fbpx

December 21, 2000

It’s the Economy Again, Stupid

Will the religious right dominate the Washington agenda as a Republican president, backed by a mostly GOP Congress, takes the reins of government?

That scenario is on the minds of many Jewish leaders who worry that abortion, school prayer, vouchers and other issues championed by Christian conservatives will be the engine behind the 107th Congress.

Conservatives on Capitol Hill, led by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), have reinforced their fears by promising to press their partisan advantage to advance a wide range of conservative domestic issues.

Jewish leaders would do better to focus on Bill Clinton’s memorable 1992 campaign theme: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the bitter end to this year’s presidential election, the top issues of groups such as the Christian Coalition may not be front and center as the new Congress and administration try to find a way to govern amid political gridlock on Capitol Hill.

Instead, the administration is likely to focus at first on the economic changes it would like to implement — changes that are likely to garner bipartisan support but which could prove troublesome for Jewish organizations.

The social agenda of the religious right will enjoy only limited success when the new Congress gets to work.

School prayer amendments will be dead on arrival. School voucher plans may do better, thanks to support from some Democrats. Several voucher demonstration projects were passed in recent years but vetoed by President Bill Clinton; Bush supports vouchers, so the veto threat will disappear.

Some abortion restrictions may move through, but the evenly divided Senate will remain a major obstacle to any sweeping changes.

But the Bush administration can wreak considerable havoc on abortion rights through executive order. And the wild card remains the Supreme Court; a vacancy or two during the Bush administration would likely tip the balance on the Court on abortion.

New gun control legislation is unlikely, but so is any major pullback from laws already on the books; again, the Senate will be the major stumbling block.

Gary Bauer, the former leader of the Family Research Council whose bid for the Republican nomination was spurned by GOP primary voters, urged Bush this week not to give an inch on the conservative domestic agenda.

Bush is hearing much the same message from Republican leaders on the Hill. And his soon-to-be vice president, Richard Cheney, promised over the weekend that their administration will not abandon the interests of its core supporters.

But Bush is also being told that if he focuses on a narrow conservative agenda, the result will be bitter stalemate — not a political plus for a president whose margin of victory was thin to nonexistent.

If he does try to govern from the center, GOP moderates say, he will do better with some of his core economic issues.

But some of those issues could have much more immediate consequences for the Jewish community than the nexus of social issues pushed by the Christian right.

Bush’s campaign platform called for a $1.3 trillion tax cut, a demand Cheney recently called nonnegotiable. Republican leaders on Capitol Hill are divided; some support the huge, 10-year cut, others want to press for a series of smaller tax cuts.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle will be looking for high-profile actions they can take that have a chance of bipartisan support, and tax cuts, supported by a significant number of Democrats, could top the list.

Most Jewish groups do not have official positions on the issue. At the same time, many Jewish leaders privately fear that anything more than token cuts could be a time bomb tossed into the middle of the nation’s social safety net.

Today, the federal treasury is flush, thanks to the record economic boom and the run-up in the stock market.

But the surplus will evaporate with astonishing speed if the economy skids.

Tax cuts in the coming year, many worry, will lead to a ballooning of the budget deficit when the economy slows. And that, in turn, could produce intense pressure to cut discretionary spending programs.

The programs most at risk are precisely those that the Jewish community successfully provides across the country, using government dollars along with philanthropic money: health and housing programs for the elderly, services for children and teens, vocational services, services for immigrants.

Big cuts could also jeopardize important foreign policy priorities of the Jewish community, starting with foreign aid to Israel.

Bush’s economic thinkers say the cuts will spur the economy and preserve the boom. But it’s a gamble; if they’re wrong, the government will quickly face a new deficit crisis and ferocious new pressure to cut vulnerable programs.

That, and not the religious right “values” agenda, is where the real action is likely to be for Jewish groups in 2001.

It’s the Economy Again, Stupid Read More »

General Scrutiny

In accepting the nomination as President-elect George W. Bush’s secretary of state over the weekend, Gen. Colin Powell set out the foundation of the administration’s strategy in the Middle East.

“America will remain very much engaged in the Middle East” under a Bush administration, he said.
Saying he expected the issue to be “a major priority” for him and the State Department, he also hinted at the role the new administration plans to take as it balances often competing interests in the region.
The policy “will be based on the principle that we must always ensure that Israel lives in freedom and in security and peace,” Powell said.

“But at the same time, we have to do everything we can to deal with the aspirations of the Palestinians and other nations in the regions who have an interest in this.”

Powell’s words are being watched closely by Jewish observers concerned about the future of the peace process, the role of the United States in the Middle East and the world, and the relationship between a new administration and the Jewish community.

There is little known of Powell’s current views on Israel.

He spoke a bit of Yiddish in addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 1991, a throwback to his high school days as a clerk for a South Bronx shop owner. And he emphasized a commitment to Israel as the lone democracy of the Middle East.

But there is concern that his words may not match his actions.

While most Jewish officials and analysts are optimistic about his role in the peace process and as a friend of Israel, some note his hesitancy to fight against Iraq — and in the process support Israel — as a sign of future reluctance to use American strength to thwart international conflict.

