fbpx

January 27, 2005

Israel-Russian Relations Turn Sour

 

A projected billion-dollar arms sale to Syria is the latest sign of a major shift in Russia’s Middle East policy — and analysts are asking how dangerous it might be for regional stability and for Israel.

In what they see as an ongoing bid to regain its lost global influence, Russia — like the former Soviet Union — has been developing regional ties as a counterweight to American influence in the Middle East, analysts say.

Israeli leaders are concerned that a Russian axis including Syria, Turkey and Iran could make peacemaking with the Palestinians and regional accommodation more difficult. Moreover, they say, the supply of missiles to Syria and nuclear technology to Iran constitutes a direct military threat to Israel.

Over the past year or so, partly as a consequence of the war in Iraq, analysts say Russia has been carefully cultivating ties with Turkey, Iran and Syria. After losing the Mideast foothold provided by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, they say the Russians have been building a new axis of power based on those three key countries.

Russia is now Turkey’s second-largest trading partner after Germany, with a volume of $10 billion in trade per year. It has cemented ties with Iran by building the nuclear reactor at Bushehr and supplying other nuclear-related technologies. And now it is contemplating bringing Syria more closely into the Russian orbit by selling it surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles.

Amnon Sela, an expert on Russia at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center, maintains that the shift in Russian policy stems from a strategic decision by President Vladimir Putin to reassert Russian independence from the West.

Though the most important countries for Russia in this regard are China, Japan and India, Sela says the Muslim world provides another clear opening for the projection of Russian influence.

Sela fears Russia’s moves in the Middle East could seriously destabilize the region. But he’s convinced that if challenged, Putin will stop at the brink rather than burn his bridges to the West.

According to Israeli intelligence, the Russian offer to supply Syria with Iskandar-E (SS-26) surface-to-surface missiles and Strella (SA-18) anti-aircraft rockets has been on the agenda for several months. A deal might well be struck during Syrian President Bashar Assad’s visit to Moscow this week.

The Iskandar, which can carry a payload of more than 1,000 pounds, is said to be far more accurate than the Scud missiles Syria now has. With a range of 170 miles, it could reach any target in Israel.

But Israeli defense experts are said to be more concerned about the Strella, which could fall into terrorist hands and could be used against civilian aircraft.

Israeli appeals to Russia to drop the possible sale seem to have had little effect. In a telephone call to Putin on Thursday, Jan. 20, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon argued that not only would the Russian weapons constitute a direct military threat but — because the Syrians are deeply involved in promoting Palestinian terrorism — encouraging Syrian meddling could undermine Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ efforts to curb violence and restart peace talks.

Putin did not respond, Israeli officials say.

The shift in the Russian position seems to have taken most Israeli officials by surprise. As part of its Cold War with the United States, the Soviet Union had taken an uncompromisingly anti-Israel stance, but after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Israel’s ties with the successor Russian Federation advanced by leaps and bounds.

The immigration to Israel of more than 1 million Jews from the former Soviet Union helped promote trade and cultural ties. In the late 1990s Sharon, then foreign minister, even hinted briefly at a possible pro-Russian tilt in Israeli diplomacy.

But, in late 2003 hints of a change in Russia’s attitude to Israel started to surface. During a visit to Moscow in November that year, Sharon urged his “close friend” Putin not to submit the “road map” peace plan to the U.N. Security Council. Putin ignored him.

Ten months later, during a visit to Israel, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov surprised his hosts by drawing a sharp distinction between Chechen and Palestinian terrorism and denying that Russia was cooperating with Israel against international terrorism, though the Israelis said they were.

Last December, Putin himself, in what he afterward claimed was a slip of the tongue, used the word “Zionist” in a pejorative sense, accusing Ukranian presidential candidate Viktor Yuschenko of resorting to “anti-Russian and Zionist slogans.”

Then, in early January, news broke of the projected missile sale to Syria.

A few weeks later, the Soviet Foreign Ministry made its clearest statement yet against American policy in the Middle East and Washington’s definition of Syria as a state that supports terrorism.

“It’s well-known that slapping labels on countries and unilaterally describing certain states as part of the ‘axis of evil’ has not improved anyone’s security,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko told the Interfax news agency. “Syria is one of the key players in the region and resumption of talks with Israel on the Syrian question is important in the context of the Middle East peace process.”

The Russian shift is even more disconcerting for Israel because of its implications for Moscow’s relationship with Iran. A senior Israeli official told JTA that diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons could succeed only if supported by Russia, which seemed increasingly unlikely.

Israeli analysts believe U.S. Vice President Cheney’s recent comments that Israel could contemplate attacking Iran’s nuclear program probably were as much calculated to spur Russia and the European Union to take effective diplomatic action before it is too late as they were a warning to Israel.

For Israel the stakes are high — Iranian nuclear power, potential Syrian and terrorist missile threats, strategic relations with Turkey and Palestinian terrorism.

To counter the new Russian diplomacy, analysts say Israel will have to find the right mix of backing from Washington, representations to Moscow, reassurances to Ankara and peace overtures to Damascus. But with Russia again in the Arab corner and on the lookout for niches of influence, it could prove increasingly difficult.

Leslie Susser is the diplomatic correspondent for the Jerusalem Report.

 

Israel-Russian Relations Turn Sour Read More »

Jewish GOPs Descend on D.C.

 

Southern California Jewish Republicans saw history up close at President Bush’s inauguration, attending not only his swearing-in but numerous social events including a pre-inauguration dinner for the president where a local Chabad rabbi lit the candles

“I was shocked at how many Jews were here,” said Studio City CPA and Bush/Cheney campaign fundraiser Bruce Bialosky, who created the Los Angeles chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition. (RJC)

R.J.C. Executive Director Matthew Brooks said an overflow crowd of several-hundred Jewish Republicans and their spouses attended the group’s Jan. 19 party at Washington’s Hay-Adams Hotel, its rooftop becoming a perfect spot to watch that day’s preinauguration fireworks.

“There was a real openness towards the Jewish community, a real welcoming of the Jewish community and Jews were included [in everything] from the candle lighting to the themes the president echoed in his inaugural address,” Brooks said. “It really was just a hamish week.”

Among those in attendance were Israeli ambassador Daniel Ayalon; Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.); Ed Atsinger, president of Camarillo-based Salem Communications; national RJC board members Elliott Broidy and Mark Siegel, L.A. Drs. Phil Kurzner and Joel Geiderman; former RJCLA chapter director Scott Gluck; current RJCLA director Larry Greenfield; Persian community leader Sam Kermanian; and Santa Monica dentist Dr. Joel Strom.

