BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL OF THE AMERICAN ZIONIST MOVEMENT MERCAZ USA, Complainant, v. THE COORDINATING COMMITTEE FOR THE JEWISH HOMELAND/ERETZ HAKODESH, Respondents. REPLY OF MERCAZ USA TO THE RESPONSE FILED BY CCJH/ERETZ HAKODESH I. THE ERETZ HA-KODESH RESPONSE RESTS ON A MIS- STATEMENT OF THE PREMISES OF MERCAZ USA’S COMPLAINT. While the Eretz HaKodesh response prefers to ignore it, the Complaint before the Tribunal is narrowly-focused, based on (1) specific facts pertaining to the fundamental principles of Zionism as defined in the World Zionist Organization (WZO) Constitution which includes the terms and details of “The Jerusalem Program;” (2) Eretz HaKodesh’s divergence from the rules established by the AZM Area Elections Committee; and (3) the organizational conduct of Eretz HaKodesh as the organization putting forward a slate in the Zionist elections. In particular: • The Jerusalem Program, in definitive language adopted as part of the WZO Constitution, states that “The foundations of Zionism” include “strengthening Israel as a Jewish, Zionist US_Active\114892374\V-1 and democratic state…marked by mutual respect for the multi- faceted Jewish people,” “furthering Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education,” teaching Hebrew as the national language,” and “representing the national Zionist interests of the Jewish people” (emphasis added.) Individuals, and organizations, may have different versions of Zionism, but for candidacy, voting and participation as a delegate to the Congress, it is acceptance of the Jerusalem Program that is required by both the WZO and the AZM. • Despite Eretz HaKodesh’s statements to the contrary, those who affirm that they accept that foundation as expressed in the Jerusalem Program are being asked to affirm that -- for all purposes within the WZO--, they are Zionists, and recognize that “Zionism” -- throughout the history of the WZO -- is grounded on its role as is “the national liberation movement of the Jewish people [that] brought about the establishment of the State of Israel;” an accomplishment and ongoing common responsibility of the Jewish people through their own actions.1 • The World Zionist Congress is a legislative body of individuals who meet the established qualifications. It is composed of individuals who declare that they are, in fact, Zionists, as defined in the WZO Constitution by the Jerusalem Program.2 • In applying to put forward a “new slate,” CCJH-Eretz HaKodesh stated that ”The CCJH-Eretz HaKodesh expresses its full acceptance of and compliance with the WZO Constitution, the Jerusalem Program and the AZM 1 These principles do not deny that the relationship between Jews and Israel can also (and simultaneously) be seen through the lens of religious principles, However, they do demand adherence to the foundational principles of the WZO as stated in the Jerusalem Program. 2 Organizations that wish to participate in elections must have confirmed that they are Zionist bodies accepting the Jerusalem Program ;all proposed delegates must confirm that they are Zionists within the meaning of the Jerusalem Program; and the same qualification applies to all voters in the AZM sponsored elections.. US_Active\114892374\V-1 Constitution.” “Full acceptance” means without qualification or equivocation. Its proposed Congress delegates, by registering to vote in the Zionist elections similarly stated that they each accepted the Jerusalem program.3 • However, in its statements, postings and campaign materials, 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, or treat it as a nullity, or interpret the words to alter the meaning of clear elements of the Program, thereby misrepresenting themselves as Zionists within the meaning of the WZO Constitution and the Jerusalem Program. From the very beginning of its Response, Eretz HaKodesh disregards those specifics and attempts to replace them with a multitude of words and argumentative “strawmen” that they then attempt to knock down. MERCAZ USA did not assert that “the vision for Zionism offered by Eretz HaKodesh is illegitimate.” The issue presented does not turn on the variations in defining Zionism that various individuals or organizations may focus on for their own purposes. It does not call for measurements of the number of times someone has visited Israel, or their financial support for institutions in Israel, or the number of family members who have made aliyah, or individual involvement in organizational Jewish life. MERCAZ USA did not assert that it is impossible for all who describe themselves as Haredi or Frum to consciously come to the good faith belief that acceptance of the terms of the Jerusalem Program described above, consistent with