Words—Historic and Current—To Be Heeded


In November, 1953, less than a year into his first term in office, during the height of the McCarthy era, President Eisenhower received an award from and delivered the keynote address at the Anti-Defamation League’s annual board meeting in Washington, D.C. As the story was recounted to me by someone who was there (I worked for the ADL for 27 years), those in attendance thought it would be a routine address by the new president making nice to one of the country’s leading civil rights/Jewish organizations, kind of a pro forma “you are nice and do good work”.

Shortly before the speech, ADL leaders learned that the national press and the then novel TV cameras would be observing and what was going to be routine was now a “major policy address.”

It turned out that the speech was among the, if not the, first times that Ike spoke out and distanced himself from Sen. Joe McCarthy. But it was by indirection, he never mentioned McCarthy’s name (to that point Ike was still trying to ignore McCarthy, as if the senator didn’t matter).

To those in attendance, it wasn’t clear what the news was, but by the next morning the message had gone out. Eisenhower had spoken about the right of every American to meet “your accuser face to face”, the “right to speak your mind and be protected in it.” He extolled the values of the “soul and the spirit” that make us proud to be Americans; who the threat to those values was became apparent:

Why are we proud? We are proud, first of all, because from the beginning of this Nation, a man can walk upright, no matter who he is, or who she is. He can walk upright and meet his friend–or his enemy; and he does not fear that because that enemy may be in a position of great power that he can be suddenly thrown in jail to rot there without charges and with no recourse to justice. We have the habeas corpus act, and we respect it.

And today, although none of you has the great fortune, I think, of being from Abilene, Kansas, you live after all by that same code in your ideals and in the respect you give to certain qualities. In this country, if someone dislikes you, or accuses you, he must come up in front. He cannot hide behind the shadow. He cannot assassinate you or your character from behind, without suffering the penalties an outraged citizenry will impose.

                                                                   ****

….I would not want to sit down this evening without urging one thing: if we are going to continue to be proud that we are Americans, there must be no weakening of the code by which we have lived; by the right to meet your accuser face to face, if you have one; by your right to go to the church or the synagogue or even the mosque of your own choosing; by your right to speak your mind and be protected in it.

Ladies and gentlemen, the things that make us proud to be Americans are of the soul and of the spirit. They are not the jewels we wear, or the furs we buy, the houses we live in, the standard of living, even, that we have. All these things are wonderful to the esthetic and to the physical senses. [Emphasis added]

I was reminded of this historic statement by two speeches this week from leading Republicans, who, like Eisenhower, bravely took on one of their own and made clear what others fear, or lack the courage, to say. They laid down markers as to what is acceptable conduct in American politics and, without being explicit, who was engaging in conduct that was beyond the pale.

On Monday night, Sen. John McCain spoke at the National Constitution Center as he received its Liberty Medal. It’s a passionate statement about what’s important and unique about America.

During the course of the speech he offered the following:

To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.

We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil. We are the custodians of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad. We have done great good in the world. That leadership has had its costs, but we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as we did. We have a moral obligation to continue in our just cause, and we would bring more than shame on ourselves if we don’t. We will not thrive in a world where our leadership and ideals are absent. We wouldn’t deserve to. [Emphasis Added]

Like Eisenhower, without mentioning the name of his antagonist, the senior senator from Arizona got his message across loudly and clearly.

Then on Thursday, former President George W. Bush delivered a speech in which he never mentioned Trump, but the sinner he was referring to was transparently clear:

Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication…. We have seen our discourse degraded by casual cruelty. At times, it can seem like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together. Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanization. Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions – forgetting the image of God we should see in each other.

We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism – forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America. We see a fading confidence in the value of free markets and international trade – forgetting that conflict, instability, and poverty follow in the wake of protectionism.

We have seen the return of isolationist sentiments – forgetting that American security is directly threatened by the chaos and despair of distant places, where threats such as terrorism, infectious disease, criminal gangs and drug trafficking tend to emerge.

                                                                 ***

This means that people of every race, religion, and ethnicity can be fully and equally AmericanIt means that bigotry or white supremacy in any form is blasphemy against the American creed. And it means that the very identity of our nation depends on the passing of civic ideals to the next generation.

We need a renewed emphasis on civic learning in schools. And our young people need positive role models. Bullying and prejudice in our public life sets a national tone, provides permission for cruelty and bigotry, and compromises the moral education of children. The only way to pass along civic values is to first live up to them.

In short, it is time for American institutions to step up and provide cultural and moral leadership for this nation. [Emphasis Added]

The McCain and Bush speeches are historic moments; perhaps the beginning of a wave of revulsion at the lies, distortions, hate and awful policies that emerge from the Trump White House. When two pillars of a party, much like Eisenhower in 1953, say enough is enough and that it is time to “step up”—perhaps people will listen.

An ultra-Orthodox Jewish youth holds a toy gun near a man holding a chicken during the Kaparot ritual, where white chickens are slaughtered as a symbolic gesture of atonement, ahead of Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement, in Jerusalem's Mea Shearim neighbourhood September 27, 2017. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

Why Hasn’t Israel Had Mass Shootings?


Rob Portnoe, a Jewish educator from Minneapolis, is visiting family in Israel. He thinks it’s his 10th visit, and one of his sons served as an infantry soldier in the Israeli army. He is accustomed to seeing guns in Israel, from those toted by soldiers on leave to those carried by security guards. But, he says, the gun culture in Israel is different than in the United States.

“Israelis view guns as a necessity while Americans see them as a right,” Portnoe said. “There is a sense in Israel that if people didn’t feel they needed those guns, they wouldn’t carry them. In the U.S., people feel entitled to carry a gun.”

“Israelis view guns as a necessity while Americans see them as a right. There is a sense in Israel that if people didn’t feel they needed those guns, they wouldn’t carry them. In the U.S., people feel entitled to carry a gun.” – Rob Portnoe, a frequent American visitor to Israel.

Israel has compulsory military service and many citizens continue to do reserve duty well into adulthood. They are trained to view guns as potentially dangerous and are drilled in their safety.

What is regarded in Israel as a mass shooting occurs when a gunman kills at least four people, and outside of terrorist attacks, this has happened only once in recent years. In 2013, a disaffected man killed four Israelis in a bank in the southern town of Beersheva before committing suicide when police arrived.

In the U.S. during the same period, there have been some 1,500 mass shootings, which killed more than 1,700 people and wounded 6,000 more, according to the Gun Violence Archive. The Congressional Research Service estimates Americans own more than 300 million guns.

Israel limits the approval of gun permits, with 40 percent of applications denied. Permits are granted only if the government believes the person in question has a specific need for a gun — for example, if an individual lives in the West Bank, where there have been many Palestinian attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians. Permits must be renewed yearly, and every six years, gun owners must undergo a psychological evaluation.

Gun owners in Israel are allowed to own only one handgun and 50 rounds of ammunition. Supporters of these restrictive laws say they are the reason Israel has not been plagued by mass shootings.

Robby Berman, the head of an organ donation society in Israel, applied for a gun permit in 1991 when he was living in Jerusalem’s Old City. His application was approved, and he purchased a pistol and went to a shooting range, where he learned to use the gun.

Several years later, he says, he went through a period of depression and began seeing a therapist. She insisted that he give up the gun, fearing he could harm himself, and he agreed.

“Two years ago, when all of the stabbing attacks happened in Jerusalem, I wished I had the gun,” Berman said. “So I started carrying a switchblade and Mace with me. Once at a mall in Jerusalem, the knife set off the metal detector at the entrance. When I asked the security guard if he wanted me to leave it with him while I shopped, he said, ‘No, everyone here has a knife. Go ahead.’ ”

The Israeli army has grown increasingly concerned about guns being used by soldiers to commit suicide. About 15 soldiers each year do so with military-issued guns. The army recently changed its regulations, with soldiers going home on extended leave told to leave their weapons on base rather than bring them home with them.

Some in Israel, however, believe the country should be more like the U.S. when it comes to owning guns.

“The right to defend oneself and carry a gun is a basic human right, not a right that the government gives you,” said Moshe Feiglin, a former Israeli parliamentarian who recently formed his own political party called Zehut. “I am not talking about an AK-47 or an M-16 but a pistol for self-defense.”

As a first step, he said, anyone who has served in the Israeli army and knows how to use a gun should be given a gun permit automatically. He said that in the 1990s, Jerusalem made a mistake by allowing Palestinian policemen to carry AK-47s, and these guns have been used to kill many Israelis in the years since then.

In the U.S., the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, Washington and Detroit are responsible for 25 percent of gun deaths, and all four have restrictive gun laws. Accordingly, Feiglin says the idea that more restrictive gun laws will protect people is a fallacy. By contrast, he says that if more people in Las Vegas were trained to use guns properly, perhaps they could have stopped the recent mass shooting earlier.

President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room of the White House Sept. 13. Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images.

Watch Trump’s High Holy Days greeting


Per White House tradition, President Donald Trump released a greeting ahead of the Jewish High Holidays. The White House sent the video message on Monday, ahead of Rosh Hashanah, which starts this year on Wednesday evening.

Below is the transcript and video of Trump’s address:

“On behalf of all Americans, I want to wish Jewish families many blessings in the New Year. The High Holy Days are a time of both reflection on the past year and hope for renewal in the year to come. Jewish communities across the country, and around the world, enter into a time of prayer, repentance, and rededication to the sacred values and traditions that guide the incredible character, and spirit, of the Jewish people. We reaffirm the unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel, and we ask God to deliver justice, dignity, and peace on Earth. Melania and I wish everyone a sweet, healthy, and peaceful year, which we hope will bring many blessings to all. Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless America.”

Seth Rogen is director and executive producer of “Future Man.” Photo by Brandon Hickman/Hulu

What’s new on Hulu this fall: A steady stream of Jewish talent


If comedies and science fiction top your TV viewing list, you’re in luck: New series from Sarah Silverman and Seth Rogen are coming to the streaming service Hulu, along with a show about superpowered teens with a real reason to hate their parents.

Meet the Jewish talent working on camera and behind the scenes on these Hulu shows.

“I Love You, America”

Creating a news/talk show for Hulu, Sarah Silverman didn’t want to preach to the urban, liberal choir. With “I Love You, America,” she aims to bridge the widening political gap between left and right thinkers through what she calls “aggressively dumb comedy.”

“It’s not going to be derived from, ‘We’re smart and right and they’re wrong.’ The comedy won’t come from that. It’s about connection,” Silverman said, noting that the mix of in-studio pieces and field reports will aim to find common ground among Americans.

“We may be getting our facts from very different places in a time where truth has no currency and facts don’t change minds, but I think comedy at its best can get people’s porcupine needles to go down,” she said. “We are ultimately the same, and we have to get back to that. With this show, I want to get to the root of humanity in this country.”

One field segment will send Silverman, also a writer and the executive producer of the show, to Slidell, La., to have dinner with a family that has never met a Jew.

Sarah Silverman is the creator
of “I Love You, America.”

“There are 10 of us on the writing staff and I’m the only Jew. It’s shocking!” she said. “What happened to ‘liberal Jews’ who run the media?”

Other Jewish references and bits are likely to surface. “I can’t get away from it. I am Jew-y, I am Jewish — culturally,” Silverman said. “I can’t imagine there’s a God, but I don’t know.” 

She attributes her edgy, no-filter comedy to her upbringing in Manchester, N.H.  “I’m a product of how I was raised, by a couple of liberal agnostic Jews,” she said. “I come from a family that expresses themselves how they see fit.”

In another project, Silverman plays a Jewish character, Tennis World magazine founder Gladys Heldman, in the film “Battle of the Sexes,” which chronicles the 1973 match between Billie Jean King (Emma Stone) and Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell). It opens in theaters Sept. 22.

“I Love You, America” begins streaming Oct. 12.

“Future Man”

Actor Seth Rogen has broadened his showbiz horizons in the past few years, adding producer and director to the acting and writing on his resumé. His latest project, as both executive producer and director, is “Future Man,” a time-traveling comedy series about a movie- and video game-loving slacker (Josh Hutcherson) whose joystick skills get him conscripted for a mission to prevent the apocalypse.

“It’s a guy’s journey from janitor to the potential savior of mankind,” Rogen said, describing the format as “a serialized comedy with a lot of plot and story to it. It’s inspired by a lot of the science fiction movies that we grew up on. Pretty much any science fiction movie from the last 35 years influenced the show.”

Rogen won’t appear in “Future Man,” but he will be seen in the film “The Disaster Artist,” a dark comedy opening in December about the making of a notoriously bad film called “The Room.” The cast includes Ari Graynor, Dave Franco, James Franco (who also directed it) and Hutcherson.

“I got to act in great things that, thank God, other people put me in, but I don’t expect it to happen. I’ve never had an acting career that I put in other people’s hands,” Rogen said. “I’m used to doing my own thing. If there’s something I really want to do, I’d write it.”

Born and raised in Vancouver, the son of Jewish socialist parents who met on a kibbutz in Israel, Rogen was a “funny kid” whose flair for comedy emerged early. After realizing he could make his family laugh, he started doing stand-up routines at 12. But his shtick didn’t quite fly at a big occasion the following year.

“I did terrible at my bar mitzvah,” Rogen said. “If you could get ‘fail’ at a bar mitzvah, I would have.”

“Future Man” begins streaming Nov. 14.

“Marvel’s Runaways”

“Marvel’s Runaways” cast: Ariela Barer (from left), Lyrica Okano, Rhenzy Feliz, Gregg Sulkin, Virginia Gardner and Allegra Acosta. Photo by Paul Sarkis/Hulu

 

Those familiar with tween-oriented TV fare may recognize Gregg Sulkin from his roles in “As the Bell Rings” and “The Wizards of Waverly Place” on Disney Channel and Freeform’s “Pretty Little Liars.” But it was the Jewish actor’s first major role as a bar mitzvah boy in the movie “Sixty Six” that launched his acting career when he was 13.

Three years later, he moved from his native London to Los Angeles, where now he’s starring in “Marvel’s Runaways” as one of six affluent Brentwood teenagers who discover they have unusual abilities and their parents belong to a secret, murderous cabal.

Sulkin’s character, Chase Stein, “is from a dysfunctional family. His father is an egotistical maniac and they don’t get along. The other kids have family issues, too, and they don’t really like each other,” he said. “But they have to get to the bottom of one thing: Are their parents evil? And if they are, what are we going to do about it?”

Chase is a lacrosse star, but Sulkin excelled in soccer and took part in the 2009 Maccabiah Games in Israel. It wasn’t his first trip to Israel: Sulkin became a bar mitzvah at the Western Wall in Jerusalem.

“It was the most special day of my life,” he said. “I remember the rabbi saying to me, ‘Gregg, may God bless you always and in all ways,’ and from that day I’ve been very lucky. My career has continued to grow.”

“Marvel’s Runaways” begins streaming Nov. 21.

Words Matter…Dammit!


The violence in Charlottesville was scary, upsetting, vile and – unfortunately not surprising. 

The United States has become a country deeply divided by wealth, education, color, religion, opportunity and politics. It should not be surprising that people feel threatened by the stranger they do not know. The more separate we are from each other, the more fearful and suspicious we have become of the other.

It doesn’t help when our President spends so much time defining what is real and what is fake news, rather than condemning obvious hatred. He is better than this and this is a distraction we can ill afford. The stakes are too high for us to make a mockery of justice and the freedoms that our constitution guarantees us.

The book of Genesis teaches us to be like Abraham and embrace the stranger – whatever the price.

Our Jewish legacy is that we are a people of the book, a book that reminds us that words matter. The beginning of the book (i.e. Genesis) teaches us to be like Abraham and embrace the stranger – whatever the price. Today is the day to break down the boundaries between us and them.

When we started the Pico Union Project four years ago, I sensed it was time to bring multiple faiths and cultures together under one roof. I had no idea how critical it would be to create a space for people to get to know each other, without judgement or fear. This is what I’ve learned:

  • We can do better
  • Anything is possible.
  • We can say yay when everyone else is saying nay
  • It’s better to focus on service than ‘serve us’
  • Upward mobility is not just a dream, it’s achievable.
  • We are honored when we honor all of creation.

The American way – the Pico Union Project way, begins with YOU and includes all of US.  If you have yet to check us out, The PUP doors are always open -and our eternal light is always on!


Craig Taubman

The Pico Union Project is a multi-faith, multi-cultural center committed to living the principle to “love your neighbor as you want to be loved.” We recognize that in order to love, you must first get to know your neighbor.  We use spirituality, arts, and a deep commitment to community activism as tools to draw individuals together, deepen a sense of self-awareness, and open eyes, minds, and souls to the value and potential of our community.

 

God Bless America & PS, Trump is Mentally Deficient


As a little girl I used to dream about living in the United States. I grew up watching American television, trying very hard to lose my Canadian accent, and would always tell my parents I was going to live in Los Angeles one day. I have now lived in Los Angeles longer than I lived in Canada. This is where my son was born, where my dreams came true, where I found peace, and where I have built my life. I love the United States, I love California, and I count my blessings each and every day.

For the first time in my 25 years here, I feel uneasy. I am embarrassed by the President of this beautiful country and have said I am Canadian more in the past 9 months than I have in my entire life. I am sad and scared about what is happening here. Trump’s America is dark and depressing. The Fourth of July is a special day for everyone who is fortunate enough to live here, but with each day Trump is President we become a less fortunate nation because he puts us at risk.

