fbpx

April 26, 2001

Dear Deborah

Bitterness Once Removed

Dear Deborah,

Eleven years ago my parents divorced after my father found out my mother had been having an affair for four years. Although my sister and I were already in our 20’s, it had a devastating effect on the family. My father stayed single, alone and brooding ever since. He lives in an apartment, goes to his job and doesn’t seem to have much of a life. He still “loathes” our mother, refuses to hear her name mentioned and will not attend any function where she’ll be. My mother is married and happy, and the rest of us have gotten on with our lives and blended well.

As you can imagine, holidays and family functions have been tough because we are so divided. I am getting married in three months and as happy as I am about it, I have always dreaded the moment for obvious reasons. My fiancé and I want a big, family wedding, but of course, my father will not attend if mom is there. This is absolutely devastating to me. I have always wanted him to “give me away,” dance with me, do what most fathers do. He won’t even listen to my pleas, and actually suggested we have a separate ceremony in the rabbi’s office or at home if we want him there. He has even hung up the phone on my fiancé. At this point I am so ashamed of my father, so hurt, that I have started toying with the idea of eloping, but no one else likes that idea, not even me.

Deborah, can you suggest something that will knock some sense into my father? How unfair, ridiculous, selfish and warped is it that he cannot find it in his heart to be a good father at the most important moment of my life?

Devastated Daughter

Dear Devastated,

Knock sense into your father? Fairness in families? Let’s just slip off those rose-colored glasses and take a cold, hard look at the truth.

Your father has been mired in bitterness for 11 years. The poor man has been unable to move on with his life all this time, but you, my dear woman, must do so yourself. You have not yet accepted the fact that you have no power over your father or what you consider to be his “unfair, ridiculous, selfish” behavior. He is just stuck.

So go ahead and have one big, whopping simcha of a wedding. No one will be embarrassed, with the possible exception of your poor fartootst father. In any case, do not punish yourself, your fiancé or the rest of your families by eloping. You would run the risk of beginning this next chapter of your life with your own bitter little tale. You know, the one in which the embittered daughter follows in the footsteps of her father and gets stuck — not at the end, but at the beginning of her marriage.

Timing Is Everything

Dear Deborah,

When is it appropriate to ask a widow out on a date? How long is the proper mourning period? I fancy a lady in my shul, and I want at the same time to be respectful and not to miss my chance. Any advice for me here?

JP

Dear JP,

Shall we begin by quoting a few rabbis, bereavement specialists or perhaps Miss Manners?

Nah. I don’t think so.

Why not? Because the time you spend ruminating over the right move might be the time in which you have missed your window of opportunity. The real expert here and therefore the only person qualified to respond is the widow in question. Let her know the truth — that you “fancy” her, and that while you wish to respect her mourning process you would like to know if and/or when it might be appropriate to call upon her for tea.

No Holy War Here

Dear Deborah,

Just wanted to tell you I enjoy your column. I also wanted to comment on the letter published in the February issue written by a worried mother whose daughter is married to a man becoming too religious for the mother’s taste.

This is a tough issue, and I think you handled it well. But as someone who became more ritually observant as an adult and one who knows at least a hundred others like me, I also know that often it is the secular relatives who become combative, sarcastic and otherwise behave badly in these situations, often because they feel threatened. It does take great sensitivity and responsibility on the part of the person becoming religious to try not to alienate others in the family; indeed, one of the main reasons for people to choose a more frum lifestyle is for the very closeness it can and should engender in families.

It’s possible that in this case the mother was right, and her son-in-law was behaving boorishly; but in my experience, for every insensitive baal teshuva who seems not to care what his or her family thinks, I can show you 50 (at least) who take great pains to include family members, to try to make them feel just as loved an needed in the family as ever. It’s a delicate balance, and everyone needs to do their part.

Judy Gruen

Dear Judy,

While your letter offers a glimpse of another facet of religious intolerance, the dilemma presented by the mother was not, as you implied, an objection to her son-in-law’s becoming “too religious for the mother’s taste.”

Rather, the letter expressed concern for the emotional welfare of her daughter. She said her daughter stated that “she was being forced into a life she hadn’t chosen.” She had begun to complain to her parents about feeling “hopelessness and despair.”

The letter was about a troubled daughter and her troubled marriage. Religious observance just happened to be the conflict du jour. But understand that had it been about the mortgage or chopped liver I’d have given the exact same advice to the parents; which was to encourage the daughter to get appropriate help and then for the parents to stay the hell out of it.

You are right though. Religious intolerance from any angle stinks.

Dear Deborah Read More »

Wolpe’s Defense

When Rabbi David Wolpe stepped up to the lectern to deliver his Sabbath morning sermon last Saturday, he faced a divided and expectant audience.

Many of his congregants at Sinai Temple in Westwood took strong exception to a series of sermons he had delivered before and during Passover that examined the question of faith despite doubt and questioned the historical veracity of the Exodus.

The sermons were quoted in a front-page Los Angeles Times story on April 13 that led to a community uproar over Wolpe’s thesis and the appropriateness of his comments.

The gulf in the audience between those who supported what he had said and those who were angered was as wide as the Red Sea itself.

But Rabbi Wolpe wasn’t deterred. He appeared Saturday in front of a packed house of 1,300 congregants and visitors to his Conservative synagogue to present his defense. His voice was strong and his words were clear: "How dare anyone suggest [Jews] don’t ask questions during Pesach? In this past week, the Pesach story has been discussed more than any time I can remember. Am I sorry? No, I am not. The more we talk, the better it is."