“I think the fact that he occasionally uses a word of Yiddish is less important than how he uses the region geopolitically,” said Morris Amitay, an Israeli activist and former executive director of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby.

Amitay said that during the Gulf War, Powell viewed Israel more as a hindrance than an ally. Wary of allowing Israel to fight back against Iraqi attacks, the United States urged Israel to allow the United States to fight its battle for it.

While some see Powell’s skepticism during the Gulf War as a window into a semi-isolationist viewpoint, others see it as a necessary cautious tone.

“You’ll see a calm, mature system of foreign policy,” said Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House of Representatives who served as a Republican House leader during the Gulf War.

“He’s very cautious, and he’s determined to win. Our opponents should remember that.”

Jewish officials hope he will bring that same attitude to the current situation in the Middle East.

“He will be more focused on the peace,” said Tom Neumann, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

Powell “understands the strategic importance of the State of Israel,” Neumann added. “That is an important component of our negotiations.”

General Scrutiny Read More »

Stuck in the Middle

When Jörg Haider’s ultra-right party entered Austria’s coalition government last February, Danny Rosenfels remembers sorting through some of his documents wondering what things to pack. “It’s the first time I’ve ever done that,” he admits with a laugh.

Rosenfels, an American married to an Austrian, has lived for the past decade in Vienna. At first, the move was a welcome change from New York City, where he had lived and worked for 23 years. “I was robbed five or six times when I lived there, and my flat was burglarized at least that many times,” he recalls. While physical safety is not an issue in Vienna, he feels, however, that “there is a lot of subtle hostility coming at me.”

When he complained, for example, that his sinus problems were worse in Vienna than in New York, his physician suggested that he go back. And when he discussed professional opportunities in his field — physical therapy — with an adviser, he was told that his options might be better back home.

Anti-foreigner sentiment is usually a prelude to anti-Semitism, warns Simon Wiesenthal, the Nazi-hunter and Vienna resident. The rise of Haider’s populist, xenophobic Freedom Party has therefore alarmed many observers. In the 1999 federal elections, Haider’s party won 27 percent of the vote. His rhetoric has included praise for some aspects of the Nazi era, and his attacks on foreigners and minorities fuel fear that immigrants are a threat to jobs, security, culture and social welfare.

“Austria has seen better times,” comments Vienna’s chief rabbi, Paul Chaim Eisenberg. “The two really bad times were World War II and the present crisis. But I want to emphasize,” Eisenberg says, “that the current crisis is more a problem for the Austrians than for the Jews.”

Why has Austria learned so little from its past? I wondered during a recent visit in Vienna, my father’s hometown. From 1989-91, I had lived there as editor of Dialogue, a magazine published by the U.S.
Information Agency. I had attended services at the only synagogue that had survived the Holocaust, and I had glimpsed on walking tours the rich heritage of Jewish life in the Austrian capital. I had felt that Austria was beginning to confront its past in the aftermath of the Kurt Waldheim affair which centered on the former secretary-general of the United Nations who, in the course of his successful campaign for the Austrian presidency, was exposed as having had links to war crimes. The Waldheim affair had isolated Austria, just as the coalition with Haider’s Freedom Party was isolating Austria now.

Austrians like to think that they became Hitler’s first victim when he annexed their country in 1938, explained Joanna Nittenberg, the publisher of Illustrierte Neue Welt, a Jewish magazine. The 1943 Moscow Declaration, signed by Britain, France, the United States and the Soviet Union, perpetuated the idea that Austria had been Hitler’s “first victim,” said Nittenberg.

As if on cue, Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel told the Jerusalem Post recently: “The sovereign state of Austria was literally the first victim of the Nazi regime … they took Austria by force.”

According to historians, however, Austria was an eager participant in Hitler’s annexation. Several hundred thousand citizens cheered wildly when he declared on March 18, 1938, from the balcony of the Hofburg: “I now announce before history the entry of my homeland into the German Reich.”

Prize-winning author Saul Friedländer writes that the persecution of Jews in Austria and especially in Vienna was more cruel than in Germany. A year-and-a-half after the annexation, all Jewish businesses had been confiscated, 130,000 Jews had been forced to emigrate, and 65,000 were on their way to concentration camps. Hitler’s Austrian collaborators had used a well-oiled bureaucracy to accomplish this, Friedländer points out in “Die Juden und das Dritte Reich” (“The Jews and The Third Reich”). Austria became a “model” for the rest of the Reich.

Only 2,000 Austrian Jews survived the concentration camps. Leon Zelman was among them when he left Mauthausen at 17. Today, he is the director of the Jewish Welcome Service in Vienna, located across the Stefansdom (St. Stephan’s Cathedral). Founded in 1978 and funded by the government, the service is dedicated to enhancing the understanding between Jews and non-Jews. As a Zeitzeuge, a witness to the Holocaust, Zelman has spoken to students in more than 200 schools. From his breast pocket he pulled recent fan letters. “We were most impressed how optimistic you are about the future, despite your terrible and dehumanizing experiences,” kids from an elementary school had written.