On this Fourth of July I will pray. Pray for each and every one of us. Whether or not you support the 45th President of the United States, you should be afraid. Afraid of not only what you know he is doing, but more importantly, what you don’t know he is doing. He is making a mockery of his job and putting us in harm’s way. From healthcare, to being in charge of the military, to cries of fake news, our futures are in jeopardy. Important to note this is not about our political affiliations.

I know many great Republicans and there is a difference between a Republican and a Trump supporter. Republicans believe in different things than I do, but that doesn’t necessarily make them bad, just different. A Trump supporter however, is just as dangerous as their leader. I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who can articulate why he a good President. They can’t because they are mentally deficient. Is that mean? Sorry, but it is time to get real and sometimes that can be mean.

I am exhausted by all the fake kindness and political correctness. I believe Donald Trump is dangerous and mentally deficient. Those who support him, by association, are also dangerous and mentally deficient. Too harsh? I don’t think so. It is my 1st Amendment right to say what I think so I will say it again. Donald Trump is mentally deficient. That feels good! Have a happy and safe 4th. God Bless America, and PS God, sorry about Donald Trump. Don’t give up on us because we are praying.

As I read this I know it will upset a lot of people. It is a politically charged time and there are lines drawn in the sand, but that does not and should not change how I write. I have never worried about what people will think about what I write, but rather worried about how I would feel about myself if I was not honest in my writing. So now it is out there. No tiptoeing, just honesty. I am scared, but I am hopeful. He got lucky when he won and we will be lucky when he is impeached.

May God Bless America. I am sending prayers and good wishes to all those who are serving in the military and putting their lives on the line for our freedom. To the military families, thank you for your sacrifices too. I am blessed to live in America and I pray for her safety. I pray for all of us actually. I hope we make it through this difficult time and come out the other side united and strong. Wishful thinking to be sure, but it is possible. All it requires is for all of us to keep the faith.

 

 

 

 

Which do you love more: Football or America?


I understand that there are American athletes, cheerleaders, members of bands in professional, college and even high school sports who believe — mistakenly — that America is so racist that they cannot, in good conscience, stand when the national anthem is played.

I also understand why the NFL and some college and professional teams allow this to take place. Cowardice is far more common than courage.

What is much more difficult to understand is why the majority of fans in the stadiums and watching on television continue to attend and to watch these sporting events. Why would people who love America, venerate the flag, and wish to honor those who have fought and died for that flag, continue to patronize any team that allows its players or others affiliated with the team to dishonor that flag and country?

There is only one possible answer: Such people value their seat at the stadium or watching the game at home more than they value honoring the country.

No one disputes the legal right of any player not to stand during the playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” In America, you have the legal right to stomp on and burn the American flag. At the same time, however, any team or league has the right to set rules of conduct during a game. For example, no player is allowed to place the name of a candidate or to write a political message on his hat, helmet, or uniform.

Leagues and teams should make it clear that one of their employees’ obligations is to stand during the national anthem. But with few exceptions, when their players don’t, the leagues and the teams do nothing. And, saddest of all, few fans do anything. After all, how many fans are going to waste their expensive season tickets by leaving, or by not showing up at, a game? 

Yet, just imagine how powerful it would be if half, or even a quarter, of the stadium emptied out after players refused to stand for the national anthem. Or imagine if a significant percentage of TV viewers simply stopped watching this mockery of every American soldier, sailor and Marine who fought for, let alone died for, that flag. That would constitute a great moral and patriotic message — and quickly end this behavior.

Until then, however, the message being sent is that there is no price to be paid for public disdain toward the American flag and anthem. And when there is no price paid, the message sent is that what these players, cheerleaders and band members are doing is entirely acceptable.

More than acceptable — made famous. Time magazine, for example, featured the leader of the contempt-for-the-flag movement, San Francisco 49ers backup quarterback Colin Kaepernick, on its cover. 

America, like Europe, is a society that is committing suicide. Those who have only contempt for the greatest country ever created dominate our news and entertainment media and teach this contempt to America’s young people at virtually every college in the country. This past month, every UCLA freshman was required to read a hate-America screed, “Between the World and Me,” by the radical Black nationalist writer Ta-Nehisi Coates.

This is how Coates is described by Joel Kotkin, a Presidential Fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University, and a lifelong Democrat (until this year, when he registered as an independent):

“To Coates, America itself seems irredeemable, its very essence tied to racial oppression and brutality. America is [about] . . . a legacy of ‘pillaging,’ the ‘destruction of families,’ ‘the rape of mothers,’ and countless other outrages. Today’s abusive police — and clearly some can be so described — are not outliers who should be punished but ‘are merely men enforcing the whims of our country, correctly interpreting its heritage and legacy.’ His alienation from America is so great that he admits to little sympathy for the victims of 9/11.” (Italics added.)

That’s the one book every UCLA freshman has to read this year — and the reading is followed by workshops on American racism, where students hear from UCLA professors such as Safiya Noble, professor in the graduate school of education, who tells them, “We must all think about who we are in the face of persistent anti-Blackness.”

Colin Kaepernick and others won’t stand for the flag that represents the least racist country in recorded history — the country to which far more Black Africans have immigrated voluntarily than ever arrived on a slave ship.

If you watch a game in person or on TV in which any player or other on-field participant refuses to stand during the national anthem, you have told everyone in your life, especially your kids, one of two things: either that you agree with not honoring America because it is such a bad country, or that football is more important than America.


Dennis Prager’s nationally syndicated radio talk show is heard in Los Angeles on KRLA (AM 870) 9 a.m. to noon. His latest project is the internet-based Prager University (prageru.com).

Politicians will never make us happy


According to a 2015 Pew report, just 19 percent of Americans say they can trust their government “always or most of the time,” while only 20 percent would describe government programs as “being well run.”

This is not a shocking statistic — we’ve been hearing about the declining faith in government for a long time.

What is surprising, though, is another finding in the same report: Americans still expect a lot from that same government they don’t trust, with majorities saying they “want the federal government to have a major role in addressing issues.”

This dissonance reflects the dysfunctional nature of the political process: To get elected, politicians feel they must promise the moon, and when that moon never shows up, well, we are disappointed. So, on the one hand we’re conditioned to expect a lot, but on the other we’re resigned to feeling let down.

It’s like ordering one of those miracle workout machines that promise you the perfect body in 30 days and then seeing it end up in your bedroom as a piece of furniture to hang your clothes on. In the advertising business, we call that “antisappointment”— you anticipate, and you’re disappointed.

But promises are intoxicating. We want to believe. We know deep down we’ll get burned, but we’re eternally seduced by the drug of hope.

Politicians never stop feeding us that drug. The more cynical we are, the more hope they promise. It’s a race to the bottom, with antisappointment becoming a permanent American condition.

If you watched the Republican and Democratic conventions, you may have noticed that very few speakers, if any, demanded something back from the voters. In addition to the usual maligning of the other party, it was the same classic playbook: “We promise you the moon, and in return you vote for us.” Never mind that voters will probably get burned again.

A friend of mine used to ask waiters in restaurants, “What’s not good here?” If they answered honestly with an item, he would trust them when they told him something was good.

If Hillary Clinton wants to beat Donald Trump this year, she might want to try that approach. Don’t just tell us that Trump is horrible, and don’t just tell us what you can do. Be straight with us: Tell us what the government cannot do, what the government is not good at.

Here’s a presidential stump speech I’d love to hear:

“Look, I can stand here and promise you that my policies will transform our country and improve your lives, but I’d be lying. That’s not how it works. I can promise you I’ll work really hard to generate more jobs, level the playing field, upgrade our education, care for the downtrodden, make the world safer and cleaner and so forth, but that doesn’t ensure I will succeed or that your lives will improve.

“The truth is, no politician can make you happy. That’s something only you can achieve. You can work harder and smarter. You can take better care of your health. You can control your anger and be more forgiving. You can spend more time with your family. You can get more involved with social and civic causes and your local communities. You can enjoy the arts and the beauty of nature. None of those actions has anything to do with whom you will vote for.

“Of course, I will do my best to make sure the odds are on your side. But, at the end of the day, your well-being is mostly on your shoulders. It’s about what you can do for yourself, your family, your neighborhood, your city, your country, your world.

“My platform is to bring out the best in Americans by reminding you how needed you are and how much potential you have. I will do my share, but I expect you to do yours. My campaign slogan is, ‘Bringing out the best in America,’ because the best of each American is what our great nation deserves.

“If you can handle that truth, I will accept your vote.”

David Suissa is president of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal and can be reached at davids@jewishjournal.com.

French Interior Minister Gerard Collomb and Eric Ciotti (R), President of the Departmental Council of the Alpes-Maritimes, stand at the memorial to the victims of the July 14, 2016 truck attack, in Nice, France, September 29, 2017. Collomb attends the Euro-Mediterranean conference of cities on the prevention of radicalisation and for the fight against terrorism. REUTERS/Eric Gaillard

As terror engulfs Europe, Americans ponder: What will become of us?


After the July 14 attack on the Bastille Day celebration in Nice, France, one of the more quizzical pieces of internet flotsam to bubble up was a 2014 interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that made rounds on social media.

In a video clip, Netanyahu tells a French reporter: “If we don’t stand together, then this terror plague will come to you. It’s just a question of time. It will come to you. It will come to France.”

The words rang with eerie prescience in the wake of the latest massacre in France by a man driving a truck through a crowd of revelers in Nice, killing 84, injuring more than 200 and leaving a mile of carnage in its wake.

With Netanyahu’s prophecy a reality, Americans are facing their own troubling set of questions: Could we be next? And what can we do about it?

“We can reduce the risk but we can’t eliminate the threat, and Americans need to get used to that concept,” Erroll Southers, a USC counterterrorism expert and a consultant with the Israeli security company Tal Global, said in an interview. “Israelis are already used to that concept.”

In the aftermath of events such as the Bastille Day massacre, news viewers are used to hearing calls to harden so-called “soft” targets — unprotected civilian institutions or events with the potential for high casualties if attacked.

And, Southers told the Journal, “It always make sense to harden the targets.”

But when it comes to terrorism and counterterrorism, “It’s a cat-and-mouse game.”

“We put up a barricade; they find a way to go around it,” he said. “We implement technology; they find a way to compromise it.”

Using strategies published in Islamic State magazines, lone-wolf actors have figured out how to become “force multipliers” in terms of maximizing causalities, he said.

“The fact that an attack is successful does not mean there was a counterterrorism failure. That’s another notion we need to get rid of — these are adaptive adversaries.”

Jim Featherstone, president of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that facilitates cooperation between public, private and civic sectors to advance public safety and homeland security, agreed that a successful attack does not necessarily mean a law enforcement breakdown.

“Public safety assets in this country and across the world have to be right 100 percent of the time, 365 days a year,” he told the Journal. “The terrorists only need to be right once.”

While Featherstone agreed with Southers that terrorism deaths here are unavoidable, he differed on how Americans should internalize the inevitable.

“We should work to safeguard and preserve every life,” Featherstone said. “Are there going to be some situations where that’s not going to happen? Of course — look at the events of the last few months. I don’t think it’s in the American mindset, and certainly not in the public safety mindset, that there’s an acceptable loss.”

Featherstone mentioned involving communities in their own security as one key step toward building a safer Los Angeles, citing the mantra frequently piped over airport P.A. systems: “If you see something, say something.”

The American Jewish community knows that mantra better than most, said Ariella Schusterman, associate regional director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for the Pacific Southwest.

“The Jewish community is fairly sophisticated when it comes to knowing what suspicious activity looks like, or at least reporting it,” she said in an interview.

Each year, the ADL holds a briefing for local Jewish organizations on relevant security issues. On Aug. 23, it will convene community leaders to hear from San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan on lessons from the December shooting attack at a community center there, in which 14 were killed and 22 wounded.

That massacre was the deadliest terror incident on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001. It held that record for only seven months, until a man murdered 49 people and wounded at least 50 more at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., in the early hours of June 12.

Ivan Wolkind, chief operating and financial officer of the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, said that in recent years, Federation has funneled increased attention and funds into the issue of keeping L.A. Jewish institutions safe.

In 2013, it launched the Community Security Initiative, which offers free security assessments, recommendations and training for its constituent organizations, employing five full-time ex-law enforcement and military personnel.

But Wolkind, a reserve L.A. Police Department officer, said vigilance should not be a reaction to a specific terrorist event, but rather a calculated response to the global threat level.

“Unless a particular attack shows a new threat we’ve never seen before, the reaction … should be nothing,” he told the Journal. “What the Jewish community and the American community should do is to recognize the fact that, unfortunately, we’re at a point where we do need to be security conscious at a constant, steady state.”

There’s a fine line between vigilance and fear.

From the “shrill and obsessive” media coverage of the violence, “people indeed can get the wrong impression that, ‘Terrorism is here and I’m going to be next,’ ” said Reuben Vaisman-Tzachor, a Santa Monica-based forensic psychologist who advised the Bush administration on the psychology of terror in the wake of 9/11.

Vaisman-Tzachor, who grew up in Israel and served as a captain in the navy there, said terror is enhanced when the culprits and their motivations are shrouded in mystery.

He pointed to the suspense thrillers of Steven Spielberg to illustrate a point about the psychology of fear: Often, the monster isn’t shown onscreen until well into the movie, a tactic used intentionally to heighten terror. The same theory that applies in “Jaws” applies to a terrorist: The devil you know is less frightening than the devil you don’t.

“Most Israelis aren’t walking around looking behind their backs and fearing that someone’s going to stab them,” he said. “There is a sense of security that doesn’t necessarily come from the fact that there is no terror. There is a sense of security because people understand exactly who are the terrorists and what are the situations they should avoid or be careful with. And so, in general, they are not living in fear.”

He added, “If there’s anything American society has to learn from, it’s that.”

And yet, the recent spate of attacks, from the ISIS-inspired shooter in Orlando to the lone-wolf sniper who slew five police officers in Dallas, is not driven by well-defined networks and clarity of purpose but by disgruntlement and social isolation, said Asli Bali, a UCLA law professor specializing in international law and arms control.

Watching the events of recent months, she said she’s noticed a “lowering of the threshold” for mental illness and disaffection to turn into staggering acts of violence. The result is not only a counterterrorism problem, but also a “multidimensional sociological problem” encompassing issues such as mental health.

A reflective Bernie Sanders, acknowledging Clinton as nominee, talks Trump, Larry David and what mov


Acknowledging for the first time that he will not be the Democratic presidential nominee, Bernie Sanders said he was not yet ready to endorse Hillary Clinton.

In an expansive interview aired Wednesday on C-Span, Sanders said he hoped to speak at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia next month, but did not yet know if he would.

“It doesn’t appear that I’m going to be the nominee, so I’m not going to be determining the scope of the convention,” he said.

During the hourlong interview Sanders, the first Jewish candidate to win major nominating contests, spoke of the prejudices that American society had overcome, including against Jews, only to encounter them again in the campaign of Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. The Independent senator from Vermont said he remained dedicated to defeating Trump.

He also reflected on how moved he was by the support his insurgent campaign garnered and joked about the influence that comedian Larry David, who handled Sanders impressions on “Saturday Night Live,” had on his campaign.

“Think of what this country has had to go through since its inception, since we had slavery and discrimination, what we’ve done to the Native American people, the prejudice against the Irish, the Italians, the Jews,” Sanders said.

“Now to have a candidate for president of the United States who is insulting Mexicans and Latinos and Muslims and women and veterans and African Americans,” he said of Trump. “This guy must not become president of the United States. I’m going to do everything I can to prevent that.”

On Thursday evening, Sanders is scheduled to speak in New York to his followers on “Where do we go from here.” Sanders, 74, said he hoped to chair the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in the next Senate, and would likely run again for the body — for a third term — in 2018.

Clinton has secured the needed number of delegates for the nomination. Sanders said he was holding out his endorsement of the former secretary of state because he wants to see how much of his platform she embraces.

“We want to see Secretary Clinton stake out the most progressive positions that she can,” he said, adding that Clinton should also select a progressive running mate, one who does not “have roots” on Wall Street.

Sanders appeared relaxed and at times relieved to be out of the race. He implicitly acknowledged one of the top Clinton campaign criticisms: That he was underexposed to the gritty American reality as a white senator from an overwhelmingly white state.

“I’m kind of a small-town guy,” he said.

Sanders was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York, and attended the University of Chicago, but apart from a stint in Israel in the mid-1960s has lived in Vermont since the late 1960s.

He said he had not been viscerally aware of issues like institutional racism and the plight of undocumented immigrants until he started traveling for the campaign.

“There are beautiful people all over this country,” said Sanders, a campaigner otherwise notorious for his one-note focus on economic policy and hating feel-good talk. He acknowledged being moved to near tears at times by the support he encountered.

Sanders was enthusiastic about reshaping the Democratic Party platform. As part of a peacemaking effort, the Democratic National Committee, which has feuded with Sanders, allowed him to name five members of the 15-member platform drafting committee. Clinton named six.

Outlining where he hoped his views would influence the platform, Sanders notably did not mention Israel or foreign policy. Three of his appointees are Israel critics who are striving to have the platform recognize that Israel is occupying Palestinian land in the West Bank.

“It is fair to say that the Democratic platform will be by far the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party,” he said, “in terms of economics, in terms of climate change, of criminal justice, in terms of immigration reform, in terms of higher education and in many other areas. Yeah, I think it is going to be a very progressive platform.”

