fbpx

August 15, 2002

Homeland Insecurity

"American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us," by Steven Emerson. (Simon and Schuster, $26).

In November of 1994, PBS aired nationwide an unforgettable documentary titled, "Jihad in America." Recognizing as it did — a year after the first attack on the World Trade Center — the concrete dangers posed by the radical Islam network beginning to burgeon in the United States, the film caused an upheaval in the perceptions of many viewers — just the reaction Steven Emerson wanted.

Emerson, an expert on terrorism and national security who serves as NBC’s terrorism analyst, has now followed up his 1994 film with a book that picks up where the film leaves off. "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us" describes how a network of organizations and radical Islamic institutions operate under the guise of cultural, welfare and charitable institutions, and describes the way these elements penetrate the heart of American society, taking advantage of its liberal democratic values. Delving through layers of camouflage, Emerson returns with a clear and frightening message about the spread of Islamic fundamentalist terror activists and their supporters throughout the United States.

"American Jihad" is more like two books than one. It is, first, a narrative detailing the personal anguish that Emerson experienced throughout his nonstop effort to expose a radical Islamic terror network in the United States. He relates, with the suspense of a Hollywood thriller, the initial research and reporting he did in preparation for his film. But it is also a textbook detailing Islamic institutions, figures and connections — a lexicon of Islamic fundamentalism in the United States that should be included in the library of every researcher, academic and security official interested in radical Islam. In fact, it is saturated with so many names, dates, facts and events that it leaves a reader wondering how to absorb the scope of the phenomenon and whether it is not, in fact, too late to fight it and win.

The West "deluded itself into the belief that militant Islamic fundamentalism could be contained," Emerson writes. But the events of Sept. 11 demonstrated how deadly wrong our preconceptions were and that those who described the activities of the radical Islam network as legitimate, quiet, religious and educational were mistaken — and misleading. According to Emerson, radical Islam fundamentalists see only one way to interpret the term "jihad." In the words of Osama bin Laden’s ideological mentor, Abdullah Azzam: "Whenever jihad is mentioned in the Holy Book it means the obligation to fight. It does not mean to fight with a pen or to write books or articles in the press or to fight by holding lectures."

But the threat from radical Islam is not the territory of only one man, bin Laden, or even of one organization, Al Qaeda. As Emerson makes clear, it is a worldwide network of fanatical Muslim terrorists who share a frightening ideology, the fundamental nature of which is to impose radical Islam on the world. (Emerson not only describes the phenomenon but also examines the motives of radical Islam and claims that "poverty and lack of opportunity have little or nothing to do with it.") The severe danger arising from these terrorists and their supporters is not limited to the extremity of their viewpoint — the belief that with terror attacks, they are fulfilling Allah’s commandments. There are more pragmatic dangers.

Most of the radical Islamic fighters are alumni of the Afghanistan War (1979-1989), during which they acquired fighting experience against what was, at the time, one of the world’s superpowers. They make use of the highly dangerous method of suicide attacks and have not concealed their readiness to use biological weapons and other unconventional substances. Moreover, they have a vast array of personal connections and relations, which not only inhibits penetration into their organizations, but also facilitates the perpetration of coordinated terror attacks worldwide. And this network is dispersed all over the world — in the Arab states but also in the West, and particularly in the United States.

Emerson focuses on penetration and activities in the United States today of the three most dangerous terror organizations — Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda. As it turns out, the United States serves as a convenient platform for the enlistment and training of activists, for fundraising and, as we’ve so tragically seen, as a stage for terror attacks.

It would appear that U.S. citizenship, or even exposure to Western liberal values, is no guarantee of moderation. In fact the opposite is true. Emerson confirms that among the radical Muslims who today shout "Death to America" are "highly sophisticated Westernized intellectuals." Those who did not heed Emerson’s last warning, offered in his 1994 film, should heed his new one, that radical Islam is enlisting members from the ranks of U.S. citizens. This phenomenon was revalidated this spring when an American citizen, Jose Padilla, was exposed as allegedly planning a radiological attack with a "dirty bomb."

Similarly, Emerson points to the disturbing phenomenon of radical Islamic elements penetrating the ranks of American institutions of higher education. As an example, he contends that the University of South Florida (USF) is in danger of becoming a bastion of the terror organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group that perpetrates suicide bombings and other terror attacks in Israel. At USF, academic sponsorship has served as a convenient background for the enlistment of activists and supporters, for the raising of funds and the brainwashing of many young Americans. It has become, according to Emerson, a potential hothouse for the cultivation of the organization’s leadership.

A case in point is Ramadan Shallah, who in his capacity as adjunct professor of Middle Eastern studies at USF, was invited to brief military commanders at the U.S. Air Force base at MacDill near Tampa. Today, Shallah is head of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad — only one example of how these radical factions have been invited, in their academic guise, to lecture to policymakers and the U.S. security establishment, thereby trying to spread their doctrine to important places.

As Emerson makes clear, Hamas and Jihad activists have used the United States as a haven for the initiation, planning and organization of attacks in Israel. Still, many American citizens approach the idea of Palestinian Islamic terror elements in the United States with the false assumption that they are solely an Israeli problem — an internal threat only to the people of Israel. By exposing just how Palestinian organizations such as Hamas use their infrastructure in the United States to plan attacks against American targets, Emerson shows the folly of such a view.