their religious beliefs, 3 The assertion that it was necessary for the AEC to add those four additional words, like many of the arguments advanced by Eretz HaKodesh, simply reflects the lack of substance in the position being asserted. US_Active\114892374\V-1 and their assertions that the MERCAZ USA complaint would challenge the status of Mizrachi or other Orthodox Jews who have determined that the Jerusalem Program is consistent with their religious principles, is nothing less than demagoguery. MERCAZ USA did not assert that slates cannot enlarge on the Jerusalem Program by adding explanations or commentary on each of its six points that are wholly consistent with the Jerusalem Program. Neither the Constitution nor the election rules prohibit such commentary. What is prohibited are statements and conduct that are inconsistent with and explicitly or implicitly reject and undermine the role of the Jerusalem Program. The “personal thinking” of individuals who voted for (or agreed to be slated by) Eretz HaKodesh is not an element of the MERCAZ USA complaint. Just the opposite: it is the admitted organizational activities of Eretz HaKodesh -- urging individuals who do not accept those elements to disregard them, or interpret them out of existence so as to achieve goals that are contrary to the Jerusalem Program -- that evidences the misrepresentation in their statement that they “fully accept and support” the Jerusalem Program; calls its voter support into question; and provides the evidence that precludes the Tribunal from applying a presumption that all individual participants can be assumed to meet the WZO and AZM criteria and “have done so properly.” Presumptions are used in the absence of evidence, not to override or substitute for evidence to the contrary, and the issues presented by the MERCAZ USA complaint do not turn on inquiry into individual “personal thinking.” Nor is the issue before the Tribunal to be determined by allegations being levied against other slates. Those allegations, even if supported, do not establish a justification for Eretz HaKodesh. A claim that “Others have acted improperly, so we can as well” is not a defense. Indeed, the response filed by Eretz US_Active\114892374\V-1 HaKodesh takes that argument to the point of absurdity, by arguing that if the language of the Jerusalem Program makes some individuals “uncomfortable,” and requires them to consider whether they in fact accept its terms, then anyone who is supporting the Eretz HaKodesh slate has the unrestricted right to adopt any interpretation of the Jerusalem Program to fit their own beliefs--even if they are direct contradiction to principles of the Program. The assertion proves too much: it reflects a concession that this has been the position and message of Eretz HaKodesh from the start. Moreover, it underscores the fact that they have created the situation which creates a cloud over the results of their organizational activity. The simple and conclusive fact is that the Eretz HaKodesh response is an attempt to deflect attention from the issues actually presented and substitute “issues” that are irrelevant and without merit, along with arguments that do not meet the standards of law, applicable rules, or logic. The fundamentals of Zionism governing WZO participation are not a function of visits to Israel, or investments in its economy, or whether children have attended “full day Jewish day school through seminary, yeshiva or kollel,” or levels observance, or any of the other 14 colorful pie charts presented in their response. They are not defined by whether an individual believes that developments in Judea and Samaria should, or should not be supported (a topic of dispute and/or nuanced qualification within Israeli society, the Knesset, and participants in the World Zionist Congress), or similar measurements. Basing arguments on assertions that various organizations or individuals are “allies,” or a reference to a view held by someone associated with another group who may have questioned the timing of moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem , claiming that it constitutes support of BDS, have no probative value; they are little more than “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” US_Active\114892374\V-1 We believe that the matters detailed above are themselves sufficient for the Tribunal to conclude that the Eretz HaKodesh response should be disregarded. However, out of an excess of caution, this reply will briefly highlight additional grounds for rejecting the assertions put forward by Eretz HaKodesh and the “counterclaim” appended to that document. II. ERETZ HAKODESH HAS ADMITTED, OR FAILED TO RESPOND TO, KEY ELEMENTS OF THE COMPLAINT. The Eretz HaKodesh submission