Zelman’s Welcome Service also regularly sponsors the visits of Jews who used to live in Austria before the war. Few of them have returned for good. Most of the approximately 15,000 Jews who live in Vienna today have come from other countries.

“Returnees did not feel particularly welcome,” Eisenberg explained. “Austrians who had earlier returned with claims for compensation had been sent away empty-handed. There are still big discussions about reparations and why they have come so late.”

Eisenberg was born after his father had come from Hungary in 1948 to serve as chief rabbi at the Vienna synagogue. His father had experienced anti-Semitism in Hungary and “did not have particularly bad feelings towards the Austrians,” his son explained. “He did not come with claims that Austria should compensate him. So it was easier for him.”

I met with Eisenberg in his office adjacent to the synagogue in the Seitenstettengasse. The security screening had been long and thorough. I had also noticed that on Saturdays and holy days, Austrian police with rifles-at-the-ready flank both sides of the entrance to the temple. This precaution is due to an Arab terrorist attack that took two lives 20 years ago. “Many Jews who come here believe this is because of local anti-Semitism, and it is really not,” said Eisenberg.

Does he feel safe in Austria? I asked. “Number one, I feel safe,” Eisenberg said emphatically. “Anybody who is saying that it is dangerous for Jews today definitely is exaggerating. There is no danger whatsoever for Jews. Number two, have they done enough? You cannot do enough!”

For decades after the war, amnesia had gripped Austrian consciousness. “People who had been in the war did not want to tell their children about being in the war, and even the Jews who were victims did not tell their children very much. They did not want to scare them or whatever,” Eisenberg explained.

More recently, however, Austria has begun a journey to confront its past. Works of art looted by the Nazis have been returned. The government recently committed $150 million to a new property restitution fund. An international commission of experts, financed by the government, is producing a definitive account of Nazi crimes in Austria. At the end of October, a Holocaust memorial was unveiled on the Judenplatz (Jews’ Square). On the 62nd anniversary of Kristallnacht, a new synagogue was dedicated in Graz, Austria’s second largest town. Eisenberg officiated at the dedication of the building, which replaces the synagogue destroyed on that night of Nazi violence.

“As a chief rabbi, I have a lot of contacts to the outside,” Eisenberg said during our interview. His topic is, however, not so much the Holocaust, but Jewish religion and its teachings. He speaks regularly on Austrian state-supported radio and television. He closed a morning meditation on Rosh Hashanah by extending to a national radio audience his best wishes for a happy and healthy 5761.

“Things are much better in Austria than what Jews in America think,” said Eisenberg, who is married to an American and speaks English. “But we are not totally happy with the situation. I think we are somewhere in the middle. Not scared, but not totally happy.”

Stuck in the Middle Read More »

Last Call

Early this month, Bill Clinton told the visiting Israeli justice minister, Yossi Beilin, that he was ready to devote the remaining weeks of his tenure to Middle East peacemaking. As a lame-duck president, he said, his calendar was clear.

In and around Washington this week, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators are taking up the offer — and testing each other to see whether it’s worth wrecking the first family’s Christmas holiday.

The talks represent Ehud Barak’s last fling before he faces his electors and the Likud’s Ariel Sharon in February. He wants to present himself as the peace prime minister, turning the election into a referendum on a deal to end the 100-year conflict. The latest polls suggest that, despite the trauma of the Palestinian intifada, the voters still want peace and are prepared to pay a territorial price. Whether they trust Barak to calculate the odds is another question.

The Labor leader has already dropped his insistence on an end to violence as a condition for resuming negotiations. However much it goes against the grain, Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami is bargaining under duress. The same night that the Israeli delegation flew to the United States, the isolated West Bank settlement of Psagot came under intensive machine-gun fire. For the first time, the Israeli army evacuated families for their own safety.

No one this week is ready to bet on the outcome. “The big question,” a senior Israeli diplomat said, “is whether Yasser Arafat really wants an agreement, or whether he is striking a tactical pose.”

Does the Palestinian leader feel that the violence of the last three months has achieved its purpose? With the blood of 300 “martyrs” on his banner, can he now proclaim a Palestinian state that satisfies less than 100 percent of his people’s expectations? Or does he just want to keep Uncle Sam happy?

In public, Arafat’s negotiators are still going for broke. One of them, Saeb Erekat, told foreign correspondents: “The peace process is in Barak’s hands. This is his moment of truth. He knows what it takes to make peace with the Palestinians. Israel has to end the occupation. That means withdrawal to the borders of June 4, 1967, including East Jerusalem.”

Yet over the past week, there are signs that the gaps are narrowing. “Both sides,” said the Israeli diplomat quoted above, “want to control the violence, enhance security cooperation and get back to the negotiating table.”

Shrewd observers here have noted the Palestinian Authority’s mild, almost acquiescent, response to the new Israeli strategy of picking off individual intifada plotters and gunmen. Arafat is not letting the assassination of more than a dozen activists, including some from his own Fatah militia, get in the way of the diplomacy. Some Hamas terrorists, released from Palestinian jails during the Intifada, are reportedly clamoring to go back for their own protection. Arafat is happy to oblige.