The last chapter in Emerson’s book is devoted to the fight against radical Islamic terrorism in the United States, stressing the commitment of moderate Islam to fight fanaticism. Emerson applauds those exceptional Muslims in the United States — such as Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, head of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, or Muslim scholar Khalid Duran — who do not ignore the severity of the threat, and who do their best to draw the attention of U.S. decisionmakers to the dangers posed by radical Islamic groups.

Emerson’s book illustrates how hard this fight is, and how helpless and unmotivated the U.S. security establishment was in understanding the scope of the threat before it was able to take root in American society. He criticizes the American security establishment, particularly the FBI, for its inability to identify the enormity of the danger in advance, a failure partially explained by the absence of appropriate legislation to enable American security forces to penetrate these organizations and institutions, and to keep a close eye on their modus operandi.

As the book makes clear, lessons must be learned from the lethargy that characterized American policy after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, and we must memorize Emerson’s contention about the second one: "Since Sept. 11, 2001, everything has changed and yet nothing has changed. The only difference between Feb. 26, 1993, and Sept. 11, 2001, is that there are 3,500-odd more people dead. We are still vulnerable. We have only a short time to prevent the next chapter from unfolding."

Homeland Insecurity Read More »

Ending on a Musical Note

When Brandeis-Bardin Institute (BBI) holds its summer concert on Aug. 18, it will be a bittersweet occasion for cellist David Low. The BBI artistic director has overseen the summer concerts for 12 years, and is now leaving to spend more time with his wife and children, and to pursue his music career in the film industry.

The last summer concert, to be held outdoors at BBI’s hillside House of the Book, will feature The New Hollywood String Quartet performing Bernard Hermann’s memorable scores for Alfred Hitchcock classics such as "North by Northwest" and "Psycho." The chamber orchestra, 13 players including Low on the cello, will be led by Lucas Richman, long associated with Brandeis-Bardin and now assistant conductor of the Pittsburgh Symphony.

Low, 39, came to BBI straight out of Juilliard and has been BBI’s artistic director since 1989. Simultaneously, his work as a music contractor and a musician for film and television has slowly come to dominate his career. He has worked as a musician on 400 film scores, including "Schindler’s List," the "Jurassic Park" films, "Titanic" and "Minority Report," and will soon work on the new "Star Trek" motion picture.

Low was born in Israel, but by the age of 3 had moved to Van Nuys. The son of veteran Jewish Journal contributing writer Yehuda Lev, Low says he was inspired by his father to become active in Jewish life. "When I was young it was amazing to hear him do public speaking," Low says.

During his reign as artistic director at BBI, Low has overseen summer concerts every year, which in the past have included Israeli groups such as Esta, and singers David Broza and Shlomo and Neshama Carlebach.

At BBI, Low says he has enjoyed being able to perform and help educate open-minded audiences. "The weirdest thing is to have a 17-year-old come up and say, ‘Oh, I remember you. You played in my bunk when I was 8.’"

He is not really leaving BBI. "You can only do so many jobs," he says, then adding, "I couldn’t have done what I’m doing now without the experience of working there. My relationship will always be with BBI. It will just change."

Ending on a Musical Note Read More »

7 Days In Art

Saturday

Julius may have inspired Shakespeare and a pizza chain, but Sid made millions laugh with “Your Show of Shows” and “Caesar’s Hour.” Tonight, you’ve got good reason to stay in, as KCET presents “The Sid Caesar Collection.” The documentary includes sketches from both shows and interviews with some of the greats who worked behind the scenes: Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, Neil Simon and Carl Reiner. You can even order in some pizza! pizza! should you feel so inspired.
7-8:30 p.m. KCET. For more information, go to www.kcet.org.

Sunday

OK, here’s the dish: the Skirball Cultural Center is calling all foodies. If you like to eat (Hey, you are Jewish, aren’t you?) head over for its Food Festival, celebrating the international cuisine and cultures of Los Angeles. There’s plenty to keep you busy, including food and wine tastings, cooking demonstrations and activities for the kids. If you’re like us, you plan to glutton yourself on all of it. So break out the elastic waistband pants and we’ll see you there!
11 a.m.-4 p.m. $8 (general), $6 (seniors and students), free (members and children under 12). (Additional fees for food and wine tastings.) Bring a can of food for donation and receive $1 off admission. 2701 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles. For reservations, call (323) 655-8587.

It’s hard to relate personally to news headlines about places so removed from our backyards. But Leora Krygier brings it home in her new novel. Set against the backdrop of the San Fernando Valley, “First the Raven” is the story of Amir, an Israeli ex-paratrooper struggling with life as a veteran of two Middle East wars and the first intifada. Krygier signs her book at Dutton’s Brentwood Bookstore today.
2 p.m. 11975 San Vicente Blvd., Los Angeles. For more information, call (310) 476-6263.