Asked by his C-Span interviewer why terrorists “hate the United States,” Sanders’ reflex was to first blame extremist attitudes in the Middle East for creating a breeding ground for terrorism.

“They do not believe that girls should get an education,” he said of groups like the Islamic State. “They have a weird sexual approach. They feel threatened by a society that has a looser sexual approach.”

Sanders said other factors included extreme poverty in the region driving frustrated young men toward terrorist groups. He also faulted previous American administrations for an overly interventionist policy that lacked follow-up.

“There is a perception out there that the United States thinks it has the right to impose regime change without thinking about what happens the day after,” he said.

Freed from the bitter rivalry that characterized the last months of the election, he praised Clinton as capable and intelligent.

Sanders laughed heartily when reminded of the David impressions of him and suggested that he benefited from the mimicking of his Brooklyn accent, especially David’s pronunciation of the word “huge.”

“Let me tell you something, it has an impact, in any speech that I gave, if I used the word ‘yuuuuuuge,’” he said. “It had a huge reaction.”

David, he said, nailed him.

“He is good, my God, yes,” Sander said. “I was trying to convince him to get out there on the campaign trail, he could be a clone there — but it didn’t work out.”

Can French comedian Gad Elmaleh make America laugh — in English?


In a small living room in Montreal on a quiet Shabbat afternoon in around 1990, about a decade before Gad Elmaleh became the biggest comedian in France and 25 years before he made his improbable move to America, I was hanging with him and a few friends, trying not to talk about the weekly Torah portion.

Elmaleh, like many other young Moroccan Jews at the time, had caught the religious bug, which meant that observing Shabbat was the cool thing to do.

But we had our limits. We still wanted to laugh.

So, as we were schmoozing on that afternoon, someone brought up a “fashion show” that was coming up in the community. Elmaleh, who was then about 20, took the phrase and ran with it — in Arabic. 

Using only the words “fashion show,” he mimicked the way our parents sound when they speak Arabic. He threw in some facial expressions and dramatic gestures, and basically told us an entire story using only two words.

Years later, I watched a video of Elmaleh performing in front of a huge crowd in Paris. I remember his bit about, “There’s no such thing as a small rabbi—they’re all big. I’m just looking for a small, good-looking rabbi.” This was exactly the same guy who made us laugh in that living room. He could take any little observation and run with it. Only now, instead of a few buddies laughing in Montreal, it was a few thousand people laughing in Paris.

By then, Elmaleh had become the funniest man in France. What started with small, local shows for the Montreal Sephardic community — where his signature act was to imitate old Moroccan Jews living in the modern world — quickly grew to major events once he moved from Montreal to Paris in the early 1990s.

He made history in 2007, when he sold out the prestigious Olympia (the French version of Carnegie Hall) for seven consecutive weeks, something no artist had done before. 

His comedy was a hit in Paris for the same reason it was a hit in Montreal — he could make little observations, create characters and deliver stories with timing and body language that made everyone crack up.

Although he’s also had some starring roles in movies, his first love has always been to perform live, feeding off a crowd’s energy.

But here’s where the plot thickens. Elmaleh, who’s a youthful 45, has made it to the top by performing in his first language — French. In the past, even when he’s performed in Los Angeles for sellout crowds, it was for the local French community. It never dawned on anyone that he’d want to switch to English-speaking comedy clubs. 

But that is exactly what he is doing now.

Because of his ability to find laughs in the smallest things, some people have called him a French version of Jerry Seinfeld, who last year featured Elmaleh on his Web show, “Comedians in Cars getting Coffee.” There is some truth in the comparison, but it’s too easy.

About two years ago, at the pinnacle of his career, he decided to push himself to see if he could make America laugh — in English.

So, with his broken English, he set out on the road and started performing in little clubs. Since January, he’s been a Tuesday night regular at the famous Joe’s Pub in New York City, where he now lives. 

Thanks to lots of classes and plenty of practice, his English has significantly improved. But while he’s starting to get the hang of the language and making people laugh, the transition to American comedy is still a high-wire act. No one knows yet how far he can go or how long it will last. 

It helps that Elmaleh has very funny body language, which is universal. But stand-up comedy lives or dies with words, with material, with jokes. When a comic comes onstage, he has to break the ice and create an instant connection with strangers.

How do you do that if you’re not immersed in the language, the dialect and the culture of the country in which you are performing?

Or, using comedian slang, how do you “kill” in America if your first language is definitively French? 

These days, making America laugh is all that matters to Elmaleh. This was evident when he visited my house a few weeks ago for a little schmooze.

He was preparing for his three gigs this past week in Los Angeles at Largo. Although we normally speak to each other in French, he wanted to speak only in English. We talked about what makes Americans laugh. He was a sponge. He took more notes than I did.

He doesn’t want to be just a French comic in America; he wants to be a French Jewish comic in America. That’s a bigger canvas.

He has become a student of Jewish-American comedy. Because of his ability to find laughs in the smallest things, some people have called him a French version of Jerry Seinfeld, who has already featured Elmaleh on his Web show, “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee.” There is some truth in the comparison, but it’s too easy.

Elmaleh is developing his own voice based on his unique journey. He admitted to me that it’s all a work in progress. He’s observing everything around him and trying to find humor in a brand new culture. 

“It’s fun because it’s like I’m starting all over again,” he told me.

Part of his new material is to poke fun at American quirks. “Americans love to be nice,” he says. “When I told my neighbor that I am French, he told me: ‘Oh, I have a cousin who went to Italy last year!’ I’m thinking: What’s wrong with you guys? Thank you, but this is stupid information.”

He can also go broad. One of my favorite bits is a riff on how France donated the Statue of Liberty to America, after considering and discarding other options (free health care, free college, etc.). When Amazon Prime delivered the gift to the Americans, they learned that “people who bought this are also interested in the Eiffel Tower.”

What will be especially fascinating to watch, for me at least, will be how he interprets the Jewish part of his new comic identity. He admires the way Jews are so integrated into American culture. He loves how Jewish humor has a long and storied tradition in American life.

Elmaleh is not a religious Jew, but he’s a proud Jew. He grew up in Casablanca, so he has a deep connection to his Sephardic Moroccan heritage. Maybe because he’s become friendly with many Jewish-American comedians, he’s thinking of hosting Friday night dinners at his place in New York. (That would, no doubt, be the hottest Shabbat ticket in town.)

Gad Elmaleh. Photo by Cyril Dodergny

I can’t wait to see what he comes up with when he decides to poke fun at the Jewish-American community. He’ll have plenty of material to work with. 

He has his own Jewish mother jokes. His mother, he says, doesn’t speak a word of English, yet she gives him notes and feedback after his performances. After one of his recent shows in New York, he told her he didn’t think it went very well.

“No. I was in the crowd,” she replied. “It was much worse than that.” 

Elmaleh still has a deep attachment to France. He loves the culture, the way of life, the sophistication. It helps that during his long career, as he became a media celebrity, he’s managed to steer clear of politics and controversy. He has always just wanted to make people laugh. His fans come from a diverse background — Jews as well as non-Jews.

But although he still loves France, it’s also true that in America, Elmaleh feels a new sense of possibility. People are not as uptight. Jews are more accepted. He sees this new chapter as an opportunity to broaden his craft.

Mixing it up in small comedy joints has rejuvenated him. Here’s a guy who’s made millions yet absolutely loves it when a club owner gives him $30 after a performance. “The pizza I buy with that money is extra delicious,” he says. 

It comes down to making people laugh. “If I’m in front of 1,000 people or 10 people,” he says, “it’s the same challenge. Can I make them laugh?” 

But will Elmaleh make Americans laugh? Will he create his own brand of French-Jewish-Moroccan-American humor that will make him part of the American comedy landscape? 

So far, he’s been somewhat under the mainstream radar. But as he goes on late-night television (he has already appeared on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”) and continues to expand his presence, the scrutiny will increase.

Elmaleh is thinking about the long game. He has two English teachers, one who focuses on grammar and the other on dialect. He doesn’t want anyone to miss a joke because they can’t understand him.

In a sense, his comedy follows a common blueprint for comedians — he makes acute observations about the world around him. Comparing American and French cultures is a natural. 

When he ate at a Chinese restaurant recently and read the hopeful message in his fortune cookie, he couldn’t help but wonder how that would translate in France. “You open your baguette,” he says, “and inside you find this message: ‘Don’t reach for the stars, you will never reach them,’ or ‘If you have big dreams, that means you are sleeping.’”

Although he pokes fun at everything around him, his humor is not mean or condescending. He has a friendly demeanor that infuses his humor. As you’re laughing at his jokes, it’s easy to like the guy. 

Throughout his career and for as long as I’ve known him, Elmaleh has been that likeable guy making people laugh. No subject is too small. Old friends from his high school days in Montreal recall how he would suddenly start up a long conversation with an eraser — making the whole class, including the teacher, explode in laughter.

Playing in small clubs in a new country has helped him recapture some of that raw intimacy. These clubs have become his personal salon, where he is immersing himself in a new culture and language as he tries to make a new audience laugh.

Over the next few months, that audience will grow.

His big coming out will happen this August, when he kicks off the North American tour of his all-English set, “Oh My Gad,” in major cities across the country, including Sept. 9 in L.A. at the 1,600-seat Theatre at Ace Hotel.

In June, he will open for Seinfeld in New York and Montreal. And, as if he needed more pressure, it was just announced that he will play, yes, Carnegie Hall next Feb. 11.

Is he nervous?

“I’m always a little nervous,” he says. “Only now I try to be nervous in English.”

Why I can’t vote for Donald Trump


As a well-identified Republican in the Los Angeles Jewish community, for weeks and months on end I have repeatedly been asked the same question by Democratic friends and colleagues, and I usually sense it coming by the person’s shifting body language: “So, would you vote for Donald Trump?” My diplomatic but evasive response came to be, “It depends on who is running against him.” But I never thought it would really come down to that. Now it appears likely.

For me, it’s time to publicly change my previous answer before it’s too late : Yes, I would Dump Trump. If it came down to the choice between Hillary Clinton (another terribly flawed candidate) and him, I would either not vote at all or support a third-party conservative candidate, if that were an option. Sometimes, regrettably, taking the least bad choice is the best option.

Trump’s outrageous statements and behavior are well worn by now: His disparagement of one ethnic group after the other; his making fun of the disabled; his admiration for Vladimir Putin; his belittling of one person after the other, from Sen. John McCain to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly to former governor and presidential candidate Jeb Bush and on and on. Remember his prank of reading Sen. Lindsey Graham’s cellphone number to a crowd? Is this befitting of a president? First he “shlonged” Hillary Clinton, and then he insisted on talking about his own in a nationally televised debate. Mr. Trump: The American presidency isn’t some vulgar reality show.

Trump currently claims to be a Republican, but Republican after Republican are disowning him. His views are certainly not consistently conservative. Using eminent domain for personal interests certainly isn’t. The problem is that no one knows what he consistently believes. His views shift in the wind from day to day or minute to minute. One minute, he would order the military to torture people, the next minute, he wouldn’t. One minute, George W. Bush lied us into war, the next day, he didn’t. How can someone who is so erratic be elected to represent a major political party, let alone be trusted with the codes to unleash the arsenal of the nuclear triad, the meaning of which he was unaware of a short time ago?

As a Jew and the son of a Holocaust survivor, what scares me about Trump is his treatment of people as groups, using negative stereotypes to stir up the emotions of uneducated and disaffected people, and appealing to the worst instincts of people. He disparages minorities before he says he “loves” some of them. For now, it’s Mexicans, Muslims, the Chinese. Jews, after all, are the ultimate minority. During the Diaspora, Jews spread out and shifted from country to country, based on acceptance by the majority in the countries to which they migrated. During World War II, we all know what happened when Jews found the doors shut. While I am not arguing for uncontrolled migration, the demonization of people seeking shelter or a better life is not compatible with our history.

One of Trump’s ex-wives alleges he kept a copy of Hitler’s speeches at his bedside. I have no idea if this is true, but the fact that she thought people would find it credible is disturbing. I haven’t heard that come up in even the bitterest divorces. Trump’s failure to immediately disavow the KKK makes you wonder.

Furthermore, Jews don’t demean women. Woman are revered. Modern synagogues treat the matriarchs as we do the patriarchs, honoring them in daily prayers. Shavuot celebrates Ruth, and Purim, Esther. Jewish adults don’t make fun of a woman’s menses.

On Israel, Trump seems uninformed and naive. Being an even-handed broker between a Democratic ally and Hamas is ridiculous. The fact that he approaches diplomacy as he would a business deal (which for him often ended in bankruptcy) is foolishness. Trump’s defense of his bona fides on Israel is that he once marched in an Israel Day parade. This is reminiscent of the fact that he gets foreign policy advice from watching “the shows.” There is no substance here.

I am writing this from Paris. A friend of mine told me people in the tolerant Republique de France are shocked that so many Americans would be supporting Trump for president. Americans? They have managed to marginalize Marie Le Pen in France amid all the xenophobia but Trump is winning in America? Il n’est pas possible. A few days ago, I was in London with my daughter. A friend of hers who works in the financial district told me that Trump is a hotter topic of conversation among her colleagues than “Brexit” (Great Britain leaving the European Union). “Europe depends on America,” she told me. “Europe is scared.”

Twenty-eight years ago, my wife persuaded me to join the Republican Party because it was more aligned with most of my core political beliefs. My wife and I were frequently challenged and chastised about our conversion by Westside friends, so-called “liberals,” who charged us with greed, sexism, racism, homophobia and misogyny. Having become well versed in the writings and speeches of Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, George Gilder, William Buckley and Ronald Reagan, we had no problem arguing successfully for conservative values based on sound, intellectual arguments. We occasionally changed minds, especially in the early 2000s, as George W. Bush, 9/11, and the Second Intifada produced a wave of “9/11 Republicans,” Jews who were willing to follow facts and abandon old beliefs and emotions.

In 2016, I am still a conservative, a constitutionalist and a Republican. However, I cannot defend Donald Trump on any political or intellectual grounds. He presents a challenge to much of what I believe in and is a potential danger to the United States and our friends and allies. For these reasons, I am adding my voice to a chorus of other Republican leaders in affirming that I cannot vote for Donald Trump, and will use all of my energies to defeat him.


Joel Geiderman is the California Chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition and the former Vice Chairman of the United States Holocaust Museum, appointed by George W. Bush. His views do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or individual with which or whom he is currently or was formerly affiliated.

Taking in refugees is good for America


We all intuitively understand that if your friend loses his house in a hurricane, the right thing to do is to invite him to stay with you. But what if 10 of your friends lose their houses? You might call on your other friends to help with the cost of hotel rooms. And if you don’t actually know the unfortunate souls who lost it all? You might still lend a hand through the many private charities that assist those in distress.

The same philosophy should apply today, as the American people decide whether to accept a portion of the estimated 4.2 million Syrian refugees currently trying to escape their civil war-torn nation. And yet resistance to the idea is strong.

In 2015, the United States admitted 70,000 refugees combined from countries such as Iraq, Iran, China and Indonesia. For 2016, President Barack Obama proposed increasing the ceiling to 85,000 — higher than at any time since he took office, but many fewer than the 207,116 refugees — mostly from Asia — that we welcomed into the country in 1980.

Obama also requested that 10,000 refugees from Syria be accepted — a number that barely begins to address the humanitarian needs of the millions displaced by war. It also pales in comparison to the 1.1 million Syrian refugees who have found a home in Lebanon and the 815,000 allowed to resettle in Turkey. Unfortunately, with the rise of radical Islamism and recent terrorist attacks in countries such as France and the United States, many Americans (and American presidential candidates) are concerned about the national security implications of allowing in any refugees from that region.

Protecting U.S. citizens is obviously a priority, and the government has a responsibility to vet refugees before letting them settle here. But this isn’t as easy as it sounds, because reliable background checks may be hard to obtain and people who have fled their homes may have a difficult time providing verifiable proof of their identities.

Those difficulties shouldn’t be deal breakers, however. Arguably, no act of terrorism has been committed in the last 40 years by refugees in the United States (though a tiny number of refugees have been arrested on terrorism-related charges, and depending on the precise definition of refugees used, the Boston Marathon bombing or other incidents may count). And the long wait time and high cost of entering the country as a refugee make that an extremely inefficient way for terrorists to get in.

Meanwhile, countries that refuse entry to refugees — forcing them to reside in terrible living conditions in camps near the theater of conflict — may inadvertently be facilitating recruitment by extremist groups. A 2013 study in the journal International Interactions shows that when large numbers of refugees are placed in countries that have historically had tensions with their country of origin, it increases the risk of terrorism. Georgetown University’s Anne Speckhard, who studies terrorist psychology, said: “Experience from many conflict zones teaches us that the longer these refugees are left to languish in despair in camps, the more prone they become to radicalization.” In other words, there are serious security downsides to not accepting refugees.

Resettlement in the United States is only the first step in the process, of course; assimilation is also important. Thankfully, past efforts on this front have met with positive results. “Refugees adapt quickly to the U.S. economy, complement existing workers and settle rapidly into their new homes,” argued Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration specialist at the Cato Institute.