“I was amazed at how smoothly everything went; it was like security was almost never there,” Strom said of the inauguration itself. “There really was like a mission accomplished feeling; let’s deal with reforming Social Security, let’s complete the Iraq front on the war on terrorism, let’s deal with tort reform.”

Away from GOP partying, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) spoke at a post-inaugural, bipartisan comedy night at Washington’s Warner Theater, where he told matzah jokes about his pre-Congress adventures fighting California’s mid-1990s “snack tax.”

Strom, Bialosky and their spouses were invited to a post-inauguration elite congressional ball at the Library of Congress. Once there, they were invited back to a meeting room reserved only for members of Congress, where they met Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

“I met Rummy,” Bialosky said. “The man couldn’t have been nicer. [My wife] Teri said to him, ‘We really appreciate everything you’ve done,’ and he said, ‘I’d like to tell you that it’s easy, but it’s not.’ He showed a level of confidence and security, but it wasn’t cockiness.”

Meeting Rumsfeld capped off an emotional day for Bialosky as he attended his second inauguration. His seat found him in a center-right area below Bush, ex-presidents and congressional leaders. He said he felt captivated by Bush’s speech and its emphasis on America being a force for freedom and against tyranny.

“It’s the best speech I have ever heard in my life,” he said. “It was overwhelmingly emotional to me. It was what was being said; this was the definition of the next stage of the American being. I think it was an historic day in America. He laid out what the meaning of America is for the 21st century, that is to bring democracy and freedom to the rest of the world.”

“It moved me,” Bialosky said. “This is what I’ve lived for — freedom and democracy.”

The RJC’s Brooks said the president’s call to export freedom and democracy has “real implications for Jewish people everywhere who face the continuing threat of anti-Semitism around the globe. When tyranny has been around, Jews have always been victimized by it.”

Nationally, the RJC has grown from 9,000 to 17,000 members in the past year, with 25 percent of Jews voting for Bush in 2004 compared to 19 percent four years earlier.

“It will become clearer and clearer that the Jewish community can continue to feel comfortable within the Republican Party,” Brooks said. “There are looming clouds on the horizon that will give the Jewish community pause about their continuing to be welcomed in the Democratic Party.”

Entering the cavernous, post-inaugural “Democracy Ball” at the Washington Convention Center was child Holocaust survivor and New York hotel developer Moses Fried, 75.

“When I came to the United States I registered as a Democrat,” Fried said. “I’m still registered as a Democrat but I’ve been voting for the past 30 years as a Republican.”

It was the first inauguration for Tarzana psychologist Richard Sherman, the RJCLA’s chapter president.

“When Bush talked about the freedom, I think it reaffirmed democratic countries and in my mind reaffirmed his support for Israel,” Sherman said. “Regardless of the political party in office, it was just very exciting to be here.”

 

Jewish GOPs Descend on D.C. Read More »

Settlement Might Relocate En Masse

 

Nestled in a green valley dotted with fir and palm trees lies the farming village of Mavki’im.

Soon the modest one-story homes that punctuate its wheat and potato fields may house a new group of residents — former members of the Gaza Strip settlement named Pa’at Sadeh.

Pa’at Sadeh’s 17 families are the first Jewish settlers to reach an agreement in principle with the government to relocate as a group inside Israel if Israel withdraws from the Gaza Strip, and the compensation offered them sheds light on what other settlers can expect if the disengagement plan moves forward.

In a deal negotiated with the government’s disengagement authority, Pa’at Sadeh residents agreed to move to the moshav in exchange for plots of land similar in size to the ones they’d be leaving. The authority is overseeing compensation packages and relocation logistics.

“We are working on other matches between settlements, some to existing areas and others for totally new developments that can absorb them,” said Haim Altman, spokesman for the Disengagement Authority.

Taking a page from the hard lessons learned from the wrenching evacuation of Yamit, a Sinai settlement, in 1982, Altman said the government is trying to encourage settlers to move as intact communities. The hope is that a communal move would make the experience of evacuation and transition less traumatic.

Altman acknowledged that relatively few settlers so far have come to consult with the authority on how they might best make a move before the withdrawal, which is expected to begin in July.

“Very few are coming to us,” he said, adding that those who do come usually do so very quietly, fearing fallout from their neighbors. “There is great pressure within the settlements not to talk to us. People say, ‘What if my neighbor knew?’ and we cannot tell him that just yesterday that same neighbor was here in our offices, too.”

The decision by Pa’at Sadeh, a secular community in the Gush Katif settlement bloc in the southern Gaza Strip, stands in contrast to the more defiant stance taken by neighboring settlements that have vowed to fight the disengagement plan.

The general manager of Mavki’im, a 50-family moshav just south of Ashkelon founded in 1949 by Hungarian immigrants, said that although the disengagement plan appears to be moving forward, the future is anything but certain.

“We don’t know if it will happen. I don’t think even Arik Sharon knows if it will happen,” 66-year-old Yossi Zohar said, using a nickname for the Israeli prime minister.

Despite an atmosphere of uncertainty, the government is proceeding with its plans. The Knesset is expected to approve government-sponsored legislation outlining compensation packages and setting out the terms of disengagement for the approximately 7,500 settlers in the Gaza Strip.

The legislation sets terms as well for the several hundred settlers in a part of the northern West Bank from which Israel also plans to withdraw.

The government plan would pay evacuated settler families between $100,000 to $400,000 in reparation packages. The disengagement bill, now being debated in a Knesset committee, calls for prison terms for settlers who resist evacuation from their homes with violence. The estimated cost for evacuating and relocating the settlers is about $1.15 billion, according to the Disengagement Authority.

Settlers would receive different compensation packages depending on a complex formula based on their ages, how long they have lived in their homes, whether the home was bought or rented, its size and how many children live at home. In addition, settlers who decide to move to the Negev or Galilee, areas where the government wants to boost development and the Jewish population, would receive another $30,000 per family.

Eran Sternberg, spokesman for the Gush Katif settlement bloc, said that local leaders at first told residents that on principle they should not even consult with the Disengagement Authority about possible compensation. Later, as the amounts people could expect to receive became public, Sternberg said there was no need to tell people not to go.

“The prime minister did the work for us … because the money they are talking about is so low that even those who would consider compensation are no longer considering it,” he said.

The Disengagement Authority complains that Jewish settler leaders and municipalities are not cooperating.

“What is important is the personal connection between ourselves and them, the faith and the transparency of the process. said Altman, the authority’s spokesperson. “But the problem is that the officials are not cooperating. It makes our work much more difficult.”