Monday

Poor Danny Simon. He’s always being compared to his more famous younger brother, Neil. And with his play, “The Convertible Girl,” he committed an unfortunate and unforseeable faux pas in his choice of name for his main character. We feel bad that Danny makes us think of Neil, and that his character Ron Goldman makes us think of O.J., especially since “The Convertible Girl” sounds like a darling little play. So cut him a break and check out the show tonight at the Beverly Community Theatre.
7:30 p.m. Runs through Aug. 20. $15 (general), $10 (seniors and students). 241 Marine Drive, Beverly Hills. For reservations, call (310) 551-5100, ext. 8459.

Tuesday

You may have to get over feeling resentful of Ben Gleiberman first, but once you do, you’ll agree the kid is talented. Barely out of college, the Jewish ex-frat boy known fondly as “Gleib,” hosts “Gleib’s College Comedy,” the Laugh Factory’s regularly sold-out Tuesday night show. And hey, don’t hate him because he’s funny. He may just be able to give you a job some day.
9:30 p.m. $10 (plus two-drink minimum). Must be 18+. 8001 Sunset Blvd., Hollywood. For reservations, call (323) 848-2800.

Wednesday

The Danube River was a passageway for fleeing Jewish refugees and Bessarabian Germans returning to the fatherland in 1939 and 1940. As a ferryboat operator on the Danube and an amateur filmmaker, Capt. Nándor Andra sovits both witnessed and documented these contrary departures. His films have become the springboard for the Getty Center’s “The Danube Exodus: The Rippling Currents of the River,” an interactive video installation comparing what artist Peter Forgacs calls, “The incomparable duet of the German Jewish exodus.”
10 a.m.-6 p.m. (Sundays and Tuesday-Thursday), 10 a.m.-9 p.m. (Fridays and Saturdays). Runs Aug. 17-Sept. 29. Free. For more information, call (310) 440-7300.

Thursday

You started out the week with Sid Caesar and spent your Tuesday with Gleib. Now it’s time to school yourself on all those funny Jews who’ve paved the way in between. Tonight, writer and humorist Arie Kaplan discusses, “Wizards of Wit: How Jews Revolutionized Comedy in America.”
7:30 p.m. $10 (general), $5 (students), free (members). Skirball Cultural Center, 2701 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles. For reservations, call (323) 655-8587.

Friday

Those of us not of the Catskills generation still remember that, “nobody puts Baby in the corner.” Now Murray Mednick has created a new story about a Jewish resort in the Catskill Mountains, this one set in 1948. And while there’s no dirty dancing in this play, “Fedunn” does promise plenty of nostalgia and family drama.
8 p.m. (Thursday-Saturday), 3 p.m. (Sunday). Runs through Oct. 13. $25. Odyssey Theatre, 2055 S. Sepulveda Blvd., West Los Angeles. For reservations, call (310) 477-2055.

7 Days In Art Read More »

Iraq Attack

I don’t want to give away any secrets here, but guess what? America may be planning a surprise attack on Iraq — in fact, even as you read this, the "secret" war plans might have gone into effect.

Whether the bid to unseat Saddam Hussein and dismantle his suspected nuclear weapons arsenal is a good idea for America largely depends on the effectiveness of the campaign. The last one went well, yes? The war to end all wars. On one hand, we had relatively few casualties (less than 150), but on the other, we’re back to square one, except for the fact that since he survived the Persian Gulf War 10 years ago, Saddam doesn’t seem to be afraid of America. Perhaps he’s just posturing, maybe he’s insane — or both?

"The forces of evil will carry their coffins on their backs, to die in disgraceful failure, taking their schemes back with them, or digging their own graves, after they bring death to themselves on every Arab or Muslim soil against which they perpetrate aggression, including Iraq, the land of jihad and the banner," Saddam told the Iraqi people in an Aug. 8 speech marking the 14th anniversary of the Iran-Iraq war.

But just because the man is bellicose, doesn’t mean America has to attack. And just because the father did a poor job, doesn’t mean the son shouldn’t try to put things right. (Maybe someone should remind W. of the biblical verse: "The sins of the father should not be visited upon the son.") But there has to be better reasons than a competitive father-son relationship and a love of all things military in order to go to war.

Of course, there are reasons to attack. Iraq may be building a cache of nuclear/biological weapons so powerful that this might be our last chance to attack. The evidence is not clear. It is also unclear whether an attack at this time would be good for America. Would it detract from the War on Terror (or is it the War on Terror)? Do other world powers support it? Could Americans suffer another war, with many more casualties on both sides?

Questions like these are being debated now in Washington and international circles, in this surrealistically public debate over the pros and cons of war on Iraq.

But, we have to ask the usual questions:

Is it good for the Jews?

Is it good for Israel?

"Why should it be a Jewish or Israeli issue?" Morris Amitay, a pro-Israel activist and former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "We should stay patriotic as the next guy, but not be out front."

The reasons that the Jewish community is staying relatively quiet (for Jews, anyway) are manifold (see story p. 28).

"If the Jewish community has been quiet, it may reflect the fact that there is no particular Jewish angle to a policy matter with national and global implications," said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee.