In his pre-Washington briefing, Erekat pointedly did not write off last July’s Camp David summit. It was, he acknowledged, the first time a Palestinian president and an Israeli prime minister addressed the core issues. “Both sides,” he said, “came a long way, but not far enough.”

Behind the maximalist rhetoric, Camp David remains the Palestinians’ bench mark. “There is no room now for partial agreements,” Erekat argued. “There is no room for fragmenting the issues.”

Other Palestinians say Arafat has to assess whether it’s worth sticking his neck out for an unpopular compromise when Barak may have neither the time nor the power to deliver. European diplomats, based on the West Bank, also question whether the Palestinian leader has the authority any longer to rein in the gunmen, who are increasingly dictating the terms of confrontation.

Still, a trade-off is taking shape. Barak is offering to be more flexible on Jerusalem and the settlements, provided the Palestinians will lower their demand for hundreds of thousands of refugees, who fled or were expelled in 1948, to return to homes inside Israel. The package would include an exchange of territory. Israel would annex settlement blocks close to the old Green Line border; the Palestinians would be compensated with a patch of the Negev adjacent to the Gaza Strip.

Arafat must know that Ariel Sharon would not offer anything so generous. He must know that George W. Bush will be in no rush to pick up Bill Clinton’s mediating baton. There is a window. But, as his rejection of the Camp David terms showed in July, Arafat has his own agenda; he insists on writing his own script. If he doesn’t get what he thinks he can sell to his constituency, he will sit it out.

Last Call Read More »

A High-Yield Investment

It’s one of the longest-standing and most futile complaints in synagogue life: Why are they always schnorring for money?

The answer, of course, is that while synagogues are much more than businesses, they need steady and significant revenue to be able to provide the services that the community needs, expects and benefits from.
But where the old leaky-roof appeal may have saved a synagogue from going into debt in the past, today’s synagogues are looking for more hefty and stable streams of charitable income that will allow them to think bigger and better than subsistence.

“The mental leap has to be that we’re more than a hand-to-mouth operation, that we have a real and vital role to play in the community and that we need to stake that claim,” says Lee Hendler, who spearheaded a campaign in her Baltimore synagogue that brought the endowment up to $11 million. “We have to stop thinking of synagogues as the second cousin or the poor relation of all other Jewish institutions.”

That’s why more and more synagogues are talking to their congregants about establishing endowments, bequests and annuities where the synagogue is the beneficiary and the contributor receives sizable tax deductions.

There is much at stake. The word in philanthropic journals is that baby boomers in the next couple of decades are set to inherit an estimated $25 trillion from their parents, and many will be looking for ways to keep as much of that as possible out of Uncle Sam’s pockets.

“If we don’t ask them, they will be asked by Federation and colleges and local hospitals,” says David Katowitz, director of the Fund for Reform Judaism at the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC). “We believe the synagogue is the most important Jewish institution in people’s lives, and we shouldn’t be afraid to ask.”

Dues cover about 40 percent of the budget for most synagogues, while High Holiday appeals and major fundraising events, like dinners, might make up another significant portion. A handful of shuls have sizable incomes from catering facilities or cemeteries.

Income also dribbles in through scrip programs, fundraising events — which tend to be labor-intensive — and smaller personal donations. Directors or rabbis often get sponsors for specific programs.
“The drawback of doing a budget and running a temple the current way is there is just so much you can do, and everything else becomes optional,” says Harriett Zeitlin, executive director of Kol Tikvah in Woodland Hills.

Kol Tikvah is one of several local congregations that is for the first time looking into setting up an endowment.

“We don’t want to just offer two or three things, we want to offer everything we can for the community, and of course that takes money,” Zeitlin says.

Rabbi Steven Weil of Congregation Beth Jacob in Beverly Hills says that expanded vision is one of the reasons synagogues need to rethink funding methods.

“The synagogue of the 21st century cannot exist on dues and fundraisers and a journal dinner, and one of the reasons for this is that synagogues today provide many more services, qualitatively and quantitatively, than synagogues of the 20th century.”

Add to that the high cost of real estate in Los Angeles, day school tuition, and young people that are more likely to be professionals than entrepreneurs, and you have a different philanthropic picture than existed a few decades ago.

Synagogues need to embark on the slow process of changing the culture of giving in their congregations, and that will start with an attitudinal change.

“It’s time to see the synagogue not as a mom-and-pop store, but as an institution that has a plan and a dream and wants to fulfill them,” Katowitz says. “Once people feel the investment in terms of their hearts and minds, they will be happy to invest their dollars as well.”

Hendler, a board member of Synagogue 2000, an effort to revitalize synagogues run out of the University of Judaism’s Whizin Center for the Jewish Future, presided over a five-year fundraising effort at Chizuk Amuno Congregation in Baltimore that not only nearly doubled the endowment but saw this year’s campaign exceed its goal of $500,000.

The success came, she says, because the campaign pushed the 1,400-family Conservative congregation to crystallize its vision and detail its dreams. That effort sparked passion and motivation among not only the long-term planning committee but among the congregation as a whole. Thus, along with raising funds, the 129-year-old shul has heightened enthusiasm and participation in its many programs.