Because refugees cannot return to their homeland as many economic migrants do, Nowrasteh explained, they tend to make serious long-term commitments to learning English and other relevant skills. The data confirm this point: A paper by Kalena E. Cortes, published in The Review of Economics and Statistics in May 2004, looked at how implicit differences in the time horizons of refugees and economic immigrants affected subsequent human capital investments. She found that a decade after their arrival, refugees who settled here between 1975 and 1980 earned 20 percent more in wages, worked 4 percent more hours, and had improved their English skills 11 percent more.

“Unlike other immigrants, refugees do have immediate access to some welfare programs,” Nowrasteh added, “but they generally leave them rapidly and are more likely to enter the workforce than natives or other immigrants.” This is a good thing, because the availability of welfare doesn’t do much to help assimilation and may even hinder refugees’ well-being.

A 2000 paper by Andrey Vinokurov, Dina Birman and Edison Trickett in International Migration Review looked at the psychological impact of working on 206 (mostly Jewish) Soviet refugees in the United States. It compared Russians who settled in Brighton Beach in Brooklyn to those who settled in the Washington, D.C., area.

The New York refugees had more access to welfare. However, the data show that those in the D.C. area were more satisfied with their lives and more upwardly mobile. The more the job matched  a refugee’s original skills, the more positive the impact. There was no real difference on the level of acculturation.

But what about the impact of these new entrants on Americans? Economists have shown that immigrants generally increase the host country’s overall gross domestic product (GDP). The result on GDP per capita is a source of debate, but the literature suggests that the effect depends on the relative skill set of refugees compared to the native population. Highly skilled refugees would add much more to the average per-person income than low-skilled ones. But does that mean that low-skilled refugees have a negative impact?

That doesn’t seem to be the case. In a well-known 1990 paper, economist David Card looked at the impact on the Miami economy of 125,000 Cuban refugees who arrived during the Mariel boatlift crisis. Although the immigrants increased Miami’s labor force by 7 percent — and were concentrated in less-skilled occupations — contrary to people’s fears, the influx had virtually no effect on the wages or unemployment rates of the city’s less-skilled workers, even among previous Cuban immigrants.

Low-skilled refugees, like other immigrants, tend to boost the employment opportunities of native workers, either by providing cheap child care services that enable women to increase their labor force participation or by pushing native workers to pursue more complex occupations and higher wages. A 2013 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by Mette Foged and Giovanni Peri, for instance, looked at the effect on Danish workers of a large inflow of non-European refugees between 1991 and 2008. It found real positive wage effects set in after five to six years, as the rest of the economy adjusted to the increase in workers, and the native laborers moved into more complex jobs. The flexibility of the Danish labor market played to everyone’s favor, much as the strong economy in the U.S. in the 1980s did.

Assuming these results hold true today, accepting more refugees is not just the moral thing to do. It’s in everyone’s best interest.


Veronique de Rugy is a columnist at Reason magazine and an economist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Reprinted with permission from Reason.

Sanders campaign sets new TV ad to Simon and Garfunkel’s ‘America’


A television ad for Bernie Sanders in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses is featuring the song “America” by Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel.

The one-minute ad for the Democratic presidential candidate started running in the state on Friday in advance of the Feb. 1 vote. It includes images of Americans on farms, in offices and at home; people at Sanders’ rallies; and the family of the Vermont senator set to the iconic song by the Jewish duo, members of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

A voiceover by Sanders appears in the last four seconds saying he approves of the ad’s message.

Garfunkel told CNN in an interview that he supports the Brooklyn-born Sanders, an independent running in the Democratic race, though a campaign spokesman has been careful to point out that use of the song does not imply an endorsement from the artists.

“This campaign is not about me,” Sanders was quoted as saying in a news release announcing the new ad. “It is not about Hillary Clinton or any other candidate. This campaign is about you, your kids and your parents. It is about creating a political movement of millions of people who stand up and loudly proclaim that this nation belongs to all of us and not just a handful of billionaires.”

Roman Polanski, 10 other Hollywood Jews open up about surviving Holocaust


The Hollywood Reporter is commemorating the 70th anniversary of the end of the Holocaust with a feature on 11 survivors who went on to careers in American entertainment. The project, released Wednesday morning online and in print, includes moving video interviews with all the subjects, including director Roman Polanski and sex therapist Ruth Westheimer.

Director Steven Spielberg, the founder of the USC Shoah Foundation, wrote an essay for the feature. Below is a look at each subject’s testimony.

Roman Polanski, 82, director of seminal films like “Rosemary’s Baby,” “Chinatown” and “The Pianist”

Polanski, whom the U.S. has repeatedly attempted to extradite from Europe on sexual assault charges, is wary of speaking to American reporters. But he spoke to Peter Flax, an editor at THR, for an hour about his Holocaust experience.

Polanski tells the story of the first person he saw killed: “Some old woman was crying and wailing in Yiddish — I didn’t quite understand because I did not speak Yiddish,” he says. “And at one moment she was on all fours, and suddenly there was a gun in the hand of that young SS man, and he shot her in the back, and the blood came out, like the little fountain that we have in the offices, you know, a bulb of blood.”

Flax was also allowed to view Polanski’s five-hour testimony to the USC Shoah Foundation, which has never been made public. He describes Polanski’s narration of the video, which filmed him walking through his native Krakow, Poland.

“He points out the spot where he slipped through barbed wire to escape the ghetto, tours the first ghetto apartment his family called home and muses about how opposite sides of a city street could demarcate life and death,” Flax writes.

Branko Lustig, 83, Academy Award-winning producer of films like “Schindler’s List” and “Gladiator”

When the British army liberated Auschwitz, where Lustig was a prisoner at age 12, the sound of their bagpipes made him think that he “had died finally, and that was the angels’ music in heaven.”

Years later, he met Spielberg when the director was developing “Schindler’s List.”

“He kissed my number [from the concentration camp, tattooed on Lustig’s arm] and said, ‘You will be my producer.’ He is the man who gave me the possibility to fulfill my obligation,” Lustig says.

Meyer Gottlieb, 76, president of Samuel Goldwyn Films and producer of films like “Master and Commander,” “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” and “Tortilla Soup”

After leaving Poland as a child in the early 1940s, Gottlieb didn’t visit his native village — where most of his relatives were forced to dig their own graves before being shot by the Germans — until six decades later, in 2008.

“The truth of the matter is that the weapons of massive destruction are not bombs — they’re hatred, intolerance and bigotry,” he tells THR.

Robert Clary, 89, film, TV and stage actor best known for his role on the sitcom “Hogan’s Heroes,” set in a German POW camp

Clary credited his natural joie de vivre and energy with sustaining him in the Buchenwald concentration camp as a child. He sang and performed with an accordionist for German soldiers every Sunday.

“Singing, entertaining and being in kind of good health at my age, that’s why I survived,” he says. “I was very immature and young and not really fully realizing what situation I was involved with … I don’t know if I would have survived if I really knew that.”

Leon Prochnik, 82, screenwriter and editor, known for adapting the script of the play “Child’s Play” into a film directed by Sidney Lumet

Prochnik grew up the son of a chocolate factory owner in Krakow. He nicknamed the tub that filled with melted chocolate “milka” and thought it had magical powers. When he repeatedly visited it to steal chocolate, great things would happen: One time, his father connected with diplomat Chiune Sugihara, the “Japanese Schindler” who help thousands of Jews leave Europe. Another time, a Nazi officer missed a Jewish prayer book in a search of the factory.

Ruth Westheimer, 87, sex therapist and TV and radio talk show host

Ruth Westheimer reflected on her Holocaust experience to The Hollywood Reporter. Photo courtesy of The Hollywood Reporter

By the time the legendary sex guru was 10 years old, she would never see her deported parents again. By the time she was 17, she had moved to British-controlled Palestine to train as a sniper in the Haganah, a precursor to the Israel Defense Forces (even though she only stood 4 feet 7 inches tall).

“Looking at my four grand-children: Hitler lost and I won,” she tells the magazine.

Curt Lowens, 90, film and stage actor known for portraying Nazi characters, including the notorious Dr. Josef Mengele in the Broadway play “The Deputy”

After escaping Berlin and taking on a new identity in a small town in Holland, Lowens (née Loewenstein) joined a three-person Dutch resistance cell that saved 123 Jewish children by delivering them to families who hid them. After V-E Day, Lowens received a commendation from then-Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower for rescuing two fallen American airmen.

Bill Harvey, 91, cosmetologist to the likes of Judy Garland, Mary Martin, Zsa Zsa Gabor and Liza Minelli

After being transported from Auschwitz to Buchenwald on a frigid cattle car, Harvey fell unconscious and was left for dead in a pile of corpses stacked by the crematorium. Someone pulled him out days later. He was 21 years old and weighed about 72 pounds.

“My humble explanation for all the tragedies and the bad people who want just to kill is that maybe there have to be some bad things in order to appreciate all the good things that this world gives you,” Harvey says.

Ruth Posner, 82, founding member of the London Contemporary Dance Company, actress and former member of the Royal Shakespeare Company

One day, while living in the Warsaw Ghetto, Posner and her aunt casually crossed from the Jewish to the Aryan side of the street. They shed their yellow armbands and assumed new identities. She would escape and keep her story secret for decades.

“Now when I talk about it, it seems like I’m describing my role in a play,” Posner says.

Dario Gabbai, 93, actor in the 1953 war film “The Glory Brigade”

Gabbai is likely the last living former member of the Sonderkommando, a set of Jews forced to assist the Germans with various morbid tasks in the concentration camps.

“I have inside some stuff I can never tell,” Gabbai says. “I saw so many things. Even now, I like to cry to get it out of my system. But it doesn’t go out.”

He recalls one time seeing two of his friends from his native Thessaloniki, Greece, in line outside a gas chamber. All he could tell them was the best way to stand inside to minimize their suffering.

Celia Biniaz, 84, supporter of the USC Shoah Foundation whose testimony was included in the DVD version of “Schindler’s List”

Biniaz was on the list of Jews saved by Oskar Schindler. When Liam Neeson was first cast for the film, some involved in the production thought that he was too handsome for the role.

“I told them that Mr. Schindler was very handsome, so he gets the job,” Biniaz said.

An American Immigrant Family’s Responsibility


Last week, we had the honor of celebrating Chanukah at the White House. Joined by President and Mrs. Obama, we watched as the candles of the festival of light were lit by Rabbi Susan Talve. As the lights danced, we couldn’t stop reflecting on how remarkable it was that we, children of refugees, were taking part in such an occasion.  The illumination emanating from the White House Menorah seemed to symbolize the lights of the Statue of Liberty shining on our parents and other family members who escaped Nazi Europe to land in New York on boats in 1939.

We the children of refugees, along with other descendants of immigrants, have accomplished incredible things as Americans—and that is why we feel compelled to call on this country to open its borders to the tired, hungry, and poor from Syria and elsewhere. That is our proud history as Americans, to welcome those without a home. 

Our parents had no idea what our family’s future would hold when they arrived on American shores. They only knew that America offered freedom, safety, and generosity. Our parents escaped from Nazi rule; from places like Germany where our mother’s childhood ended so young, and from Vienna where our father and his friends were forced to clean the streets with a toothbrush as Hitler readied to enter the city. Coming to America was literally a matter of life or death for our family; our great-grandmother was told she could not stay in the United States after she arrived here and was forced to return to Europe where she was murdered by Nazis. That’s what happens when America closes its doors to refugees.

As children growing up in California, social justice and Judaism were intertwined in our household – but not abstractly. And the issues weren’t partisan, they were not matters of being a Democrat or Republican. They were matters of right and wrong. They were matters of saving lives.

Our parents instilled in us a sense that in America each person is valued as an individual. They instilled in us a sense that all are welcome in the great American mosaic. They instilled in us a sense that anything is possible here.

And anything is. In 1980, we became the first brother-sister in history to be ordained as rabbis. Karen was a pioneer, the first female rabbi to work for the Reform Movement, the first woman congregational rabbi in Los Angeles—and the fourth in all of Jewish history. She served at Wilshire Boulevard Temple in Los Angeles as a rabbi for 25 years and today she continues to teach rabbinic students. As head of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Steve is honored to lead the largest organization of Rabbis in the world, with colleagues not just in North American but in Jewish communities in Europe, the FSU, and Israel.  Both live full Jewish lives that our parents or grandparents could only have dreamed of.

None of this would have been possible without American generosity. More specifically, none of it would have been possible without Americans who opened their borders to our family.

That’s precisely why our family feels a special obligation to call on America to live up to its highest ideals, to live the words of the Statute of Liberty, and to offer its blessings to refugees from around the world. It is especially vital for America to maintain a humane immigration policy when we hear ignorant, demagogic calls to close our borders to people simply because of their religion or nationality. Our family knows those fears well, and we know what happens when America acts on them.

We also know what happens when America is truest to its best traditions. Our ancestors in Europe who often were forbidden even to practice their Judaism could never have imagined their children – their direct descendants – being rabbis and being invited by the leaders of most powerful country in the world, into the home of our President, to celebrate Chanukah.

That’s what America has done for us. And we need to make it possible for others to come here and realize the American dream. That’s the Jewish way. And that’s the American way. 

Rabbi Steven A. Fox is the Chief Executive of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Rabbi Karen Fox is Rabbi Emerita at Wilshire Boulevard Temple.

Elan Carr on the San Bernardino shooting


Like all Americans, Dahlia and I are outraged and heartbroken over yesterday’s murders in San Bernardino. Our prayers are with the many families affected by this heinous attack.  We offer our heartfelt condolences to the families and friends who lost their loved ones, and we pray for a speedy and complete recovery for those who were injured. We also salute the brave police officers and sheriff’s deputies who displayed exemplary professionalism in bringing the crisis to a conclusion. 

 A government’s most important job is to keep people safe. This was a planned, premeditated attack on county employees in a county facility. All Americans understand how vulnerable we are in the face of dramatically increasing threats from crime and terrorism. I call upon the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to make public safety their absolute top priority.

Rescuing God


This is the first holiday in 45 years that Rabbi Harold Schulweis will not be on the bima. In his memory we offer this sermon.

Elie Wiesel offered a parable about our times:

Once upon a time, Man complained to God: “You have no idea how hard it is to be human — to live a life darkened by suffering and despair in a world filled with violence and destruction, to fear death and worry that nothing we do or create or dream matters.  You have no idea how hard it is to be human!”

God responded, “You think it’s easy being God? I have a whole universe to run, a whole universe demanding constant vigilance. You think you could do that?”

            “I’ll tell you what,” suggested the Man, “let’s switch places, for just a moment. For just a moment, You be Man, and I’ll be God, and that way we’ll see who has it harder.”

            “For just a moment?” God considered, “Agreed.”

So Man and God switched places. Man sat upon God’s throne. And God descended to the earth. After a moment passed, God looked up and said, “OK, time to switch back.” But Man refused. Man refused to give up the throne of God. This is our world — where Man plays God, and God is exiled.

Once upon a time, our ancestors attributed everything in their lives to the will of God. Health and sickness, war and peace, poverty and affluence, were rewards and punishments cast down from heaven.  No matter how random, arbitrary and cruel their fate, they had faith that this too is God’s will, inscrutable and mysterious as it may be. But there came a time when we lost that faith.  We coveted the power to control our destiny. So we turned our efforts from deciphering God’s will, to discovering the patterns in nature and society that might help us predict and control our world.

Sickness, we discovered, is not a divine punishment, but the result of infection, faulty genetics, the deterioration of organs and cells. Drought and deluge are the products of shifts in atmospheric pressure and moisture. The movement of tectonic plates brings earthquakes, and the movement of capital markets produces economic booms and busts. We don’t look to God’s will to explain our fate. We look out upon a reality shaped by politics and economics, by forces of nature, by our own choices. God has been dethroned, and for better or worse, we control things now. We sit upon God’s throne.

Even when we achieved that dominion, we weren’t finished. We set about liberating ourselves of all vestiges of the old faith. We demythologized, desacralized, secularized. We admit no authority beyond ourselves. We tore down heroes, debunked myths, discarded taboos.

Once upon a time, we had heroes: moral heroes, great leaders, sports stars. On our walls hung pictures of Eleanor Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Sandy Koufax. Who do we revere today? Political leaders today are just politicians representing entrenched special interests. Sports heroes are free-agents, playing for the money, or cheaters, or felons. Instead of artists, we exalt celebrities, and we cheer on the circus antics of their narcissism.

We subjected our myths to rigorous revisionist historiography and relished the opportunity to point out all that is unheroic and flawed. When I was young, I was taught to revere the American Founding Fathers – that extraordinary gathering of wise men, who cherished liberty, fought the Revolution for American freedom, and framed our Constitution. Now, we open a textbook and discover that the Revolution wasn’t fought to establish freedom but to defend the interests of a colonial merchant class. Just steps from Independence Hall in Philadelphia where our Founders declared “all men are created equal,” you’ll find the newly-excavated quarters where George Washington’s slaves stay while the Constitution was being drafted. In Monticello, you learn about all the children Thomas Jefferson fathered children with his slave, Sally Hennings. Lincoln was a depressive. Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy were notorious for their White House peccadillos. It is as if, one by one, we’re tearing the images off Mt Rushmore.

Who is left to revere today?

I grew up with Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in America, who told me each night: And that’s the way it is. And we believed him. Is there anyone we believe today? According to a Readers Digest poll, the most trusted Americans are Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, Denzel Washington, Merle Streep, Four actor. We don’t know them, their values or their character. We only know the parts they play on screen.