He addressed those who were still angry and confused, those who wondered if he had even done the right thing by bringing up such a controversial subject over Passover. After all, wasn’t God sitting in judgment? Wouldn’t God be angry too?

"There are moments in life when new ideas make us dizzy, and we don’t know who we are or what we believe. But if we can work through it, and if we do not avoid [these new ideas] … there will be discoveries in return. But we must ask ourselves: Why are we here? Why are we Jews? It may be for some of you because God split the Red Sea, but not for me," Wolpe said. "Because God is bigger than the sea, even bigger than Judaism…"

The audience stirred; some sat uncomfortably on what felt to them like the hardest bench in town, while others looked around and heaved a sigh of relief. You could hear a pin drop.

Quoting from modern and ancient rabbis and scholars, Wolpe went on to illustrate how, from the very beginning, Jews were meant to question and to argue, to brace themselves for the onslaught of new ideas. He told his congregation that he didn’t go along with the conventional wisdom that Jews only have two choices: either to be tied to the past, in strict adherence to the Bible, or to be open to the modern world but have no Judaism. He rebelled against both. "I want both learning and passion," he shouted. "I’m not afraid because of my faith. I can observe what someone has to say and not be chased away."

Faith, then, he said, is the underlying foundation Jews need in order to be brave — brave enough to address the questions the modern world has to pose, even if they are in contradiction to the Torah. "The Torah is about the spiritual truths of the Jewish people, not about the particulars," Wolpe explained.

"The Torah is not about how many people stepped on the sands but about how many people are stirred in their souls," he continued. You cannot be brave if you do not [experience being] afraid, and faith is for the brave." Wolpe paused, looking over his congregation, then, appealing to each and every one, he said, "Let us be brave together."

Thirteen hundred people clapping is a very large sound. When Wolpe concluded, people applauded, jumped to their feet, kissed their neighbors and their tallitot. Some threw their children up on their shoulders and sang loudly, as the Torah was brought around.

Wolpe’s Defense Read More »

Healing the Sick

Jews don’t over drink. Jews don’t beat their spouses. Jews don’t get HIV.

The absurdity of it all. One lie after the other. We Jews fell in love with these lies. We ate them up and for many years our full bellies lulled us into a sleepy state of denial. Now we recognize that alcoholism, spousal abuse and AIDS (to name a few) are Jewish realities. We live with their presence in our lives. Whether it is a relative, co-worker or close friend who endures these trials, we have slowly begun to move from silent suffering to communal care.

I believe this week’s Torah portion, Tazria-Metzora (a double portion that addresses the laws around the disease called tzara’at and the diseased person called a metzora) was ahead of its time. It is progressive because the metzora and the community were expected to act publicly.

To this day it is unclear who was a metzora. The most common translation is “leper.” But as Luzzatto points out, the metzora was isolated to prevent the spread of ritual contamination and not to protect public health. A bridegroom suspected of having tzara’at was permitted to postpone his examination until his marriage week was over, and a gentile metzora did not cause ritual defilement (Negaim 3:1-2). Judging by these statements, the metzora must not have had the contagious disease of leprosy.

Given this confusion, what is interesting is the responsibility of the metzora. According to Leviticus 13:45-46, after the metzora is examined by the priest and pronounced tamei (ritually impure) he must “have his clothes ripped, have his hair left bare [which are acts of a person in mourning], cover his upper lip, and … call out, ‘Tamei! Tamei! (I am ritually impure!)'” The Torah then goes on to say that he shall be tamei as long as he has the tzara’at, and he shall remain living apart from the community until that time is over.

This is radical. Why? Because sickness is made public. No longer is the metzora told to suffer silently in a hospital bed. No longer is the word “cancer” whispered under one’s breath. Rather we are commanded to shout out, for everyone to hear, “Tamei! Tamei!”

Though a surface reading of this text may appear to teach that the metzora is degraded by performing acts of a person in mourning and then sending him or her outside the community, another reading may teach a different set of values. The command for the metzora to publicly change his or her appearance is significant. The Torah is teaching us that some illnesses can be and are life-changing events, and that we as a community are obligated to know who among us are suffering. In addition, some illnesses, whether we recover from them or live with them chronically, are a type of death.

Secondly, it is important to note that the Torah reads “have his clothes ripped, have his hair left bare,” implying that he does not rip his own clothes or shave his own head, but that others must assist him in the act. Again, this is another hint that the metzora is not suffering alone but, from the moment of diagnosis, is reaching out for others to help him accept his changed identity. The recent trend of healing services in synagogues across the country and the popularity of Debbie Friedman’s “Mi Shebeirach” blessing attests to this powerful mitzvah.

Now we can understand the final radical action the Torah commands the metzora to do: to leave, to go outside the camp until the tzara’at has gone. Why, after all the public attention, is the person told to leave? Because part of communal care is allowing sick people time to transform, allowing them time to process their illnesses with God. Leaving allows them to be alone rather than lonely, to carve out time and resist returning to the world unchanged, to discourage them from pretending that their months of chemotherapy treatment are over and done with or their addictions have ended. Instead, we are to recognize that wandering in the wilderness with God is sometimes a blessing of opportunity.

Healing the Sick Read More »

A Normal Israel, in Agoura

About two months ago, Dr. Mark Capritto, the tough-minded vice principal of Agoura High School, came face-to-face with one of Zionism’s most unusual developments: a nice Jewish gang.