Who are they kidding? Clearly a war on Iraq has a Jewish angle and it is an Israeli issue. No. 1, Hussein might be supplying biological weapons to Palestinian terror networks, so that they might injure Israeli and American targets. That’s what the Times of London reported last week, based on government documents passed on to Prime Minister Tony Blair and senior officials. No. 2, the elimination of Iraq would lift a great burden off of Israel. And, No. 2a, it could help Israel with the Palestinians, because of the financial aid Saddam gives to Palestinian terrorist groups and the families of suicide bombers.

Israel, of course, could benefit from the end of the Iraqi threat, but let me remind you what it was like the last time America attacked.

While the Americans were sitting on their couch watching the birth of CNN and a new war-time coverage — Didn’t it sort of feel like color war or celebrity boxing? Removed and adrenaline-inducing at the same time — Israelis were running in and out of their cheder atum, their sealed rooms, struggling with their gas masks, quarantines and defenselessness.

They were defensively crippled, in possession of the capability to retaliate, but refraining because America wanted to handle it on its own.

Now it wouldn’t be any better. In fact it could be much, much worse.

Much in the way that America distances Israel in order to gain allies in its war on terror, America probably wouldn’t want Israel to defend itself again. But Israeli officials have stressed that they will indeed retaliate if targeted.

And although Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Tuesday that Iraq is the greatest threat facing Israel, one has to wonder if he’s just hoping to take the focus off his own military operations.

That hope could backfire if the White House, seeking international support, links Iraq to progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In addition to the military considerations, I’m not sure the morally depleted Israeli community could handle being attacked from Iraq as well.

Back in 1991, Israelis ran to sealed rooms and then returned to normal life after the safe siren sounded. But now, after two years of the Al-Aksa Intifada, where Israelis just barely feel safe in their own homes, having to dodge Iraqi Scud missiles may not be the best thing, to say the least.

The United States may be justified in attacking Iraq. And that attack might benefit Israel in the long-run. But in the short-term, it might not.

And that’s what Jewish leaders are not willing to say. What’s good for America is not always what’s good for Israel.

So which do you choose?

Iraq Attack Read More »

Friends

One glorious sunny day, my girlfriend "C" and I share a seaside restaurant table with a married couple, call them Harry and Sylvia.

Harry gazes at Sylvia with such a glow. I tingled with memory.

"What a look!" I say to Sylvia, while Harry goes to the pickup window for their order. "He seems to love you so much."

"I didn’t notice," she says.

Only a second before, I thought the sun rose in his eyes. I wanted for myself what Harry gives Sylvia. I kiddingly consider placing a personal ad: "Done with chemo. Are you man enough for me?"

It was just a thought.

Harry returns, followed by C, with our own fish orders. It’s so easy to read bliss into marriage, especially if you’re single and imagine that fate cut you short.

Romantic ideals mislead us into regressing into the heroism of King Arthur; that one person can fulfill all needs, not only providing companionship in good times, but compassion during the bad. Long love means ancient patience, selflessness and a willingness to read medical charts and search for Web sites on new experimental solutions; on such myths is domestic rancor born.

Meanwhile, we don’t see the light in our loved one’s eyes.

With friendship, we suffer no such delusions; gladly, we share the tasks with as many as are willing.

Over time, with each of my friends I have forged marriage-like bonds, comfortable and committed. C won’t let me get up to get an extra tartar sauce. We go back more than 30 years, to the days when designer Perry Ellis was alive.

"My friends take turns staying with me," I tell Sylvia. "They hardly leave me alone."

"You’re lucky," she says. "All my friends are dead."

I’ve lived 15 years without a husband. But I wouldn’t last a week without my friends.

Disease makes the distinctions between marriage and friendship all the clearer. One man, no matter how good, can only do so much. It takes an e-mail list to heal a woman.

Friendship is the harvest of living. How valuable is the crop.

There is an economy among friends, much like setting the interest rate. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan weighs the financial growth of the nation using job expansion, consumer confidence, unemployment.

So life, too, has its own complex "economic indicators." Health, friendship, intimacy, creativity, finance, shelter, spirituality.

Through these, I assess my own personal treasury, deciding how much to rely on each factor. Whatever my troubles, in terms of friends, there is a strong, good yield.

This week’s Torah portion, KiTetze, contrasts the conflicts of marriage to the obligations of friendship.

In marriage, the Torah warns that anything can go wrong. Love starts strong, but can wither. Passion can lead to divorce, and with it comes the obligation to a lovelorn child. No wonder so much space is devoted to care of the orphan, the widow and the stranger, those who suffer innocently when marriage ends.

Friendship expects less, yields more. Even distant friends must be treated like brothers. My favorite of this week’s biblical passages suggests that if you see a fellow’s ox has fallen on the road, don’t ignore it; help him raise it.

Friendship depends on the raising up of each other, on being there for the visits and the comfort. Knowing when to act and when to leave.

A few weeks ago, when my body weight was at its ninth-grade low, my buddies assigned themselves the task of putting meat on my bones.

Some of them did the shopping. Others the cooking. Still others sat with me during the torture of watching me clean my plate, while I was learning once again to swallow.

They didn’t ask my permission. Good thing, too. I couldn’t speak, but I was tempted to say "no thanks." Part of me rebelled, another part dripped with ego. I was the ox that had fallen. I needed raising up.

My friends were my mirror, and I let them reflect back at me. I needed feeding.