We have lost our heroes, we have lost our myths, and ultimately, – we are losing the sacred. What is the sacred? The sacred is that which we serve with love and loyalty; the core of value upon which we build a life; the ideals which inform life with purpose. The sacred lifts us above the ego, above the endless desires and drives of the narrower self, to reach a bigger, truer, more generous self. Modernity is committed to liberate us from repression, superstition and authority. But in the process modernity, has subverted all that is sacred.

What is sacred today? What is inviolable?  

Patriotism? Patriotism is sullied by the divisiveness of our politics – the radically different views we hold about what America is, who it belongs to, and what it ought to be. Patriotism has become just another advertising slogan. 

Religion? The most popular Broadway show of the last decade is “Book of Mormon.” I’ll confess, it’s hysterical. But halfway through the show, you realize what it’s about. It’s a complete denigration of a community’s faith. What if they’d written “Book of Moses” instead? Would we be laughing? 

Family?

Once upon a time, we saw family as sacred. But research at the University of Michigan found that American children today spend about 20 hours a week interacting with their parents, but more than 30 hours a week, outside of school, in front of a TV screen or a computer monitor. Think of what those kids are seeing on TV. Is family really sacred?

The images of ISIS destroying ancient artifacts and places of worship shock us. But the truth is that we’ve been destroying the sacred for a long time now.

The problem is that human beings can’t live without a sense of the sacred. We need a core of value to motivate and inspire and provide purpose for life. We need myth – we need organizing narratives that answers our deepest questions – Who am I? What am I living for? What matters? Where do I belong? What’s my purpose?

People are so hungry today for myth and meaning, for the sacred, they run to embrace all sorts of belief systems. It was once imagined that as science progressed, all closed systems of belief would disappear in the face of scientific skepticism. The opposite has occurred. As modernity has progressed, fundamentalism has thrived.  No matter how irrational, intolerant, authoritarian, people run to embrace fundamentalism because it fills the deep hunger for the sacred. In fact, it seems the more authoritarian, the more attractive it is.

Of the five armed forces in the US – Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard – which one do you think has the most success recruiting young people? The Marine Corp. By far. In fact, there is a wait list to get in. Why the Marine Corp? Why would the most demanding and authoritarian, of the armed service be so popular? Listen to their slogans — The Army promises that you can “be all you can be.” The Navy offers you the chance to see the world. The Marines offer myth. In the Marines, it’s not about you. It’s Semper Fi. It’s about belonging, serving, sacrifice. In the Marines you give up the self to become one of the few, the chosen.

Modernity asks questions, modernity casts doubt. The fundamentalist has no doubts. He has certainty, and there is a charisma that comes with that kind of certainty. He has absolute truth. That’s compelling.  Standing in the presence of absolute conviction, we can imagine that the sacred is at least possible. Even if the God he worships is sexist, chauvinistic, domineering, abusive, even if his ideology is primitive and prejudiced — at least he believes with all his heart, soul and might, without qualification or condition. That provides a kind of security. Even if it means relinquishing our critical sensibility, and democratic values, standing in the presence unqualified faith, we are granted a momentary reprieve from the spiritual emptiness of modern life.

Fundamentalism today is growing. So is addiction.

The human soul craves the sacred. And if we can find nothing sacred, nothing to serve, we live with a hole in the soul. And that hurts. So we run to fill that hole with something to numb the pain. Drink and drugs, shopping and acquisition, sex, pornography, exercise, fantasy, obsessive work, and the relentless pursuit of entertainment. Karl Marx once condemned religion as the opiate of the people. Rabbi Schulweis pointed out that today, it’s the other way around. Today, opiates are the religion of the people. Addiction fills in the hole where the sacred once lived.

In another gripping tale, Elie Wiesel tells of the day his boyhood synagogue was filled with worshippers, when the crazed shamas ran it, and screamed, “Sha. Quiet Jews. Don’t you know that God is hunting the Jews of Europe?  Sha. Don’t let Him know where we are!”

The Holocaust was the capstone of the project of Modernity. As Dostoevsky predicted, when anything goes, everything goes. Absent a sense of the sacred, the unthinkable is suddenly possible. It is as if Western Civilization brought absolute evil into the world just to prove once and for all there is no Father in Heaven who will save us. 

In the chilling words of Wiesel’s memoir, Night:

Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed. Never shall I forget the smoke. Never shall I forget the little faces of the children whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a silent blue sky.

Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever.

Never shall I forget that nocturnal silence which deprived me, for all eternity, of the desire to live. Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust. Never shall I forget these things, even if I am condemned to live as long as God Himself. Never.

In a moment of painful candor, my teacher, Rabbi Yitz Greenberg, once asked, how is it that we say the same prayers, pray to the same God, observe the same holidays after the Shoah, as before? How has this cataclysm not changed us indelibly? The question raised by Job in the Bible and revisited throughout the generations of Jewish existence – How can a just and loving God tolerate a world of such suffering? That question comes to a climax in the Holocaust. In the presence of a million and half murdered Jewish children, Greenberg argued, we simply can’t talk about God in the same way anymore.  An April, 1966, cover of Time Magazine asked, in huge bold letters, Is God Dead? After all we’ve witnessed, is there any way today to speak about God, about faith, about God’s role in the world?

The purpose of religion is to identify the sacred, and cultivate and nurture our sensitivity and connection to the sacred. The sacred is rooted in our narratives, our myths. Sacred values grow out of the stories we tell. In Jewish tradition, our core values are rooted in the story of the Exodus from Egypt and the revelation of God at Mt Sinai – the story of a God who hands down mitzvoth, commandments, to a covenanted people. The problem is, so many of us don’t believe those narratives any more. Science questions their facticity. Modernity makes it impossible to admit any transcendent source of values. But most of all, we find the tradition’s images of God, impossible to accept. What we’ve witnessed in the 20th century has changed us. We have known too much horror to embrace the old narratives of a God who interrupts history to save His people. We just can’t tell those stories any more. No amount of theological sophistry can bring us back the faith of our ancestors.

This is the task that Rabbi Harold Schulweis faced when he first stepped onto this pulpit, 45 years ago: Addressing a generation deeply yearning for the sacred, but a generation for whom the old narratives, the old beliefs, simply don’t work. That’s what every one of his books, his articles, his sermons are about.

Rabbi Schulweis did not deny or ignore or censure the disillusionment experienced by this generation. He didn’t blame us for doubting and question what our grandparents believed. On the contrary, he honored our doubt. He recognized that our questions of God didn’t grow from cynicism or indifference or despair. Our questions grew from love – love of the Jewish people, love of humanity, love of justice. He recognized in this generation’s doubt what the Talmud called “chutzpah klpei shamaya” – holy protest, sacred dissent. He perceived that our difficulties with the tradition’s image of God are rooted in a set of expectations that reflect traditional, Jewish sacred values. He heard in our questions the voice of Abraham: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do Justice? Ironically, it is our very fidelity to traditional Jewish sacred values that makes it impossible to believe in the traditional narratives about God.

This is precisely where Rabbi Schulweis begins to rebuild faith. If we can no longer find the tradition’s sacred values in a narrative about God, he taught, let’s turn the process around, and root a new narrative of God in our sacred values. The goal of Judaism, he argued, is not to make us believers in a God above. It never was. The goal of Judaism is to make us vessels of divine holiness here on earth. It’s not about God, but Godliness, about the sacred values we express in our conduct of life. God is a verb, he taught, not a noun. Not a Someone. But a way of encountering the world.

This sounds strange to many of us, but it wasn’t to him, and most importantly, it wasn’t to the Jewish tradition. This idea has been in our tradition from the beginning. Open Maimonides. The greatest book of Jewish philosophy ever written, the majestic Guide for the Perplexed begins with the same dilemma, the God we inherit from tradition, we can no longer believe in. In the 12th century, Maimonides set about developing a radically new idea of God and religion. The ultimate goal of human life, he taught, is to perfect oneself so that one can know God. Moses is the Maimonides’ model of the most realized human life, and Moses’ ascent up Mt Sinai, is his metaphor for the journey of human perfection. But one important fact of Moses’ story vexed Maimonides: Having achieved perfection, and standing face to face with God, Moses turns around and descends the mountain. He returns to his people, and all their trouble. Why Moses doesn’t stay on the mountaintop with God? Only on the very last page, the very last paragraph  of the Guide to the Perplexed does Maimonides gives the answer: the perfection in which man can truly glory is attained by him when he has acquired knowledge of God, and God’s Providence, … Having acquired this knowledge, one will then be determined always to seek kindness, justice, and righteousness, and to imitate the ways of God.  Do you hear that? Achieving intellectual perfection and knowing God is but a penultimate objective. The real goal of human life is to embody God’s justice and lovingkindness in the world – to live God, to do God. The last line of Maimonides is the first line of Schulweis. Godliness is the goal of human life.

You know this. You know that the fundamental building block of Jewish prayer is the brachaBaruch ata Adonai Eloheynu melech ha-olam. If the purpose of faith is to express belief in a God above, then the bracha should have stopped there. That says it all: Praised is God, Ruler of the Universe. Period. Why say anything else? But we continue — Ha-motzi lechem min ha-aretz; borei pri ha-gafen, Shehechianu V’keemanu because the real purpose of the bracha is to build a vocabulary of sacred values, to identify what in life is sacred. Tradition commands that we recite a hundred brachot a day. This is our Jewish spiritual discipline. Its aim is to train our sensitivity for the sacred in life everyday.

Ralph Waldo Emmerson wrote that we become what we worship. The bracha invites us to move beyond the boundaries of the self, beyond our endless needs and desires and moods, to become Godly. To recite a bracha, is to recognize our capacity of self-transcendence, to care, to heal, to help, to give, to touch the lives of others. When we recite a bracha, we bind ourselves to a vision of what we can yet become – to the Godliness latent within.

Rabbi Schulweis believed that this curriculum of self-transcendence had to be more than a solitary spiritual experience. So he introduced a program of initiatives, beginning here at VBS and spreading throughout the country, which re-made the American synagogue.  All of the initiatives he introduced to the synagogue share this quality of breaking boundaries. He perceived the loneliness of suburban life, and so he gathered us into havurot. He felt our need to care for one another, so he trained us to serve as para-rabbinics, and para-professional counselors. He decried the divisions within the Jewish community, and called for cross-denominational youth programs. He felt the narrowness of the Jewish community, and so he reached out to welcome Jews by choice through a program of Keruv, he built a relationship with the Armenian community to commemorate our shared experience of Holocaust together, and in his ninth decade, he demanded we respond to genocide in Darfur and the Congo, and established the Jewish World Watch. Every initiative, an exercise in self-transcendence – becoming more.  

But he still faced one problem. How do we believe in anything after the horrors of the Holocaust? In the face of that evil, that absolute evil, how can we maintain any sense of meaning? 

A few years before Rabbi Schulweis came to VBS, he was attending a Jewish community affair at a hotel in San Francisco, when the owner of the hotel, Ben Swig, introduced him to hotel’s maintenance supervision, a German immigrant named Fritz Graebe. Graebe shared his story with the Rabbi. During the war, Fritz Graebe ran a construction company under contract with the Nazi, on the German-Ukranian border. Graebe had once been a member of the Nazi party. But he grew to hate the Nazis. He witnessed the massacre of Jews in the Ukranian town of Dubno, and it sickened him. So he told the Nazis he needed large numbers of workers, and he took Jews off of trains, and out of concentration camps, and put them to work on his projects. He invented projects, and inflated projects, so the Nazis would give him more work permits. When the Gestapo announced new deportations, he put Jews on trains to nowhere, holding bogus work permits. He used all the privileges afforded him as a civilian contractor, and he used up all his wealth, to save Jews. The Nazis had suspicions, but when they came to arrest him, he escaped to the Allies’ lines. Eventually he would testify at the Nuremberg trials. And when he received death threats, he moved his family to San Francisco. How many Jewish lives did Fritz Graebe save? There were 5000 Jews on his payroll on the day the war ended. 5000 rescued Jewish lives.

Fritz Graebe was only the first of the rescuers that Rabbi Schulweis discovered. He soon found Jacob Gilat, a young mathematics instructor Berkley who, with his brothers, was hidden and rescued by a German Christian family. Sempo Sugihara, the Japanese diplomat who saved 3500 Jews in Kovno, Lithuania. The Bulgarian royal family who defied the Gestapo’s order and allowed them to take not one Jew from their country. And so many more.  Collectively, they testified that God did not die in the concentration camps. They rescued Jews. Through their testimony, Rabbi Schulweis rescued God. Even in the deepest darkness, there were sparks of Godliness. 

In our history, there is a rare and special tradition of Jewish spiritual revolutionaries who were called upon to rescue Judaism at moments of profound disruption: Yohanan ben Zakkai after the destruction of the Temple, Maimonides when philosophy shook the foundations of Jewish faith, the Baal Shem Tov addressing a generation deeply disillusioned and despairing of faith. At these extraordinary moments, Jewish existence reached a crisis – when the sacred narratives of the past expired, and new narratives were yet to be born. These were the singular personalities who perceived that the survival of the community depended on its ability to transcend, to transform, to reinvent its ideas and institutions. They provided resilience, the courage and the inspiration to let go of the old, and to imagine the new. Rabbi Schulweis stands within that extraordinary tradition. As we sing at Hannuka: Hen b’chal dor, yakum hagibor, goel ha-am. In every generation, a hero arose to save our people.

He didn’t grow up in synagogue. Far from it. His father rebelled against religion, and raised him in a rich tradition of secular Yiddish culture. He didn’t set foot in a synagogue until he was 12 years old. It was Rosh Hashanah, and school was out in his Bronx neighborhood, so he was wandering the boulevard, when he heard the most remarkable music coming from one of the storefronts. He entered, and because he was small, they assumed he was a kid looking for his mothers, so they sent him upstairs to the women’s section, where he sat transfixed by the majesty and melody of the service. And so for the past 45 years he has sat here, again, transfixed by the majesty and the melody, the prayers and yearnings of the Jewish people.

Yehi Zichro Baruch. May his memory be our blessing. 

Rabbinical Council of America conversion panel issues recommendations


A committee established by the Rabbinical Council of America to review its conversion processes has submitted its report featuring recommendations in nine areas of the process.

The review was put in place nine months ago after one of the RCA’s leading conversion rabbis, Barry Freundel, was arrested on voyeurism charges. Freundel was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison for videotaping dozens of nude women at his former congregation’s ritual bath in Washington, D.C.

The recommendations focused on support for conversion candidates during and after their conversions, professionalism, transparency of expectations, sensitivity to candidates, educational experiences, the responsibilities and support for rabbis and rabbinic judges, and oversight, supervision, and grievance processing.

“I am hopeful that this report will make it better for American conversion candidates going forward,” committee member Bethany Mandel said last week when presenting the report to the national convention of the RCA, the country’s main modern Orthodox rabbinic association. “The framework we’ve laid out here … is a great start, but it’s up to many of you in this room today to make sure that the spirit of these recommendations is carried out.”

Some 439 conversion participants from a pool of 835, along with 107 sponsoring rabbis in a pool of 216, responded to an anonymous survey. Five focus groups also were conducted in New York, Montreal and Washington, D.C.

Rabbi Shmuel Goldin, the committee’s chair, called the review process a “historic moment.”

“Recognizing the critical importance of their perspective, we involved converts, our stakeholders, throughout the committee’s lengthy deliberations,” he said. “In addition, we encouraged them to publicly present their feelings, positive and negative, to our entire convention last week. The result was deeply moving and potentially transformative for our members.

“The review process helped us better understand the conversion process generally and will help us fulfill our religious mandates with greater sensitivity and responsibility.”

The review committee was comprised of six men and five women, including two female converts to Judaism.

Among the committee members were Abby Lerner, the admissions director and a teacher at Yeshiva University’s high school for girls in New York; Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of New York’s Kehilath Jeshurun and Ramaz school; Bracha Rutner, a female adviser of Jewish law; various rabbis and a psychotherapist.

The two converts on the panel were Mandel, a recent convert of Freundel’s who penned a proposed Bill of Rights for converts after the Freundel scandal broke, and Evelyn Fruchter, an attorney.

22 senators sign letter to Obama urging Israel support


Nearly one-quarter of the U.S. Senate signed on to a bipartisan letter urging President Barack Obama to support Israel around the world.

Twenty-two senators signed the letter, which was written “in response to your welcomed recent remarks at Congregation Adas Israel” on May 22 concerning his commitment to Israel’s security. The letter was sponsored by Sens. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

While welcoming Obama’s “unwavering commitment” to Israel’s security, the signers also want the Obama administration to remain committed to the United States’ “long-standing policy” of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians as the way to peace.

The letter specifically asked the administration to oppose Palestinian efforts for membership in the United Nations and other international bodies.

Among the signers are five Jewish Democrats: Ben Cardin of Maryland, Barbara Boxer of California, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Charles Schumer of New York and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

The signers wrote that they were “deeply concerned by previously reported and unattributed comments by U.S. officials that the U.S. might change its approach to the peace process at the United Nations Security Council.”

“The United States has a critical role to play in facilitating these direct negotiations,” the senators wrote.

Confidence in Obama falls dramatically in Israel


While President Barack Obama remains popular in most countries, the sharpest decline in his image occurred in Israel, according to a new survey.