It began, as many of these things probably do, with an unkind crack in the schoolyard, and before you could say (God forbid!) Columbine, the vice principal was on the perpetrator’s back. Somebody had mentioned that the alleged culprit had claimed to belong to a clique called the Jew Crew. That got his attention. The 10 or so youngsters said to be associated with this adolescent posse got the call to muster in his office.

Mostly sophomores, the crew was composed of the sons of affluent and generally well-educated and well-adjusted Israeli immigrants. The boys had written a crass and bluster-filled song titled "Got Bagels," whose lyrics, in hip-hop style, managed to demean non-Jews, women and blacks (‘Got chrein like us, got brain like us? Ah no, you goy, you’ll never be like us"). The song was posted on Napster.

Why, Capritti asked the boys, did they feel the need to ape the comportment — and lyrical conventions — of homeboys? Agoura High was remarkably bereft of ethnic tensions and gang violence. Who needed a Jew Crew?

The kids hemmed and hawed and looked at their feet. The song, some would later tell friends, had been tongue-in-cheek. And any connection between the so-called Jew Crew and the regrettable schoolyard altercation that triggered this flap was incidental.

As far as Capritto was concerned, the flap revolved around the ill-considered remark of a single, now properly admonished and contrite young man. For the most part, however, these kids struck him as impressive, and as outgoing, as confident and capable, as bright and chipper and well-adjusted a group of youngsters as he’d ever encountered. "They really are swell, every one of them," he said.

So ends a uniquely Israeli story in this town of 21,000, situated a scant 18 miles west of the junction of the 101 and the 405. During the last two decades since incorporating, Agoura, first settled by the Chumash Indians, has evolved into a haimisch refuge for an unusual and accomplished community of Hebrew-speaking émigrés. But rather than ending in disaster, which is what generations of Israeli functionaries and Zionist pundits have predicted for those unfortunates enticed by the fleshpots of America, the 750 or so Israeli families who have settled here have, in fact, done quite nicely. Swell, indeed.

The unusual nature of the Israeli enclave in Agoura goes well beyond the emergence, or perhaps reconstitution, of an ersatz ethnic gang. Rather, these people can be said to reflect an Israeli riff on the American frontier experience. For these newcomers, the physical journey out of the Israeli enclaves of Fairfax or North Hollywood toward points west like Agoura, Calabasas and Westlake marks a psychic odyssey every bit as transformative as the decision that brought them to or caused them to remain in the United States.

By the time they settle here, for instance, many expatriate Israelis appear to have shed their compatriots’ widely observed propensity for straddling their suitcases. Rather than pining for the day when they can forsake the Land of Promise for the Promised Land, many of them, like longtime resident Raya Saggi, who runs the local public library, now believe that Agoura is the home they would be hard put to regain if they ever returned to Israel.

"It reminds me," Saggi told The Journal, "of Nes Tziona, as it was when I was growing up. And not just me. When they visit, my relatives all mention it."

No one knows why the first Israeli arrivals found themselves attracted to Agoura. Perhaps the rolling hills directly south of the freeway beckoned, offering ample space for annual Lag BaOmer bonfires and bow-and-arrow contests, Israeli customs and activities no longer feasible in the San Fernando Valley.

Or maybe there is just more space here for Israelis, who react poorly to some facets of organized Jewish life in this country, to devise a lifestyle more to their liking. In that sense, of course, they are not that different from earlier waves of Jewish immigrants from the East Coast. Rabbi Harold Schulweis, of Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, has often said that he came to the Valley because New York was simply too rigid and set in its ways to accommodate new approaches.

The Jew Crew notwithstanding, the children of these Israelis, in particular, have managed to avoid many of the confusions and pitfalls predicted for the offspring of people straddling two cultures. They might not think of themselves as American Jews per se, or, for that matter, as Israelis, in the classic sense of their parents or cousins. But their ties to the Jewish homeland, expressed not only at home through the presence of Hebrew but through participation in various extracurricular programs like the parent-run and -funded Alonim Hebrew school, remain sources of strength, not diffusion. And they show every sign not only of enduring, but of eventually transferring their heritage to succeeding generations.

The current Israeli Agourans not only retain their Hebrew but, as college approaches, hone it further for foreign-language college credit. Each summer, meanwhile, and for some, during spring break and Passover, planeloads of kids are whisked off to Israel, where the transition has become almost seamless. Clad in Sabra sandals and armed with the latest slang, the kids quickly look and talk and behave as if they own the place.

Their parents quickly realize, moreover, that MTV is everywhere, and that baggy pants and trashy talk have become universal affectations or afflictions even in Israel — especially in Israel.

Adolescents in Israel have been known as well to experiment with Ecstasy and other worrisome substances, behavior their parents believe will taper off once they begin their military service. Compared to them, and certainly to the offspring of other, perhaps less fortunate, ethnic communities in Los Angeles, the Hebrew-speaking youngsters of Agoura come across like fresh-scrubbed Jaycees even as some of them, lamentably, to be sure, try to put on homeboy airs. Small wonder, then, that some parents of the Jew Crew may have been slow to share Mark Capritto’s initial consternation.

Here, thanks largely to Chabad, Israelis can observe the holidays without having to join a synagogue or temple. The centrality of the synagogue, says Siggi Cohen, director of the 14-year-old Alonim afternoon school, otherwise remains the biggest impediment to local Israeli participation in American Jewish life.

"It just bugs the hell out of them," she says. "In Israel, if you want to pray, you walk down the street to the closest synagogue, and you pray. Here you have to commit thousands of dollars a year to an agenda that doesn’t reflect your values or priorities. They can’t understand it or accept it; it angers them, and so they turn away from the established, temple-going community."

