considers them to not be true Zionists.

11 b (cont.). Rabbi Lerner continued by inviting people to re-interpret every word of the Jerusalem Program, suggesting that its reference to the ‘multi-faceted [or pluralistic] nature of the Jewish people” was fully satisfied by recognizing Yeshivish, Lubavitch, Yemeni, Syrian and other frum sects without regard to any other stream of Judaism and Jewish practice, and asserting that schoolchildren must not be taught that Orthodoxy, as he understands it, might not be the only option for living a Jewish life. Underscoring his message, and its invitation to participate in the Zionist elections notwithstanding the requirement that a candidate or voter must accept the Jerusalem Program, Rabbi Lerner concluded by urging people to ’look at the total picture. It is like they are shooting our grandchildren….the bottom line [is that] we are in a battle, and when you are in a battle you have to do what you need to do to win the battle.”

The statement that Rabbi Lerner suggested that one “re-interpret every word of the Jerusalem Program” is unsourced and false. But it is when offering “pluralistic” as a synonym of “multi-faceted” as found in the Jerusalem Program that Mercaz USA exposes its own dishonesty, as it again attempts to write new rules.

The US liberal movements specifically attempted to have a reference to “pluralism” inserted into the Jerusalem Program, and this was rejected. [Eretz HaKodesh has requested minutes of those meetings; we have yet to receive them.] It is more inclusive to speak instead of the “multi-faceted” Jewish people, especially when considering Israel’s robust Chiloni (secular) ​ ​ population.

As written, the Jerusalem Program does not obligate anyone to abandon theological tenets or endorse the American Reform and Conservative belief in “pluralism,” much as Mercaz USA might wish to pretend otherwise. Were that the case, the Mizrachi movement (Vote Torah), which was founded in 1902, could not be part of the Congress, and neither could many members of the ZOA, American Forum for Israel, Herut and other slates who adhere to classical Orthodox beliefs.

Mercaz USA, instead, reinterpreted the Jerusalem Platform to suit its own ends. But according to its own categorical statements above, to do so is forbidden and disqualifying, and thus they have invalidated themselves from participation in the Congress.

To the officers, delegates and voters of EHK, every Jew is a brother or sister, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin — or ideology.

11c. In a February 5, 2020 article in Mishpacha magazine, authored by Rabbi Lerner (Appendix, Ex. B), he acknowledged that the “Torah community has traditionally not been involved or active in the WZO” and that the objective of Eretz HaKodesh is “to try to limit the influence of the liberal Jewish community,” listing requirements for voting while ignoring any reference to accepting or promoting Zionism as expressed in the Jerusalem Program.

Rabbi Lerner was stating the obvious in the Mishpacha article, that Traditional Orthodox Jews have not generally been involved or active in the WZO previously. That was, of course, the motivation for the EHK slate, as laid out in our application to the AZM and as discussed in Section I:2. There has been a shift in the Haredi community, and EHK encouraged them to get more involved, as the application to AZM said this new slate would do.

But it is worth examining in detail, here, what Mercaz would have the Tribunal believe is “evidence” that Rabbi Lerner was encouraging voters to “ignore the terms of the Jerusalem Program, misrepresenting themselves as Zionists:” because Rabbi Lerner wrote an article “while ignoring any reference to accepting or promoting Zionism as expressed in the Jerusalem Program.”

As we wrote in Section I:3, Mercaz USA’s own Voter Guide (attached hereto as Ex. C) has no ​ ​ mention of the Jerusalem Program. And its Two-Page Campaign Overview (attached as Ex. D) ​ ​ has only this to say, under eligibility requirements: “Accepts the ‘Jerusalem Program’ a short statement that expresses a commitment to Zionism.” Their “Why Vote?” (Ex. E) and Platform ​ ​ ​ (Ex. F) pages don’t mention it either. In fact, there seems to be no page on the Mercaz website linking to either the AZM website or any resource that explains the Jerusalem Program. Given their claims regarding a simple interview, should we wonder if they have something to hide?