In Israel, confidence in Obama on world affairs fell from 71 percent to 49 percent in the last year, according to the 2015 Spring Pew Global Attitudes Survey released Wednesday.

Some 15 percent of residents of the Palestinian Authority said they had confidence in Obama on world affairs, compared to 82 percent with no confidence. Jordan had similar figures with 14 percent confidence and 83 percent no confidence.

Residents of the Philippines had the most confidence in Obama with 94 percent; next was South Korea with 88 percent. France was third with 83 percent confidence.

American’s overall image around the world remains largely positive, according to the survey, with a median of 69 percent holding a favorable view and 24 percent an unfavorable opinion.

Some 81 percent of Israelis view the United States favorably and 18 percent unfavorably, similar to the past two years. However, 87 percent of Jewish-Israelis view the United States favorably, compared with 48 percent of Arab-Israelis, according to the survey.

Lebanon, Turkey, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan have largely unfavorable opinions.

Results for the survey are based on telephone and face-to-face interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International during April and May. In Israel, 1,000 surveys were conducted in face-to-face interviews in Hebrew and Arabic, with a margin of error of 4.3 percent.

Death in Charleston: Trapped by the tragic, unheeded lessons of the nation’s racial past


America's latest incident of racial violence, the massacre of nine people at historically black Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., echoes some of the horrific scenes out of the civil-rights era. A young white shooter allegedly committed mass murder at a sacred space of black activism, spiritual renewal and educational commitment. The slaughter provides a stark reminder of the way in which racial violence has been used to limit the hopes and aspirations of the black freedom struggle.

Following a white North Charleston police officer's killing of Walter Scott, an unarmed African-American, which was captured on a cellphone camera, the Charleston killings look to be the second act this year of lethal anti-black violence to emerge out of South Carolina, a state that proudly flies the Confederate flag over the State Capitol building.

The nation's contemporary racial climate evokes images that, shorn of social media's ubiquitous presence, would not seem out of place 50 years ago, during Selma's roiling voting-rights protests or, indeed, a century before that in the aftermath of the Civil War and the end of antebellum slavery.

In 1964, music legend Sam Cooke released “A Change Is Gonna Come,” one of the most important songs recorded during the civil-rights era. The song's genius lay in its ability to capture in miniature racial oppression's personal intimacy, political impact and policy reverberations.

Cooke's passionate narrative of Jim Crow's unforgiving assault on black bodies contained the dual recognition that racial segregation also harmed the American body politic. “It's been a long time, a long time coming,” he lamented, “But I know a change is gonna come, oh yes it will.”

For many, President Barack Obama's watershed election in 2008, and re-election in 2012, ushered in audacious change on a scale that Cooke and the generation of civil- rights activists who battled Jim Crow could have scarcely dreamed of. The euphoria accompanying Obama's inauguration included open, often self-congratulatory discussion that the United States had finally achieved a new “post-racial” age in which race mattered less than it ever had.

The age of Obama made the sight of a black first lady and attorney general and the presence of powerful African-American civic, business, and cultural leaders seem ordinary. In 2012, for the first time in history, the percentage of the black-voter turnout exceeded that of whites. Racial progress, as manifested through Obama's political and personal biography, became the dominant narrative of American race relations.

But hidden beneath the pageantry of the first family's extraordinary achievements was another country, one in which millions of African-Americans resided far away from the spotlight of mainstream narratives of success or myths of post-racialism.

The rise of mass incarceration, proliferating rates of poverty, public school segregation and high unemployment remained defiantly persistent in too many black communities. Residential segregation, scant job opportunities and failing public schools were, in our post-civil-rights era, passed down ways of life that were exacerbated, not relieved, by public-policy choices that reinforced urban and suburban ghettoes.

The roiling #BlackLivesMatter demonstrations, urban uprisings in Baltimore, Maryland, and Ferguson, Missouri, anti-black police violence in McKinney, Texas, and now a mass shooting in South Carolina echo the racial turmoil, political protests and community organizing of the civil-rights era. Then, as now, African-Americans lived under a regime of racial oppression that constrained their life chances.

On June 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy characterized civil rights as a “moral issue” and told the nation, “Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality.”

Perhaps none acted as boldly as Malcolm X, Ella Baker, Martin Luther King Jr. and Fannie Lou Hamer. Malcolm, the Harlem-based black nationalist and Muslim preacher spoke truth to power in bone-rattling sermons that exposed American democracy's contradictions even as he empowered African-Americans by re-imagining the expansiveness of black identity. Baker, a feminist and radical labor activist, organized the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, a group that breathed new life into American society by bleeding for democracy alongside poor black folk in the South.

King found his clearest voice in championing the poor, speaking out against the Vietnam War and calling out the United States as an imperialist power, the world's foremost purveyor of violence and an unapologetically racist nation.

Hamer, who remains less well known than she should, represented the organic intellectual. She was a sharecropper from Ruleville, Mississippi, who defied the politics of white supremacy at the 1964 Democratic National Convention by exposing racial violence, threats and harassment directed at people, like herself, who wanted dignity and equal citizenship. “Is this America?” she asked the nation.

More than half a century later, the answer to Hamer's question is a resounding yes. This is America, a nation where 28 percent of black people live below the poverty line, 40 percent of black children live in poverty and 46 percent of black children attend high-poverty schools. African-Americans, while only 12 percent of the U.S. population, make up 28 percent of all arrests and now make up 38 percent of prisoners in local jails and 39 percent in federal prisons.

As sociologist Monique W. Morris's important book “Black Stats” (from which I have drawn these figures) illuminates in panoramic scope, African-Americans reside on the margins of society regarding health, justice, employment, education, wealth and income. And yes, a nation in which the African-American church, the resounding symbol of freedom and progress during and after slavery, remains a primary target of racial terror in a supposedly post-racial age.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, America continues to embrace denial as a cure to the persistence – and at times growth – of national racial inequality. America's tortured legacy of slavery, racial segregation and violence against people of color continues to shape society's institutions, political philosophies and public policies.

The nation is, it seems, caught in a perpetual feedback loop – destined to repeat the tragic, unheeded lessons of a racial past that we refuse to acknowledge exists in our present.


Peniel E. Joseph is professor of history and founding director of the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy at Tufts University. His most recent book is “Stokely: A Life.” He can be followed on Twitter at @penieljoseph. The opinions expressed here are his own.

How to build an American shtetl — See: Bloomingburg, N.Y.


This is how you launch a Hasidic shtetl in 21st-century America.

Step 1. Find a place within reasonable distance of Brooklyn where the land is cheap and underdeveloped.

Step 2. Buy as much property as you can in your target area – if possible, without tipping off locals that you plan to turn it into a Hasidic enclave.

Step 3. Ensure the zoning is suited to Hasidic living: densely clustered homes big enough for large families and within walking distance of the community’s vital infrastructure.

Step 4. Build the infrastructure: Houses, a synagogue and beit midrash study hall, kosher establishments, a mikvah ritual bath. Lay the groundwork for a school. Launch a shuttle service so Hasidim who don’t drive or don’t own cars can get from the new shtetl to shopping outlets and other Hasidic communities in the region.

Step 5. Market to the Hasidic community and turn on the lights.

That, essentially, is the playbook developer Shalom Lamm is following for what is shaping up to be America’s newest Hasidic shtetl — the town of Bloomingburg in upstate New York.

Located in Sullivan County about 80 miles north of Brooklyn, Bloomingburg is a tiny village of 400 people dotted with small farms, run-down homes and a couple of old churches. There’s just one stoplight, and there’s not much to the small businesses clustered around it: a hardware store, bank, tattoo parlor, barbershop and thrift shop.

This is the way things were for decades until Lamm — son of Rabbi Norman Lamm, Yeshiva University’s president from 1976 to 2003 — came to town a few years ago and started snapping up properties like they were sample-sale sweaters.

He bought the white house with blue shutters and a front porch just across from the barbershop. He bought the Hickory apartments just off Main Street, adjacent to a trailer park. He bought the hardware store and a pizza shop. He bought a large warehouse built to house antique cars with the idea of turning it into a girls school.

Lamm didn’t stop there. He bought a group of farms on 200 acres of unincorporated land about half a mile from the stoplight and in 2006 got the village to annex it and rezone it for residential development in exchange for building a new $5 million sewage treatment plant for the area. He bought the airport in the nearby village of Wurtsboro. He bought 635 acres five miles away. He also bought a house for himself in Bloomingburg and moved in (Lamm also lives in West Hempstead, on Long Island).

Soon, changes started happening in the village.

Homes were fixed up and repainted. The Hickory apartments, originally built as a senior housing development, were renovated and turned into 12 units, with a synagogue and study hall built in a basement. Most notably, in 2012 rows of attached five-bedroom townhomes began going up on the 200 acres he had gotten rezoned from agricultural — the first of at least 396 units planned for construction in a development Lamm dubbed Chestnut Ridge.

Meanwhile in Brooklyn, a two-hour drive away, Yiddish-language newspapers began to run advertisements touting a new Hasidic housing development going up in Bloomingburg. The ads noted its location near the Catskill Mountains and just 30 minutes north of the Satmar village of Kiryas Joel, home to more than 20,000 Hasidim.

Once the locals upstate caught onto what was happening — when Chestnut Ridge broke ground in 2012 — opposition materialized almost immediately. Village meetings were organized, accusations flew, angry protesters took to the streets and lawsuits were filed. The Town of Mamakating (pop. 12,000), in which the village of Bloomingburg is located, tried to annex the village so that it could gain zoning power over Bloomingburg and thwart the Hasidic-friendly construction, but the bid failed.

Lamm and his defenders, including the public relations consultant he eventually hired, cast their opponents as anti-Semites or anti-Hasidic, and for some that characterization seemed apt. The window of the kosher grocery was repeatedly shattered, and some early protests outside Shabbat prayer services included anti-Jewish epithets.

But for many locals, it was a case of not-in-my-backyard syndrome: They lived in a quiet, albeit poor, country village, and the dense housing and Hasidic influx would indelibly alter Bloomingburg’s character. They believed Lamm and his investment partner, Kenneth Nakdimen, had hoodwinked the village into annexing and rezoning the agricultural land he was turning into a dense residential development.

Last month, Mamakating and Bloomingburg filed a federal lawsuit against Lamm, accusing him of fraud, bribery, racketeering, voter fraud and corruption of public officials — saying he bribed a former mayor, used a frontman to help mislead the village about his intentions for Chestnut Ridge and engaged in racketeering by promoting an enterprise that was corrupt on multiple levels. Lamm denies the accusations and has filed lawsuits of his own against the town.

Shalom Lamm has completed 51 of 396 planned units in Chestnut Ridge, where the homes are suited to Hasidic needs.

If Bloomingburg was going to look like any of the other Hasidic communities north of New York City – New Square, Kiryas Joel, or the hamlet of Monsey in Ramapo – there were plenty of cautionary tales to give local residents pause. Overcrowding in those places was taxing local infrastructure to the breaking point, and in Ramapo the school board had been taken over by a Hasidic majority that was stripping local public school budgets and selling off public school buildings to yeshivas at cut-rate prices.

For the Hasidim, the appeal of Bloomingburg over Brooklyn was clear. It offered much cheaper living, less congestion and fewer of the sorts of urban temptations that could ensnare a devout Jew. With so few residents, the village also offered the prospect of something else: political power that could give local Hasidim nearly unfettered control over their own destiny.

It wasn’t long before the first Hasidic families began to arrive.

Some were older couples from points south looking for a quiet place near the mountains in which to spend summers or weekends. But soon full-timers started coming, too — mostly young families from Satmar and other Hungarian Hasidic sects looking for more affordable alternatives to Brooklyn’s Williamsburg neighborhood and a quieter lifestyle than that available in Kiryas Joel or in Monsey, the sprawling Orthodox stronghold in Rockland County an hour to the south.

Bloomingburg’s first Hasidic pioneers arrived with almost no Orthodox infrastructure in place. There wasn’t much suitable food available locally — one early newcomer quipped that the only produce available at the local grocery store was two-week-old tomatoes — and kosher food had to be delivered by special order from Kiryas Joel or nearby Middletown. There was no weekday minyan. There was no women’s mikvah (and still isn’t — the zoning appeals board has rejected Lamm’s site for one).

Then, last summer, the city got its first kollel – a Jewish study collective where men learn Torah full time and receive stipends in return from community supporters (in this case, apparently, Lamm). Lamm also bought a 22-seat minibus and a passenger van and began running shuttles to large shopping areas and to Kiryas Joel, where some of Bloomingburg’s adults work and kids go to school.

By fall, there were enough Orthodox families in Bloomingburg to support a daily minyan — the quorum of 10 men needed for public prayer. Weekday services start at 9 a.m.

Mendel Kritzler, 25, moved to Bloomingburg in mid-April with his wife and three boys from a fourth-floor walkup in Williamsburg. Now he lives in a ground-floor apartment within walking distance of everything he needs: the shul and study hall where he spends his days, the kosher grocery Lamm opened up right before Passover, and the new Hasidic day care that now has 10 kids enrolled between the ages of 3 and 4. He doesn’t own a car.

“I was a little nervous before coming here, but since I moved I’ve really been enjoying it; it’s the Garden of Eden,” Kritzler said. “It’s quiet. There’s peace of mind. It’s much, much cheaper – half the price of Williamsburg.”

Lamm’s rentals begin at $350 per month for small one-bedrooms to $1,200 for large three-bedrooms. One of his tenants noted that, unlike her landlord in Monsey, Lamm isn’t so strict about the rent.

At the now-fully occupied Hickory apartments, young Hasidic women gather in the late afternoons and sit on plastic lawn chairs, rocking infants in their laps and watching their toddlers run around while they chitchat in the springtime sun. Once a month, the Hasidic women in town get together in someone’s house or the local kosher pizza-and-sandwich shop for an evening devoted to bonding, noshing and spiritual inspiration. A recent gathering featured slides on the Jewish value of modesty.

The men studying at the kollel come home in the early afternoon for a break. Some walk up the hill to the small kosher grocery, where the shelves are well stocked but the aisles mostly empty of customers. Those who commute to work in Kiryas Joel are generally home by early evening.

Despite the sleepy feel in town, there’s a sense of excitement among the Hasidim – a feeling that they’re the trailblazers in a noble experiment of establishing a new outpost for Hasidic life in New York State.

“I’m the pioneer, really,” said a young Belgian-born Hasid named Yossele who said his was the second full-time family to move in.

So far, only 27 Hasidic families live full time in the village, according to Yechiel Falkowitz, a 22-year-old Hasid who moved in last summer and compiled a head count of the families in early May. Another 20 or so families live part time in Bloomingburg, he said. Lamm, who is the landlord of all but a handful of the Hasidic families’ homes, says there are 176 Orthodox Jewish residents in Bloomingburg, comprising 40-50 families.

(The true Hasidic population of Bloomingburg is the subject of a legal dispute. Over the winter, the county board of elections challenged the eligibility of more than 150 individuals, almost all of them Hasidim, to vote in local elections, and said it would remove them from voter rolls. Hasidim responded with a civil rights lawsuit against the board.)

The main obstacle to growth at present is the town of Mamakating and the village’s government, which has declined to grant certificates of occupancy for the 51 townhouses at Chestnut Ridge that have been move-in ready for months, according to Lamm. Without those certificates, Lamm can’t close the sales of the homes.

“Almost nothing gets permitted,” Lamm told JTA. “I get the sense that they’d like us to give up, but that’s not in the cards.”

Lawyers for Mamakating and Bloomingburg say modifications are needed to bring the homes up to code first and that the process for evaluating the homes and granting certificates of occupancy is underway.

If Lamm’s vision comes to fruition, there soon will be hundreds more Hasidic families in Bloomingburg – maybe thousands.

At Chestnut Ridge, the newly built 2,800-square-foot attached townhomes look like they’re straight out of a brochure for the American dream, with identical facades, fresh white garages and bright green lawns. Inside, the décor is bright, modern and spacious, with 9-foot ceilings, an upstairs laundry room, and kitchens with granite countertops and stainless-steel appliances.

The houses also have all the accoutrements Hasidim, with their large families and Orthodox practices, might desire. The kitchens feature two stoves, sinks, ovens and microwaves – one each for dairy and meat. There’s an outdoor sukkah deck just off the dining room. Special sinks are located outside the bathrooms for ritual hand-washing, and a small room near the front is designed for a miniature library or study.

The five bedrooms upstairs have sleeping space for up to a dozen. The master bathroom easily fits two full-sized beds – Hasidic couples do not share beds during women’s menstrual periods and for a week afterward – and the walk-in closet in the master bedroom is big enough for a crib, which Lamm doesn’t doubt Hasidic parents will notice when their babies are born.

The homes are priced between $299,000 and $334,000. Once the remaining 350 or so houses are built, there will also be four playgrounds for the kids.

Many longtime Bloomingburg residents say they’re taking a wait-and-see approach even as they’re still stinging from the way Lamm got his housing development approved. They blame Bloomingburg’s former mayor for agreeing to the deal and say the village population was told the site was going to be a golf course surrounded by luxury homes, not dense development suited to Hasidim.

“It was a shady deal. The politicians we had here threw us under the bus,” said Patti, the owner of a thrift shop in the village who, like all the locals interviewed for this story and many of the Hasidim, asked that her last name not be used. After so much conflict and bad press, people here are wary of reporters.