They turn — insofar as their religious needs are concerned, at least — to Chabad, which is interesting, in light of the professed secularism of the community.

According to Cohen, though, this misses the point. In Israel, she says, most religious institutions are run by the Orthodox, who, in appearance and manner, are often indistinguishable from the Chabad emissaries they encounter here. In Israel, though, religious practices are often shoved down one’s throat. In America, they are extracted through synagogue-imposed tariffs. Here in Agoura, as indeed elsewhere, Chabad takes in all comers without running a credit check.

If Israelis are less than eager synagogue-joiners, it doesn’t mean that their commitment to Jewish life is inconsequential. Many Israeli residents of Agoura, for instance, funnel their children through a costly regimen of pre- and after-school programs. Preschoolers attend programs at the local Jewish community center, while elementary-schoolers frequently join Alonim, which supplements public schooling with a twice-weekly, quasi-secular Israeli curriculum.

The school has also evolved into a venue for parents, who frequently organize family activities centered on Sukkot, Simchat Torah, Purim, Lag BaOmer and other holidays that are observed somewhat less assiduously within the mainstream American Jewish community. Tuition per student runs from $90 to $135 a month, and each of these family-oriented shindigs, kumsitzes and other spectacles, many of which used to be held at the now defunct Fantasy Island banquet facility, can run up a substantial bill.

Once in middle school and high school, moreover, these kids often join Tzofim, the Hebrew scouting program still headquartered at the Valley Cities Jewish Community Center in Van Nuys, a commitment not only in money but in travel time. Others enroll in the University of Judaism’s Hebrew High School program, which maintains a campus on grounds rented by a local church. At a cost of several thousand dollars a year, the kids here supplement their Hebrew skills (which often don’t extend to fluency in reading and writing) with instruction in Jewish scripture, history, ethics, philosophy, and even film.

The high cost not only of living here but of maintaining an authentic Israeli lifestyle does not seem to have put a damper on newcomers, although local statutes limiting development have put a premium on housing stock. Indeed, the ability to live here without the hustle and bustle of Fairfax or the congestion, crime and decay afflicting some parts of North Hollywood may well be one of the main attractions.

Take Itamar Harari. A doctoral student in education at UC Santa Barbara, Harari and his American-born wife just bought a home in Agoura and plan to move in with their children during the summer.

In Santa Barbara, Harari said, the Israeli presence is limited, so that the arrival of a single family becomes an event. In Agoura, he hopes that the ubiquity of people sharing his language, culture and socioeconomic background will make for more normal and extensive interactions.

With other Israelis, that is.

Of course, the quest for normalcy has always been what Zionism is about. It will strike many of us now celebrating the Jewish state’s 53rd birthday as odd that some Israelis would have to travel halfway around the world and then another 45 miles up the road to find their own preferred brand of normalcy.

And yet the ability of émigrés to retain and pursue their connection with Israel attests to Israel’s own increasing normalcy. The Jewish state is sufficiently established, its economy more vibrant than that of many European countries, and its place in the world more assured than at any time in its history. Those who choose to leave, as a result, may do so without facing ostracism. And if, for many such people, Agoura represents the end of the road, that may be just the way they like it.

A Normal Israel, in Agoura Read More »

Identity Theft

How did I find myself at the Beverly Hills Police Department, eating an apple and crying?

It’s a long story. One I’m placing for now in my "Only in Los Angeles" file. Or perhaps it belongs in my "pending criminal cases" file.

It began, as few good crime stories do, at Kinko’s, where I left my driver’s license as collateral to do some color copying. Weeks later, I realized I had never retrieved it. Kinko’s no longer had it. I replaced the thing and thought nothing of it until a store I had never heard of accused me of using a bogus credit card to charge $3,000 worth of clothing.

A handwritten letter from the Melrose boutique threatened to report me and "take my kids away." I was confused. I have no children and had never been to the store. When I called, I found out that a woman came in with some kids, my driver’s license, a bogus story about using her dad’s credit-card number and a penchant for shopping. She stiffed the store for $3,000.

I called the cops, reported the identity theft, alerted the major credit-checking companies and assumed this was a one-time thing. I went along my merry way, committing a little crime I like to call voluntary denial.

Months later, I was bathing, listening to NPR and staring out at the moon through my bathroom window. A man came banging at my door. He screamed my name — or some version of my name known as Teri Susan Strasser — and demanded I open the door.

"You know who you are. Open the door, Teri!" he screamed. No one calls me Teri. Stalking and threatening me at my door late at night is one thing, but felony use of an irritating nickname is really a crime. Grand theft, dignity.

"Consider yourself served," he stage-whispered, flinging a subpoena through my mail slot and running through my front yard, flashlight in hand.

According to the document, I was being sued for nonpayment by a Beverly Hills doctor I had never met. I looked up the doctor on the Internet, paged him, and found out my identity-stealer had gotten cosmetic surgery as yours truly. So interesting was the case, the doctor had been approached by the show "Power of Attorney" to try the case on television.

I had to appear at the doctor’s office, display my face to prove he had never seen me and convince him to drop the case. He did so, and showed me a copy of my old driver’s license and the paperwork "I" had filled out, signed Teri Susan Strasser. It was creepy. She had used my address, a phony Social Security number and some credit card from Texas.

Then, it was off to the Beverly Hills cops to report the incident. I don’t even want to be me, I thought, quietly crying and eating an apple. Why would someone steal my identity?

They sent me to the Hollywood precinct, where a shoeless blond woman clutching a half-empty bottle of water squinted at me and asked, "Do you feel like you’re in a movie?"