Altman said the authority tries to explain to settlers that it’s in their interest to look into compensation options and that they should view it as if they were buying insurance: If the evacuation doesn’t happen they will have lost nothing, and if it does, they’ll be prepared.

A grassroots organization called Shuvi, Hebrew for “Come Back,” was established last year. Its goal is to encourage Israel to withdraw from Gaza as quickly as possible. Since Sharon announced the disengagement plan, Shuvi has received dozens of calls from settlers seeking advice on how to leave the Gaza Strip.

One of the dilemmas those willing to leave face is whether or not to take a $50,000 advance on compensation to move from their homes before the withdrawal is carried out. Most have decided not to take the advance payment, saying it’s not enough to live off in the interim.

“We recommend people to try to get the compensation papers and fill them out, so that when things do start happening they’ll be prepared,” said Dorit Eldar, a social work lecturer at Tel Aviv University who is one of Shuvi’s founders.

Standing outside the gate to Mavki’im, Zohar, the moshav’s manager, said he feels sympathy for the settlers and would be happy to have them join him and the other families here.

“First of all, they are Jews. I would not want to be in their place,” he said. “Together with them we can improve our property and it will help them, it will help us, it will help Israel. So why not?”

 

Settlement Might Relocate En Masse Read More »

Unsettling Prospects

 

Talya Eluz walks into her cream-colored sunken living room and takes in the view of sloping sand dunes leading to the shimmering blue Mediterranean Sea and the electric fence that surrounds what she calls paradise.

“Look at it — it’s like Malibu,” Eluz says, holding her month-old baby daughter. “But people hear Elei Sinai and think of terrorists. They think we live war every day.”

This “Garden of Eden,” as Eluz and her neighbors like to call Elei Sinai, is a settlement in the northern Gaza Strip, founded in 1982 by a small group of families evacuated from the Sinai settlement of Yamit when it was destroyed under a peace treaty with Egypt.

The settlement’s cul-de-sacs and palm tree-lined streets are quiet except when the thud of mortar shells, which fall almost daily, break the hush.

The quiet also belies the scene the same day at the Beit Lahiya refugee camp, whose rooftops and minarets are visible from Eluz’s kitchen window: As Eluz, 36, serves coffee to visitors, seven Palestinians have been killed by an Israeli tank shell retaliating against terrorists firing mortars into Israel. Six of the dead are innocent youths from one family.

Twenty-three years after the first house was built in Elei Sinai, the talk is again of evacuation. The community is home to 85 families, mostly secular Israelis who do not share the ideological and religious stands of settlers in the Gush Katif settlement bloc in the southern Gaza Strip. But Elei Sinai residents are divided on how to respond to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, a plan that would force them to leave their sprawling homes by the sea, the rose gardens they planted with care and the close-knit community they have forged.

Nobody wants to leave, residents say, but some have begun meeting with lawyers and government representatives to investigate the reparation packages they would receive should the day come when Israeli policemen and soldiers arrive to evacuate Elei Sinai and other Gaza settlements.

Eluz and her husband finished building their dream home — an airy, open-plan two-story house with floors of beige tile and hard wood and a hot tub off the master bedroom — just four months ago. Eluz is a homemaker, and her husband works in events promotion for the Israeli branch of the Carlsberg brewing company. They moved here from the Tel Aviv suburb of Rishon le-Zion. They couldn’t afford to build a private home there, but they could afford one here, where a plot of land with a sea view cost them just $13,000.

“I didn’t know Gaza even really existed here. My husband said we were moving across the Green Line,” Eluz says, her honey-colored hair pulled into a ponytail. “I’m not ideological. I’m here because I love this place. I saw the sea and decided it was here I wanted to live.”

She can’t bring herself to discuss the possibility of evacuation with her older children, aged 3 and 6. She can hardly bear to think of it herself, she says.

Eluz and her husband are active in the “Committee for the Struggle of Elei Sinai,” a group of residents determined to show the government they intend to stay.

“We are not going to react with violence, but we are doing what we must do quietly, with dialogue,” she says.

She presents a colored flyer produced by the group: Under the heading “Stop the Mistake,” the flyer presents a few paragraphs of background on Elei Sinai’s history and a map of the Gaza Strip and southern Israel.

“I built this house with my own hands,” Eluz says. “I won’t chain myself to the house, but if I know the house will be given to Palestinians I will break down all the walls.”

Elsewhere in the Gaza Strip, a black Kassam rocket sticks out of the sandy dirt in a playground outside a nursery school in the Ganei Tal settlement. About an hour before, the Palestinian rocket had landed with a thud, missing the school and the children inside by just 10 feet.

“They are shooting at children — inside a nursery school!” Ita Friman shouts toward a television camera.

Friman rushed out of her house next to the school when she heard the boom. She wags an angry finger and faults the Israeli army for not taking stronger action against Khan Yunis, a Palestinian refugee camp near Ganei Tal. It’s one of the main places serving as launching pads for mortars and rockets fired into surrounding Jewish communities.

The night before, a mortar shell had crashed through the side of a kitchen, killing a 20-year-old Thai woman who worked in the settlement’s greenhouses.

Ganei Tal is an agricultural settlement in the Gush Katif settlement bloc, a swath of Jewish settlements in the southern part of the Gaza Strip that contains the majority of the 7,500 Jewish residents of Gaza. Ganei Tal was established in 1979, mostly by young religious couples looking to begin new communities. Most residents here believe Gaza is part of the biblical Land of Israel and say that it’s their birthright as Jews to live here.

Friman and her husband were among the first to settle in Ganei Tal, back when the area was an endless expanse of sand dunes, “a desert.”

“We didn’t steal anything from anyone,” she says. “Look at the life we have built here. Why take it away from us?”

Today, Ganei Tal has wide paved roads and rows of hothouses growing geraniums and tomatoes for export to Europe. Its spacious homes, with white stucco walls topped with red tile roofs, are nestled in lush thickets of palm and jacaranda trees. In some families, three generations live together.

Friman doesn’t believe the evacuation really will take place, but she’s among those actively lobbying against it. She was among the Gush Katif settlers seen on recent television broadcasts wearing controversial orange Stars of David.

The decision to wear the stars — drawing an implicit comparison between the planned evacuation of Jewish settlers and the Jews who were thrown out of their homes during the Holocaust — was widely condemned in Israel.

Sitting in the house where she raised three children, Friman, 55, says she is confused and angered by the course set by Sharon, whom the settlers used to consider their champion.

“We never imagined that this could happen. We supported Sharon all these years; he helped establish all this,” she says, looking out from her living room onto a porch covered with potted flowers, spider plants, ferns and wind chimes.

