We are well positioned for the organization to leap forward this fall as we transition to full-time staff, upgrade our web-based communications and expand our policy centers. The support of our Board of Directors and membership provides the new director with a wealth of resources and potential to tap. This challenging economic climate is an excellent opportunity for us to find many qualified candidates, and as a progressive organization we are proud to offer quality healthcare and other benefits to this individual.

State Representative Brendan Boyle (D-Phila./Montgomery) recently introduced House Bill 1567, which would change the sentencing and supervision laws regarding “violent” offenders. The bill amends what is generally understood as Pennsylvania’s three strike sentencing scheme enumerated in 42 Pa. C.S. § 9714, to take away the parole board’s supervision, require mandatory flat sentences, and impose a new supervisory process that may be more akin to a long probationary period.

While the recent killing of two Philadelphia police officers by paroled offenders understandably triggers a desire to rethink sentencing and parole for violent offenders, increasing penalties and eliminating discretion is not the way to do it.

The current scheme provides that upon a second conviction for a “violent” crime, basically the most serious felonies, the court imposes a minimum 10 year period of incarceration The minimum for a third conviction is 25 years. After serving the minimum, the parole board determines whether the offender should be released.

Boyle’s bill would eliminate discretion and place all offenders in the same boat. It requires judges to impose minimum flat sentences of 15 years for a second offense, and 30 years for a third. Following their incarceration, offenders would be placed on post- prison intensive restriction for periods equal to their original incarcerations. This supervision, however, is not detailed in a way to know whether parole officers would be forced to alter the way in which they manage their parolees, suggesting the possibility that intensive supervision is just a way to increase penalties.

The bill fails to allocate additional resources for reentry programs, job training and placement, or housing. Without these improvements, any change in recidivism is likely illusory, with the exception that more people will remain under supervision and incarcerated longer.

In addition, the bill ignores the Goldkamp interim report, which sets forth more programmatic solutions to enhancing the parole board’s ability to effectively release and monitor offenders, while providing for community safety.

JSPAN’s board opposes House Bill 1567 because it tries to be an easy fix to a difficult problem, legislation that once again focuses on punishment and prison instead of methodically addressing the causes, real programmatic solutions, and frankly, the humanity of each individual offender.

At its meeting on July 22, 2009, the JSPAN Board voted to support the following resolution: "Resolved: that JSPAN opposes mandatory minimum sentences that bind judges' or prosecutors' discretion. Moreover, we specifically oppose House Bill 1567."

That description, however, is about to change: the state-funded museum on the Tel Aviv University campus which opened in 1978 will soon be undergoing a $25 million project to expand its physical size and redevelop its exhibitions. More significantly, when it reopens in 2012 it will assume a new name, the Museum of the Jewish People, in an effort, according to Mr. Jeffay, "to put Diaspora Jews on an equal footing with those in Israel. ... One of the main things that will be changed in the new museum is the old fashioned Zionist narrative, which expected the Diaspora to disappear as Jews immigrated to Israel.

"The changes at the museum represent the latest stage in an evolution in Israeli thinking about the Diaspora. Until the 1970s, Zionists of all political shades tended to be committed to the principle of shlilat ha'galut, translated as 'negation of the exile.' ... In the 1970s ... people began to refer less to the galut, or 'exile,' and more to the tefustot, or 'Diaspora.' Nevertheless, there was a widespread belief that the future of the Jewish people lay in Israel and not in the Diaspora.

"The mindset today could not be more different. ... Using even the word 'Diaspora' in the museum's name is considered chauvinistic, because it puts foreign Jews in a single boat even though their cultures are diverse - hence the new name."

On January 21, 1979, JSPAN Board member Theodore Mann, then chairman of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council (NJCRAC), delivered an address at the organization's annual plenum in which he laid out a framework on which to sustain relations between the Jewish communities in Israel and the United States. Looking back over the period of three decades since the establishment of the State of Israel up to the late 70s, Ted described an American Jewish community with "a feeling of inferiority, perhaps justified, and a resultant outsized respect and even awe of our Israeli partners.

"On their side, most self-respecting Zionists believed in 'shelilat ha-golah,' the ultimate disappearance of the diaspora. ... It is surely true that on such attitudes - ours toward them, theirs toward us - healthy, mutually respectful relationships are not built.