I did, I suppose. A harried woman next to me was getting her zillionth restraining order and adding it to a thick file. I strained to overhear her story, which seemed far more interesting than mine.

As I explained the plastic-surgery incident to the desk cop — an officer with the eerie, unpleasant habit of smiling nonstop despite the lack of anything particularly funny — the shoeless woman shouted, "I’d give anything for a toothbrush!"

The officer said there was nothing more I could do.

It strikes me now that I’m jealous of my identity; my identity is living a better life than I am. My identity is out there living "La Vida Loca," shopping, nipping, tucking, getting a peel. She gets to be me without all the baggage or bills. She gets to be two-dimensional me, a piece of plastic with trouble and neuroses you could never detect from a photo. She’s just a toothy smile with decent credit.

I don’t know when she’ll strike next. I half expect a postcard from the Bahamas.

Teri, the weather’s great, wish you were here. Well, in a way, you are!

All the best,

Your identity

Being me has always had its ups and downs, and I’ve never thought there was anything so great about it. At this point, however, I just wish no one else was doing it.

Teri, you may not know it, but you are having a great time in Paris! Someone else’s driver’s license: it’s everywhere you want to be.

Your friend,

You.

Identity Theft Read More »

Peace and Processing

On a recent Tuesday even-ing, 24 hours before the arrival of Yom HaShoah, I attended a symposium in Jerusalem on a subject both intriguing and urgent: "To Acknowledge the Suffering of the ‘Other’: Religious Obligation, Psychological Challenge." The sponsor was Oz VeShalom-Netivot Shalom, a religious Zionist peace group. The moderator was a prominent religious feminist; the panelists, all male, were an eminent left-wing Orthodox rabbi and a well-known Muslim theologian-educator, both of them active in interfaith work; a "knitted-kippah" Jewish psychologist specializing in Holocaust trauma, and an Israeli Arab research psychologist who teaches at the Hebrew University. Here’s how the evening went:

The rabbi presented a wealth of rabbinic sources — enough for several seasons of uplifting sermons — extolling and mandating peace and compassion. There was a midrash on Genesis 31:8 showing that Jacob was more distressed about the prospect of taking life than afraid for his own life; a passage from Deuteronomy Rabbah forbidding the Jew to abhor the Egyptian; a Talmudic dictum (Tractate Beitzah 32b) that he who is not merciful is not a real Jew of the seed of Abraham; Maimonides’ ruling (Laws of Kings 10:12) that one must visit the sick even of idolators; and a raft of halachic opinions and responses by Palestinian (i.e. pre-State Jewish) chief rabbis prohibiting excessive military force and establishing the protected status of Christians and Muslims in the incipient Jewish polity. I found the rabbi’s words very inspiring and wrote down all the references. But, I wondered, what good are they when Arab gunmen fire at Gilo?

The Muslim educator, an Israeli citizen who holds positions at two leading Jewish institutions, began by recalling the respect in which Mohammed held those whom the prophet called "The People of the Book." He noted the widespread impression that Islam, when it comes to issues of war and peace, is mainly about jihad, holy war, conversion by the sword — but this, he said, is not so: the Koran has much to say in support of making peace, even with pagans and other nonbelievers. He pointed out, quite rightly, that the texts of all the great religious traditions can be adduced in support of war or peace, vengeance or accommodation. (Herein, I hardly need add, lies the root of so many of our troubles.)

"Both sides," the educator said in flawless Hebrew, "have suffered enough. Let’s not compete in counting the number of dead and wounded. The time has come to stop and ask, where are we galloping? I say this to the other side too. Both must hear a different music." And yet, he went on, can we speak of symmetry in our current situation? When Israel, in retaliation for Palestinian fire, destroys homes in Gaza, how many 5-year-olds will be left homeless? And where will that 5-year-old be when he is 25? This is how terrorists are born. "Can a people that presents itself as a ‘light unto the nations,’" he concluded, "close its eyes?"

The answer, of course, turns out to be yes. "I’m not so sure, said the Jewish psychologist, who was the next to speak, "that we always want to understand the suffering of the Other." He too, he conceded, sometimes feels self-protective, angry, violent. Israelis are "prisoners of unprocessed traumatic events" — the Yom Kippur War, the Gulf War — and "the black hole of trauma pulls everything into its vortex." Current events invoke past traumas, and trauma makes one narcissistic. We cannot see the suffering of others because we get caught up in our own experiences. We draw on religious metaphors — the eternal enemy Amalek, Jacob versus Esau, Isaac and Ishmael.

I sat there, trying to process this talk about processing. The Holocaust, as everyone knows, looms enormously in the Israeli consciousness. Can it ever be "processed"? Can Jewish fear ever melt away in the face of peace-mongering rabbinic prooftexts and Arab assurances?

Now came the Arab psychologist’s turn, and he told a story. Because I speak Hebrew perfectly, he said, I am often taken for a Jew. One day my car was in the shop and I took a cab from the Hebrew University to the garage. The driver said to me, there are two kinds of people I never pick up: alcoholics and Arabs. And how, I asked him, can you tell that a person is an alcoholic? I pull up a few meters ahead, said the cab driver, and I can see how he walks. Ah ha! And how can you tell if someone is an Arab? (The audience by now was on the edge of its collective chair.)

"That’s easy," the cabbie said. "By the smell."

"I’m sorry to tell you, but it would appear that your sense of smell has let you down today."

"What do you mean?" the cabbie said.

"I’m an Arab."