Soup, salmon and ice cream help gain weight faster than false pride.

"Be tranquil," the sages say. "If there is anything needed, my friend will see it and do it for me."

Friends Read More »

Losing the War for the Temple Mount

While the military conflict between Israel and the Palestinians continues, there is one war the Jewish state appears to have lost — without even a struggle.

That is its claim to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and the Jewish people’s connection to the First and Second Temples as the holiest site in Judaism.

Though it is hard to imagine, the fact is that the Waqf, the Muslim religious authority that controls the Temple Mount (thanks to Israel’s post-Six-Day War beneficence), has been quietly and steadily undermining Jewish connections to the area without any serious protest by the Sharon government. Over a period of time, and more aggressively in the last two years, the Waqf has literally bulldozed away historical proof of Temple artifacts in the area, carrying out extensive excavations in violation of Israel’s antiquity laws. Clearly, the political goal of the Waqf is to remove evidence of any Jewish connection to the holy site and introduce Muslim ties as part of the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem as its capital.

Ian Stern, an American-born tour guide in Jerusalem, recently gave a series of lectures in the New York area, complete with photo slides, to call attention to the travesty of science, religion and history taking place in the Old City. He offered photos and other proof of the Waqf blatantly and illegally carting away thousands of tons of "debris" from the Temple area, some of which has been found to contain large columns and other relics dating back to the Temple period. He showed how the Waqf has paved over ancient stones indicating Israel’s ties to the spot and brought in water from Mecca to sanctify the site to Muslims. It is only a matter of time, he said, until the southern wall of the Temple Mount will collapse due to a water problem unless repairs are made.

As many in the audience expressed outrage and wonder, Stern patiently explained that, alas, this information is not new, and that the successive governments of Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon have allowed these violations to continue without raising any serious objection, even though Israelis from left to right and secular to ultra-Orthodox are united in their outrage.

Why, Stern was asked repeatedly, does Israel allow this to go on, particularly in light of the symbolic and political ramifications of undoing the Jewish presence at the Temple Mount? For this he had no satisfying answer, nor do historians and politicians, other than the most obvious: that Israel is fearful of the international Muslim reaction if the Jewish authorities were to stop the Waqf’s illegal actions.

How else do you explain why protests are ignored from the Committee for the Prevention of the Destruction of Antiquities on the Temple Mount, made up of prominent Israelis from all walks of life, including former Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek, leading archaeologists and academics, as well as legal experts and writers like A.B. Yehoshua. Also fruitless have been Knesset votes and a 1993 Supreme Court ruling citing numerous Waqf violations as illegal and historically harmful. Still no Israeli government has acted.

Surely one would think that international outrage could be focused on the Waqf’s activities: much as the world condemned the Taliban in Afghanistan several years ago for destroying ancient Buddhist columns of great historical value.

Perhaps one could argue that in the scheme of things in Israel today, with women and children being targeted and suicide bombers on the loose, raising a ruckus about the displacement or even destruction of old stones is not a priority. But on the contrary, the Waqf’s archaeological crimes speak to the heart of the conflict, of the Arab unwillingness to recognize Israeli sovereignty of the Old City and even to acknowledge Jewish historical ties to the land. How can there be parity and mutual respect between two ancient peoples sharing a land when the Arabs insist the Jews are modern-day usurpers who appeared a little more than 50 years ago on the scene and evicted them from their homes? The brazen refusal to admit that the Jewish people have historic ties to the land underscores the Arab emphasis on ideology over reality and hatred over compromise.

It is understandable why so many Jewish leaders, religious and otherwise, have second-guessed Moshe Dayan’s decision 35 years ago to cede control of the Temple Mount area to the Waqf as a Muslim holy site.

"Handing over the keys of the Temple Mount to the Waqf was a major historic mistake over which generations will weep," noted Israel Meir Lau, Israel’s chief rabbi.

The only thing we can do is raise our voices about this matter, letting the Sharon government know that its uncharacteristic quiescence on this matter is unacceptable and harmful to Israel and Jewish history. We should be joined by historians, archaeologists, legal experts and others with a sense of fairness and a concern about the truth, putting pressure on the Waqf to cease their unholy quest to make the Temple Mount area historically Judenrein.

For centuries, Jews have prayed daily for the rebuilding of Jerusalem; the least we can do today is insist that our holiest site not be undermined.

Losing the War for the Temple Mount Read More »

What’s in a Name?

Eric, Matt and Chris are three musicians who refuse to give away their last names. But if you guessed it was out of a lack of ethnic pride, you’d be wrong.

"I’m a pretty high-profile Jew, whether I like it or not," says singer-songwriter Eric. "It’s hard to hide when you’re in a band called JEW."

Priding itself on its pop rock, JEW has been generating some buzz with its name and its music. "Don’t Speak French" got some alternative rock station rotation this year. In May, JEW scared up good press while performing at Las Vegas’ EAT’M Festival.

The unsigned band was working out of a Hollywood studio with a producer on the then-untitled tune, "Threw Your Love Away," when The Journal caught up with them earlier this year. Their demo’s other tracks include the brooding, Nirvana-esque "Notice Me" and the 1980s pop-influenced "12/31" and "Sugarfly."