Formulating a mission statement “became the cornerstone for thinking about what it is that we hope to fulfill, what gets in the way and whether in fact we are living up to the standards we set for ourselves,” she says. What emerged was a “very unique and inspiring sense of who we are.”

Potential donors were solicited face to face and were included in formulating the vision for the synagogue. They were given different options for contributing over five years to the annual fund or to the endowment or both.

And throughout, they were kept abreast of the programs they helped to actualize.

“The storytelling piece is often terribly neglected, and you neglect it at your own peril,” Hendler says. “You can’t take the money and run. You have to be regularly thanking people for what their commitment and generosity have meant, and you have to be sharing evidence of the value of their investment,” Hendler says.

For many contributors, giving to a synagogue is indeed an investment not just in the community, but in their own estate and tax-planning strategies.

Many shuls are pushing alternative ways of giving that offer great benefits to the donor, such as different types of trusts, donating appreciated stocks to avoid paying capital gains tax, or taking out a life insurance policy where the beneficiary is the shul, so that a small investment now has tremendous yield for the synagogue in the long-term. The Jewish Community Foundation of The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles recently launched the Partnership Life Annuity Program, which encourages synagogues to have contributors set up a charitable gift annuity.

The foundation is licensed to administer the annuity fund, paying out a fixed, guaranteed annual sum to the contributor after she turns 55. At time of death, 95 percent of the remaining principal of the annuity goes to establish an endowment for the designated synagogue, and five percent goes to the foundation’s endowment.

UAHC runs a similar program, with the synagogue taking 82 percent of the principal.

“Seniors are very concerned about trying to acquire as high a fixed income return as they can, and charitable gift annuities almost always perform better than other comparable fixed income opportunities,” says Baruch Littman, vice president of development at the Jewish Community Foundation.

But, he says, the investment can be very lucrative for younger people as well. The earlier in life you take the annuity, the higher the percentage paid out, so someone in her 30’s may be looking at a payout of more than 30 percent when she reaches 55 or older.

And annuity payments made in stocks allow a large percentage of the capital gains tax to be avoided completely and the rest to be deferred and then prorated over the life of the annuity.

Beyond the annuity program, the foundation, working with Federation’s Council on Jewish Life, awards synagogue grants for specific programs. In the fall of 2000, the foundation awarded $110,000 to synagogues that submitted proposals for innovative programs.

For Zeitlin, having a program paid for — whether by a grant or a donor recruited to sponsor that program — is essential.

“I know some people feel that God will provide,” says Zeitlin, executive director of Kol Tikvah. “But I like to make sure it’s provided first, before we spend the money.”

A High-Yield Investment Read More »

Your Letters

Teresa Strasser

Last week, a few letter-writers expressed a perception that I had written derogatorily about Teresa Strasser in a recent column published in The Journal. I apologize to her in this public way that my words, for their lack of clarity, led some readers of this newspaper to perceive that I was commenting on her appearance, her music preferences or other superficial matters of form. Such was not my intent at all.As to the substantive matter of interdating and intermarriage, though, I do not care who Strasser or her mom marries. Skin color is not a reference factor in Judaism, and I was appalled many months ago when some letter writers criticized her mother’s marriage to a Black man. Color means nothing. My substantive comments on that subject are directed only towards the core values that underlie the primacy of our dating and marrying partners within our covenantal community.

Dov Fischer, Los Angeles

Stop-Moskowitz Ad

The nefarious Coalition for Justice in Hawaiian Gardens & Jerusalem, attacking a very decent human being and an especially caring Jew and Zionist, is reflected in all its virulence, falsehood and distortion in the ad published in the Dec. 8 Jewish Journal.

It is clear that the real issue is not Hawaiian Gardens, where the vast majority of residents appreciate Dr. Irving Moskowitz’s kindness and civic responsibility spanning over 30 years. The sole reason for the ad is that its sponsors share a political ideology hostile to Moskowitz’s Zionist orientation.

As for the sponsors’ self-identification with the majority of American Jews, in a survey of American Jewish opinion conducted by the American Jewish Committee in September 2000, before the eruption of Arab violence, 76 percent of the more liberal respondents oppose relinquishing sovereignty over the Old City. And 69 percent believe the Arabs seek the destruction of Israel.

Yet the post-Zionist sponsors of this campaign to this day — even after the outbreak of Arab violence — join the Palestinians in protest over Moskowitz’s housing projects. They quiver whenever Moskowitz purchases property for sale in Jerusalem, notwithstanding Israel’s sovereignty there. They want to return to an era of restrictive covenants (i.e., no real property sales to Jews in their own city).

What a revolting retreat from democratic and Jewish values. What a catastrophic criterion for maligning the doctor and calling for the revocation of his license to do business in California. And what a shame that a small minority is permitted to publish such a scurrilous ad.