Just beyond is a large green lawn with a stone fountain that Friman’s husband, the former head of security for the settlement, built by hand.

Friman, who has short dark hair and intense blue eyes, speaks with a slight Russian accent. She immigrated to Israel from Ukraine as a young girl and says she can’t imagine recreating somewhere else the sense of community she has found among Ganei Tal’s 80 families.

Friman differentiates herself and her neighbors from the extreme wing of the settler movement known as the “hilltop youth.” Those teenagers and young people, most of whom grew up on West Bank settlements, physically resist police and soldiers who try to remove illegal settlement outposts set up on remote hilltops. Some fear that the hilltop youth will infiltrate the ranks of Gush Katif settlers and encourage a violent response if the government attempts an evacuation. Friman says she won’t raise a hand against a soldier or policeman but will wage an intense political battle to make sure the evacuation day never comes.

Friman’s parents survived the Holocaust at work camps, and her family fled Ukraine because of anti-Semitism.

“Now they want us to leave my home again?” she asks. “The evacuation will not happen.”

Friman says she and her neighbors try to continue with their normal lives. When the subject of evacuation comes up, people quickly dismiss the notion as impossible. She admits that violence and mortar shells have taken a toll. Her only son, who was injured while serving with the Israeli army in Lebanon, hasn’t visited since the violence intensified in Gush Katif. Instead he travels the world. He lives in Hawaii.

“He couldn’t take being at home once the violence started,” she says, tears welling in her eyes.

As for accepting government offers of compensation to leave Gaza, Friman is adamant that she will stay, that this is her home.

“We have no other place to go,” she says.

For Ofer Menashe, moving his family 10 miles from Ashkelon to Elei Sinai 13 years ago was a “simple economic calculation.” In Ashkelon the family lived in a small house, whereas in Elei Sinai they built a sprawling home on a large plot of land — and didn’t even have to take out a mortgage.

Now that Sharon’s disengagement plan appears to be moving ahead, Menashe is willing to leave — for the right price.

Menashe recently contacted Shuvi, an Israeli grassroots organization whose name means “Come Back.” The group is dedicated to an immediate withdrawal from Gaza.

“There are those who do not want to hear about anything, and there are those who think about the future and who want to leave, and that’s me,” says Menashe, 49, an electricity company employee and self-described left-winger who usually votes for Labor or Meretz.

When he moved to the Gaza Strip, he always knew there was the possibility that he and his family would have to leave one day.

“I think the Arabs need to be on their side and we need to be on our side,” he says, sitting with his wife and teenage daughter on couches in their plant-filled living room.

Several Elei Sinai residents met with the government to say they would agree to evacuate their homes peacefully if they received land to rebuild their community in Nitzanim, an area of unspoiled seaside dunes between Ashdod and Ashkelon. But the area is a nature reserve, and the government denied their request.

Menashe recently told a visiting delegation of Knesset members that if they want settlers to leave, they must help increase the reparation packages being offered.

“The reparation payments are insulting,” he says, citing current government calculations that would give him $180,000 for his home. It’s worth almost three times that, he says, but he would be satisfied with a package worth between $300,000 and $400,000.

Menashe sits next to the family computer in the corner of the living room and logs on to the Internet site set up by the government’s Disengagement Authority, known in Hebrew as Sela. There’s a special page, marked by a calculator icon, where settlers can input details about their property and receive an estimate of how much they can expect to receive in reparations.

“The government is making a mistake,” Menashe says as he scrolls through the site. “If the prices were right people would leave voluntarily. They would leave if they had the money to do so.”

Menashe’s wife, Ora, 44, agrees.

“We do not want to be evacuated, but if there is a decision we will go. We will not attack the police or the army, we are good citizens. But we want reparations,” she says, lamenting the idea of starting over again with teenagers to support.

“We thought this was it, we thought this was where we would spend the rest of our lives,” she says wistfully.

Ofer Menashe, however, says he always thought the family’s stay in Gaza would be temporary.

“We will leave here at some point. If not now, then later with an agreement,” he says. “I always knew Gaza would not stay with us.”

But they had hoped that the small northern corner of Gaza where they live would be given to Israel in a land swap under a peace agreement.

The Menashes talk about the quality of life that they came here for — the quiet, the space and the view of the sea — and the shellings and shootings that have shattered that world.

“Since September 2000 there is no quality of life,” he says.

Arik Harpaz leans back on the striped bedspread in the room that once belonged to his daughter, Liron.

He and his wife have not changed a thing since the night the 19-year-old was shot to death by Palestinian gunmen a few blocks away, at the edge of Elei Sinai. The white bookshelves still are crammed with novels, cassettes and notebooks. A white teddy bear stares down from the desk. Photos of dark-haired Liron, with her pale skin and red lips, stare down from the walls.

The morning after Liron’s death, Harpaz started looking through her notebooks. To his surprise, he found poem after poem — 140 in all. They have been published and some of them put to music by top Israeli singers, and they have been made into a CD.

Harpaz says he can’t imagine leaving the home where Liron and her two sisters grew up — or the place where she died.

“The blood of Liron is soaked in this earth and they want to expel us from here — even without an agreement?” he asks, his voice trailing off. “This disengagement process is very hard for us.”

On Oct. 2, 2001, during Sukkot, Liron had come home from the army with her new boyfriend. They had gone for a walk around the settlement when they were spotted by two teenaged Palestinians who opened fire, killing them both.

Harpaz, a volunteer ambulance driver, was among the first called to the scene.

For Harpaz and his family, who have lived in Elei Sinai for 11 years, life is divided into before and after “the disaster.” He is haunted by the idea that perhaps relatives of the Palestinians who killed Liron will end up living in the Harpaz home if Israel withdraws from Gaza.

If an evacuation does take place, Harpaz, 49, who works in sales, says he would throw a Molotov cocktail and light the house on fire.

“The disengagement plan defies logic,” he said. “The Palestinians see that their violence brings them victory,” he says.

An energetic, wiry man with brown hair graying at the temples, who always wears a dog tag with Liron’s name, Harpaz says he’s not interested in discussing reparations with the government. He says he will refuse to sign any papers or deal with the Disengagement Authority. He describes himself as a political moderate and vows to oppose the disengagement plan peacefully.

“If they come to kick us out of our houses, we will invite them for tea and cake,” he says.

He dismisses the idea of moving to the Galilee or Negev, areas the government is pushing for settler relocation.

Like most Jews in the Gaza settlements, Harpaz speaks lovingly about the community in which he lives. He differentiates himself and his neighbors from religious settlers in Gush Katif. The three settlements in the northern Gaza Strip are secular.

