Section I: Addressing the ARZA Complaint

1. Eretz HaKodesh responded immediately to ARZA’s previous complaint. Eretz HaKodesh went above and beyond that which was required by the Tribunal, because EHK strove to operate “Lifnim miShurat HaDin,” above and beyond the rules.

Immediately following receipt of the first complaint from ARZA in February 2020, Rabbi Lerner, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Eretz HaKodesh slate, directed that any ​ and all content which ARZA might deem worthy of complaint be removed from the EHK ​ website, even if Eretz HaKodesh perceived ARZA’s complaint as invalid. At his instruction, an entire collection of downloadable content, seventeen (17) files in all, was removed. As per the enclosed affirmation, the web designer of the Eretz HaKodesh website thought this would be harmful to the website and the campaign, but recalls that Rabbi Lerner wanted to be “extra careful” to do things correctly, in order to avoid conflict (Affirmation of Marcus Dixler, attached hereto as Ex. A).

The collection of files contained attractive materials capable of being shared on What’s App and on social media. Removing these materials thus likely had a significant, detrimental effect on the EHK campaign, but Rabbi Lerner’s priority was to avoid conflict. Thus he had these items removed without being ordered to do so by the ​ Tribunal. Even after the Tribunal reached its decision, determining that the vast ​ majority of content subject to allegations in the original ARZA Complaint was not identified as objectionable, Rabbi Lerner did not restore that content to the website, simply in order to pursue an honest campaign without unnecessary strife.

ARZA’s claim that “Eretz Hakodesh disregarded its own representations about its future behavior and the behavior of its representatives” is categorically false, and ARZA’s ​ ​ claim that “NOTHING was removed or retracted” is categorically false. ARZA’s claim ​ ​ that “the Eretz Hakodesh slate and Rabbi Pesach Lerner continued to violate the rules of the AEC” is categorically false and libelous, and ARZA knows that its libelous ​ ​ ​ statements qualify as “intentional and malicious,” since it was able to verify that all ​ ​ three items cited in its original complaint were immediately removed, and none were ​ restored — even after the Tribunal decision found only some of them to contain one inappropriate expression.

EHK Reply to ARZA page 3 Eretz HaKodesh went above and beyond what the Tribunal required, in order to avoid any further conflict with ARZA or any other party, and likely lost a significant number of votes in so doing. ARZA, in its complaint, knowingly made a false accusation. For ​ ​ anyone interested in fair application of neutral standards, that should be enough to reject this second complaint.

2. ARZA bases its new complaint upon a brazen falsification of the Tribunal’s previous, unambiguous ruling.

ARZA’s complaint uses the AZM Tribunal’s previous decision of March 4, 2020 as the basis of its complaint. That decision had only one operative paragraph, which reads as follows in its entirety:

Regarding the multiple statements made by the Eretz Hakodesh slate, via their leadership and materials, referencing the Reform (and non-Orthodox movements) as “Anti-Torah”, The Tribunal admonishes Eretz Hakodesh for ​ using such language regarding other slates and segments of the Jewish community. The Tribunal notes that comments such as these are inconsistent with the WZO Jerusalem Program, which states that Israel and the Zionist movement are “marked by mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people”. Eretz Hakodesh should cease using this wording and immediately remove it ​ ​ ​ from its communications and campaign material. (Emphasis added)

In a narrow ruling, the Tribunal held that it is needlessly divisive for Eretz HaKodesh to refer to other movements as “Anti-Torah,” regardless of how “Torah” is understood within the traditional observant (Orthodox) community. Nothing further was found to be in violation. The language referenced by the Tribunal was removed entirely and never used again.

Yet, amazingly, ARZA omitted the specific language identified by the Tribunal as ​ offensive. Thus the entire paragraph is devoid of context and meaning, the references ​ to “this wording” and “it” left unspecified, as if Eretz HaKodesh were admonished for ​ ​ ​ ​ using language which the Tribunal did not, in fact, determine to be in violation.

ARZA had the audacity to precede a partial rendering of the decision with the words: “The exact wording of the Tribunal is as follows,” as if what followed were an accurate and complete transcript of the Tribunal decision. This is simply stunning. ARZA ripped

EHK Reply to ARZA page 4 the last half of the Tribunal decision out of context, and presented it back to the Tribunal ​ itself as the “exact wording” of the Tribunal’s own decision. ​

This brazen and fraudulent distortion is key to the new ARZA complaint, which seeks to rewrite history. The previous ARZA complaint listed no fewer than fourteen (14) itemized quotations which ARZA claimed to be in violation of the rules. The Tribunal, however, found only one expression, “anti-Torah,” to be inconsistent with the Jerusalem Program. EHK complied with that ruling and, in fact, ceased using that wording before the Tribunal had even discussed it.

