fbpx

March 14, 2008

Being single at Sinai Temple

Every nice Jewish gal wants to find her dream guy; but what happens when his mother gets in the way?

Here’s my spin in “Attack of The Mothers”:

I know how to handle men, but their mothers? An entirely different challenge. Until I moved to Los Angeles, I had never been “hit on” by women. Now women twice, thrice, even four times my age (I call them mothers-on-the-prowl) approach me nearly every Shabbat. Sometimes, they attack in the middle of the Amidah…

Being single at Sinai Temple Read More »

State: Global anti-Semitism rising

Rising global antiSemitism has been an ongoing issue. Seriously. I could link to much more. Yesterday the State Department gave Congress a report on the matter.

It says that although Nazism and fascism are rejected by the West “and beyond,” blatant forms of anti-Semitism are “embraced and employed by the extreme fringe.”

“Traditional forms of anti-Semitism persist and can be found across the globe. Classic anti-Semitic screeds, such as ‘The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion’ and ‘Mein Kampf’ remain commonplace.

“Jews continue to be accused of blood libel, dual loyalty, and undue influence on government policy and the media, and the symbols and images associated with age-old forms of anti-Semitism endure.”

New forms of anti-Semitism are reflected in rhetoric that compares Israel to the Nazis and attributes “Israel’s perceived faults to its Jewish character.”

This kind of anti-Semitism, the report says, “is common throughout the Middle East and in Muslim communities in Europe, but it is not confined to these populations.”

In fact, such vitriolic rhetoric can be found at UC Irvine, on LA college campuses and even outside the Israeli consulate.

State: Global anti-Semitism rising Read More »

McCain supporter draws more bad press

A megachurch pastor and supporter of John McCain has called on Christians to wage “war” against the “false religion” of Islam. Liberals are calling on the presidential candidate to distance himself from an important ally. And guess what: It’s not John Hagee.

Mother Jones takes on the Rev. Rod Parsley.

Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: “It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America.” He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: “We find now we have no choice. The time has come.” And he has bad news: “We may already be losing the battle. As I scan the world, I find that Islam is responsible for more pain, more bloodshed, and more devastation than nearly any other force on earth at this moment.”

Parsley claims that Islam is an “anti-Christ religion” predicated on “deception.” The Muslim prophet Muhammad, he writes, “received revelations from demons and not from the true God.” And he emphasizes this point: “Allah was a demon spirit.” Parsley does not differentiate between violent Islamic extremists and other followers of the religion:

There are some, of course, who will say that the violence I cite is the exception and not the rule. I beg to differ. I will counter, respectfully, that what some call “extremists” are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam.

The spirit of Islam, he maintains, is one of hostility. He asserts that the religion “inspired” the 9/11 attacks. He bemoans the fact that in the years after 9/11, 34,000 Americans “have become Muslim” and that there are “some 1,209 mosques” in America. Islam, he declares, is a “faith that fully intends to conquer the world” through violence. The United States, he insists, “has historically understood herself as a bastion against Islam,” but “history is crashing in upon us.”

McCain supporter draws more bad press Read More »

He doesn’t believe in atheists

In light of his new book, “I Don’t Believe in Atheists,” Salon spoke with journalist Chris Hedges, who shares a common frustration with The New Atheists.

While speaking out against the Christian fundamentalist movement and its political agenda, Hedges noticed another group—this one on the left—conspicuously allied with the neocons on the subject of America’s role in world politics. The New Atheists, as they have been called, include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and bestselling author and journalist Christopher Hitchens—outspoken secularists who depict religious structures and the belief in God as backward and anti-democratic.

Though Hedges, a Harvard seminary graduate and the son of a Presbyterian minister, considers himself a religious man, his quarrel with the New Atheists goes beyond theological concerns. In “I Don’t Believe in Atheists,” he accuses Hitchens and the others of preaching a fundamentalism as dangerous as the religious fundamentalist belief systems they attack. Strange bedfellows indeed—according to Hedges, the New Atheists and the Christian right pose the greatest threat facing American democratic society today.

Hedges spoke to Salon by phone from his home in New Jersey.

You say that “I Don’t Believe in Atheists” is a product of confrontations you had with Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. How did those debates inspire the book?