“Here we do not talk in terms of the Land of Israel,” Harpaz says. “Here we treat the question of evacuation as a moral one. We think it is immoral to evacuate people from their homes. We think it is criminal.”

 

Unsettling Prospects Read More »

Afraid to Face God?

 

Many Jews who live their lives in a traditional Jewish way will often punctuate their remarks with the term, “Baruch Hashem,”

which means “Blessed be Hashem.” The words are used as a response to so many situations, both good and bad. It is a way of recognizing that the power and presence of God is manifest in all moments of the human experience.

To be able to comprehend the true feelings behind the words one has to listen closely to the inflection in the speaker’s voice. If the words are said with exuberance, one can assume that the person is thanking God for something wonderful. If, however, the tone is subdued, the words function as a quiet plea to God to intercede on someone’s behalf. In either case, the speaker is a Jew who sees the hand of God at work in his or her life and who is comfortable with “God talk.”

I think that over the past century most American Jews, in their efforts to become absorbed into American society, have distanced themselves from overt expressions of Jewishness and Jewish piety. People stopped referring to God routinely in daily speech. Furthermore, as modern intellectualism overwhelmed religious ideology, we Jews distanced ourselves from God. The absence of God from our words reflected the absence of God from our lives. As we shall see, this was not the first time that a large group of Jews distanced itself from God.

In Yitro, we read an account of the giving of the Ten Commandments. Because of a lack of clarity in the text, over the centuries commentators on the Torah have been divided as to whether or not God spoke all the Ten Commandments to the people.

The matter is complicated by the fact that the Torah actually presents two versions of what happened. After the proclamation of the Ten Commandments, we read: “All the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the blare of the horn and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they fell back and stood at a distance. ‘You speak to us,’ they said to Moses, ‘and we will obey; but let not God speak to us, lest we die (Exodus 20:15-16).'”

This suggests that the people’s fear of God’s power peaked after God’s recitation of the Commandments. Having heard all that they heard and having seen all that they saw, they said to Moses: This is too much; if God has anything more to say to us, let God tell it to you and you tell it to us.

In Deuteronomy 5:4-5, however, as Moses recounts to the people their experience at the foot of the mountain, he reminds them: “Face to face the Lord spoke to you on the mountain out of the fire — I stood between the Lord and you at that time to convey the Lord’s words to you, for you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain….”

The words of the Ten Commandments follow. Here, the Torah seems to tell us that Moses was already between God and the people before the Commandments were given, and Moses, not God, did the talking.

This lack of clarity resulted in two different rabbinic interpretations. One midrashic tradition teaches that God did, indeed, speak all 10 of the Commandments to the people. Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi incorporates this interpretation into his account of the giving of the laws in “The Kuzari.”

According to a second tradition, God spoke only the first two Commandments directly to the people, and Moses conveyed the rest. This midrash is incorporated into Rashi’s comment on Exodus 20:1. The second interpretation is based on the fact that only in the first two commandments does God speak in the first person.

The common denominator of all of these renderings is that the people became afraid of God and distanced themselves from God. They experienced the awesome power of the Almighty and feared for their lives. Exodus 20:15 reads: “V’khol ha-am ro’im et ha-kolot;” “All the people saw the sounds [thunder].” Rashi cites a midrash from the Mekhilta that first took note of this anomaly. The implied difficulty is how can one see sounds? Various commentators suggest that God altered the Israelites’ powers of perception so they could see the sounds and thus realize the miraculous nature of the spiritual moment they were experiencing. The result, however, was that the people became extremely frightened by the experience, and pulled back from the mountain.

Contrast this with how the modern Jew has pulled back from God. Our generation has not been overwhelmed by the power of God — we have been “underwhelmed.” This is not to say that God’s power has diminished. We have created within ourselves an altered state of being that results in our seeing in ourselves power that really is God’s. And so, whom do we fear? Other human beings.

We have forgotten how to listen to God’s voice, let alone see it. We have forgotten how to find the image of God in another human being.

It is time once again to approach the mountain and to begin the climb up its slopes to get closer to God. We need not be frightened by God’s presence. There is great peace and beauty with God, and, like Moses, when we are with God, we are not afraid. By boldly praising God in public and bringing God back into our speech and into our lives, we are put in touch with a power that can fill every moment of existence with great meaning and blessing.

Joel Rembaum is senior rabbi at Temple Beth Am in Los Angeles.

 

Afraid to Face God? Read More »

Above It All

 

Well, I’m still married. Somebody won a bet that I’d actually make it to the altar. The bookies took a bath on me. Hard to believe, but it’s been almost two years already, and I would like to tackle this whole single thing from the other side of the fence. I’m not exactly above it all, but I am at a certain remove. Getting married makes you more objective. I’m finally in a position to give advice, as if it ever stopped me from trying to in the past. I’m Dr. Laura without a portfolio.

I’ve had a few encounters with the maritally challenged lately, and each one seems to represent a certain “type.”

I asked one young lady about her social life and she said she wasn’t seeing anyone special. That sounded bad. It sounded so — very not special. I think I used to date Mr. Not Special’s sister. My wife immediately leapt into the “who do we know for you?” game. She reached into her hat and pulled out a guy who was perfect except that he’s not Jewish, he’s into Asian girls and we think he’s gay. Otherwise, he’s perfect. Newsflash, honey: All the good ones are taken. Next patient.

My cousin, the playboy, complained that he was dating three or four women, including a model. When you’re married, this sounds like a good problem to have. His complaint was that he was looking for something more. I said that five women would be more — mostly more headaches. Hard to believe, but he thinks I’m an inspirational success story, “overcoming” the “handicap” of singledom. I never thought of it this way, but being single is something about which we can say, “This too shall pass.”

I told him what he needed to hear: “You’re not ready for anything more. Not yet. For now you should really, really enjoy this time. Then, when you are ready to stop monkeying around with the mannequins, find a nice Jewish girl and settle down.”

Meanwhile, across town, we have another friend who’s celebrating (if you can call it that) his 50th birthday. He’s never been married and we all agree that his résumé would be much more socially acceptable if he were simply divorced than still, horribly single. He is dating a lovely, compatible woman who also happens to be very, very non-Jewish. It should come as no surprise that a 50-year-old single guy has a teensy problem with commitment, but he’s thinking of asking her to convert to Judaism. He can’t commit to a set of matching towels. I told him the obvious: “Jewish isn’t everything.”