Yet ARZA now claims: “Denigrating and demeaning statements cited in ARZA’s original ​ complaint remained on websites and were available to the public subsequent to the ​ issuance of the ruling” (emphasis added). ARZA thus substitutes its own biased ​ ​ allegations, ones disregarded by the Tribunal, in place of the Tribunal’s judgement regarding what constitutes “denigrating and demeaning statements.” The current ARZA complaint is built entirely upon the false premise that ARZA’s previous, vacuous claims were accepted by the Tribunal, when they were not.

ARZA even states that “no publication published any retraction or correction,” falsely implying that there was any such requirement. On the contrary, the Tribunal directed Eretz HaKodesh to cease using the particular wording in the future, and Eretz HaKodesh complied in full and without reservation.

3. The Tribunal, in its previous decision, could not and did not demand that Eretz HaKodesh abandon the right of the Orthodox community to refer to the source of our unique practices and values as “Torah,” which any slate is free to do.

Throughout all of Jewish history, Jews following the traditions of their forebears clearly identified the source of their values as “Torah,” and other beliefs and practices as something other than Torah. These cannot be accurately characterized as merely “our” values, as they are not, at least according to traditional Jewish belief, values which we devised ourselves. On the contrary, they are “Torah values,” which we must observe and follow rather than modify or control. As Rabbi Lerner explained in his previous response:

“Torah” and “Torah values” are understood in these publications geared toward the Orthodox Community as the Torah of 3000 years, immutable and perfect and

EHK Reply to ARZA page 5 with divine authorship, and any changes in that tradition cannot be considered. If ARZA finds that understanding unacceptable, I am sorry, but it cannot be a basis for complaint. They themselves would admit that is not their definition of “Torah” so we are not even talking about the same thing. They have their own definition which is radically different than ours, and we have the right to promote our definition to our audience, just as they do, and that is not the same thing as disparaging another slate (see Response submitted to Judge Gafni, attached ​ hereto as Ex. B).

The Tribunal cannot and did not presume to demand that Eretz HaKodesh abandon expression of the fundamental tenet of Orthodox Jewish belief that “Torah” is represented uniquely by the practices and values espoused by Jewish teachers from Moses to King David, to Hillel, to Rebbe Akiva, to Maimonides, to the Code of Jewish Law and the present day. EHK does not presume to demand that ARZA cease describing its own beliefs as “Torah.” We have an obvious theological difference that in no way contradicts “mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people,” which requires recognition of something more fundamental than an individual’s ideology.

Thus, despite ARZA’s inclusion in its first complaint of quotations from Rabbi Lerner describing traditional Jewish beliefs with expressions such as “Torah values” and “a Torah lifestyle,” the Tribunal did not cite these terms, nor prohibit commentary that referred factually to opposition from those with antithetical views.

4. ARZA inverts the Tribunal’s previous decision, falsely claiming that Eretz HaKodesh violated the previous ruling simply by calling Torah values “Torah values,” and Jewish tradition “our Mesorah.”

ARZA begins its first enumerated claim as follows: “The Eretz Hakodesh website, as recently as March 10th reflected the same demeaning statements that they had previously published and for which the slate had been admonished - that the Reform Movement waged a battle for the ‘erosion of Torah values in Israeli society.’”

Now it is obvious why ARZA failed to accurately quote the previous Tribunal decision — because the Tribunal did not, directly contrary to ARZA’s assertion, admonish Eretz HaKodesh for using that language. It is in no way denigrating or demeaning to state that ARZA is advocating on behalf of “strains of Judaism that do not believe in our mesorah at all.” “Commentary regarding positions, platforms, issues, advocacy, statements, and/or activities of other slates” is in full accordance with the Rules for the 2020 Election to ​

EHK Reply to ARZA page 6 the 38th World Zionist Congress (Section VI-4). Eretz HaKodesh accurately and objectively ​ depicted the beliefs and advocacy of the Reform and Reconstructionist Movements; ARZA falsely calls this “demeaning.”

The Tribunal could not find the aforementioned statements by Eretz HaKodesh to be rules violations, specifically because “Torah values,” Mesorah (or “tradition”) and “a ​ ​ Torah lifestyle” are positive terms, and Reform opposition to them is objective. Saying so is not intended to demean in any way. It is quite obvious from ARZA’s own election materials that they don’t endorse our theology, either.