As we said elsewhere, even the AZM itself, in its video promoting the elections does not ​ ​ mention the Jerusalem Program. It is found only in the FAQ, a footnote at the bottom of the ​ page. ​

11d. In an interview reported in the Jewish Home February 6, 2020) (Appendix, Ex. C), Rabbi Lerner asserted that by voting in the Zionist elections, “we’re not becoming Zionists” and stated clearly that the goal of CCJH-Eretz HaKodesh was to diminish the voice of Reform and Conservative Jews on religious issues, adopting the statement of Rav Asher Weiss that ”we’re not involved in the World Zionist Organization, but for this we need to be involved.” The multi-page interview ignores the requirement that voters accept the Jerusalem Program.

Rabbi Lerner says that we’re not becoming one with those who used Zionism to oppose Torah as the center of Jewish life, and Mercaz USA takes this out of context. Rabbi Lerner choosing to alert people that by voting they are not fundamentally changing who they are is the truth. It is also true that by voting they will become more involved and will perhaps become less uncomfortable with certain words, now that they include a definition they realize is becoming more inclusive of them, whereas previously they believed they were being excluded. We were honest and forthright at all times (see Section I:2).

Mercaz also seeks to impugn Rabbi Lerner’s honest engagement with the Jerusalem Program simply because he did not mention it in a newspaper interview. This is quite silly. An interview is about sharing a message, not detailing the mechanics of voting. Honestly, Mercaz has no idea what Rabbi Lerner might have said that was excluded for lack of space; it simply knows that every person interviewed will focus upon the distinct agenda of his or her slate. Many candidates from a wide range of slates gave interviews, and none, to our knowledge, addressed the Jerusalem Program. Here are just a few examples:

At the World Zionist Congress, election is a family affair (attached hereto as Ex. Q) — two ​ candidates, one each from Hatikvah and ARZA, are interviewed. The only mention of Zionism is when one says, “We are fighting for how Zionism gets defined” — and “defining” Zionism is that which Mercaz recently argued (above, paragraph 6) that no one may do.

Your vote in Israel: Here are the Bay Area Jews running for the World Zionist Congress (attached as Ex. R) — three candidates are interviewed, not one of whom mentioned the Jerusalem Program.

World Zionist Congress Elections Presents ‘Rare Opportunity’ to Strengthen Global Jewish Community (Ex. S) — this article includes six quotes from six different delegates, none of whom ​ mention it. It even has a quote from Herbert Block, executive director of the American Zionist Movement, and he doesn’t mention it either. Would Mercaz argue that the AZM has abandoned the Jerusalem Program?

As Zionist Elections Get Underway, the Battle for Progressives’ Votes Heats Up (Ex. T) — two ​ candidates are interviewed. Though both are Mercaz allies, representing ARZA and Hatikvah, both fail the new Mercaz litmus test — as neither mentions the Jerusalem Program.

11e. Other Eretz HaKodesh slate members have voiced similar arguments, generally avoiding any mention of the need to accept the Jerusalem Program and what that entails. In a message posted on the Eretz HaKodesh website, Rav Aryeh Zev Ginsberg urges people to vote for the slate with no mention of Zionism or the Jerusalem Program, but because pluralism in Jewish practice must be prevented.

As is obvious from the thirteen different candidate interviews found in the above articles (and as a matter of common sense), it was routine for members of all slates to not mention the Jerusalem Program every time they spoke to the media. Again, Rabbi Ginsberg had three minutes in which to encourage a prospective voter to support EHK and articulate his message.

The fact remains that EHK promoted the Jerusalem Program far more robustly than did other slates (see Section I:3). The claim that because a candidate did not mention the Jerusalem Program, the slate was therefore leading people to ignore it, is risible.

11f. The ad campaign of Eretz HaKodesh delivers an unequivocal, but wholly false, message: “Don’t worry. Participation in the election is not an endorsement of anything the WZO was or is.”

The desire to change something about the WZO, its policies and its constitution, rather than endorse it without modification, is one of the few things most every slate has in common. And more to the point, the ballots, whether electronic or paper, do not so much as mention the WZO — so why would participation in the election be an endorsement of anything the WZO was or is?

Clearly, there is nothing at all false in saying that one need not endorse the actions of the WZO to run a slate in the Zionist elections. Participation in the elections, so long as one honestly adopts the tenets of the Jerusalem Platform, is an attempt to express one’s own yearning for Zion, and to influence one’s own vision of what Zion and the modern state of Israel should look like. For EHK, our platform clearly states our goals.