In May of 2007 I went to L.A. to debate Sam Harris, and then two days later I went to San Francisco to debate Christopher Hitchens. Up until that point, I hadn’t paid much attention to the work of the New Atheists. After reading what they had written and walking away from these debates, I was appalled at how what they had done for the secular left was to embrace the same kind of bigotry and chauvinism and intolerance that marks the radical Christian right. I found that in many ways they were little more than secular fundamentalists.

In December, I interviewed Sam Harris for UCLA Magazine about some graduate research he had done on belief and the brain. He said his hope was that eventually belief in God will carry the same social stigma as, say, being a racist, that it will “be embarrassing for somebody to know something he obviously does not know.”

“You can be called a fundamentalist atheist. When you unpack the statments, they are entirely vacuous,” he told me. “You don’t have to presume anything on insufficient evidence to reject somebody’‘s claims about magic books. We cannot prove the absence of Zeus from this universe. And the burden has never been on us to prove the absence of Zeus.

“We have done that with 1,000s and 1,000s of “dead gods” who are no longer a part of religious mythology. We don’t apply the same scrutiny to the God of Abraham, even though he has exactly the same status, which is not to say he doesn’t have value as literature or philosophical thought.”

He doesn’t believe in atheists Read More »

Bruin coach is ready for March Madness

Growing up, Scott Garson’s Calabasas family loved two things: Judaism and basketball. His mother, Corinne, was president of the Woodland Hills Reform congregation Kol Tikvah, while his father, Lee, is a UCLA alum who coaches youth basketball. So it’s no surprise that Garson is a practicing Jew, as well as assistant coach for the UCLA men’s basketball team.

“Being Jewish is all about being a leader in your community, and basketball teaches you how to lead,” said Garson, 31, who attends synagogue regularly during the off-season and has bonded with other Jewish coaches around the league.

Garson, now in his fourth season with UCLA and his second as assistant coach, was once a Bruins ball boy. He played basketball in Valley youth leagues, was an all-state player for Harvard-Westlake High School and co-coached the 1995 L.A. Maccabi 13- to 14-year-old basketball team with his father.

While he attended UC Santa Barbara, Garson coached at Santa Barbara High School during his junior and senior years.

“I enjoyed that a lot more than filling out law school applications,” said Garson, who graduated with a bachelor’s degree in law and society in 1999.

Garson broke the news when he came home for Yom Kippur. “I sat with my family and said how much I enjoyed coaching and thought that coaching college basketball was what I wanted to do with my life,” he said.

After graduation, he volunteered with the Pepperdine Waves under current Washington coach Lorenzo Romar and then spent the next five seasons on the University of Utah staff under Rick Majerus.

“It was odd for a young Jewish guy to move to Salt Lake City,” said Garson, who was both confirmed and a bar mitzvahed. But the years in Utah primed him for his Bruins career. “Now I’m lucky to do what I love doing, in my hometown, near my family, for [UCLA coach] Ben Howland, who I think is the best coach in the country.”

Garson not only works with one of the nation’s top coaches but with one of the country’s top teams. The (28-3) UCLA Bruins are ranked second in the nation, clinched the regular season Pac 10 title and won nailbiters against Stanford and Cal last weekend at Pauley Pavilion. Coaching such a high-profile team could be stressful, but for Garson it’s pure pleasure.

“UCLA players work hard and have a great attitude, so it makes my job easy — and fun,” said Garson, who coached the post last year and coaches guards Darren Collison, Josh Shipp and Russell Westbrook this year. Many believe this power back court is the country’s best, but Garson believes they’re only improving.

“Look at Russell Westbrook and all his improvement this year,” he pointed out. “It’s exciting not just because he’s such a talented player, but because he’s a good person.”

This weekend, the Bruins compete in the Pac-10 Tournament at Staples Center. With seven of the 10 teams ranked in the national top 25 at some point during the season, the Pac 10 conference is one of the toughest in the country, and the tournament title is up for grabs.

UCLA went to the Final Four the past two years, and Bruin supporters are hungry for that national title.

“UCLA is a team that is judged by what we do in March,” Garson said.

Success in the NCAA Tournament doesn’t come easy, even for returning teams. Every school steps up and plays to their best ability and fights for their one shining moment. Garson is ready to coach the Bruins through this month of intense buzzerbeaters.

“The team is so excited and ready to go. We’ve been waiting for this all year,” he said.

