Are Jewish organizations doing their due diligence? |
This article is intentionally link-heavy. Deliberately so.
The links are not decoration. They are notice architecture.
They are here so that no Jewish organization, donor, synagogue board, federation executive, museum director, rabbi, supporter, or journalist can later say the record was too scattered, too obscure, or too difficult to review. A substantial part of that record is already in the public domain through the work of Grant Arthur Gochin, Silvia Foti, Eugene J. Levin, Michael Kretzmer, and Dillon Hosier. The issue now is not whether Jewish institutions can know. The issue is whether they will look before they lend legitimacy.
That is the question of due diligence.
Lithuania is still prosecuting Artur Fridman, a Jewish citizen, over Holocaust-related speech. That fact alone should have triggered a basic institutional response from every Jewish organization that continues to host Lithuanian officials, partner with Lithuanian institutions, honor Lithuanian state-linked initiatives, or share platforms built around Holocaust memory. Instead, public reaction has been weak, selective, or absent.
At this point, the problem is no longer missing information. The information is there.
My own writing has already asked Jewish institutions to explain themselves. Eugene Levin has done the same. Michael Kretzmer has done the same. Silvia Foti has done the same. Dillon Hosier has done the same. The archive is no longer thin. It is cumulative. Anyone who wants a starting point now has one.
It matters, because an institution may begin in ignorance. It cannot remain innocent after notice.
The Lithuanian state has become adept at turning memory into protocol. A ceremony is arranged. A museum visit is offered. A panel is convened. A statement is issued. A rescue commemoration is staged. Jewish........