11g. The approach endorsed by CCJH-Eretz HaKodesh also resulted in other individuals acting as spokespersons supporting their message. For example Rabbi Nechemiah Malinowitz. Speaking after Rabbi Lerner in the above-referenced podcast...

Rabbi Malinowitz, who is neither a CCJH member nor an EHK candidate, was interviewed separately by the same host. He spoke solely as a private individual enthusiastic about the EHK effort. Eretz HaKodesh is not responsible for the statements of private individuals, rabbis or otherwise, more than any other slate is responsible for the statements of individual supporters or detractors. Were we to enter into a discussion of everything said by a Mercaz USA volunteer or voter that we regarded as inappropriate and negative, we would be here for a very long time indeed.

11 (summation). In sum, the entire Eretz HaKodesh election position negates and makes a mockery of their “fully accept” commitment which allowed their slate to go forward, demonstrates the disregard of Zionism and the Jerusalem program by their slate members, and shows that their appeal to voters was deliberately intended to mislead potential voters with regard to the principles of Zionism that are the foundation of the WZO and which must be accepted to participate in the election process.

This “summation” is totally false and without foundation. Before addressing this and concluding this section, it is worth examining paragraph 12, as it reinforces our position.

12. The tactics of CCJH-Eretz HaKodesh were not lost on other observers. Writing in AskTheRav.com on March 6, 2020, Rav Yosef Braun advises that the platform of the WZO is "totally inconsistent with Torah and certainly with the position of our Rebbeim”, particularly because of its “strong implications of the Zionist ideal, lending significance to conversing in the Hebrew language, but most importantly a recognition of other strands of so-called Judaism.”

Eretz HaKodesh is not responsible for the statements of private individuals, rabbis or otherwise, more than any other slate is responsible for the statements of individual supporters or detractors, as already stated above. But we find it most interesting that Mercaz was able to find a quote from an individual previously unknown to CCJH or our delegates. It is obvious that they spent a great deal of time researching material that they believed might be harmful.

In reality, EHK appreciates that Mercaz USA chose to highlight these remarks, as they prove that Mercaz USA’s charges are groundless. There was a fundamental disagreement within the charedi community about whether it was appropriate to abandon past disputes with secular Zionists and focus, instead, upon the importance of supporting Jewish life in Israel today through participation in the WZO.

There were many, including outstanding public figures in the charedi world, who made this vote a controversial topic. As a result, those with qualms or little interest did not vote. This proves the inverse of Mercaz USA’s assertions. It was impossible for EHK to have misinformed voters or make them believe they weren’t actually supporting the Jerusalem Program, because the charedi opposition to EHK made sure that every potential EHK voter knew precisely what they were doing when they chose to vote.

Summation and Conclusion

EHK was extraordinarily forthright about its unique Zionist philosophy (see Section I:2), its commitment to the Jerusalem Program (see Section I:1), informing voters about the Jerusalem Program (see Section I:3), and the need to accept the Jerusalem Program in order to vote (ibid.). And as a result, it brought to the table one of the most committed slates put forward in this election (see Section I:4, and the Addendum, a collection of letters submitted by individual candidates expressing their personal attachment to Israel).

Perhaps it is worth understanding whom Mercaz USA is accusing of being insufficiently a Zionist. • Rabbi Lerner has been a delegate to numerous WZO Congresses over the years; • Rabbi Lerner was Executive Vice President of the National Council of Young Israel, a member organization of the Mizrachi (today, Vote Torah) slate, for over 20 years; • Rabbi Lerner now serves as President of the Coalition for Jewish Values, which spends much of its time fighting anti-Semitism and defending Israel in the media and in Congress; • Rabbi Lerner has long been a member of the executive board for the Moscowitz Prize for Zionism, given in Israel each year; • Rabbi Lerner is co-chair of a campaign that coordinates free BBQs for soldiers at IDF bases, to say “thank you” from American Orthodox Jews; • Rabbi Lerner coordinated a campaign that gave over 300 Torah scrolls to the IDF; • Rabbi Lerner has children and grandchildren living in Israel; • Rabbi Lerner’s parents made Aliyah and died and are buried in Israel; • Rabbi Lerner has a son-in-law who served in the IDF and is currently in the reserves; • Rabbi Lerner’s brother has lived in Israel for over 40 years and, even as a retiree, is an active volunteer for Israel’s police; • Another brother owns an apartment in Jerusalem and visits 4-5 times each year; • Rabbi Lerner himself has visited Israel several times every year for a quarter century; • Rabbi Lerner is an alumnus of Yeshiva Kerem B'Yavneh, a hesder yeshiva located outside of Ashdod; • Rabbi Lerner is co-Chair of the American Friends of the International Young Israel Movement, Israel Region; • Rabbi Lerner was the founder of the American Coalition for Missing Israeli Soldiers; • Rabbi Lerner owns an apartment in Jerusalem and is fluent in modern Hebrew.