"If you put us in a mix tape with songs of the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s, we fit right in," Eric says of his relationship-obsessed songs.

Not bad for a band whose guitarist had no musicianship several years ago.

"I couldn’t even hold a guitar," says Eric, a former personal trainer who was taught an unorthodox technique by Guitar World editor-in-chief Brad Tolinski in exchange for some fitness instruction.

"He told me, ‘You’ll literally be able to play in two weeks,’" Eric says.

"Nobody plays guitar the way I play. I couldn’t play a bar chord if you put a gun to my chest. Subsequently that’s what makes our sound so different."

"I’ve always been enamored by his drive and his naivete," says JEW’s drummer, Chris. "He’ll walk into a room and ask a musician, ‘What chord is that?’ and they’ll give him this look. Eric never has that kind of guard. It catches people off guard and it’s very disarming."

Eric grew up in Farmington, Maine, where he says he was the only Jew in school.

"[My parents] had this mutual dream of living in the woods in Maine. It was a great upbringing, but the one thing that I missed was any strong Jewish culture experience."

Oddly enough, Chris — the obvious non-Jew of JEW — had a mirror-image upbringing.

"In Potomac, Md., I was one of three goys in the neighborhood," Chris says. "When I was 13, I went to bar mitzvahs all [the] time. I knew how to make hamantaschen and I sang ‘Hava Nagila.’"

In 1995, Eric and Chris met in New York and formed an early version of JEW. By 1998, they found themselves in Los Angeles, where Chris has become something of a polyhyphenate — acting on TV series such as "Beverly Hills, 90210" and "Homicide" playing "rednecks and yuppies," and getting three screenplays optioned, including one with Danny DeVito’s Jersey Films. Eric and Chris later met up with Matt, an old friend from their New York days who describes himself as "a total Jersey suburb Jewish kid." Shortly before New Year’s 2001, JEW — with Matt on bass — was born again as an L.A. band with a Viper Room show.

One of the band’s key attractions is its name, which JEW’s non-Jew has no problem with.

"People who will normally breeze by the name, get more involved with it," Chris says.

Eric adds, "I came up with it because the word is bold and powerful. In certain cases it’s a drawback, and in certain cases it’s been a positive. One [record company executive] told me, ‘I’ve had a hundred demos and the only reason I chose it was because it had the word JEW on it.’ But I also got a call two days ago from a high-powered manager who felt that the music was great, but was unwilling to work with us unless we changed our name."

"If we do," Eric continues, "it loses its fun and edge. We have no intention of changing it. JEW is here to stay."

What’s in a Name? Read More »

Ethics and Warfare

This week’s Torah portion opens with a fascinating topic: the psyche of a soldier at war, and the ethical boundaries that even a soldier must observe.

KiTetze la’milchama: "When you go out to war … and you take captives and see among the captives a beautiful woman…."

The Torah is so keenly aware of the soldier’s necessary aggression. It recognizes that the soldier is fighting for his life, that any moment could be his last and that he is naturally experiencing many powerful emotions and desires. The results of what soldiers do to captive women is evident in all kinds of military conflicts — from the pervasive and horrific reports of rape during the conflict in Yugoslavia, to all of the fatherless children left behind by American soldiers in war zones like Korea and Vietnam.

The Torah not only acknowledges, but confronts this difficult reality of war. It allows the soldier to take this eishet yefat toar (captive, desired woman) as a wife, but only after a month’s time. She is to spend that month in his home, removing the trappings of beauty that initially enticed him, mourning her separation from her own family. If, at the end of that time, he still desires her and she is willing to convert, he is allowed to marry her. If his passion abated during that time, he is strictly forbidden to sell her or keep her as a servant and must set her free.

In other words, the Torah allows the warrior his aggressions, but denies him the right to act without keeping his morals, his very humanity, in check.

"Ethics of warfare" sounds like an oxymoron, but in fact it has been a relevant and significant issue since the creation of the State of Israel. It is not only a recurring subject discussed in military forums, but tohar haneshek (purity of arms) is studied by young men and women as part of their high school curriculum. Israel’s bravest and finest are prepared at the outset for the moral challenges they will inevitably face as soldiers actively engaged in mortal combat.

Countless stories are told, and documented, that show how this "antiquated" rule of war is very much alive and well in our generation. During the summer months of the war in Lebanon, when Israeli troops were putting their lives on the line protecting Northern Israel from Katyusha rocket attacks, they came across fertile fields blooming with cherries. One battalion unit in particular refrained from eating any of the enticing fruit. Never mind that they were hungry, exhausted and fearful. Never mind that the produce belonged to a nameless, faceless enemy. They simply felt that they had no legal or moral right to take what wasn’t theirs. They acted according to their moral compass, overcoming the natural emotions of a soldier at war.

When the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) entered the Palestinian Authority-controlled towns in the West Bank after suicide attacks in April, their mission was to root out terrorists and destroy terror factories. This could have been accomplished with air strikes, and the soldiers involved would have been safe from snipers and booby traps. But the army chose instead to send in ground troops, despite the greater risks and inevitable loss of soldiers. Never mind that the terrorists hid among the civilians. Never mind that even the children on the other side could carry out deadly attacks. They made the moral calculation that it was better to put themselves in greater danger if it meant that they could minimize the danger to the civilian population on the other side. The IDF acted according to their moral compass, overcoming the natural instincts of soldiers at war.