"No way," said the cabbie (let’s imagine him eyeing his passenger — suit, tie, no mustache, European demeanor — in the rear-view mirror, then pausing before speaking again). "Then you must be a good Arab."

You see, said the Arab psychologist, the driver could not change his mind about Arabs, so he had to make me into an exception. To ice the cake, when he got to his destination, he gave the cabbie a ten-shekel tip.

Where do we go from here? "We have no other country," said the Arab psychologist, employing a common Israeli expression. When both sides say this, they are right. We are engaged in a real dispute. Our problem is political, not emotional. Where do terrorists come from? They are the sons and grandsons of the refugees of 1948. But each side is inhibited from acknowledging the suffering of the Other for fear that such acknowledgment weakens one’s own claim on the land.

The only way out is to recognize that this isn’t so, that empathy doesn’t diminish your political rights. But to be empathetic, you have to know the Other, and Jews and Arabs — even Israeli Arabs — don’t. The Arab psychologist surveyed 300 Israeli Arab kids, ten- and eleven-year-olds, who reported their dreams. Only two or three had dreams with Jewish characters. (Palestinian kids in Gaza, on the other hand, I would guess, might have nightmares about Israeli soldiers and Jewish kids bad dreams about terrorists.)

Tolerance is OK, said the Arab psychologist, but it implies the Other is wrong. Pluralism is a step up, because it acknowledges value. Best of all is partnership, multiculturalism, "a feeling that without the Other your life would be missing something." This is a wonderful notion, and it is good — no, crucial — that people of good will can still sit together and discuss such ideas. But can Jews and Arabs ever again feel this way about each other? I would think they did in medieval Spain, and more recently in Casablanca and Alexandria — but that was then and this is now.

"Now" means the next night, Yom HaShoah, as millions of Israelis watched on TV the deeply moving ceremony held yearly at Yad Vashem. Holocaust survivors lit torches and their wrenching stories were told in video clips. And in the background, boom. Boom. BOOM. What is that? asked my kids.

A sonic boom, said my wife.

But we knew better. Yet another night of faceless violence. Israeli artillery pounding Palestinians in Bethlehem, a few kilometers down the road. Arabs shooting at Jews near Rachel’s Tomb, where the gentle matriarch weeps, as ever, for her children.

Peace and Processing Read More »

Bush Administration Feels Its Way

If you had to pick a word to summarize the mood among American Jewish leaders as they watch the Bush administration deal with surging Israeli-Palestinian violence, it is this: uncertainty.

President George W. Bush and his foreign policy team have been sending some extraordinarily positive signals to the government in Jerusalem and some less welcome ones as well. The pattern defies simple analysis, which is why so few Jewish groups objected to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s harsh comments last week labeling Israel’s response to Palestinian mortar attacks "disproportionate and excessive."

Readers of diplomatic tea leaves are getting migraines from their close study of the evolving U.S. response to the dangerous crisis, but any conclusions about policy shifts in the region are premature. Here are some of the factors that have produced such an unclear landscape:

An incomplete administration with an incomplete agenda.

Analyzing this administration’s Mideast policy is hard because that policy has not really been formulated, except for the obvious matter of using the Washington bully pulpit to urge moderation and sometimes chastise both sides when they seem to go too far.

And the people who will make that policy are still not all in place; a number of important appointments have yet to be confirmed.

The conclusions we draw today reflect a process that is in its earliest stages; it’s part analysis, part Ouija board.

Mixed signals about the extent of U.S. involvement in Arab-Israeli negotiations.

Israeli newspapers made much of the fact that Powell, in slapping Israel’s wrists last week, began a hasty retreat from the administration’s oft-stated desire to keep out of direct involvement in the troublesome Mideast.

Perhaps. But while Powell and his administration colleagues increased the level of official rhetoric, they did nothing to indicate they are prepared to get directly involved in coaxing the parties back to the table and then mediating their negotiations.

There were also reports that the administration is considering appointing a new Mideast envoy, and a few names were dropped.

But if this does happen — and it’s far from a done deal — sources here say the envoy will be far less influential than the recently retired Dennis Ross. Any new envoy will simply serve as an extension of Powell, who is said to want to put his personal time into other parts.

Robert J. Lieber, a professor of government at Georgetown University and a leading Middle East expert, said there is a hard-to-discern line between "promiscuous overinvolvement and dangerous detachment." The Bush administration, after Bill Clinton’s hyper-activism, "is trying right now to figure out exactly where that line should be," he said.

Confusion over Bush II vs. Bush I: it’s not déjà vu all over again.

True, many policy-makers are retreads from the first Bush administration, and once again the petro-connection is likely to be a factor in foreign policy.

But two things have changed.

The current administration players are much more sophisticated when it comes to the language of the Middle East and the sensitivities of the politically important Jewish community. It’s unlikely they will repeat the political blunders that touched off a major war between Jews and the first Bush administration in 1991.

More important, the situation in the region is very different.

The administration may dislike Israel’s settlements policies, but it’s no longer possible to argue that this is the major impediment to peace in the region — not after Yasser Arafat fled Camp David in panic when he was offered more than he ever expected.

Also, there are significant voices within this administration advancing positions that sound remarkably like those of the Likud leadership. Mostly at the Pentagon, they are not the primary forces in formulating Mideast policy, but it’s hard to deny that they have an impact.

Support for Sharon will be far from automatic in the new administration, but there is a much more solid base for good relations between the two allies than there was during Bush I.

Crisis management, not long-term policy-making.