Bruin coach is ready for March Madness Read More »

Attack of ‘The Mothers’

It’s early Saturday morning and Shabbat is cresting with the West Coast sunrise. As is my custom, I dress, slip into a pair of heels, and ready myself for a contemplative worship. When I was new in town I could daven, throw back a shot of Manichewitz and grab a piece of challah on my way out; but the days of passing through community circles unnoticed and unscathed are over.

The first time it happened, a well-dressed woman with ebony tresses and ample perfume pulled me aside during Kiddush and said, “Excuse me, are you married?”

She grabbed my right hand and glared at my naked finger.

“No, I’m not married,” I replied.

“Are you Jewish?”

“Am I Jewish?” I thought, incredulous. I’m in temple, on Shabbat. This is not a pashmina draped over my shoulders. It’s a tallit.

“How old are you?”

“I’m 24.”

“Very good,” she said, all smiley and nodding.

She meant “very good” not because she felt Jewish-feminist pride that a single young woman is attending Shabbat services, but because my answer affirmed that I have six more childbearing years before I turn 30.

“I have a son! He is handsome, a lawyer. Can he call you?”

I know how to handle men, but their mothers? An entirely different challenge. Until I moved to Los Angeles, I had never been “hit on” by women. Now women twice, thrice, even four times my age (I call them mothers-on-the-prowl) approach me nearly every Shabbat. Sometimes, they attack in the middle of the Amidah.

The interrogation usually happens in this order: marital status, ethnic/religious status, age. This maternal screening/courting ritual is difficult to deter. If I’m feeling naughty, I slip a ring on my index finger then stay silent after question No. 1.

At first, I was naïve. I dished out my Jewish Journal business cards like I had a thousand gathering dust on my desk. I didn’t really think they’d call.

I’ve since learned that Jewish mothers out to wed their sons have the chutzpah to persist until the messiah arrives. Oh did they call — reminding me that we met on Shabbat and that their handsome, corporate finance, lawyer/surgeon/mogul/magnate sons were going to ring.

Flattery turned to frustration. Could I stomach all these dates with men who were complete strangers? Did I want to date a man whose mother was doing his dirty work?

I dealt with the phone and e-mail dating inquiries with “busy”excuses or ignored them altogether. It’s easy to delete a voicemail from a guy you’ve never met, but negotiating the fragile terrain of The Mother Set-Up is fraught with sensitive social etiquette I’m not well versed in.

How do you explain — in person �”to an overbearing Jewish mother that you have zero interest in being set up with her sensational offspring?

You don’t. So it continued, every Shabbat when three or four or five mothers, grandmothers and even sisters would repeat the weekly ordeal:

“I have a son. He’s in real estate. A good business. Very handsome!”

“I have a brother. He’s 40, a plastic surgeon, very handsome!”

“I have two sons. Both doctors, very handsome. Have your pick!”

I stopped bringing the cards to temple because I thought I might be fired if my editors ever listened to my voicemail.

Then things changed. It started happening during services — a tap from behind, “Excuse me, are you married?”

“No, but do you think this could wait until after the rabbi’s sermon?”

So The Mothers would whip out their pens.

“Here, please. Write your phone number. My son will call you.”

I attend a Conservative synagogue and haven’t picked up a pen since one of the cantors reprimanded me for taking notes during a Shabbat lecture.

I started telling The Mothers that I do not give out my number on Shabbat. They laugh; then they ask again.

One providential morning, an attractive mother in hot pink satin gave me the third degree and went to fetch her son. I snuck into the sanctuary, hoping to disappear in the rabbi’s lecture, but the next thing I knew The Mother and The Son were sitting right behind me, patiently waiting half an hour for an opportunity to arrange the shidduch. Ugh!

After some chit-chat, The Mother suggested her son and I exchange phone numbers. To give us privacy she stepped a few feet away.

I wondered if she’d want an adjoining room on the honeymoon.

I walked away deflated. He wasn’t even cute. But something more bothered me: Mothers elicit the desire to please, which makes my refusal — and me �”disappointing; as if they pose a challenge I can’t meet. And maybe it hurts a little that their community embrace begins and ends with marriage machinations. Or perhaps, the sheer persistency is convincing me I might be wrong to doubt them.

I remind myself that I possess my own romantic dreams which do not include being followed three floors down into the parking garage in pursuit of a phone number. I’m not Britney Spears or a flank steak.