Then there’s the guy whose girlfriend lies to him, she cheats on him, hell, she lives with another guy. Yet he holds out hope. This particular breed of love is blind, deaf and dumb. Real dumb. I used to date Miss Very Wrong’s sister, too. Everyone tiptoed around him, but I told him the obvious: “You should dump her like a hot potato and find out what’s the matter with you. Barring the possibility of a trick pelvis, I should wonder why you’d want her at all. If, somehow, this girl, whose name might actually be ‘Trouble,’ should leave the other guy for you, I hope you’ll remember how she got there.”

Interestingly, this guy’s problem wasn’t her infidelity; it was a fight they’d gotten into about some other nonsense. My wife and I might fight about nonsense from time to time, but we’re not going to break up over it. One way or another, we’re going to deal with it, even if we choose to deal with it by ignoring it and just moving on. Of course, if I found out she was living with another guy, that might be different.

Lastly, there was the recently dumped. My wife works with a lovely young lady who was distraught over her breakup with a yearlong boyfriend. I did feel her pain but, really, such histrionics over someone who she’ll barely recognize in a couple of years? Mr. Not Quite is a first cousin to Mr. Not Special. I told her two things: “One, this ain’t necessarily over yet; two, you can do better.”

Fighting back the tears she asked how I knew this.

“Human nature,” I said.

Now, I’m happy to report she’s happily engaged to someone better. Why doesn’t anyone ever listen to me?

One nice thing about being married is that none of this stuff bothers me anymore. Hearing about my friends’ single life is like watching an old home movie. We went out to dinner the other night and sat next to a couple that was billing and cooing. They looked pretty happy just getting to know each other. When we went outside they were kissing in the parking lot. The grass under their feet looked pretty green for a minute.

“Oh, look honey! Remember that?”

J.D. Smith’s new book “The Best Cellar” will be published by Bonus Books in March. You can find him online at www.thebestcellar.com.

 

Above It All Read More »

Chaplain Crosses the Line for the Cross

 

Military chaplains have a proud history in the U.S. military, and most of them uphold the mission of the Chaplain Corps in the various services to America’s troops and to ensure their right to free exercise of religion.

Unfortunately, the role that Army Chaplain Capt. Andy Taylor played while deployed with the 6th Battalion, 27th Field Artillery in Iraq strayed from that duty.

There are people who serve in the military of all faiths, and it is up to the chaplain of a unit to make sure that everyone is able to worship the way they desire. But when the audience becomes a captive one (because peace turns to war or life becomes death), the job of the chaplain becomes more complicated but must still remain neutral.

Regrettably, Taylor cast aside his neutrality and turned a group of 400 mourning men of many faiths into his own Southern Baptist congregation. He continues to boast about his crowning achievement of baptizing a Jew in Iraq.

After an ambush took the life of a medic in the battalion, Taylor, a Southern Baptist minister, went beyond the duties of chaplain and made himself the arbiter of salvation for a captive audience who had just withstood the rigors of war and the tragedy of loss. While members of the unit sought comfort from Taylor, he was busy telling men who had lost a comrade and who were questioning their own mortality that “there is only one way to be saved” and that is through Jesus Christ.

The Baptist Press’ Dana Williamson reported in the Jan. 13 edition that “the only difference in being a chaplain, rather than pastor of a church, is that Taylor’s congregation is nearly 1,000 soldiers and their families.”

Regrettably, both Williamson and Taylor have a contemptible understanding of a military chaplain.

As soon as Taylor crossed the line from spiritual supporter to Baptist proselytizer, he violated his duty to allow the men of his unit to exercise their religion.

It is painful to lose a friend or a fellow soldier. I’ve experienced such a loss, but the chaplain who presided over the service did not tell the Jews that the only way to have a spiritual connection to God was to reject our faith and to embrace his. But that is what Taylor did when the Jewish soldier went to him for guidance.

In boasting about the conversion of the Jewish soldier, he told Williamson that he used “Old Testament Scriptures to show him how he needed a relationship with Jesus.”

Religious conversion should be conducted when a man is of a clear mind and without the pressure of battle. To do it at the barrel of a gun, when a man lost a fellow soldier, violates every tenet of fairness and could very well be regretted by this same soldier for a lifetime. At the very least, Taylor should have assured the soldier the ability to speak to a rabbi before his impulsive conversion.

It is estimated that 1,500 to 2,000 Jewish servicemen are deployed in the Persian Gulf region today. Of the 24 Jewish chaplains in the Army, only five were sent to fulfill the needs of what could arguably be the neediest of the Army’s servicemen.

Jews are a minority population in any military unit and those most neglected by their commanders. Important holidays, such as Passover and Yom Kippur, are remembered by memos issued by generals in units where Christian holidays and 96-hour passes are coveted.

It is the responsibility of the chaplain to assure that Jewish servicemen have the ability to exercise their faith, particularly in the Middle East, where Jewish servicemen are scattered across a vast area of land and where some Jewish people never see a rabbi.

Sadly, Taylor abused the captive audience he had and the trust that so many place in the chaplain of a unit to explain away the tragedy, and to answer the unanswerable question about how any God could allow the horrors that befall any unit in battle.

Taylor makes no apologies for his conduct. In fact, he brags about it as if there were a scorecard for conversions in chaplain locker rooms. He has a right to worship any way he chooses, but when he is acting as a chaplain to an entire battalion of men at their moment of loss, his right is secondary to his duty to ensure that hasty decisions and coerced conversions are not done in the name of a God that a Jewish member of the military might reject in peacetime.

I reject the notion of the removal of chaplains from the military, but I am positively opposed to a chaplain recruiting from a captive audience, only to have his conversions become fodder for The Baptist Press’ recruiting efforts.

Steve Yuhas is a columnist and radio talk show host on KOGO-AM 600 in San Diego. He may be reached at steve@steveyuhas.com or Chaplain Crosses the Line for the Cross Read More »

Facts Belie County Hate Crime Problem

 

Sometime in the early 1980s, a new type of crime was identified. It was called “hate crime.” Although the conduct which hate crime laws were

aimed at was already criminal, the new laws targeted the motivation for the crime. Helping to cement hate crime into our lexicon was the belief that the new arena of hate crime was simply an extension of the larger anti-racist struggle.

While all of this may have been undertaken with the best of intentions, the unintended consequence has been the emergence of a cottage industry committed to propagating the view that hatred based on race, religion or sexual orientation is still today a prominent feature of American society.

Since the early 1980s, the American landscape has changed, with organized hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nations and others thankfully falling on hard times. These groups have been decimated by the death or incarceration of their leaders and a series of well-aimed lawsuits.

But other factors have come into play. The nation’s attitudes on race have changed, making racism and other forms of bigotry socially unacceptable, except among the least educated and the most isolated. Wearing pointy hats and sheets and sneaking around burning crosses on folk’s lawns or spray-painting swastikas on synagogues lost almost all of the mystique or attraction that it may have once held.