Patti lives across from the Chestnut Ridge development, which she said has dramatically altered the local landscape. “I used to look at farm fields every day, with silos and animals grazing,” she said. Now she looks out at Lamm’s townhouses.

Despite her misgivings, Patti says she’s reserving judgment about what’s to come.

“Things are definitely going to change. Whether it’ll be for the better or worse it’s too soon to tell,” she said. “It’s in limbo right now.”

Should Jews feel safe in America?


On March 30, the ADL released its annual report on anti-Semitic incidents in America, which announced a rise of 21 percent over the previous year — 912, up from 751. This follows quickly on the heels of several important pieces (by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic and David Brooks in The New York Times) on the hailstorm of anti-Semitic attacks pelting Europe. American Jews ask ourselves a new question this year: Are we next?

The first time I visited the Great Synagogue of Rome, I was 22, and I remember it mostly for my smugly American reaction: “How sad,” I said to my best friend, a Catholic American, who was traveling with me at the time. “Jews here need armed security guards just to attend a service.”

This was December 2000, almost a year before 9/11, and although I’d spent my life attending various synagogues in Maryland where I’d grown up, in Philadelphia when we visited my grandparents, I was used only to the dowager-humped, hip-high, octogenarian greeters. Liver-spotted ladies with thick glasses and cotton-ball hair who didn’t clear 5 feet but somehow still managed to jumble the bones of your hand in the vice grips of theirs. Nowhere in sight was anyone you could conceivably call “security.”

This was America! “The greatest country in the history of the world to its Jews,” my father would often proclaim. Here, our synagogues were as safe as the churches and mosques.

My, how things change.

This year, my Orthodox synagogue in Beverly Hills took the reasonable step of increasing its number of armed security guards to five. For those communities that can afford it, entering a synagogue has become a little like entering an airport. We submit to metal-detecting wands, routine inspection of bags, while men with holstered guns nod us on.

The immediate provocation for the synagogue’s security upgrade was specific and, as these things often are, a little vague: A non-Jewish Middle-Eastern-looking couple wandered in one day and poked around the rooms. When confronted by a congregant, the woman bolted, the man became belligerent and had to be physically removed.

But this incident was perhaps just the most recent excuse for the security uptick. In August, a gang of anti-Semitic thugs assaulted an Orthodox Jewish couple in New York, punching the man in the head and throwing a water bottle at his wife. Then the gang hopped in its car and waved Palestinian flags before driving off.

“Everyone knows it,” a French Jew who now sends her sons to my children’s school in Los Angeles, warned me back in December. “America is no better than Europe. It’s just 50 years behind.”

I listened to this in stunned disbelief. We may have our problems in America, but we are nothing like Europe, I wanted to say. But something stopped me: Was she right?

Unlike many American Jews of my generation, I’ve seen European Jew-hatred up close. I was a graduate student at the University of Oxford from 2000 to 2002, the height of the Second Intifada. In the spring of 2002, a rally of 500 pro-Palestinian marchers was scheduled to descend on Oxford. I and fewer than a dozen Jewish students from around the university organized a pro-Israel rally to take place alongside it. We requested — and were refused — protection from the Oxford police, who accused us of inciting violence. The Oxford Jewish Congregation politely asked us to refrain from rallying.

Of all the things that shocked my American conscience, it was the explosive hatred of the marchers themselves that left the deepest impression. They waved signs bearing Israeli flags covered in swastikas. They hollered and screamed at our minuscule group, fists raised, while the Oxford police — there ostensibly to protect them from us — stood awkward sentry. I recognized a friend of mine, an Austrian grad student — affable, shy, knowledgeable in the finer points of Wittgenstein’s early philosophy — among the marchers.

Enter: America. In March, Congress passed a bill to grant an additional $13 million to Homeland Security for security at religious institutions. In Los Angeles, where I live, the police department reached out in January to the Jewish Federation and offered its protection to any Jewish institution that needed it in the wake of the Paris attacks on the kosher supermarket. There can be no doubt: America remains a safe place for Jews. My sons wear yarmulkes and tzitzit wherever we go, and we have never been treated with anything but courtesy by other Americans. The number of anti-Semitic incidents, while up sharply, is still low. While there have been numerous incidents of open hostility and discrimination against Jewish students on American campuses, those have not yet reached the level of violence.

But it’s also true that this country is changing. We all feel it. My father never boasts about the “greatest country in the history of the world for the Jews” anymore.

Every week, when my family attends Shabbat services, I am grateful for the armed guards and feel a shiver of disappointment that we need them. My children don’t know any other America. To them, armed guards are just one more necessary synagogue fixture, like an Eternal Light and an ark full of Torahs.


Abigail Shrier (@abigailshrier) is a writer and graduate of Yale Law School living in Los Angeles.

American Jews and the Israeli election


If there is one lesson American Jews will learn from Israel’s election, it’s this:  they’re not us.

Israel is not New York. Or LA. Or Chicago or Boston or Miami or Philadelphia. It is a Jewish “community” unlike any in America.

Israelis went to the polls this Tuesday and returned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to office.  Had Bibi run versus Isaac Herzog among American Jewish voters, he would have lost.  He would have lost almost as badly as Barack Obama would lose against Bibi in Israel.   The fact that Netanyahu garnered 29 mandates against his opponent’s 24 was as shocking to the majority of American Jews as the fact that  Jewish Americans voted overwhelmingly – twice – for Barack Obama is to most Israelis.

Jewish life is composed of tribes – Orthodox, secular, my shul, your country club, Ashkenzai, Ethiopian, etc.  But the two biggest tribes are American and Israeli.  Different cultures, different languages, different reality.   Israel and America are the twin study of Jewish life:  same birth, same heritage, but vastly different nurturing – and so very different natures.

For years the greatest myth American Jews have been telling themselves is that Israeli Jews are just like us.  That works because we tend to prove this to ourselves by cherry-picking the Israel we most identify with.  We fell in love with Abba Eban like the French love Jerry Lewis.  Israelis, meanwhile, mocked him.  A friend of mine didn’t understand why former Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, who ran on the Kulanu ticket, wasn’t first on the ticket. He is American-born, Princeton-educated, brilliant, articulate and centrist.  I told him the leader of Kulanu is Moshe Kahlon, a tough (also smart) Israeli of Libyan background .  

“But Oren speaks such good English,” he said, absolutely perplexed.  

The Israelis we focus on, and whom we support, or invite to speak, are not representative of all those Israelis we never come in contact with, or prefer to ignore.   We love the Israeli artists and entrepreneurs and models and writers and actors – many if not most of whom are in the minority who voted for the losing teams.

Israel is not New York. Or LA. Or Chicago or Boston or Miami or Philadelphia. It is a Jewish “community” unlike any in America.

Language, income, ethnicity, ideology, religious practice separate us from the great mass of Israeli voters: the ones who don’t come to speak in our synagogues, or lead our children’s Birthright seminars, or appear in the papers with the latest hi-tech invention. There are thousands of Amoses in Israel – we just know Amos Oz.

We are drifting apart.  If the English and Americans are two people separated by a common language, Israeli and American Jews are one people separated by a common country.

We don’t know these people, and we don’t really understand their lives.   Economically they struggle more than most American Jews, especially the ones active and influential in Jewish and civic life.   More importantly, they live in a country that faces very real threats from its very real enemies. They and their sons and daughters are called upon to wear a uniform, take up weapons and prepare to die for their country – something some American Jews experience, but hardly the vast majority.

Culture matters. Circumstances matter.  The standard pap at countless Jewish fundraising banquets is how we and the Israelis are One People, and yes, on paper it’s true.  But if you’re talking about reality, and that paper is, say,  a ballot, then  it’s more true to say we are living very different lives, and have developed into two distinct branches of a very small family.  

That explains the reaction of most American Jews to the election.  They seemed to assume that Israelis couldn’t possibly reelect a person who had become so anathema to us.  The most common question I’ve been hearing is, “How did that happen?” My answer: because they wanted it to happen, and they vote, and you don’t.

So now what?

Israel relies on the power of America, which is significant, and that power derives in large part from the influence of American Jews in domestic politics, which is not insignificant.  The strength of this relationship, which has served Israel, America and American Jewry well, depends on the strength of the bond between American and Israeli Jewry.  To secure that, there is much work that needs to be done.  

American Jews have to get to know, for lack of a better word, the real Israel – the world where if Bibi is not exactly king, then he is the safe, secure and dependable choice.  (By the way, many of the left in Israel have to do a better job getting to know this part of their country as well).  If they want to understand, or even influence, these voters, they have to see them not as darker Mini-Me's, but as they really are.

And what about the Israelis?  The divide doesn’t do them any favors either.  Israel can’t rely solely on the support of the religious and the right. Just because they have Sheldon Adelson and an active, conservative base locked up, doesn’t mean they have American Jewry. In fact, the more Israel aligns itself with the values of the religious right and oligarchs like Adelson, the more it alienates the mass of American Jewry.

”“The [American Jewish] right is growing much more rapidly,” Michael Oren said in a pre-election interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic, “even as a percentage within the Jewish community. There’s a greater percentage that is more religious, more conservative. That disparity is going to grow in favor of the right in coming years.”

That may be true, but it neglects a growing number of younger American Jews that polls show lean left on Israeli policies.  These will be the future Americans Israel needs to win friends and influence people in DC and elsewhere, and it can’t afford to lose them. 

The right and religious alone may never be big enough to make a crucial difference on the big issues.  And, when the pendulum swings in Israel and a liberal government takes power, these strong supporters may actually work against a sitting Israeli government.   

Bibi tacked hard right to win the Israeli election.  If he keeps sailing in that direction, he’ll leave American Jewry on a distant shore, waving goodbye.


Rob Eshman is publisher and editor-in-chief of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal. E-mail him at robe@jewishjournal.com. You can follow him on Twitter and Instagram @foodaism.

Cartoon: A shining city on a hill


Three American contractors killed in ‘insider attack’ in Afghan capital


Three American contractors were killed and a fourth was wounded by an Afghan solider at the military airport in the capital Kabul, an Afghan air force official told Reuters on Thursday.

“It is unclear yet why he shot these advisers and no one else was there to tell us the reason,” the official said, asking not to be named because he was not authorised to give statements to the media. “An investigation has been opened.”

The international force in Afghanistan confirmed the shooting took place on Thursday evening.

Why Chanukah matters


There’s a certain narrative about Chanukah that has become near conventional wisdom among American Jews, and it goes like this:

Chanukah is a fun holiday that is big in America, thanks to its proximity to Christmas. But really, it’s a “minor” holiday that is more impactful culturally and sociologically than religiously, and it can’t really compare to the “big” ones of Yom Kippur and Passover.

And that’s all true. But it’s also too simple.

Chanukah matters for many reasons. It matters because, as one historian put it, it allows American Jews to feel included in the American holiday season while also remaining distinct, because they have their own holiday. It matters because, as one rabbi put it, Chanukah provides light in a season of darkness, giving families good reason to come together and celebrate. It also matters because, as another rabbi said, Chanukah carries an anti-assimilationist message that is as relevant today as it was 1,800 years ago.

Chanukah is a rarity within Judaism. It’s a holiday that, because of its scant halachic background, doesn’t provide much fodder for legal or practical disagreement between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox. But it’s also a holiday that rabbis and Jewish academics and educators seem to agree is significant — uniquely so for American Jews — but for a variety of reasons. 

Chabad emphasizes the spiritual message of always increasing light. Modern Orthodox Jews focus on the sages’ narrative of the oil miracle pointing to God’s omnipresent role in the Maccabees’ military victory. Conservative and Reform Jews find meaning in why the sages altered Chanukah’s story by reducing the role of the Maccabees and increasing that of God, and also in how Chanukah allows Jews to feel just as American as Christians do in December. And many communal leaders see Chanukah as an ideal time to reach out to less-connected Jews.

Chanukah is a holiday that takes on different meanings for each different group of Jews. But it also offers something that no other Jewish holiday offers, and it does so without the conflict that often characterizes how other parts of Jewish religious life ought to be observed: Chanukah is a home- and family-based holiday, with eight nights of candle-lighting and lots of good food and celebration — there is no argument about that among any mainstream group of Jews. And it also happens to be an easy and fun way to practice Judaism during a season dominated by the image of the fun and warmth of Christmas. 

Chanukah’s message, meanwhile, is unique and cannot be found in any other Jewish holiday: To maintain Jewish religious practice in an open and liberal society that values assimilation is a challenge. But even with the holiday’s warning siren against assimilation, Chanukah and, to a certain extent, its message, have spread in America mainly because it has paired itself with Christmas. The irony is impossible to ignore.

Misremembering Chanukah

“Most Jews don’t know the stories of Chanukah, and if they do know the stories, they don’t know the real stories,” said Rabbi Ed Feinstein, senior rabbi at Valley Beth Shalom in Encino.

The sanitized version of Chanukah casts the underdog Maccabees as winners of an unlikely victory against the mighty Greeks, and after the war, when the Jews went to light the menorah in the Temple, there was only enough oil left for one day, but the oil miraculously lasted for eight days. Voila! That’s Chanukah — Judaism surviving against all odds with God’s hand clearly present. 

Typically left unexplained is the story of religious division among Jewish traditionalists and assimilationists, the religious zealotry of the Maccabee and Hasmonean victors and why Jewish tradition emphasizes the miracle of the oil over the military victory.

The Chanukah story most Jews don’t know is that the Maccabean rebellion in 167 B.C.E. (the Second Temple era) was as much an outward revolt against the Greek attempt to destroy religious and spiritual Judaism (there was no genocidal intent) as it was a civil war to violently defeat Hellenist Jews who wanted to abandon or compromise religious Judaism to fit into Greek culture, which primarily valued science, philosophy and the arts. Hellenized Jews were so fanatic in their anti-Judaism that some males tried to reverse their circumcisions, according to the First Book of Maccabees, or I Maccabees, which, along with II Maccabees tells the official story of the Jewish war against Hellenism, from the point of view of the Maccabees. 

The era’s urban Jews, as a generalization, wanted a Hellenized Judea. Rural, more traditional Jews wanted to maintain their distinct Jewish identity and resist the force of Greek assimilation. Pro-Hellenist Jews, fed up with the refusal of the traditionalists to assimilate, requested that Antiochus — the Greek king at the time — send military forces to suppress the traditionalists.

But the occupying Greek forces were not the traditionalists’ first target. The trigger for their revolt was an apostate Hellenist Jew who offered a sacrifice to a Greek god in Modi’in, according to the Book of Maccabees. Mattathias, a traditionalist and the father of Judah Maccabee, saw the Jew about to perform a sacrifice, killed him, and then killed a Greek officer and tore down the altar where the sacrifice would have occurred.

And thus began the Maccabean revolt, which ended in a Jewish victory that propelled the Maccabees and the Hasmonean dynasty (essentially the political party of that era’s traditionalists) into power after the miracle of the war and the oil. The Hasmoneans’ story has been largely forgotten by modern Jews, in large part thanks to rabbinic Judaism’s decision during one of the early centuries of the Common Era to keep I Maccabees and II Maccabees out of the Torah canon, banished to the less authoritative realm of biblical Apocrypha — stories of Jewish history important enough to remain in our collective memory but kept out of the official canon for one reason or another. 

Purim, like Chanukah, also commemorates the Jews’ survival (although Chanukah celebrates religious, not physical, survival) against a mighty enemy — Haman and his cronies in Persia. The rabbis, though, elevated Purim above Chanukah, at least as far as halachah is concerned, by canonizing it. Open a Tanakh and the Book of Esther will be there; the Books of Maccabees won’t be. The rabbis of the third century felt uneasy canonizing and issuing their stamp of approval upon the Hasmoneans, an ultimately oppressive group of Jewish rulers who forced Jews into observance and killed religious deviants. 

Rabbi Eliyahu Fink of the Modern Orthodox Pacific Jewish Center in Venice Beach said the Hasmoneans’ extremism and their intolerance put them out of favor with the more moderate views of rabbinic tradition. “They were not the people of compromise,” Fink said.

Ironically, even though the Hasmoneans were the most extreme group of Jews ever to rule the land of Israel, the populace absorbed Hellenistic culture anyway, touting Jewish kings with names like John Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. Jews, meanwhile, have adopted  Greek-derived words like Sanhedrin and synagogue to label core elements of religious Judaism.

And while Jews under Hasmonean rule experienced the spread of the very same Greek culture that the Hasmoneans so violently opposed, they also came under Roman occupation after two Hasmonean brothers fighting for the crown — John Hyrcanus the Pharisee and Aristobulus the Sadducee — asked the Romans to settle the dispute. The Romans then took advantage of the Jewish infighting to invade, which led to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. and the Roman exile, which lasts to this day and, according to Jewish tradition, will last until the coming of the Messiah and the construction of the Third Temple.

The rabbis of the Talmud who decided to omit the Maccabean version of history from official canon were not willing to elevate the tyrannical Jewish regime that lost Israel to the Romans, even if it was traditional in its religious practice. They felt, too, that the Chanukah story needed a miracle, and it needed God’s role to outweigh that of the Hasmoneans, so the rabbis told the story of the miracle of the oil, a spiritual miracle featuring God’s suspension of the law of nature. And this story came to outweigh the significance of the unlikely Maccabean victory that would lead to a dark period of Jewish power and a disgraceful fall.