If Mercaz USA has any further doubts about Rabbi Lerner’s commitment to the State of Israel or about his credentials or sincerity in fashioning a Zionism for Orthodox Jewry that is both within the confines of the Jerusalem Platform and which is acceptable to Traditional Orthodox Jews, we would encourage Mercaz USA to reach out to the current Israeli Ambassadors to the United States and the United Nations, and the Consul General in New York, all of whom know Rabbi Lerner and whom we are quite confident will vouch for his sincerity and love of Zion. We suspect few delegates on any slate, including Mercaz, can match his commitment to the people and the land of Israel, and he is not alone among the EHK delegates in having a long history of support for Israel.

Once again we refer the Tribunal to Section I of our response. EHK voters were among the most knowledgeable, most involved, and most committed to the Jerusalem Platform of any slate.

Eretz HaKodesh, as stated in our original application letter of 2019, believes that Eretz Yisroel, Israel, is home to all Jews. We believe all Jews should be concerned for, supportive of, and have an ability to be involved with Eretz Yisroel, Israel. It is our hope that our slate and platform will enable more Jews (including many Jews whom, to date, have not been involved) to be supportive of Israel and become more involved. And we believe that thus far we have been extremely successful in this endeavor. COUNTERCLAIM

Against the Mercaz USA (Vote Mercaz) Slate

For violating the Rules for the 2020 United States Election to the 38th World Zionist Congress - As Adopted by the US Area Election AEC Committee on July 29, 2019 and Amended by AEC September 9, 2019 ______

RULES th The Rules for the 2020 Election to the 38 ​ World Zionist Congress provide: ​

VI. CAMPAIGN PRACTICES

2. Campaigning will be positive in nature; slates are proscribed from demeaning or denigrating another slate or competing organization by name or inference. 3. Violations of this provision may be referred to, or appealed to, the AZM Tribunal for such sanctions as the Tribunal may deem appropriate. 4. Commentary regarding positions, platforms, issues, advocacy, statements, and/or activities of other slates and/or their world unions, and/or constituent organizations, is permissible, and does not violate Election Rule VI-2.

JERUSALEM PROGRAM

The Jerusalem Program of the World Zionist Organization describes the foundations of Zionism to which slates, delegates and voters commit themselves as including:

Strengthening Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state and shaping it as an exemplary society with a unique moral and spiritual character, marked by mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people… and struggling against all manifestations of anti-Semitism.

PREAMBLE

Eretz HaKodesh focused its energies upon positive election efforts, rather than negativity from other campaigns.1 The complaint from Mercaz USA, however, forced us to examine Mercaz’s own campaign. What we discovered was both disturbing and deeply offensive, and necessitates this counterclaim for violations of both the Election Rules and Jerusalem Program.

1 Eretz HaKodesh was even more meticulous following the AZM Tribunal Ruling on the ARZA complaint against it.

DEFINITIONS2

Demean - the plain meaning of the word demean is to cause a severe loss in the dignity of and respect for. To demean someone or something is to lower in esteem, character, status, or reputation. Common synonyms are shame, degrade and humiliate.

Denigrate - the plain meaning of denigrate is to attack the reputation of, to disparage, cast aspersions on, and to belittle. To denigrate is to defame one’s reputation or to spread negative or hurtful information about an organization, person or company.