Rabbi Julian M. White, Los Angeles

Joseph Farah

It is too bad that Rob Eshman has to trash one of the few Arab American writers that certainly seems to be pro-Israel (“Human Sacrifice,” Dec. 15). While it is apparent that many of Joseph Farah’s views may differ from that of the mainstream community, his articles on the Middle East and the current conflict have been thoughtful and well-written. In fact, he is thought of enough to have an article published in the latest Jerusalem Post International Edition regarding the Palestinians putting their children on the front lines. Rather than give your biased opinion of the guy, why don’t you print his article in full and let the readers decide? It would be a nice change of pace from the likes of Leonard Fein and his cronies.

Scott Howard, Woodland Hills

Chanukah Tzedakah

In the early ’60s when my children were young, we always had one night of Chanukah when their present was $5 to give to their favorite charity. There were some spirited discussions about who wanted to give to which charity, but all three of them enjoyed being able to pick their favorite. They’ve grown up to become wonderful adults who realize how fortunate they are and who teach the importance of tzedakah to their own children.

Anne Rubin, Ventura

Intermarriage

We proudly recount the story of the Maccabees, who put their lives on the line to fight against assimilation, at this time of year. Subsequently, Jews gave up their possessions and livelihoods to leave the countries of the Inquisition rather than give up their Jewishness.

According to The Journal’s interpretation of Jewish history, as mirrored by recent covers, the point of this sacrifice was so that Jews could intermarry and go to church. At a time when our Jewish brothers and sisters are fighting for their lives in Israel, The Journal expends a full page to let a revisionist historian describe how bad it is for the Arabs to lose “ancestral lands” that they never actually owned.

It is time for community leaders, including The Journal’s editors, to recognize their real mission: to convey the values of Judaism and Israel to the next generation. This requires emphasizing the positive values of our faith and traditions. There are true Jewish heroes and role models in our community: teachers, rabbis and individuals who devote their lives to helping the sick, the elderly and the handicapped.

If The Journal does not take a positive approach to Judaism and Israel, if all Jews intermarry and go to church, who will be left to recount the Chanukah story, light the chanukiyah and read The Journal?

Robert E. Levine, via e-mail

THE JEWISH JOURNAL welcomes letters from all readers. Letters should be no more than 250 words and we reserve the right to edit for space.Standard letters must include a signature, valid address and phone number.E-mail must contain a valid mailing address and phone number and should be senttoletters@jewishjournal.comPseudonyms and initials will not be used, but names will be withheld on request.Unsolicited manuscripts and other materials should include a self-addressed, stamped envelope inorder to be returned.

Your Letters Read More »

Let there be light

As the rabbis asked, what is Chanukah? It’s the darkest time of the year. One might easily believe that it will never be light and warm again. Natural history proves us wrong. The miracle of the seasons is the evidence.

There’s darkness in many parts of the world. One could almost believe that it will never be light and warm for some people again. Jewish history proves us wrong. The miracle of caring is the evidence. We are in the light business. Zot Chanukah — this is Chanukah.

This Chanukah, plan on increasing the light in the world with special gifts — the gifts of yourselves.
Before Chanukah, play a family game of “Light Up The World.” Make the longest list you can of ways you can brighten up the world. It’s a game that every family member can play.

The 3-year-old can turn on the lights with kisses and crayoned pictures; the teen can visit with an elderly relative or drive a lonely person to your synagogue for a class or activity. All children can share their plenty — from warm clothes to the warmth of a gesture of friendship in an invitation to join the lunch table or the extension of a helping hand.

Hang your list in a central location, like the fridge, as a reminder that the world can always use some extra light.

Here are a few suggestions for special gifts:

  • Make certain that all adults in your family have registered with your local bone marrow registry — www.giftoflife.com. We can save lives in many ways. The most direct and dramatic is with the gift of bone marrow. Don’t miss the opportunity to save a life, and make certain that your children know you are registered. When you give blood, take your children along to watch. Celebrate with a major ice-cream event on the way home!

  • If your post-teen is going out into the “real world” and leaving childhood behind, make that professional haircut into a gift of new life. Locks of Love accepts donations of unprocessed hair, 10 inches or longer. Donations are made into wigs for children who are experiencing long-term medically induced hair loss. For more information, go to www.locksoflove.com.

  • Got a clown in the family? Clowning is serious business. It brings life to the ill and lonely. Find out about projects that train “mitzvah clowns” from “Sweet Pea” and “Buttercup” — a k a Mike and Sue Turk — at
    bipamima@aol.com.

  • Is there a teen on the phone in your house? Contact your local school district or senior citizen program. Find out if it runs a phone contact program for children who are home alone after school or lonely senior citizens. Turn your teen-talker into a mitzvah-doer.

  • Are there animal lovers in your family? Contact your local animal shelter and ask for ways your family can help. You might have some four-legged company on your family’s walks. If you are ready for a major animal-related mitzvah, contact your local organization that provides guide dogs for the visually impaired and find out about raising a puppy for their use.

As you bask in the warm glow of the menorah, plan ways of bringing light into our world.
Zot Chanukah — that’s Chanukah!