The rabbis’ edited version of the story says much about how they believed Judaism needed to be understood during the era of Roman exile, especially by Diaspora Jews. 

“Although we were happy that [the Maccabees] won, that’s not the Judaism that we want to perpetuate,” Fink said. “The Judaism that we want to perpetuate is the one that speaks of light. To me, [the rabbis’] message was, ‘Don’t become an extremist.’ ”

A holiday of few (practical) disagreements

Disagreement is a pillar of Judaism, and most Jewish holidays are staging grounds for practical disagreements. Orthodox Jews disagree with Conservative and Reform Jews about how electricity should be used on Shabbat and other holidays. What’s considered chametz on Passover? What’s kosher? What’s not kosher? How many days of Shavuot should be observed? Should Shavuot be observed? 

Chanukah has no such disputes, which makes it one of the only agreeable festivals in the Jewish calendar.

“It’s one of the holidays with the least amount of halachic material,” said Rabbi Aaron Panken, president of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. “There isn’t that much opportunity for much difference. From that perspective, it’s wonderful, because the entire Jewish community is observing it in the same way.”

And Chanukah is one of the most widely celebrated Jewish holidays in the United States, up there with Passover and Yom Kippur, allowing American Jews to shelve their differences for eight days. Orthodox Jews wary of Americanizing Chanukah accept, sometimes begrudgingly, that capitalizing on the Christmas spirit and ritualizing gift-giving has helped lead many Jews to observe the mitzvah of lighting the menorah and displaying it publicly, which Maimonides held is a particularly important mitzvah because of its commemoration of the survival and spread of religious Judaism. 

And non-Orthodox Jews skeptical of many tenets of rabbinic Judaism, and who may feel that Orthodox practices unnecessarily separate Jews from American culture, have proudly embraced Chanukah’s central halachic feature (lighting the menorah) as Jews’ way to take part in America’s holiday season while maintaining a unique Jewish identity.

“The truth of the matter is the rituals are pretty much the same,” said Feinstein. “You have a holiday that has no politics; no one’s saying that my version of the holiday is better than someone else’s.” 

The differences in practices, Feinstein said, are not between American Jews of different denominations, but between American Jews and Jews in other countries. From the gifts to the decorations to the food to the music, Feinstein said, “American Jews celebrate Chanukah very differently than, say, South African or European or Israeli Jews.”

Chanukah, Americanized

Nowhere else is Chanukah celebrated with the grandiosity that accompanies it in the United States. 

“It is not such a huge event in Israel, where Christmas is not a mainstream cultural phenomenon,” said David Myers, a UCLA history professor and Journal contributor.

How did Chanukah become a cultural phenomenon in America?

“Timing is everything,” said Jonathan Sarna, a historian and professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University. “It was historically a minor holiday and only became more major because of Christmas.”

This year, Chanukah ends on Christmas Eve, right in the middle of the American holiday season, giving American Jews the sense of full participation in a time when the vast majority of Americans associate the word “holiday” with Christmas.

Myers says that American Jews’ ability to adapt their holiday into “mainstream cultural norms” is similar to what other Diaspora Jewish groups did in learning the language of their host countries in Spain, Persia, numerous Arabic societies and, especially, Germany, where Hebrew and German combined to form Yiddish. “This kind of dynamic has occurred throughout Jewish history,” Myers said. “Jews have continuously adapted names, languages and cultural values from their host societies.”

In the late 1800s, Myers said, observant Jews in America “sought to revive memory of the holiday as a traditionalist reaction” against Reform Judaism’s wish to assimilate into American culture and de-emphasize Jews as a distinct people. Then, in the mid-20th century, many more American Jews, primarily non-Orthodox ones, revitalized Chanukah with the aim of turning it into the other major winter festival alongside Christmas, which is when gift-giving became the norm.

Why did Chanukah become a holiday celebrated by most American Jews, while holidays of greater stature according to Jewish law, such as Shavuot and Simchat Torah, are primarily celebrated by Orthodox Jews? It’s not just because of Christmas, Feinstein said. Chanukah, as a holiday of lights, has a particular appeal in its spiritual and physical light during the short winter days. “Its correspondence with Christmas and its correspondence with the winter solstice are what give it its power,” Feinstein said. 

Fink pointed out that while Christmas has helped elevate Chanukah’s status in America, Orthodox Jews would celebrate the holiday no matter what time of year it fell.

“They are not the ones who are benefiting from this kind of American holiday atmosphere,” Fink said, adding, though, that Chanukah’s gaining from the presence of Christmas should not be viewed as a negative thing. “I’m not saying that we celebrate Chanukah because [Christians celebrate Christmas], but it’s a time that people are going to have an interest in experiencing their own traditions, so it’s wise to capitalize on it.”

Chanukah’s proximity to Christmas, in that sense, not only helps American Jews by acting as a “counterweight” to Christmas, Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple said, but benefits from the Christmas spirit, drawing upon one of America’s three biggest holidays (Thanksgiving and New Year’s being the others) to make Judaism fun for those whose only Jewish observance throughout the year might be fasting on Yom Kippur and sitting down at a Passover seder. Chanukah, Wolpe said, is “minor in terms of its status halachically [but] major in terms of its status sociologically.”

“Among Jews who don’t have the strongest identification or the greatest education, there’s a lot pulling them into the general population,” said Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, director of interfaith affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Center. “I think, arguably, that Chanukah has played an important role in giving non-Orthodox families a little bit of a hedge against the Christmas spirit.”

In America, Chanukah has drawn less-religious Jews into joyfully fulfilling the mitzvah of lighting the menorah and has brought American Jewry as a whole closer to the (American) ideal of having both a distinct American identity and a religious identity, as Sarna believes.

“Chanukah allows Jews simultaneously to be part of and apart from, and that’s really a microcosm of what a minority religious community wants to be,” Sarna said. “It wants to stress its distinctiveness even as it wants to be part of a certain zeitgeist.”

Wolpe, contrasting what Chanukah and Yom Kippur offer American Jews in terms of feeling more, well, American, said, “Look, the White House does a Chanukah lighting, they don’t do a Yom Kippur fast, because Chanukah allows them to understand, yes we have a holiday, they have a holiday — and that matters in a society that’s always striving for balance and has lots of different factions.”

Martin Weiss, a Holocaust survivor from the former Czechoslovakia, lights the Chanukah menorah on Dec. 5, 2013, as U.S. President Barack Obama looks on during the day’s second Chanukah reception in the Grand Foyer of the White House.  At left is Margit Meissner, a Holocaust survivor from the former Czechoslovakia. At right is U.S. Navy Lt. Ron Sachs. Photo by Consolidated News Photos

Myers, going a step further, believes the development of Chanukah in America is today’s example of how Diaspora Jews have managed to keep Judaism alive while blending into foreign nations. “It offers proximity to the American cultural mainstream while permitting some degree of preservation of Jewish distinctiveness,” Myers said. “Precisely the work of cultural adaptation and modification that allowed for Jewish renewal and, ultimately, survival.”

‘We don’t need to compete’

Perhaps no group has done more in America than Chabad to thrust Chanukah into the public square. American Friends of Lubavitch organizes the annual lighting of the National Chanukah Menorah in front of the White House; Chabad emissaries across American campuses place a menorah next to visible pedestrian walkways; Chabad families strap giant menorahs to the roofs of their cars and drive around like that for eight days. Whereas the commandment to publicize the miracle of Chanukah is fulfilled by most Jews by placing the menorah in a window, Chabad ratchets the practice up several notches, placing menorahs everywhere.

On the Chanukah agenda for Rabbi Moshe Greenwald, co-director of Chabad of Downtown Los Angeles, is the public menorah lighting at City Hall, this year with Mayor Eric Garcetti — Greenwald’s seventh such lighting; separate menorah lightings at a Los Angeles Clippers game and outside Staples Center; and organizing yet another lighting at Pershing Square, an urban park in the center of downtown. 

“In America, it’s particularly meaningful, because here we can practice all the observances in full view in public,” Greenwald said.

Greenwald added, though, that Chanukah, as one of Judaism’s “most important holidays,” doesn’t need Christmas to make it important. The holiday can stand on its own spiritual and religious merit, he said. “We don’t need to compete in the marketplace of holidays,” Greenwald said. “I don’t want to look at it as the Jewish Christmas.”

There’s irony to Chanukah’s piggybacking on Christmas in the United States, and Greenwald’s objection to making Chanukah the “Jewish Christmas” alludes to it — one of Chanukah’s main lessons is that Jews must resist the temptation to discard tradition in favor of a newer culture. At the same time, though, Chanukah’s attachment to Christmas is perhaps the main reason that the holiday is observed by so many non-Orthodox Jews; the same can’t be said for a holiday such as Simchat Torah, which is given a higher halachic status.

“I think that outside of Orthodox Judaism, there’s almost this wink-wink, nudge-nudge, this is our version of Christmas,” Fink said. “Orthodox Judaism really would be very uncomfortable with that.”

And as a holiday that warns against succumbing to “pressure from any outsider alien society,” Adlerstein said, Chanukah matters as much today as it did for the Maccabees: “The conflict between Jews who wished to bring their own practice more in conformance with the cultural milieu and secular surroundings, and traditionalists who wanted to hold on to core Jewish beliefs and practices hasn’t gone away one iota in 2,000 years.”

Rabbi Arye Sufrin, assistant principal at YULA Boys High School and assistant rabbi at Beth Jacob Congregation, said one message he tries to teach his students is not only Chanukah’s plea to “maintain the tradition” but also why it’s so important to publicize it with pride, a luxury afforded Jews in this country. “We can do that today, but there was a lot that had to happen” to reach this point of openness and safety, Sufrin said. “Chanukah is not a minor holiday.”

U.S. – Israel not in crisis, but…


The strain in US-Israel ties is one of the key issues in the Israel election campaign – and rightfully so. But if you glance at US media during the last couple of months, you’d think the relations have never been worse. Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in The Atlantic, which announced a “full-blown crisis,” described relations as “the worst it's ever been” and quoted an anonymous administration official calling Prime Minister Netanyahu “chicken___”  unleashed a torrent of commentary to this worst-ever-crisis notion. Even venerable Bob Schieffer chose to question the Israeli leader about it on “Face the Nation.”

But history paints a very different picture. Until the late fifties, relations between the two countries were frosty and remote, and France was Israel's primary ally. In the sixties, Israel mistakenly sunk the U.S.S. Liberty, tragically killing 34 American sailors. In the seventies, President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger froze all aid and deliveries to Israel, declaring a “reassessment” of U.S.-Israeli relations, after a harsh argument between Kissinger and Israel's Prime Minister Rabin. In the eighties, the Reagan administration tried to thwart Israel's plans to invade Lebanon by leaking its battle order to John Chancellor on NBC's Nightly News. In the nineties, there was the Pollard espionage affair; the freezing by President H.W. Bush of the loan guarantees to Israel, then the Israeli sale of Falcon fighter planes to China scandal. The list goes on.

One could argue that this nadir in US-Israel relations is personal, between their leaders and not governments. But that would also be incorrect. The leaders themselves, both President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu have mostly praised one another. The bad blood does not publicly emanate from them, but rather from anonymous “senior officials” and leaks from closed-door sessions — later denied.

To be sure, such leaks reflect a problem, but they pale in comparison to prior eras, when calumny was cast openly. “This American chutzpah makes my blood boil,' said Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin of President Carter in 1979. Twelve years later Israel's cabinet member Rehav'am Ze'evi declared President George H.W. Bush an “anti-Semite.” In 1997 Martin Indyk, then U.S. Ambassador to Israel, was derided as a “Jew-boy.” This same vitriol was also directed at Henry Kissinger in 1974 and U.S. Ambassador Dan Kurtzer on the Knesset floor. Same goes for the Americans. Secretary of State James Baker, for example, was cited in 1992 as saying, “F— the Jews – they didn't vote for us,' raising hell in Israel.

What’s occurring now is no crisis. A crisis is when President Eisenhower tells Prime Minister Ben-Gurion in 1956 that if Israel doesn't immediately withdraw from the Sinai it will face severe economic sanctions. Or when America credibly threatens to devalue the British Pound and withdraw IMF aid when Britain similarly refuses to withdraw its forces.

Those were crises — not when a nameless official calls the Israeli Prime Minister names, especially when followed by a wave of qualifications and condemnations from the White House and State Department.

And a refusal to host senior Israeli officials is also not a new phenomenon. It happened to Ariel Sharon, then Israel's Minister of Defense, who was declaredPersona Non Grata for his role in the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres in Lebanon.

In fact, America and Israel have never been so closely aligned. Recent polls (and http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4600107,00.html) show high levels of American public support. Congress is as supportive of Israel as it has ever been. Tourism and trade volumes between the countries are peaking. Military aid is at a record high. Defense technology export policies are generous. Security cooperation has never been so close.

There are strains in the relationship, of course, as there are in any, but those should be viewed through the prism of history. I, for one, believe that Israel should be grateful to the American people for their strong, unwavering support.

However, even though the current strains are not the worst ever, they do have a destructive potential. If the Obama administration provides insufficient support to Israel in the United Nations Security Council regarding a unilateral move the Palestinians say they will make later this month, or if the US signs a deal with Iran on its nuclear program that fails to address Israel’s s genuine concerns, Israel and America will find themselves in a “full-blown crisis.” Such an outcome could be disastrous for Israel. That is why its leaders must make every effort to avoid a crisis in their relations with American officials.

Rather than fanning the flames of crisis and creating self-fulfilling prophecies, officials on both side need to reduce the inflammatory rhetoric and focus on finding practical ways to fix what needs to be fixed.

Uri Sadot is a Research Fellow at Israel's Institute of National Security Studies. He holds an MPA from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School for Public and International Affairs.

Welcoming the stranger


On almost every emerging issue of public policy, our community asks the same question, either in audible or hushed voices: “Is it good for the Jews?” In the matter of President Barack Obama’s recent decision to defer and sideline prosecutions that might have resulted in the deportation of some 5 million undocumented persons in the United States, the answer to the question should be said and repeated in a loud, clear voice: “Yes!” Sometimes, what is good for the nation as a whole is good for the Jews, and vice versa.

In a televised address to the nation on Nov. 20, the president responded to longtime congressional inaction over proposals for comprehensive immigration reform by executive action. Specifically, he exercised his authority as chief of the executive branch of the federal government to defer the initiation of removal/deportation proceedings (and administratively close already-filed cases) against foreign-born individuals who have lived in the United States for five or more years, have no criminal records and have U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident children.  Persons eligible for the president’s initiative will be required to register with the Department of Homeland Security, undergo background checks, work only when they secure employment authorization (for which they will now have the right to apply) and pay taxes on their income.  Those persons will not be eligible for welfare benefits or Obamacare. 

The president’s executive action is limited in time and scope: It will only last for three years, and will not constitute a permanent immunity from deportation proceedings or a pathway to permanent residency or naturalization.  Moreover, it confers no immunity from deportation for millions of longtime undocumented residents of the United States who have no U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident children, or the hundreds of thousands of child and teenage migrants who have entered the United States without inspection over the past year. It is, rather, a temporary measure designed to maintain family unity for millions of hardworking, law-abiding adults who help support and sustain their children, many of who depend on them for financial support and all of whom depend on them for the emotional support that we all have needed from our mothers and fathers.   

As Obama said in his speech, “Tracking down, rounding up and deporting millions of people isn’t realistic.” The president has used his constitutional power as chief enforcer of the immigration laws to allocate the resources of his government’s immigration officers and attorneys to prioritize the commencement and continuation of deportation cases against criminals, the recently arrived, and those with few or no family ties in the U.S. If every possible deportation case that could be brought to the federal government were, the already overloaded, undermanned, and underfinanced immigration court and enforcement systems would collapse of their own weight. Every prosecutor in every jurisdiction makes decisions every day on which cases should be filed and which should be deferred. The president has done no more than that.

The president’s initiative now places the ball firmly in Congress’ court to pass or not pass comprehensive or even piecemeal immigration reform.  Since the administration of George W. Bush — who, to his credit, pressed for comprehensive immigration reform of the same kind now favored by Obama — the Republican right has stymied all efforts to bring a bill to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. Several times, the Senate has passed an immigration reform bill.  Several times, House Speaker John Boehner has indicated his desire to pass an immigration reform bill. Nevertheless, several times, the speaker has led from behind and refused to bring a reform bill to the House floor because of the intransigence of a minority of his GOP caucus. The speaker and other Republican leaders in Congress have decried Obama’s initiative as unconstitutional (which it is not), as amnesty (which it is not) and as a refusal to work with Congress on more comprehensive legislation (which is belied by the evidence of the recent past). Obama’s response to all of this hyperbole has been succinct and on point: “Pass a bill.”  

Returning to the question of whether the president’s initiative is good for the Jews, we should all dust off our Torah and reread Exodus 23:9. “You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, having been strangers in the land of Egypt.” The Obama initiative is a limited, practical act of rachmones — empathy designed to lift some of the terrible burdens from those people who live in the shadows of our society, while they help raise our children, tend to our homes and gardens, and pick our fruit. As they help sustain us, we should find the compassion to help sustain them. That is the Jewish — and the American — way.

Bruce J. Einhorn served as a United States Immigration Judge in Los Angeles from 1990 through 2007.  He is currently a professor of immigration, asylum and refugee law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, and executive director of The Asylum project, a nonprofit aid group for the victims of foreign persecution and torture.

+