VIOLATIONS

1. Mercaz USA demeans and denigrates all charedi Jews, including the delegates of the Eretz HaKodesh slate and its voter base, as a key part of the Mercaz USA campaign.

a) Mercaz USA deliberately used the offensive term “ultra-,” meaning “extremist,” to demean, denigrate and inflame passions against all charedi Jews, and, in other contexts, all who follow traditional Jewish beliefs. It also calls all observant Jews “religious zealots,” targeting a group that includes the Eretz HaKodesh slate, its delegates and its voter base.

On the Mercaz USA “Why Vote?” page (attached hereto as Ex. E), a key element of its ​ ​ campaign, Mercaz USA repeatedly refers to the Eretz HaKodesh slate and all its delegates, among others, using an offensive and derogatory term, “ultra-Orthodox.”

In a single Mercaz USA document on "The Kotel Controversy" (attached hereto as Ex. CC-A) ​ ​ readers are introduced to the "Ultra-Orthodox Minister of Religious Affairs David Azoulay," the "Ultra-Orthodox leadership," the "same Ultra-Orthodox politicians" and "Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz, the Ultra-Orthodox rabbi of the Western Wall." In each instance, the reference to “Ultra-” is superfluous, pejorative, and intended to instill hostile bias in the reader.

According to the Oxford dictionary, an “ultra” is an extremist. Synonyms include “radical,” “fanatic,” and “zealot.” “Ultra-” is used pervasively to demean and denigrate individuals and communities. In this context, it is used to “otherize” charedi Jews, to depict them as ​ ​ unreasonable extremists (see “Stop Otherizing Haredi Jews,” attached as Ex. CC-B).

2 These are the precise definitions used by Arza/Vote Reform in its complaint vs. EHK in this election cycle. It is commonly accepted that racial, ethnic and religious groups are to determine how they are called by others, and that to impose names upon others is a bigoted act (see “When Did the ​ Word Negro Become Socially Unacceptable?” attached as Ex. CC-C). Writers in the charedi ​ community have repeatedly and vociferously objected to the use of “ultra-Orthodox,” in popular Jewish and general media commonly read by Jewish communal professionals and the general Jewish community (see Ex. CC-B; “Don’t Call Us Ultra-Orthodox,” Ex. CC-D; “Who are you ​ ​ ​ calling ultra?,” Ex. CC-E; “Time to trash ‘ultra’,” Ex. CC-F; and “Setting the Record Straight on ​ ​ ​ ​ Israel and Orthodox Judaism,” Ex. CC-G). ​

For this reason, both the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (see Ex. CC-D) and the Jewish News Service, the two news services for Jewish outlets, set as policy years ago to use “haredi” rather than “ultra-Orthodox;” the latter even felt compelled to add a disclaimer to this effect when an op-ed writer insisted upon using the offensive alternative (“Israel’s battle for peace between ​ religion and state,” Ex. CC-H). ​

Neither can Mercaz USA claim its choice was inadvertent. In a campaign video3, Mercaz USA ​ says “we must stand strong in the face of religious zealots” in precisely the same context.

The United Synagogue claims to impact 1.35 million people. How many times and to how many people were these materials sent, shared and re-shared in an effort to turn out their vote — while referring to the Haredim each time as “ultra-Orthodox” and “religious zealots,” in order to incite animosity against us?

The fact that the “Why Vote?” page targets all charedi Jews in no way reduces the nature of the violation of the rules regarding Campaign Practices (Election Rule VI-2). The rule specifically prohibits language which demeans other organizations — other groups of Jews — not just slates in the election itself.

The Eretz HaKodesh slate expressly represents members of the charedi community, and each Eretz HaKodesh candidate self-identifies with that community, as does its voter base. We are easily identifiable. When the “Why Vote?” page incites animus towards all charedi Jews, it targets each Eretz HaKodesh candidate and voter individually.

Notably, ARZA (Vote Reform) avoided similar inflammatory and derogatory language in many of their election materials, although it shares the goal of Mercaz USA to provide funding for American liberal movements in Israel. For example, ARZA used respectful terms on its page about the elections, stating that “the Israeli government annually provides nearly 4 billion NIS ($1.1 billion) to Orthodox and Haredi institutions in Israel” (“World Zionist Congress Elections,” ​ ​ attached as Ex. CC-I). In a promotional video, ARZA refers only to the “ultra-Orthodox Chief ​ ​ Rabbinate,” which, while inappropriate, is limited in scope to the Chief Rabbinate itself.4

3 Video from the “Election Materials” page of mercaz2020.org, https://www.mercaz2020.org/materials-download, https://player.vimeo.com/video/392539526. ​ ​ ​ 4 Video on ARZA Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2520346338248860. ​ ​

This is still more notable because most Reform Temples use less Hebrew in their services than most of their Conservative counterparts. It is clear that Mercaz USA could have easily chosen to use the respectful Hebrew-language term, but chose not to do so.