Let there be light Read More »

A New Masthead

We hope you’ve noticed by now that The Jewish Journal has a new masthead outside and a new look inside. The masthead, designed by Carvin Knowles, our digitographer, is bolder, louder and bigger than our previous ones. This isn’t by accident. Through the practice of journalism, The Jewish Journal serves what we believe is one of the region’s most interesting, influential and dynamic communities, and we wanted a masthead which both proclaims and reflects that.

The paper’s new layout, which was overseen by Shelley Adler, our art director, is designed to present information in a clear, creative and orderly way, cutting through the noise that has become so much a part of news delivery these days. (The glossy cover is a holiday treat, until revenues allow for more).The redesign is part of an ongoing process of making sure The Journal remains Jewish L.A.’s most vital and interesting news source. You are always welcome to be part of our mission — by contributing your opinions, your ideas, your writing.

To that end, our Web site now has an online forum — Jewish L.A.’s only online forum — where you can comment on Jewish issues, ideas and institutions. Just go to www.jewishjournal.com and click on the word “Forum.” We look forward to reading you.Until then, our best wishes for a very happy Chanukah.

A New Masthead Read More »

The Fight

Last Sunday evening, several dozen of the city’s ethnic, political and religious leaders gathered at the home of Bruce and Madeline Peerce Ramer to mark Chanukah. Appropriately, Bruce Ramer, who is national president of the American Jewish Committee, asked various men and women, Jewish and not Jewish, each to light one candle on a symbolic menorah.

The laws of Chanukah teach us that it’s not enough to win a victory over a great empire, and it’s not enough to celebrate that victory in the privacy of your home. You must “publicize the miracle,” as the Ramers and the AJC did, and in the process proclaim your identity, your faith, your values to the world.That’s a fitting law for a holiday that marks a triumph over assimilation. But other holidays make similar demands. On Sukkot, we could have been commanded to commemorate our trek through the desert by, say, making a diorama. Instead, we’re told to build the actual huts, in plain view of the neighbors. (The first time our neighbor saw me putting up the sukkah, he suggested there are better ways to get around the building codes than constructing a room from pipes, muslin and bamboo.)

On Simchat Torah, we march the scrolls through the streets. On Yom Kippur, the blast of the shofar easily carries beyond the walls of our synagogues.

While our laws and traditions urge us on to greater levels of proclamation — keeping kosher, wearing a head-covering — our inclination is often just the opposite. Based on a few hundred years of persecution, Jews are just as apt to keep their faith to themselves or abandon it altogether. We whisper about whether someone we meet on vacation is a “SWEJ” or “MOT.” When around strangers, we sometimes adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when it comes to religion.

These paradoxical tendencies play out in different ways, depending on the era. Lately, being Jewish has been about as “in” as it has ever been. Joe Lieberman ran for vice president as a kind-of Orthodox Jew, Madonna led a pop culture embrace of a kind-of kabbalah, cultural figures from Saul Bellow to Adam Sandler (not to confuse the two) have helped make Jewish American culture synonymous with American culture. You’d have to go back to 730 C.E., when King Bulan led the great Khazar conversion to Judaism and proclaimed it the state religion, to find an embrace quite as warm.

But at the same time, we can be shy and retiring on critical issues that directly affect us as Jews. One of the best examples is Iran, where ten Jews languish in prison. They’re there on trumped-up charges, victims of anti-Semitism, pure and simple.

These Jews were arrested between January and March of 1999 in the southern province of Fars and charged with spying for the United States and Israel. Last July, the judge in the case, who also acted as prosecutor, found them guilty and sentenced them to prison terms of four to 13 years. An appeals court reduced their sentences to between two and nine years. That’s a long time to stay put in a hellhole when your only crime is being Jewish.

At a conference last week in Washington, D.C., Elie Wiesel told 1,000 Conservative Jewish women that they and other Jewish leaders should be doing more for these 10 men. He suggested sending a delegation there to appeal to Iranian leaders. Why not? Why not wave after wave of delegations, of American Jews of all convictions? “You could do so much,” Wiesel told the women. “After all, you have an authority which is called compassion.”

Perhaps our old sense that speaking out will draw unwanted attention or be seen as unseemly can still rear its shy, embarrassed head. Or is it that our very acceptance in this country has made us self-satisfied, apathetic to the tribulations Jews can still face abroad?

In Los Angeles, we have less of an excuse to remain silent or plead ignorance. We are home to a 35,000-strong Iranian Jewish community, which by now exceeds the 25,000 Jews left in Iran itself. Most of its leaders, such as Pooya Dayanim, spokesman for the L.A.-based Council of Iranian American Jewish Organizations, have played an active and vocal role in attaining freedom for the 10 imprisoned men. You can contact Dayanim at (310) 535-6610 and ask how best to get involved.

It will be a happier Chanukah if we can celebrate victory over oppression for all Jews, everywhere, even in our own day and age.

The Fight Read More »

Legacy of a Quiet Giant

Black and Jewish legislators, colleagues and friends of Rep. Julian C. Dixon, who died on Dec. 8 at the age of 66, spoke to The Journal this week about a man they regarded as a bridge-builder — a quiet and unassuming but highly gifted and dedicated champion of civil rights and Black-Jewish friendship over a period of 30 years.