An unbelievable report surfaced a short time ago telling of the Palestinians’ refusal to accept donations of blood — Jewish blood — that the army had provided for their wounded. Instead of leaving the "enemy" to suffer the consequences of their refusal, the army used their own money and manpower to acquire blood from Jordan. Never mind that an army is going above and beyond its obligations to provide any blood at all, let alone an alternate source. Never mind that the enemy was stubbornly and stupidly risking the lives of its own people. IDF soldiers value life, no matter whose life it is. The army acted according to its moral compass, overcoming the natural instincts and emotions of soldiers at war.

The Torah teaches us that we must protect our integrity, even in the midst of a brutal war. These and countless other examples of the high moral standards that are standard for the IDF give me one more important reason to take pride in the work of our young men and women who bravely defend our homeland and act as "a light unto the nations." If soldiers can maintain their values and ethics in the heat of the battle, then I am hopeful that peace has a chance, and that the battle can be won.

Ethics and Warfare Read More »

‘Literati MeetsGlitterati’

"Will Kevin be there?" my friend Jodi asked when I invited her to my upcoming book party at Dutton’s.

Oh, no, I thought. Not again.

It used to be that literary launch parties were about books, not boys. They were a chance for like-minded lit lovers to commune amid dusty bookshelves, to meet the author and — in the benighted days before signed editions sold for big bucks on eBay — snag a personalized copy for posterity.

But at the Dutton’s gathering for my first book, "Stick Figure: A Diary of My Former Self," I watched with amazement as junior high gender jockeying took centerstage: awkward flirtations, too-loud laughter, spats over who’d spotted the buxom brunette "first." Could my book’s subject matter — my adolescent diaries — have somehow inspired this regressive behavior?

After all, at an event reputed to be a bastion of bohemia, my normally low-key gal pals were suddenly sporting glossy lipstick and push-up bras, while my cool-as-a-cucumber guy friends frantically tossed out paper scraps, like pieces of confetti, scrawled with phone numbers. Two weeks later, when "Stick Figure" made the Los Angeles Times best-seller list, four pairs of friends called to say — squeal! — congratulations before reporting that they’d begun — squeal! squeal! — dating.

At the time, I believed both the best-seller status and the hookups had been a fluke.

Then I started telling folks about this month’s Dutton’s party for my latest book, "Inside the Cult of Kibu." It wasn’t just Jodi who inquired about Kevin’s attendance. It was Kevin who pressed me about Lisa’s R.S.V.P., and Lisa who coyly asked if David would be "in town" that evening. David, in turn, wanted to know if Amy planned to show up sans "the ornery boyfriend she’d been on the rocks with" while Amy more tactfully wondered whether Michael had "bought the book yet."

Finally, I confronted my friends. "This is a publishing party!" I reminded them. "If you want me to set you up, I’m happy to play yenta. You two can grab a latte. Alone."

Not so, they insisted. Between work and Whole Foods, Tae Bo and tennis night, no one seems able to program a Palm with individual coffee dates. In our time-compressed lives, we’ve reduced reading to Internet hyperlinks and compacted chemistry into quickie first-second impressions.

Embodying the cliche about judging a book by its cover, we’ve bought into the nifty online profile, the book party as gawking event. But maybe we’re overlooking the "book" itself.

I tried this logic on my friends. Unimpressed, they replied with two words: speed dating.

"All your eligible single friends will be in the same room for an hour — and they’re prescreened by you!"

Before I could utter, "Oy vey," the suggestions came pouring in: "You should send out an Evite so we can see who’s coming." "Maybe you should get JDate to sponsor the event." And the perennial Jewish girl’s lament: "Are you sure you want to have it in the courtyard? Our hair might frizz in the humid nighttime air."

The more I insisted that this wasn’t a meat market, the more people became noncommittal about attending. "We’re marking the occasion of my publication! This isn’t a primping-fest!" I whined before announcing that I wouldn’t stand for a "literati meets glitterati" party.

Predictably, the number of takers dwindled. Soon my earnestness turned to shameless self-promotion: Hoping that the book’s merits would serve as incentive, I quoted reviews calling it "hilarious" and "gossipy" and recited the blurb declaring that it "deserves a place on the bookshelf right next to that other classic of digital bubble-popping, Michael Lewis’ ‘The New New Thing.’"

But by week’s end, many had deleted "Lori’s Reading" from their Outlook and replaced it with "Yoga Works." As my friend, Mike, put it, "Where else can you find so many beautiful bodies in one place?"

Then came the missive from my editor. Despite my radio appearances, he admonished, "No one can get more bodies into the room than the author!!!!" His desperation was apparent in those four consecutive exclamation marks, a punctuation faux pas he’d never have allowed in my manuscript.

I remembered that ubiquitous childhood nightmare of having no one show up at your birthday party. The adult version felt equally mortifying: reading in a huge public space to a mere four people, two of whom are deaf, two of whom are your parents.