With its team not fully in place and its foreign policy still being formulated and calibrated, the Bush administration — now just 100 days old — is focusing mostly on keeping the lid on the boiling Mideast pot, not on finding new routes out of the dangerous quagmire.

Expectations are low; nobody anticipates significant progress toward a final status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians any time soon. The most that many here hope for is interim agreements that will quell the violence and keep the turmoil from roiling relations with other regional allies.

That’s remarkably consistent with Sharon’s goals.

But if Israeli-Palestinian violence edges toward a real war of attrition, it may spill over.

To the extent that Sharon is seen as doing everything possible to keep this from happening, he will continue to get solid support from Washington, although not a green light for unlimited military action.

But if he is seen as overreacting to Palestinian provocation in ways that seem likely to draw in neighboring states, he risks a jarring end to what still looks like a diplomatic honeymoon in his relationship with Washington.

Bush Administration Feels Its Way Read More »

Straws in the Wind

Israelis have learned the hard way not to invest too many hopes in Yasser Arafat. Yet this week, despite the suicide bombing in Kfar Saba, the booby-trapped car in Or Yehuda, the renewed sniping at the Jerusalem suburb of Gilo, straws are wafting in the diplomatic wind.

Palestinian and Israeli emissaries, political as well as security, are talking to each other almost daily. Ariel Sharon and senior ministers now see an Egyptian-Jordanian peace plan, which they rejected out of hand barely a week earlier, as a basis for talks about talks, if not yet for resuming negotiations. So, apparently, does Arafat, who helped to draft it in the first place.

His Palestinian Authority is also floating a trade-off around Jericho. The casino, shelled by Israel in the early months of the intifada last fall, would reopen. Israel would allow its roulette-starved gamblers to pour their shekels once again into the Palestinian exchequer (and a few back pockets). In return, Arafat would guarantee security for Israeli settlers and drivers in the Jordan Valley.

On the military side, the Palestinian leader grudgingly condemned attacks on civilians, "Israeli and Palestinian," after Monday’s Or Yehuda car bombing. Earlier Arafat claimed to have arrested Hamas gunmen who fired mortars on Jewish communities in the Gaza Strip and across the border in the Negev desert. He ordered their comrades to stop the shelling.

Israel remained skeptical. "The test," said Sharon’s spokesman, Ra’anan Gissin, "is what happens on the ground. Words have to be followed by deeds." Perhaps it was all window-dressing, but the fact is there was a lull in the mortar firing.

Both Israelis and Palestinians are playing to an international, primarily an American, gallery. They want to appear moderate and flexible. They don’t relish being blamed for escalation that could drag the region, however reluctantly, into war.

The Bush Administration is no longer sitting on the sidelines. Secretary of State Colin Powell has said openly that Uncle Sam is involved, that Washington has a stake in stability. It is no coincidence that the renewed security talks have been taking place at the Herzliya residence of United States Ambassador Martin Indyk and that the CIA is at the table.

After so many other initiatives have failed to halt the mayhem, the Egyptian-Jordanian plan is the only game in town. The Americans, Europeans and U.N. are pressing it on the parties.

King Abdullah assured Israel this week that it was not a dictated solution. It could, he said, be changed through dialogue. The young monarch has his own reasons for persevering. "A continuation of the escalation," he confided, "could cause the wave of violence to wash over Jordan as well."

Although they continued to insist that Israel will not negotiate under fire, sources in Sharon’s bureau responded, "From the moment the Jordanians said changes could be made, we said this is definitely something we can talk about." Sharon is reported to have told the visiting Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel, "The initiative is important, but the formula is not good enough for us. It needs some changes."

The main points are: a cease-fire combined with an easing of the Israeli blockade on Palestinian communities; confidence building measures, including a freeze on settlement expansion; a renewal of security cooperation; and a resumption of negotiations for a final peace deal.

Sharon is hardly likely to swallow a settlement freeze, which he could not sell to his right-wing constituency. Nor does he believe a definitive peace agreement is attainable. He is still looking to a "long-term interim agreement." Nonetheless, diplomats have been asked to prepare a detailed Israeli response for Foreign Minister Shimon Peres to take with him on a scheduled visit to Washington next week.

Yet as Peres acknowledged during a trip to Cyprus this week, the psychological divide is deepening. Even dovish Israelis are ready to back harsh retaliation if Palestinian attacks persist. On the other side of the barricades, a new poll found 80.2 percent of Palestinians supporting a continuation of the intifada, a 10 percent increase since December. More than 62 percent supported "armed" as well as "popular" struggle, an 8 percent rise.

So far, then, there are only straws wafting in the wind. But watch this space.

Straws in the Wind Read More »

Coordinating Terrorism

As the United States and other Western powers try to reduce Israeli-Palestinian tensions, Iran moved this week to fan the flames.

In a bid to become the hub for anti-Israel activities, Iran invited Arab terror groups — including Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad — to a two-day meeting in Tehran to coordinate strategy against Israel.

The view from Tehran is that the anti-Israeli front should intensify its activities to take advantage of Israel’s present “state of instability and weakness.”

The conference brought together a “Who’s Who” of Israel’s enemies, yet it was greeted with relative indifference by Israeli officials. As far as they are concerned, Iran’s role as a backer of militant groups has been clear for some time.

Just the same, the militant powwow represented something of a success for Tehran.

A non-Arab country, Iran has for years tried to shift the focus of the struggle against Israel from the Arab world to the broader Islamic world and has positioned itself as Israel’s archenemy.

Until now, many Muslim countries have distanced themselves from Iran and its fundamentalist regime. At a conference of Islamic states last November, for example, Iran failed to get the attendees to take steps to isolate Israel on the world stage.