“He was basically a mensch, ” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. “A lot of folks out there make their noise in terms of decibels. He was a coalition-builder and a listener. Julian Dixon was not soft-spoken because he had nothing to say. He had plenty to say, and he had plenty of impact on how things got done.”

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles) called Dixon “a congressman’s congressman. He was highly regarded as a professional. He was a man who was able to build links across partisan lines, ideological differences and between Jews and Blacks.”

Like many others, Cooper spoke of Dixon’s seriousness of purpose and ability to rise above partisanship. He noted that “the good news” about Dixon’s achievement was the reminder that for many years, on the local and Congressional level in urban centers around the country, urban coalitions have worked “despite the Jesse problems and the Farrakhan outrages.”

Norman Hill, president of the Washington-based A. Philip Randolph Insitutute, noted that “Dixon, while very much a here-and-now person, carried forward the great tradition of Black-Jewish relationship into a new day, time and context. It is a tradition going back to the formation of the NAACP and forged by such pioneers as Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and John Lewis.”

Dixon represented the 32nd Congressional District, which took in the USC area, Culver City, the Crenshaw district, Ladera Heights, Baldwin Hills, Koreatown, Leimert Park, Cheviot Hills and Mar Vista. He supported causes ranging from civil rights to the city’s subway project and secured funds to aid communities hit by base closings and other defense cutbacks. He was also an important lawmaker on national security issues. He was the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and a member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. He served as a chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and was a leader in the mid-1980s of efforts to impose economic sanctions against South Africa.

Dixon’s district has a large Jewish constituency, and he seemed almost as linked to the Jewish community as he was to the African-American community. Howard Welinsky, Democratic activist and leader of Democrats for Israel, noted that on the subject of Israeli issues, “frequently Julian was ahead of me. When it came to Julian’s committee or subcommittee assignments, I’d get a call from him discussing it and relating it to his ability to help Israel — why he thought it would be better if he made this move or that move. Always, when it came to the big picture, he could see it way ahead of time. For instance, on foreign aid, Julian would say: ‘If I’m on this subcommittee, I can help the foreign aid bill here.’ It was always, how could he help? And it was from the heart.”

“Julian Dixon was the consummate coalition politician,” Rep. Howard Berman, a Democrat who represents the East San Fernando Valley, told The Journal. “He was an African-American congressman, but he was never just a congressman for African-Americans. He cared deeply about the Jewish community. And the Jewish people cared deeply about him. He could go into either community as if it was his own. He was really beloved as a human being. His effectiveness was due to his reaching across these lines of ethnicity and working in coalitions, not seeing everything from the prism of one’s own ethnic group. And doing it for everybody, not just for one group.”

David Lehrer, regional director of the ADL, also spoke to The Journal about Dixon as “a remarkable bridge-builder between communities. He was trusted, admired and effective in the African-American community, the Jewish community, and really across the spectrum. He was a giant figure on the L.A. political scene for decades.”

“What a friend the Jewish community has lost,” said Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, whose district encompasses Watts. “Julian and Howard Berman were brothers. They loved each other. They represent the spirit by which we continue our partnership.”

Millender-McDonald said that Dixon never “regarded his position as one that should have a certain sense of aloofness. He always felt he should stay a commoner himself, and he never did call attention to himself. I often said to him, ‘Are you bashful or what?’ He said, ‘Me, bashful?’ and he would laugh.”

She compared Dixon to A. Philip Randolph, the legendary civil rights leader who formulated the 1963 March on Washington and headed the first Black-led union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. “I met Randolph in Birmingham, Ala., when I was a child. He was so gentle, and then when he spoke he had such conviction. And he achieved historic, critical gains for the Black community. They called him ‘the gentle warrior.’ And I called Julian the ‘quiet giant.'”

Welinsky echoed this view of Dixon. “He always knew how to bring people together and get things done,” Welinsky noted. “He was never big on hogging the glory or putting his name on the bill. Just get the job done.”

It was this humanity — his simplicity, lack of affectation and ability to listen carefully and deeply — that endeared many to Dixon.

Ed Johnson, field deputy for Dixon, spoke with sadness about a working relationship and friendship that ended after 22 years. “He was very good at listening,” he remarked. “What was on your mind was always important to him.

Bob Manley, regional director of the California Democratic Party, reflected on Dixon’s modesty. “It was never like his head got big, as successful as he was. That is so rare with electeds. Even the ones who ain’t too much; they think they’re God’s gift to the world. Even when they’re just skating. Julian, he was unsung. He worked like hell, but you’d never know it. He didn’t need the limelight. But he still had fun.”
Summing up a legacy, Terence Montgomery, head of the 47th Assembly District Committee, which is comprised mainly of Black and Jewish members, reflected on Julian Dixon. “If Julian had one central message, it was, ‘We can all be together and we can work this thing out,’ ” Montgomery said. “He was like the calm in the midst of the storm. Among all the loud voices of many people, Julian was able to hear a message and bring people to a resolution.”

Legacy of a Quiet Giant Read More »