"Israelis who believe in our inevitable assimilation should reconsider, no matter how painful the process, ... because if we begin to believe it too, it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy. I say to such Israelis: believe in our future and act on that belief just as we believe in your future and act on that belief."

Fast forward thirty years to July 2009. Ted finds Nathan Jeffay's article in The Forward (see above). While reading it, he remembers his speech to the NJCRAC plenum and the concerns he expressed then about the perceived second-class status of the American Jewish community in its relations with Israel. He shares them both with me; I am struck by how remarkably the two articles resonate with each other in language and in message.

Conclusion: Ted was way ahead of his time when he wrote thirty years ago of the imperative for Israel to acknowledge that the American Jewish community should be respected and treated seriously. It has taken thirty years for the leadership of the Diaspora Museum to come to the realization that the history of the Jewish people does not conclude with the establishment of the State of Israel, but rather continues to evolve and be expressed by many diverse cultures in settings around the world. The content of the museum will finally reflect this realization and this reality.

Yasher ko'ach, Ted!

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter voted against the bill, a significant defection for the gun lobby from a senator who usually supports its positions on gun rights. His critical vote against the bill followed an intense, organized effort from a wide spectrum of organizations and individuals, including CeaseFirePA, more than 100 Pennsylvania mayors, faith leaders, police chiefs, state legislators and a host of citizens from across the Commonwealth. Sen. Specter cited federalism concerns and the right of Pennsylvania to establish its own rules on who can carry a concealed firearm in his decision to vote against the bill.

Senator Robert Casey voted in favor of the Thune Amendment - rebuffing the concerns of this growing coalition for reform that includes the groups listed above, Gov. Edward G. Rendell, Moms Against Guns, the PA Legislative Black Caucus, and other activists. Sen. Casey's vote was a profound disappointment to the coalition.

Weeks of advocacy against the concealed carry bill reached a peak before the vote, as the PA mayors group and also a statewide group of faith leaders published full page newspaper ads in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia urging PA's two senators to vote against the bill.

JSPAN is an active member of CeaseFirePA, Pennsylvania's largest gun violence prevention organization.

To read the full text of The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, click here.

The Washington Post, in the editorial "Marching Orders" which appeared on July 20, reported that "momentum is building for a repeal of the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military. ... 'Don't ask, don't tell' was a wrongheaded compromise when it was instituted. It remains so today, especially when the United States is engaged in two wars and dealing with the omnipresent specter of another terrorist attack." Since 1993, nearly 13,000 U.S. military personnel have been forced out of service because of their sexual orientation.

President Obama is being pressured by gay rights activists to "hold ... to his promise to overturn the ban. ... This month, the Pentagon announced that its general counsel was reviewing the 'don't ask, don't tell policy.' ... This is the necessary work to get military support for allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly, as they do in 24 countries, including Israel and Great Britain. ... What is also necessary is that the activism aimed at Mr. Obama also be directed at Congress."

The legislation has already garnered 163 co-sponsors and is well on its way to reaching the 218 votes needed for ratification. In adherence with JSPAN's long-standing opposition to the policy of "don't ask, don't tell," we join all of the co-sponsors in support of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009.

To access the full text of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009, click here.

The federal minimum wage is now $7.25/hour, raising wages for an estimated 4.5 million workers in 31 states, and providing an additional $1.6 billion annually in increased wages.

This wage hike is not only good for families who are struggling to get by in these tough times; it is also good for the overall economy. The Economic Policy Institute reported that at the same time that consumer spending has fallen in the face of rising unemployment and economic uncertainty, the minimum wage boost is expected to generate $5.5 billion in increased consumer spending over the next year due to a multiplier effect. This is on top of the approximately $4.9 billion in increased spending already produced by the first two increases in July 2007 and July 2008.

While this is a huge leap forward, there continues to be much work to do. A minimum wage of $7.25/hour still leaves a family of three or more below the official federal poverty line (which is by no means a comprehensive measure of what it takes to meet basic needs). A parent working full-time with two children would nevertheless be part of the working poor, unable to support his/her family despite playing by the rules.