Thus the entirely false nature of the current complaint is revealed. Eretz HaKodesh “continued to use” only that language and those arguments which the Tribunal did not ​ find to be in violation of the Jerusalem Program, and discarded from ARZA’s complaint. And, in actuality, Eretz HaKodesh removed and did not restore a collection of seventeen (17) documents simply to avoid any conflict, although most of them contained no examples of the single phrase that was the subject of the Tribunal’s previous decision.

ARZA shamelessly replaced the Tribunal’s judgement with its own, falsely insinuating that the Tribunal validated claims in ARZA’s previous complaint that were dismissed. In reality, Eretz HaKodesh studiously avoided the specific language that the Tribunal found in violation — and retained exclusively that language which the Tribunal did not find to be in violation.

ARZA and liberal movements may believe otherwise, but it is ridiculous and reprehensible to demand that we abandon our religious beliefs and forthright discussion of support for and opposition to those beliefs, whether in the context of the World Zionist Congress Elections or any other. It is also not in harmony with “mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people” to ask, or, in this case, demand, that we do so. . 5. ARZA demands that traditional Judaism itself, in belief and practice, be found in violation of the Election Rules.

The attempt of ARZA to falsely depict basic religious Jewish beliefs as somehow hateful is hardly limited to the use of terms like “Torah values” or “Mesorah.” On the contrary, ​ ​ ARZA demands that the Tribunal act as the Sanhedrin, the council of Torah scholars ​ ​ whose chambers were found on the Holy Temple Mount, and whose members were tasked with determining what was or was not legitimate Jewish practice or belief.

EHK Reply to ARZA page 7 ARZA’s complaint continues:

Eretz Hakodesh’s clear message is that only their understanding of Judaism, ritual and observance is authentic and valid and that any other is completely invalid.

ARZA’s clear message is that only forms of Judaism that subscribe to “Jewish pluralism” are valid, and that any other, such as millennia-old Jewish tradition itself, is completely invalid.

Does ARZA somehow imagine that it is within the purview of the Tribunal of the American Zionist Movement to determine what practices are “authentic and valid” forms of Judaism? ARZA appears to be unaware that traditional Judaism established clear standards for Jewish “ritual and observance” millennia prior to the advent of the Reform movement. The belief that these observances are incumbent upon all Jews is a core tenet of traditional “Torah” Judaism, and thus fealty to these standards is entirely shared by the Orthodox Israel Coalition, Shas Olami and Ohavei Zion slates, and many delegates from other slates as well.

Indeed, all of the Torah, Talmud, Maimonides, and the Code of Jewish Law articulate the idea that only a particular “understanding of Judaism, ritual and observance is authentic and valid,” that there is a “right way” in Judaism. Yet all of them project love for the Jewish nation in its entirety.

Each school of thought can believe that it is correct without demeaning or disparaging others. If no differences of opinion were permitted, there would be no contest in these elections, and commentary about other slates would be prohibited, rather than expressly permitted.

6. ARZA demands that the unified Jewish People be fragmented by ideology.

According to ARZA, in reference to Eretz HaKodesh:

Their message is that they reject and are committed to blocking application of one of the central elements of the Jerusalem Program – the “mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people.” When they stated that only their understanding of Judaism is authentic and only their understanding of ritual and observance is

EHK Reply to ARZA page 8 valid and that any other approach to Jewish observance must not be communicated or allowed to thrive, they acted in complete opposition to the mutual respect of a multi-faceted Jewish people.

This is both a categorically false caricature of the EHK “message,” and a divisive claim that needlessly fractures the united Jewish People into groups based solely upon differing ideologies.

Note that in the Jerusalem Program, “mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people” is immediately followed by “rooted in the vision of the prophets.” The prophets rebuked the nation for every ideological or practical deviation. By ARZA’s standard, the Prophets themselves opposed “mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people!” This is ludicrous. Mutual respect means respecting the other despite ideological ​ ​ ​ differences, not demanding that the other acquiesce to your opinion.

So ARZA’s claim that Eretz HaKodesh not only rejects, but is committed to blocking “mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people,” is a malicious fabrication. ARZA substitutes a demand for ideological conformity in place of the pure acknowledgement of the unity of the Jewish People required by the Jerusalem Program. ARZA’s claim that EHK “acted in complete opposition to the mutual respect of a multi-faceted Jewish people” is an offensive and slanderous falsehood.