In the service of preserving both my self-esteem and the good graces of my publishing house, I decided to cut a Faustian bargain: I would steal those beautiful bodies from Yoga Works.

Out went an e-mail titled, "Multitasking With Menshes." I touted Dutton’s as the hottest venue for meeting attractive, quality, like-minded mates. I name-dropped hipper-than-thou hunky young writers who’d read at the celebrated book venue, capitalized the phrase "speed dating" and even admitted that I’d met Mitch, a cute chemist I dated several years ago for nine months, at another friend’s Dutton’s signing. (So what if Mitch turned out to be gay?)

Part of me feels a tinge of disappointment that some will buy my book as no more than a soulmate lottery ticket. The other part is grateful that people will come to my party at all. Then again, I now have far more pressing problems to deal with. Like, what the heck should I wear?

‘Literati MeetsGlitterati’ Read More »

Funny Girl

Is it harder for nice Jewish girls in the world of stand-up comedy? Yes.

Is it impossible? Nothing’s impossible, shayna maydele, if you put your mind to it.

I’m sitting here wearing my new necklace. Bought it for myself, cause I deserve it! It’s a thin gold chain with a charm dangling on my upper chest that reads “single” in ’70s-style, almost psychedelic letters. It’s “Sex and the City” meets B’nai B’rith luncheon. It defines me. A female. A female comic. A Jewish female comic trying to make it in Los Angeles.

Unlike most female comedians in Los Angeles, I’ve had the luxury of running my own comedy rooms for a while now, and perform regularly in a supportive, safe haven where women are encouraged to explore their “funny.” My shows, titled “She-She Comedy,” encourage women to express themselves: find humor that’s universal and innovative, not necessarily self-deprecating and/or ego-deflating.

Then I go out in the real world, and it just ain’t the same.

I have been the only female comedy writer on a television writing staff, so I know what it’s been like to be the chick among the cocks. But I’ve never done it in front of a full audience, until tonight.

I head out to see one of my favorite headliner comedians (whom I will call “H” in order to protect the innocent — me — from getting future work). H runs an improvised rant show just for kicks at a local comedy club on Sunday nights. His guests are only high-profile celebs.

Tonight, he is co-starring with two comics whom I emulate and would never dream of sharing the stage with. I’m psyched, ready for an excellent evening of alternative comedy.

Little do I know how alternative it would actually be. Turns out the female comic doesn’t show. So when H jokes “There aren’t chick comics in the crowd, are there?” I can’t help but call out saucily, “Right here!”

“Who the hell are you?” H retorts.

“Lesley Wolff!” I shout out with all the confidence of Dame Judi Dench.

“So?” he says.

Somehow my reputation has not preceded me.

“I did Bob’s last film!” (Bob is the other comic sharing the stage, and although I only volunteered as an extra to help my friend who wrote the screenplay, I think that counts.)

He pauses. Unruffled, I run up toward the stage like a winner on “The Price Is Right,” thrilled with the dreamlike opportunity before me: working out my comedy chops with two of my favorite male comics.

H isn’t sure what to do and keeps me at arm’s length. “Now you stay there, Missy,” he says. I see the skepticism in his eyes. What is he afraid of? That I’m a woman? A sassy, outspoken Jewish woman? Was it my outfit? I didn’t “look” funny? I grin at him with anticipation, like a child having to pee.

“I know her,” Bob, his special guest, calls out. “Let her come up.”

The lack of trust and encouragement coming from H is thicker than blood.

Now, I know what it’s like to run a show, and if you don’t know the talent it could get hairy, but there seems to be a distinct gender variable involved. At least that’s what it feels like to me. Is it harder to give blind trust to a female comic? I think so. I myself might even hold the same prejudice.

While he keeps me at bay, H warmly invites a nebbishy Woody Allen-type up on the stage with open arms. “I like you,” he says to the guy. “You remind me of me at your age.”

Then he turns to me. I’m sitting there awkwardly with a smile plastered on my face. “You, I’m not sure of,” he says.

I wink playfully at H to alleviate the palpable tension. My bag of tricks is pretty shallow and I think this is a good icebreaker.

“Don’t wink at me!” H snaps. “I’m a married man and that makes me feel uncomfortable.”

Is he kidding? The tone of his voice doesn’t indicate it so. This isn’t going to be easy. I try my next trick.

“You were supposed to do my ‘All Jew Review!’ show,” I say. Maybe Judaism will be our bond.

“Like hell I was!” he replies. So he’s not about to do the mitzvah of giving me support. I surrender.

The show starts, and after my first round of improvising, H’s worries are alleviated. I’m good. If nothing else, I’m sure of that. I’ve grown up telling funny, ad-hoc stories to make it through the other not-so-funny stuff. I’ve mastered that.

The tension dissipates and the audience kicks back, relaxes, has a great time. I think they were on my side from the beginning.

The show is a success. I pulled my weight. Of course I did.

Yet after all is said and done, I still didn’t feel like I was embraced as a female comic as much as I would have if I were a guy. The words “Prove it, funny girl,” keep echoing in the back of my mind.

Then it hit me — it really hit me — that for the first time the only person I really had to “prove it” to was myself.

Funny Girl Read More »