This is still more evident because Mercaz USA seems to have eschewed this offensive and demeaning terminology in its campaign of five years ago. Its 2015 “Complete Guide to the Vote ​ MERCAZ Slate #2 Campaign” (attached hereto as Ex. CC-J) referred multiple times to funding ​ for “non-Orthodox” streams and institutions, and, in respectful language, to how Israel supports “Orthodox institutions.” It reserved the demeaning term “ultra-Orthodox” only for the Chief Rabbinate, as ARZA did in 2020. In general, that campaign guide also demonstrated little to none of the negative and degrading references to charedi Jews and the classic forms of Jewish observance detailed below. Former JTS chancellor Arnold Eisen similarly referred only to “generous funding that regularly goes to Orthodox clergy and institutions” when encouraging students and others to support Mercaz USA (“A Vote for MERCAZ USA: Slate #2 Is a Vote for ​ Conservative Judaism and for Israel,” attached hereto as Ex. CC-K). ​

b) Mercaz USA distorts the beliefs of Eretz HaKodesh delegates (and others in their community) in denigrating and demeaning fashion. It also disregards the positions of traditional but non-charedi Jews, and demeans traditional women in particular.

As mentioned above, Mercaz USA depicts all who oppose their agenda as “religious zealots.”5 ​ ​

Of the three core elements of the “Why Vote?” page (Ex. E) that, according to Mercaz USA ​ ​ define the “so much” that is “at stake in this upcoming election,” two of the three are described using inflammatory language designed to demean and denigrate. The page is overwhelmingly ​ ​ negative and demeaning, and severely mischaracterizes the nature of the Eretz HaKodesh slate and its delegates, and their beliefs.

Mercaz USA specifically and falsely describes Eretz HaKodesh, along with other “ultra-Orthodox factions in power,” as opposing “religious freedom.” Eretz HaKodesh favors religious freedom, and does not believe that millions of Israelis should be forced to change their own understanding of what constitutes Jewish religious practice to conform with the practices of certain American groups.

Further, Mercaz depicts opposition to changes at the Western Wall plaza designated for traditional (Halachic) Jewish prayer, and the maintenance of Halachic standards for Jewish marriage, divorce and conversion, as an “extremist” “ultra-Orthodox” position, when these are mainstream Jewish beliefs to which even many traditional and secular Israelis adhere. Far from

5 See footnote 3. demonstrating “mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people,” Mercaz USA discards the traditions of millions of Jews from Middle Eastern countries and their religious authorities, as well as Modern Orthodox / Dati Le’umi and traditional groups in America, Israel and around the world.

When Mercaz USA expressly misrepresents a common adherence to basic elements of Halacha as uniquely an “ultra-Orthodox” religious preference, it both denigrates our community and neglects many facets of the multi-faceted Jewish people with a single phrase.

Mercaz USA claims that adoption of its positions is necessary for the "egalitarian rights of women." In so doing, it not only denigrates the delegates and voters of Eretz HaKodesh, but a Jewish tradition stretching back to the construction of the First Temple by King Solomon nearly 3000 years ago, a tradition treasured by untold millions of Jews throughout the ages. Most of all, Mercaz demeans all women who choose to observe traditional Jewish legal standards in dress, prayer and other practices. Mercaz USA would have its adherents believe that these women are all fools, choosing to place themselves in a community in which they have inferior status.

c) Mercaz USA published articles slandering charedi Jews and Eretz HaKodesh in particular, in a manner designed to create discord and division between Jews.