ARZA may adhere to its own doctrine and insist upon fragmenting the Jewish nation according to its own beliefs, but it is twisted for ARZA to declare that those such as the the officers and delegates of the Eretz HaKodesh slate, who respect all Jews without an ideological litmus test, are “in complete opposition to the mutual respect of a multi-faceted Jewish people.”

7. ARZA falsely asserts that EHK statements are “denigrating and demeaning” for simply opposing the efforts of American liberal groups to change Israel’s standards for Jewish practice.

It is not merely true that the language “erosion of Torah values” found on the EHK website was not found to be in violation by the Tribunal. That phrase was not even focused upon ARZA!

The text from the web page, in context, is as follows:

EHK Reply to ARZA page 9 Five years ago, pluralistic American Jewish groups ran an effective election campaign, and succeeded in gaining major influence over the WZO. (In an Email the URJ Union for Reform Judaism wrote: “So much of the dramatic growth of our Movement in Israel throughout the past five years can be traced directly to our success in the 2015 WZO election.”) The result? Five years of intensive and well-funded battles waged for the erosion of Torah values in Israeli society.

Pluralistic American Jewish groups oppose traditional Orthodox standards, yet the language of the EHK web page is uniformly complimentary towards the efforts and ​ ​ successes of those groups, while hoping to reverse the results. And this is what ARZA holds up as an example of “denigrating and demeaning”! It is commentary, explicitly permitted under the Rules, and quite respectful, even admiring commentary at that.

ARZA similarly misrepresents further commentary, the statement that due to the efforts of these American groups (not solely the Reform movement, as ARZA falsely states), “Israeli public schools are replacing their rabbinic Tanach staff with teachers who not only do not believe in Torah m’Sinai but subscribe to strains of Judaism that do not believe in our mesorah at all.”

ARZA again depicts an entirely factual account of circumstances in Israel, pointing out those things which harm our interests, as “denigrating and demeaning.” ARZA ​ deliberately and falsely claims that any commentary which reflects negatively upon its agenda is “denigrating and demeaning,” completely contrary to the Election ​ ​ Rules (VI-4).

8. ARZA falsely and hypocritically accuses Eretz HaKodesh of a rules violation for sentiments precisely comparable to ARZA’s own.

ARZA says, regarding Eretz HaKodesh, that “they continued to assure their constituency that voting in the election does not make one a Zionist with the clever phrase that “‘(p)articipation in the elections 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?

EHK Reply to ARZA page 10 ARZA, for its part, stated that “a leadership role in KKL-JNF will enable us to ensure that decisions about government and public spending over the Green Line, including land purchases, reflect the Reform Movement’s values and positions” (see ARZA page on “World Zionist Congress Elections,” attached hereto as Ex. J). ​ ​

In practical application, the Reform movement announced that “we emphatically and continually oppose all land acquisition by the Jewish National Fund (KKL) outside the sovereign borders of the State of Israel, known as the Green Line,” so much so that when Reform leaders learned that such a KKL-JNF land purchase had taken place, the Union for Reform Judaism withdrew from a sponsorship agreement for the URJ Biennial (see “URJ Statement On Keren Kayemeth L’Israel Land Purchases in the West Bank,” ​ ​ attached hereto as Ex. T).

Thus both ARZA and the Reform movement itself, rather than “endorsing anything the WZO was or is,” expressed open opposition to that which the WZO did in the past and ​ ​ declared that ARZA must take the wheel of KKL-JNF to steer it in a different direction. So this particular accusation is not only as devoid of merit as the others, but a compelling example of hypocrisy.

As ARZA itself demonstrates, there is no requirement to endorse of the WZO or its previous actions in order 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.

9. ARZA’s attack on Rabbi Yitzchak Berkovits is a Case Study in Slander.

As documented in the enclosed letter from Marcus Dixler of Dixler Design (See Ex. A), the specific assertion that Eretz HaKodesh campaign videos were available on the Eretz HaKodesh website “one week after the close of the voting period” is false. ​ ​

And there is another relevant detail stated in Mr. Dixler’s letter: the video of Rabbi Berkovits was posted to the Eretz HaKodesh website the week prior to the first ARZA ​ ​ complaint. If the video is offensive now, it was offensive then, yet at that time ARZA saw no reason to include it. So Eretz HaKodesh had no reason to remove it — it did not contain the language prohibited by the Tribunal, neither had ARZA mentioned it in the

EHK Reply to ARZA page 11 first ARZA complaint. As mentioned previously, Eretz HaKodesh removed a collection of seventeen (17) documents, including all three that were the subject of the first ARZA complaint and any others that Rabbi Lerner believed might possibly be seen as offensive even by ARZA itself.