I guess I’m deceiving them by projecting the image of a woman who’s ready for that kind of arrangement. With my remaining childbearing years, I plan to hold out for the moment when I see him across the room, and our eyes meet like two souls dancing.

But I gotta hand it to ’em — those masterful mothers. If only their sons knew what they wanted in a woman as much as The Mothers know exactly what woman they want for their sons.

Attack of ‘The Mothers’ Read More »

Why Israel must kvetch

If there’s one question I’ve heard a thousand times from Jews all over, it is this: Why is Israel so bad at PR? I know that when Jews ask me that question, they’re also saying, “Suissa, you’re in the business, can’t you do something?”

Jewish emotion never ceases to move me. I look at the pain in people’s eyes when they see how the world hates us even after thousands of bombs land on our cities; I see our collective grief when Jews are murdered; I read the passionate e-mails exhorting us to stand up to our enemies, or those encouraging us to make peace with our enemies, and it’s clear that Jews are anything but indifferent.

One thing Jews are always peeved about is Israeli PR. We want to know why the world continues to hate us, why we can’t seem to get any credit for the good that we do, and why our image seems to get worse every year.

Well, if you’re expecting some good news, stop reading now.

After many years of being immersed in the Israeli PR battle, I’ve concluded that we’re not likely ever to win it, and no, it’s not because of anti-Semitism.

It’s because of something in our genes.

This was brought home to me during Condoleezza Rice’s recent trip to the Middle East. Here’s a quote from a New York Times’ editorial on the result of her visit: “Her only accomplishment was persuading Mr. Abbas to resume peace talks with the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert.”

Think about that. Israel suffers through thousands of bombs launched indiscriminately on its sovereign land from a territory it relinquished to its enemy, then finally decides it has had enough and enters that territory to try to stop the bombing, and while the bombs keep falling on Israel, who decides to throw a hissy fit and stop the “peace process”? It’s our “peace partner,” Mahmoud Abbas, who calls our efforts at self-defense “worse than a Holocaust” and compels Rice to visit him with hat in hand and plead with him to return to the peace table.

That, my friends, is brilliant PR.

It’s also the kind of PR we never do. Why? Because the Jewish way is not to throw hissy fits but to look responsible. It’s in our genes; the gene of the stoic Israeli who can get things done without complaining.

Don’t get me wrong. Taking responsibility is a great thing. It helps you build countries. It’s just that in the snake pit of Middle East PR, it’s the kiss of death.

Arabs understand this, Jews don’t. Jews are task-oriented, not PR oriented.

It might be insane for any nation to tolerate thousands of bombs raining on its civilians, but to get so upset as to walk away from a peace table? That’s too irresponsible.

The Arabs have always known that the way to get the world’s sympathy is to studiously avoid responsibility — and constantly kvetch. How often have we seen Arab negotiators come out of peace meetings with a glum and pessimistic look on their faces, while our Israeli negotiators, with their steely resolve, report that they are committed and determined to keep pushing for peace?

Listen to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert after his country suffered through months of bombings, including the recent brutal murder of Jewish students in Jerusalem: “Despite terrorism and despite the pain, we are not relinquishing the monumental task of making another dramatic step that can bring us closer to building the foundations for true peace between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Those are the words of a taskmaster, not a PR meister.

What creates good PR is pessimism, not optimism; being offended, not accommodating. Smart PR is geared to the people who spend nanoseconds thinking about your cause, which is about 99 percent of the planet. Those people don’t look at your body of facts; they look at your body language.

When your body language shows no emotion, when you don’t even react to being stabbed in the back, you look guilty. In the Middle East, the way to fight the PR battle is not to stay calm, but to show more outrage than your enemy.

If defending Israel’s image was a priority for Olmert, he would regularly criticize the behavior of his “peace partner” Abbas, who continues to preside over the indoctrination of hate in Palestinian society, and who, while pretending to be a peacemaker, praises terrorists and reiterates his refusal to recognize Israel when speaking to the Arab press.

But unlike Abbas, Olmert doesn’t kvetch about his adversaries. In fact, our formidable Mount Rushmore of stone-faced leaders — Olmert, Peres, Barak and Livni �”will kvetch a lot less about the murder of Jews than the Palestinians will wail about Israeli housing permits in Gush Etzion. That’s why they cream us in PR. They’re always wailing.