This week, however, lawmakers from 30 Islamic countries — including Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Yemen — attended the conference, which intended to increase coordination among the rejectionists instead of competition and make the struggle against Israel more effective.

Salim Zanoun, chairman of the Palestine National Council, and Ikrami Sabri, the top Palestinian Authority-appointed Muslim cleric in Jerusalem, were on hand at the Tehran conference to look after the P.A.’s interests.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, opened the conference Monday with a declaration that combat, not dialogue, was the way to deal with the Jewish state.

“The strength of Islamic resistance lies in its ability to wreak crushing blows against Israeli actions and not in relying on diplomatic efforts and mediation of others,” he said. “Supporting the Palestinian people is one of the important Islamic duties.”

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, often described as a relative moderate on domestic issues, showed that he is little different from the ayatollah when it comes to Israel.

“The oppressed people of Palestine,” he said Monday, are “the victims of Zionist discrimination and aggression.”

The organizer of the Tehran conference was Ali Akbar Mohtashami-Poor, a former Iranian ambassador to Syria who is considered one of the founding fathers of Hezbollah.

Menashe Amir, head of the Persian department of Israel Radio, said Mohtashami-Poor is a close associate of Khatami, whom Amir in turn described as “just as hostile toward Israel as the radicals in Tehran.”

While the Iranians were busy this week trying to make themselves the central address for attacks on Israel, they may have competition from an unexpected corner.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Ra’anan Gissin, claimed Tuesday that billionaire terrorist Osama bin Laden is trying to establish a “terrorist” infrastructure among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Gissin made the claim after Israel arrested a Gaza lawyer it suspects of involvement with bin Laden, whose terror operations are based in Afghanistan.

If true, this could represent the opening of a new chapter in terrorist attacks on Israel.

Coordinating Terrorism Read More »

Lieberman’s Next Story

I thought I saw Arthur Goldberg the other night at USC. The late Supreme Court justice died in 1990, but his ghost surely hung over the Trojan campus Wednesday during Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s speech at the Casden Institute for the Study of the Jewish Role in American Life. Two great men, two American Jewish leaders. What could they say to each other?

I think it’s this: Arthur telling Joe, you did right.

In 1962, Goldberg, whose name was once synonymous with "New Deal Liberal," became the fifth vote of the Warren Court majority; his logic gave us not only the right to counsel on appeal but the right of married couples to contraception, laying the groundwork for Roe vs. Wade.

Think about the connections: Goldberg’s father was a fruit-and-vegetable peddler; Lieberman’s ran a liquor store. Goldberg, with a lifetime appointment, was the highest-ranking Jewish official in America. Lieberman was a two-term senator from the state that gave us Abe Ribicoff. In 1965, Goldberg was 57, just a year younger than the Connecticut senator when he was named running mate by Al Gore.

He must have thought that time was on his side when Lyndon Johnson prevailed upon Goldberg to resign and become his ambassador to the United Nations, filling the vacancy left by the death of Adlai Stevenson. It’s said he thought he could end the Vietnam War. It’s said he thought later presidents would reappoint him. How can you turn down the president?

It would be the biggest mistake of his life.

Goldberg took the ambassadorship, but three years later, as Vietnam raged, he resigned. Goldberg ran unsuccessfully for governor of New York in 1968, then returned to private legal practice until his death. His career had luster, but never again shine.

There were many political observers last fall, and for a while I was among them, who forgot the lesson of Arthur Goldberg. They criticized Lieberman for failing to put 2,000 percent of himself into Gore/Lieberman 2000.

They wanted him to fall for flattering opportunity and a crack at destiny. Give up the bird in the hand for the one in the bush.

Lieberman did not. Practical politician, the un-Goldberg learning from history, he ran for both at once, the vice presidency under Al Gore and for his third term as Connecticut senator. This was likened to a man who wears both suspenders and a belt, overly cautious and self-serving. But considering Florida, and recalling Arthur Goldberg, of course, it turned out to be smart.

What would have happened had Lieberman listened to his critics, given the split in Congress? Good thing we’ll never know. But right away, we do know some things. For one, USC’s Town and Gown would have been empty rather than sold out. For another, W. himself would not be praising his would-be opponent for "putting aside the election" and working instead for education reform. Lieberman startled his audience on Wednesday refusing even a moment’s rancor. No more talk about being the party in "exile." He is, for the moment, the darling of the middle, his centrist Democratic Leadership Council position lodged strongly in values-based foreign and domestic policy.

Finally, the Christian Science Monitor would not be running editorials, as they did last week, comparing Lieberman’s career with JFK’s.

In learning from history, Lieberman becomes, in the words of Marlon Brando in "On The Waterfront," a "real contender."

At the Casden lecture last week, I met two filmmakers who are trying to tell the Lieberman story, however it turns out.

Ron Frank, whose documentaries include "The Eternal Road," the story of Kurt Weill’s opera and the fate of German Jewry, and "The Hunt for Adolf Eichmann," followed Lieberman along the campaign trail. He and his producer, Ann Benjamin, have a deal with Connecticut Public Broadcasting for a three-part series on 20th-century American Jewry. Lieberman’s story provides the centerpiece. They’re seeking completion funds for the project (frankprod@earthlink.net).

Frank tells me, "There’s a sense of Jewishness that he brings to the campaign trail, both an ethnicity and an American political sense.

"Win or lose, we still have a story to tell."

True, it’s a long time to 2004. But Goldberg would think it will be time well spent.

Lieberman’s Next Story Read More »