Clearly, Rabbi Berkovits’ statements were neither intended to be offensive or denigrating to ARZA or to the Reform movement, nor perceived.that way even by ARZA itself prior to its first complaint.

Rabbi Yitzchak Berkovits is an American-born scholar who moved to Israel nearly 50 years ago. He has no involvement in political conflicts. To the contrary, he has devoted his career to introducing Jews of all backgrounds and affiliations to their Jewish ​ ​ heritage, and to training others to do the same. Rabbi Berkovits is the Dean of both Aish HaTorah, a school for beginners overlooking the Western Wall in Jerusalem, and of the Jerusalem Kollel, a training institute for families that plan to return to America or to communities around the world to do the same outreach to unaffiliated Jews.

His mission is Jewish education for all Jews, regardless of their level of education, denominational affiliation or any other factor. He is a globally-renowned resource for all who seek to educate the next Jewish generation — which Reform Rabbi Eric Yoffie, past president of the Union for Reform Judaism, termed “the most Jewishly ignorant in all of Jewish history” (see “'The Ten Principles': Can We Take Another Step?” attached ​ ​ hereto as Ex. C) — and stave off the tide of assimilation and lack of Jewish knowledge. And this is the person whom ARZA would have the Tribunal believe “demeans” Reform Jews.

What did he say? Rabbi Berkovits bemoaned the obvious deterioration of Reform ​ ​ affiliation in America.

At this point, a moment of reflection is in order concerning the demographic reality. According to the Pew Survey of 2013, over 58% of Jews married after the year 2000 have chosen a non-Jewish spouse (see “A Portrait of Jewish Americans,” attached hereto as Ex. G). Yet this is far from uniform. According to an analysis of the Pew, NJPS and other Jewish community surveys by Antony Gordon and Richard Horowitz, the average number of children born to women who self-identify with the American Reform movement is now 1.73, well below the Zero Population Growth rate of 2.1, while intermarriage has reached nearly 80%. (See “Will Your Grandchildren be Jews: Updated,” attached hereto as Ex. H). Thus, on average, 100 Reform grandparents are likely to have only 26 grandchildren who self-identify as Jews — even using Reform’s

EHK Reply to ARZA page 12 definition of Jewish identity. We are not aware of any refutation of, or projections significantly different from, the Gordon-Horowitz study.

Yet ARZA, rather than address this tragedy in progress, claims it “demeans” the Reform movement to reflect sadly on the fact that it is indeed “disintegrating.” As Rabbi Berkovits said in his commentary, this is “nothing to be too happy about… It’s disintegrating because people aren’t even Reform anymore.” And this is what ARZA claims “demeans the entire Reform Movement” — a mournful commentary. The losses are tragic, and the blame does not lie with Rabbi Berkovits.

10. Conclusion

ARZA claimed to provide “The exact wording of the Tribunal” ruling ...and this is false. ​ ​ ARZA said that “NOTHING was removed or retracted” from the EHK website ...and this is false. ​ ​ ARZA implied that the Tribunal required a published retraction or correction ...and this is false. ​ ​ ARZA said that EHK members “reject and are committed to blocking application of one of the central elements of the Jerusalem Program “ ...and this is false. ​ ​ ARZA said EHK acts “in complete opposition to the mutual respect of a multi-faceted Jewish people.” ...and this is false. ​ ​ ARZA said EHK was admonished for referring to “Torah values” and “our mesorah” ...and this is false. ​ ​ ARZA claimed videos were available on the EHK website a week after the election ...and this is false. ​ ​ ARZA implied that explicitly permitted commentary violates the Election Rules ...and this is false. ​ ​ ARZA said it “demeans and denigrates Reform Judaism” to merely state their objectives in Israel ....and this is false. ​ ​ ARZA said that it was “denigrating and demeaning” to oppose their agenda ....and this is false. ​ ​

EHK Reply to ARZA page 13 It’s time to say “Dayyeinu — we have been lied to enough!”

Eretz HaKodesh submits that the ARZA Complaint is both false and malevolent, and a perverse misuse of the Complaint process.

We request an immediate dismissal of the ARZA Complaint, accompanied by a requirement that ARZA reimburse the attorney’s fees and other costs preparing our response, and the suspension, for the next two election cycles, of ARZA’s privilege to file a Complaint before the Tribunal against Eretz HaKodesh. ARZA has clearly abused that privilege.

EHK Reply to ARZA page 14