Sometimes I fantasize about being Israeli prime minister for a day, just so I could hold a press conference and say stuff like this to the world: “How would your country feel if two of your cities had been terrorized by 7,000 bombs since September 2001? Would you preach restraint? As the leader of a sovereign country, my first responsibility is to protect the safety of my people. I report to them. Until our peace partner Mr. Abbas starts to teach the language of peace to his people and shows that he’s dead serious about fighting terrorism, we are very pessimistic about any peace process.”

Irresponsible? Maybe, but don’t be so sure.

Let’s face it: No matter how responsibly Israel acts, Palestinians are always kvetching. And the more they kvetch, the less they feel like doing or building anything. Maybe Israel should give the Palestinians a taste of their own medicine and force them to grow up. And if they choose to remain history’s biggest crybabies, at least they’ll have a harder time blaming us for their misery.

If you ask me, it’s the responsible thing to do.

David Suissa, an advertising executive, is founder of OLAM magazine and Meals4Israel.com. He can be reached at dsuissa@olam.org.

Why Israel must kvetch Read More »

The other ‘N- word’

Few words have the power to upset individuals and corrode a conversation more than the N-word. Its very use short-circuits rational discourse. Thrown around with frequency in certain circles, the N-word provokes and torments, gaining totemic power with each use.

The N-word I refer to is, of course, “Nazi.”

Over 60 years after the end of World War II, the N-word and its relatives, the F-bomb (“fascist”) and the H-bomb (“Hitler”), continue to wreak havoc on our language and political discourse.

For years, leftist critics have been quick to brand their rightwing opponents as fascists and spiritual heirs of der Fuhrer. Just months ago, the cultural critic and erstwhile Democratic political consultant Naomi Wolf published an entire book dedicated to the proposition that America is sliding toward fascism.

Lately, the right has gotten in on the act. Members of the Bush administration have branded Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a modern-day Hitler. And Jonah Goldberg, an editor at National Review, has published a book with the subtle title, “Liberal Fascism.”

Ironically, what Goldberg denounces as “argumentum ad hitlerum” is the very form of rhetoric he engages in. Only he says that such fascistic behavior is the domain of the left and not his beloved right.

Unfortunately for Wolf, Goldberg and others who let the N-word fly and drop F-bombs, their logic is deeply flawed. Although Socrates was a man and Hitler was a man, Socrates was not Hitler.

Writers like Wolf and Goldberg may argue that they are trying to learn from history in order not to repeat it, but labeling Ahmadinejad “Hitler” or Bush a “Nazi” or the entire Democratic Party since Woodrow Wilson a fascist movement sheds only heat and no light on the topics and cheapen the terms themselves.

In addition, these labels are not mere descriptions, but calls to action. For example, if Ahmadinejad is Hitler and Iran is Nazi Germany, then there is no question whether we need to strike Iran. And, if Bush is a fascist, then armed resistance is imperative.

For Jews and supporters of Israel, the use and abuse of these terms (not to mention the A-bomb, “apartheid,” and the other H-bomb, “Holocaust”) is particularly troubling. When critics of Israel label it the new South Africa guilty of committing a Holocaust, it precludes any reasoned discussion of the conflict or potential solutions. Instead, Zionism becomes racism, and the Jewish people must be denied the right to fulfill their national aspirations.

Amos Oz has warned against failing to differentiate between degrees of evil. I would go one step further and caution that use of the N-word, F-bombs and H-bombs represents the evil of banality and demonstrates a failing to understand both the past and the present.

When one starts on the track, there really is no stopping: school uniforms are fascistic; reverie for natural splendor is Nazi-like; and any charismatic demagogue becomes Hitler.

Instead of reaching for incendiary metaphors and historically inaccurate labels, we should strive, in the words of Pasternak, “to call each thing by its right name.”

Neither Ahmadinejad nor Bush is Hitler. The new left was not the Gestapo. Neocons are not Nazis. And Israel is not South Africa.

However, whether Los Angeles’ traffic is the devil incarnate is no longer even a question.

Jordan Susman is an associate at the law firm of Holme Roberts & Owen. He has written numerous articles for the Los Angeles Daily Journal and the Orange County Register. Before moving to Los Angeles, he was a Voice of Israel foreign desk correspondent in Jerusalem.

The other ‘N- word’ Read More »