The killing of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard or the occasional vandalism of synagogues have been and are met with nearly universal revulsion and contempt.

In our own backyard, Los Angeles is widely viewed as the most diverse part of the nation’s growing demographic complexity. Even here, hate crime is a rare thing. Yet, some officials continually portray the area’s human relations as a hotbed of hostility and hate.

That brings us to the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations. “Combatting” hate crime is the bread and butter of this taxpayer-funded agency, which enjoys an annual budget of approximately $2 million. Most of its budget is spent in one way or another on the issue of hate crime.

Each year, it produces an annual report on the number of hate crimes committed in Los Angeles County. The commission’s latest report tells us that in 2003, there were 692 crimes motivated by hate. (Interestingly, annoying phone calls, disturbing the peace and reckless driving were included in the commission’s report as hate crimes.) This is a 14 percent decrease from the previous year’s tally. The highest number of hate crimes ever recorded by the agency was 1,031 in 2001.

Many questions can be raised about how the agency gathers its statistics and the accuracy of its count, but one thing is clear — the size of the hate crime problem in the county is not large. By comparison, as of this past Christmas, the LAPD documented more than 41,000 violent crimes and another 118,000 property crimes. In 2003, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department recorded more than 90,000 violent crimes, which included forcible rape, homicide, aggravated assault and arson among others.

There were another 113,000 other crimes, such as sexual offenses, narcotics, forgery, vandalism and others that were committed in the county. In the context of this crime picture, hate crime is but a tiny fraction of the whole.

Noting the small numbers of hate crimes in Los Angeles should in no way be seen as diminishing the actual harm hate crime inflicts on its victims. But the aberrational nature of hate crime in a county of more than 10 million people begs the question of whether this narrowly defined arena of criminal activity really needs the near full-time attention of an entire department of local government — especially at a time when every tax dollar is feeling the squeeze.

The proper role of government in this realm is a matter for debate, but until that’s settled, isn’t there a more productive or creative way to conduct work aimed at influencing human relations and the spending of public dollars?

Since 2000, the county commission has annually divided more than $800,000 among seven community-based partner organizations. The funds are directed at hate crime-related activities and, recently, the green light was given from county supervisors to once again give funds to the seven groups — splitting nearly $70,000 among them over the next six months.

The money will pay for workshops on “media advocacy” and “technical assistance” for staff from the groups, among other things. This comes on the heels of severe budgetary problems confronting all levels of county government. Exactly what taxpayers get in return is unclear.

The vast majority of Americans already understand that hate crime lies beyond the borders of appropriate behavior (reflected in the low hate crime statistics), so messages aimed at these audiences is just a bit like preaching to the converted. On the other hand, anti-hate messages directed at the dwindling numbers of committed racists, homophobes and anti-Semites falls largely on deaf ears.

Once a hate crime occurs, it becomes the matter of law enforcement to find the facts, arrest the suspects and charge them for their acts. It is then up to prosecutors to do their job — which is to bring criminals to justice.

However, hyperbole in the realm of hate crime may be symptomatic of a larger problem. As racial or ethnic animus has declined over the years, the groups specializing in anti-hate and anti-racist causes have struggled to maintain their relevancy and to justify their budgets. For human relations agencies and related activists, this has meant making the most of hate crime data — minimal though it may be.

If documented in a rigorous manner, crimes thought to be motivated by hate arguably might be useful as a barometer of sorts to assess the state of race and human relations. Getting in the way of this is the fact that many groups report hate “incidents” that are extremely difficult to verify, let alone quantify.

Additionally, the political agendas of various advocacy groups place a great deal of pressure on law enforcement to identify crimes as “hate related,” even when the facts do not substantiate this designation. Even when annual data show that the numbers of hate crimes are low, advocacy groups, academics and, sometimes, the media spin the information in ways that portray the nation or the city as endangered by an epidemic of hate. When asked about the low numbers of hate crimes, advocates and activists will argue that they are simply “underreported.”

The prevailing view of hate crime encourages people to think of themselves as members of identity groups and also requires that they think of themselves as beleaguered and victimized, generating a sense of resentment. This means greater balkanization, not the unification of interests across the lines of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation — something essential for the best possible human relations in a city like Los Angeles.

Joe R. Hicks is the former executive director of the Los Angeles City Human Relations Commission and currently vice president of Community Advocates. David Lehrer helped draft some of California’s early hate crime statutes, was the former regional director of the Anti-Defamation League and is the president of Community Advocates.

 

Facts Belie County Hate Crime Problem Read More »

The Westside Vote

 

There were two “Jewish” debates earlier this month, one in the Valley and one on the Westside. While Mayor james Hahn did not attend the

Valley session at Temple Judea, all five major candidates came to the Westside debate at Temple Beth Am. My visit to the latter debate allowed me to look at one constituency: Westside Jews.

With 6 percent of the city’s population, Jews cast between 16 percent to 18 percent of all votes in mayoral elections. That makes them one of the four key blocs in the electorate, along with Latinos (22 percent or more), white Republicans (around 20 percent) and African Americans (around 10-14 percent).

Jews are an increasingly important share of the declining white vote. Today, one-third of the city’s white voters are Jewish, compared to one-fourth a decade ago.

But “bloc” may be too strong a word. Los Angeles Jews were a loyal, devoted, and united bloc for Tom Bradley, and vote as a bloc for Democrats at the state and national levels. But in 1993, about half of the Jewish voters backed Republican Richard Riordan against Bradley’s presumed heir, Michael Woo; more than 60 percent supported Riordan in his 1997 re-election against Tom Hayden.

Jewish voters are somewhat split by geography. While Westside Jews are still quite liberal and supported Antonio Villaraigosa for mayor in 2001, more moderate Valley Jews went with Hahn.

Jewish voters gave considerable support to Jewish primary candidates Joel Wachs and Richard Katz in 1993, and Wachs and Republican Steven Soboroff in 2001. None of these Jewish candidates made the runoff, so we don’t know yet how uniformly Jews might support a Jewish candidate in the general election.

While Westside Jews remain overwhelmingly Democratic, it is hard to predict where they will end up in a race contested by five Democrats. This makes it hard for candidates to know how to appeal to Westside Jewish voters this year: Are they liberals, cautious Democrats, ethnic loyalists, civic reformers or what? This bloc-within-a-bloc is a significant force, because of its extremely high level of political involvement, campaign contributions and voter turnout.