In a published article about the need to vote, a “USY-er” writes that “Conservative Jews are not equal in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox-controlled rabbinate” (“USY-er Explains Why Your ​ Mercaz Vote Matters,” attached hereto as Ex. CC-L). In this case, the use of the same ​ inflammatory pejorative mentioned above is the least of the problems with an openly libelous statement. According to Jewish law, the Israeli rabbinate, and all communities unjustly tarred by the pejorative term “ultra-Orthodox,” no form of Jewish observance (or lack thereof) alters the fundamental status of any individual who otherwise meets the traditional Jewish legal definition for a member of Am Yisrael. The only purpose of claiming that others impugn a Jew’s Jewish ​ ​ status is to foment discord and incite hatred between Jews.

Neither was this the only example of Mercaz USA using a false accusation to incite animosity in their followers. In other advertising, Mercaz USA claimed that Eretz HaKodesh was “planting ​ seeds of derision and division” (attached hereto as Ex. CC-M). The Eretz Hakodesh advertising, ​ to the contrary, merely outlines numerous uses of WZO funding following the last election, in accordance with Election Rule VI-4. Mercaz USA itself acknowledges, in the same advertisement, that each and every one of these factual statements is completely accurate. Thus Mercaz’s statement that Eretz HaKodesh was “seeking support through derision & division” is itself false, offensive and demeaning.

d) Mercaz USA depicts charedi Jews as such backwards individuals that their very exercise of the democratic vote is a threat to democracy.

On the same “Why Vote?” page (Ex. E), Mercaz USA refers to "the growing power of the ​ ​ Ultra-Orthodox in the Israeli government," the product of participation by traditional, observant Jews in Israel's democratic process, as "not only threatening religious freedom but the basic tenets of democracy."

Consider this again: Mercaz USA explicitly describes traditional, observant Jews voting in democratic elections as undemocratic. Having thus staked out the position that the right to vote should be limited to those of a similar ideological bent to their own, Mercaz is now trying to ​ retroactively nullify the votes of over 20,000 traditional, observant Jews in the democratic elections organized by the AZM. At this point we are convinced, and we hope the Tribunal ​ realizes, that Mercaz USA’s very complaint is both an attack upon the AZM election’s democratic principles, and evidence of the same nasty animus that characterized the Mercaz campaign.

2. False statements by Mercaz USA not only demean and denigrate Eretz HaKodesh delegates and other charedi Jews, but expressly harm Israel’s international stature in violation of the Jerusalem Program.

Mercaz USA falsely asserts that Israel presently lacks religious freedom, does not value women’s rights, and is only tenuously a democracy. It cannot simultaneously claim to be “strengthening Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state” or “struggling against all manifestations of anti-Semitism” in accordance with the Jerusalem Program — for all three of these charges are frequently used by those hostile to Israel, including in obviously anti-Semitic fashion.

A writer for Al-Jazeera claims that even secular Israelis are under “the hegemony of religious bigotry,” before referencing “Israeli war crimes” and comparing Israel’s democratic “Netanyahu government” to the “dismal human rights record” of the presidential, federal, and despotic ​ monarchy of the UAE (“Israel, UAE and the hypocritical manipulation of religion,” attached ​ ​ ​ hereto as Ex. CC-N). And who can forget the UN’s infamous, ludicrous and Anti-Semitic designation of Israel as the only country in the world deserving a condemnatory resolution on ​ women’s rights? The message is clear: when Mercaz USA demeans, denigrates and ​ defames both all charedi Jews and Israel itself, its words have consequences. ​

REMEDY SOUGHT

Mercaz USA profoundly increased its number of votes this year. This seems illogical — it is well-known that the Conservative Jewish movement has been in decline, even launching an apparently-unsuccessful effort to rebrand itself following the last election in order to stem its ​ ​ losses. Thus, even considering the greater overall campaign efforts this year, Mercaz should have struggled simply to equal its showing of five years ago.

The difference is simple: negativity sells. “Negative campaigning is a promising strategy to raise awareness and gain publicity” (see “Negative campaigning and its consequences: a review and ​ a look ahead,” attached hereto as Ex. CC-O). But this same negativity violates Election Rule ​ VI-2, which requires that “Campaigning will be positive in nature,” and prohibits “demeaning or denigrating another slate or competing organization by name or inference.”

For this reason, we request that Mercaz USA be penalized to receive a maximum number of delegate mandates equal to those it would have received, had it garnered the same 9,890 votes that Mercaz USA received in the 2015 election, when it did not violate the election rules in the egregious fashion that it did in the most recent election.