In addition, although the minimum wage was raised by $2.10 over the past three years, there are no more scheduled increases and no policies indexing it to inflation, which means that without further action the value of the minimum wage will begin declining in real terms.

In recent months, Holocaust deniers have increasingly found an audience on the site. Mr. Davis reports that in response, Facebook has decided to "ban Holocaust-denial groups in countries where such statements are illegal, but it takes a laissez-faire stance in the U.S. and elsewhere." Because it is privately owned, Facebook "gets to decide what goes on behind its fence."

Is it better to ban online hate speech or to expose it? Danielle Citron, a professor at the University of Maryland College of Law supports the latter approach. She states that "the more we see hate, the more we can respond to it."

What do you think? Send us an e-mail with your opinion to jspan@jspan.org

To read "Slippery Cyberslope: Where to Draw the Line?" by Brad Davis, click here.

"This was clearly a test case," said José Miguel Vivanco, the Americas director for Human Rights Watch. "And so far it really has not helped to establish any credibility for the justice system in Argentina." But suddenly, an investigation that former President Néstor Kirchner called a national disgrace has received new urgency and is again raising hopes among Jewish groups, though significant concerns about the inquiry remain.

Alexei Barrionuevo, Southern Cone bureau chief for The New York Times, reported on July 17, 2009 that certain Argentine investigators now "believe that they have solved the case in principle, having accused the Iranian government of planning and financing the attack, and Hezbollah of executing those plans. But some experts, including a former American F.B.I. agent who assisted the Argentines in their investigation, are skeptical about the claims of direct Iranian involvement."

Charges of government involvement, including that of former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjami, first formally surfaced in 2006. Mr. Barrionuevo asserts that "doubts have long clouded the investigations, (which) were riddled with incompetence, witnesses who were threatened and bribed, stolen evidence and accusations of a cover-up involving the former Argentine president Carlos Menem. The Argentines, nevertheless, maintain that Iran was behind the attack, and have limited relations with Tehran partly because of the investigation's importance to the nation's 230,000 Jews, the largest Jewish community in Latin America."

To read "Inquiry on 1994 Blast at Argentina Jewish Center Gets New Life" by Alexei Barrionuevo in its entirety, click here.

Mr Benn suggests that President Obama has deliberately "place(d) some distance between Israel and himself" by not "bother(ing) to speak directly to Israelis." The result is that "six months into his presidency, Israelis find themselves increasingly suspicious of Mr. Obama. All they see is American pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to freeze settlements, a request that's been interpreted here as political arm-twisting meant to please the Arab street at Israel's expense. ... As a result, Mr. Netanyahu enjoys a virtual domestic consensus over his rejection of the settlement freeze.

"Perhaps there are good reasons behind Mr. Obama's Middle East policy. Perhaps the settlement freeze is in Israel's best interest. Perhaps the president is truly committed to Israel's long-term security and well-being. Perhaps his popularity in the Arab street is the missing ingredient of peacemaking.

"But until the president talks to us, we won't know. Next time you're in the neighborhood, Mr, President, speak to us directly. We will surely listen."

To read "Why Won't Obama Talk to Israel?" by Aluf Benn in its entirety, click here.

On July 29, Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer Opinion Columnist, offered her own perspective on President Obama's relationship to Israel. To read her column, click here.

61% of Israeli Jews initially told pollsters that they supported Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's position that Israel will not establish new settlements but will expand existing ones to accommodate natural growth.

Jewish Israelis, however, were likely to change their view when the pollsters mentioned the possibility that implementing Netanyahu's position could cause a worsening of relations with the U.S. government. Under that scenario, support for limited settlement expansion dropped to 40%, while 48% of Israeli Jews said they would oppose Netanyahu's policy.

"In other words," write pollsters Ephraim Yaar and Tamar Hermann, "more than one-third of those who, in principle, support Netanyahu's policy on the settlements issue would oppose, in this context, risking a deterioration of relations with the Obama administration."

The poll results did not include Arab citizens of Israel, who account for 20% of the Israeli population.

The next issue of this newsletter will be published on August 21, 2009.

Remember that JSPAN welcomes your donations to help us continue our important and effective work in Tikkun Olam. You may send gifts via PayPal on www.jspan.org. or to JSPAN, 1735 Market Street, Suite #A417, Philadelphia, PA 19103