My first impression during the debate was that the candidates were articulate, friendly and effective. What also struck me, however, was that none of the candidates was truly “at home” on the Westside — although Bob Hertzberg did joke about working “24/6” and referred to “this bimah,” and Villaraigosa managed to mix Hebrew and liberalism by using the phrase tikkun olam.

In this race, there is no candidate whose base is on the Westside of Los Angeles. That hasn’t happened often in Los Angeles political history.

Bernard Parks’ candidacy starts in South Los Angeles, and Richard Alarcon’s foundation is the East Valley. Hahn is running as the incumbent who has general appeal without generating great enthusiasm in any single community. While he has historically done well on the Westside in his numerous citywide races, he does not have the deep base there that would assure him that area’s support against strong opposition.

Hertzberg and Villaraigosa are the closest to having a second home on the Westside, followed by Hahn. Villaraigosa did very well among Westside Jews in 2001, winning a majority of their votes.

He might do well there again, but he does not have Bradley’s lock on these neighborhoods. His core base is among Latinos, principally on the Eastside, with hopes of holding his core of white liberals and Jews.

With his overall appeal to Jewish voters, Hertzberg can contest heavily for the Westside as well, but his base is the Jewish community in the San Fernando Valley. Between them, Hertzberg and Villaraigosa may cut deeply into Hahn’s support on the Westside.

I could feel the absence of Bradley, for whom the Westside was a second political home. When he campaigned in Westside synagogues, he was greeted as a well-loved member of the family. Even Republican Riordan, whose votes came more from the Valley, was personally and socially a Westsider (like his friend Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger).

Fighting crime, balancing the budget and filling potholes will win votes anywhere in Los Angeles and will certainly help on the Westside. And coalition politics with Jewish votes is not nearly the seamless, simple relationship that it was in the Bradley days. But one clue for any candidates who want to win the votes of Westside Jews is the importance of the reform and improvement of local government.

This highly attentive constituency, the least alienated of the city’s neighborhoods, fills the ranks of city commissions, closely observes the doings at City Hall and routinely votes in favor of measures to reform government. It was here that the 1999 City Charter won its largest margin of support, and where efforts to reform the Los Angeles Police Department generated the strongest backing among white voters.

A coherent, comprehensive agenda to prevent the sort of conflict-of-interest problems that have bedeviled the city government recently has yet to emerge in the campaign. The candidate who can offer more than a package of proposals and explain how the voters can be assured that both the commission system and the contracting process can be sensibly reformed may have the opportunity to stand out from the crowd seeking Westside votes.

Raphael J. Sonenshein, a political scientist at Cal State Fullerton, is the author of “The City at Stake: Secession, Reform and the Battle for Los Angeles” (Princeton University Press, 2004).

 

The Westside Vote Read More »

Shouldering the Burden of Incest

 

When you go to the synagogue, you just might be sitting next to someone who sexually abused his daughter. You might be

shaking his hand, admiring his charming demeanor, thinking how lucky his family is to have him. I should know. People sit next to my father all the time. Not only that, but they make sure to tell me about it.

Take a recent scenario at my local congregation: Two seconds after I walked through the door, a friendly acquaintance informed me that my father had visited there just a few weeks back. Good thing I didn’t go that day, I thought to myself. She continued to describe to me how vibrant he had looked, “as always,” and how lovely it had been to see him. The woman’s intention, of course, was to compliment me by showering praise on my father. Instead, she left me clutching tightly inside myself and forgetting to breathe.

“That’s nice,” I replied. “I haven’t seen him in 14 years.”

The woman stammered around a bit, apologized, and concluded with, “But I’m sure you’ll be glad to know he’s doing well.”

Well, actually, that depends on the day.

 

About 15 minutes later, another woman informed me (just in case I hadn’t heard yet) that my father had visited the congregation a few weeks earlier. She knows these things, she continued, because she is a close friend of his second ex-wife.

“I don’t want to talk about it,” I interrupted her.

“Oh, well I’m not talking about it, I was just saying that he visited here, and I’m good friends with…”

“I don’t want to talk about it,” I repeated, putting my hand up in a stop motion.

“Well, I was just saying that I’m friends with them…”

“I don’t want to talk about it,” I said a third time, adding a “no” head shake for emphasis.

She stopped, then could not think of anything else to say.

“How’s your son doing? Is he here?” I offered, hoping to move the conversation in a more pleasant direction.

“Yes he is,” she replied, “and in fact, I’m taking these cookies over to him.”

She bid me Shabbat Shalom and left. The woman could not get away from me fast enough.

Considering how common incest is, not to mention the preponderance of other forms of domestic violence — I do not cease to be amazed by people’s insensitivity regarding my father. Short of answering, “My father sexually abused me, and discussing him is retraumatizing me,” I have tried every possible approach in getting people to shut up. Not only have they not respected my clear boundaries, but they have gone so far as to make assumptions about what must have happened with my father. A favored scenario has been that he and I had a squabble, and I am too stubborn to forgive him.

One man, who had this notion in his head, repeatedly brought me fliers announcing my father’s latest presentations. He and another man made statements like, “We have to figure out a way to get you and your father back together.”

Even after I hinted, “You really have no clue what goes on behind closed doors,” one of them persisted in his self-appointed mission to save my family.

These interactions have left me profoundly shaken up — physically, as well as emotionally — and have eaten up days and days of my time, dedicated to recovering from each incident. They have caused me to avoid Mizrahi and Sephardi communities; to leave a community organization I cofounded; and to stop attending synagogue services. Given my resulting isolation from Jewish community life, I even stopped observing Shabbat and the holidays; they became too lonely and depressing.

For philosophical, moral and emotional reasons, I refuse to plaster a big fake smile on my face and let people ramble on glowingly about a man who made my childhood miserable. Every time someone starts in on it with me, I feel an overwhelming urge to scream out the truth.

I have no interest in publicly shaming my father. I have silenced my own voice for two-thirds of my life, in fact, in an effort to protect him. In addition, it feels risky to “come out” about my experience. I do not want people pathologizing or pitying me.

And yet, I am tired of holding this burden, and I know there are many like me out there. So I offer my story in an effort to wake up the Jewish community, to let people know that the abuse is happening all around us, that we are not immune to violence. Our friends, colleagues, teachers and rabbis are among both the perpetrators and survivors. Abuse does not happen to “them.”

When we recognize this reality — when we speak and listen in ways that allow for the possibility that people are survivors or current victims, and when we hold perpetrators accountable for their actions, yet approach them with compassion, we will all shoulder the burden of violence together. As such, our community will take one giant step toward healing.

The writer is an author and journalist who lives in Israel and the Bay Area. The Journal requested we withhold her byline for legal purposes.

Shouldering the Burden of Incest Read More »