Wagner’s Legacy
I understand why Rabbi Schulweis has difficulty condoning the upcoming Wagner festival. He starts with an utterly false premise (unsupported by the rest of his article) that “Wagner was an extraordinary musician, and an even more extraordinary anti-Semite” (“Let Wagner Be Heard?” Aug. 28).
Wagner’s Jew-hatred was anything but extraordinary. His worst writings were hardly different from those penned by Martin Luther centuries earlier in his book “On the Jews and Their Lies” (1543). Nor did they surpass the drivel of countless others who demonized and persecuted Jews throughout history. No, sad to say, Wagner was a quite ordinary anti-Semite.
But Wagner was also much more than “an extraordinary musician” (something one might say of a gifted bar mitzvah boy). He was beyond question one of the most gifted composers of all time, whose influence has extended to this day. His magnificent “Ring” cycle of four operas is one of the greatest individual artistic achievements in history. And that is the only reason his music will be the subject of the upcoming festival, whether or not “condoned” by Rabbi Schulweis or others.
It should go without saying that Wagner’s abhorrent anti-Semitism will of course be a subject of the various lectures and events during the festival. In this way, Wagner’s place in history can be addressed, and any misconceptions can be corrected. For example, Rabbi Schulweis suggests that Wagner “personally and actively orchestrated a circle of racist colleagues, among whom was his son-in-law Houston Stewart Chamberlain.” This is misleading. Wagner died in 1883 and never met Chamberlain. Chamberlain became friends with Wagner’s widow Cosima (Franz Liszt’s daughter) after 1888 and did not publish his influential anti-Semitic tract until 1899. He married Wagner’s daughter Eva only in 1908. Chamberlain was certainly influenced by Wagner, but to suggest because of the posthumous family connection that Wagner supported Chamberlain or that they collaborated is simply wrong.
Los Angeles is not “offering immortality” to Wagner. He earned his place in history long ago. Rabbi Schulweis’ sense of “self-respect” apparently makes it impossible for him to listen to, or even discuss, “Here Comes the Bride” (from Hitler’s favorite Wagner opera, “Lohengrin”), because to do so “breaks the limits of tolerance.” Really? Are we Jews really so small-minded? Must we shut off our ears and close our eyes? Can we not recognize and honor greatness, while also condemning that which is terrible?
E. Randol Schoenberg
Board Member, LA Opera
Chairman of the Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust
Tolerance for Dissent?
The uproar over Dr. Neve Gordon and, by extension, his home institution — Ben-Gurion University — is unfortunate on several levels, not the least of which is how self-defeating his critics are (“Donors Protest Israeli Professor’s Op-ed,” Aug. 28). It is not just, they say, that Gordon is a son’e Yisra’el (a hater of Israel) because he calls for a graduated regime of boycotts to end Israel’s occupation — all, it should be noted, in the name of a two-state solution. It is that his home university should be punished for his Los Angeles Times op-ed. Yes, that would be a good way to show support for Israel — and to advance democracy and open expression in the country. Punish one of its most innovative institutions because of what a faculty member wrote. What kind of confounded logic is this? Isn’t the institution larger than this one faculty member? Perhaps even more to the point, isn’t tolerance for dissent a hallmark of the kind of enlightened society that “will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture,” as Israel’s Declaration of Independence proclaims?
To be sure, Gordon’s proposal is controversial. We do not share his belief that a boycott is the best or only way to overcome the seemingly endless occupation. But we do share his frustration that every Israeli government has continued to build settlements since 1967 in defiance of international law — and of Israel’s own best interests. And we do share the recently voiced concern of Edgar Bronfman Sr. that the settlement project will turn Israel into a “de facto apartheid state” unless and until Israel can disengage from the West Bank. The settlements may have already made a two-state solution impossible, in which case Israel faces the choice of granting full rights to all who dwell between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean — or granting full rights only to the Jews in that space.
Those who genuinely care about Israel — and do not regard concern for the welfare of Palestinians as a zero-sum game — must pay careful heed to the analysis in Neve Gordon’s piece, even if they do not accept its prescription. The alternative (and oft-chosen path) is to rest content with attacking Gordon, Bronfman or even Ben-Gurion University — and avoid addressing the conditions on the ground that, in fact, pose a far greater danger to Israel’s future than words.
Rabbi Leonard Beerman
Professor Gerald Bubis
Professor Aryeh Cohen
Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater
Professor David N. Myers
Professor Adam Rubin
BJE Name Change
A letter in last week’s Journal questioned whether the BJE’s hiring of a consultant to change its name from the Bureau of Jewish Education to the BJE reflected “wise spending.” The change of name and logo were the direct result of recommendations made as part of the BJE’s engagement in a long-term strategic plan. This process was started several years ago and the goal was to ensure that the BJE was fulfilling its mission to enhance quality, increase access, and encourage participation in Jewish education. The planning process included consultation with a broad range of community stakeholders. As a result of the process, the BJE made many substantive changes to the programs and services it offers. One of a number of recommendations was that in order to better advance its mission, the BJE needed to re-brand itself. The consultant who was hired for a very modest fee created the BJE’s new logo, not the new name. The actual name change, from the Bureau of Jewish Education to the BJE, was a decision of the Board of Directors in recognition of the fact that the term “Bureau” failed to describe what the BJE is today. Especially in this financial climate, the professional staff and lay leaders of the BJE have done everything possible to best allocate the charity dollars entrusted to the BJE in a manner that will have the greatest impact on Jewish education in the our community.
Marc Rohatiner, BJE President
Pros and Cons of Universal Health Care
As a physician who experiences the failings of our health care system on a daily basis, I find Rabbi Elliott Dorff’s treatise on “Why We Must Support Universal Health Care” (Aug. 28) a breath of fresh air. As both a Jew and a health care professional, I face every day with the mission of tikkun olam. I feel it in my bones, my heart and my soul. The health insurance industry began our odyssey down the wrong path when the for-profit schema was introduced by Blue Cross of California in the early 1990s to forestall threatened bankruptcy. Incremental change has brought us to the brink of disaster with yearly increases in premiums, co-pays, deductibles and medication costs. The maneuver was wildly successful and adopted by the rest of the industry.
As Dorff states, “Jewish tradition imposes a clear duty to try to heal….” Obama’s public plan and the recently substituted health co-op concept will only contribute another layer of bureaucracy to our present system. The only reasonable option to guarantee health care for everyone is the nonprofit, single-payer (Medicare-for-all). The money to finance such a plan is already there: $400 billion-$800 billion in profits and administrative waste will guarantee health care for everyone when the middle man is eliminated. As a member of the California Physicians Alliance, affiliated with the Physicians for a National Health Program, I support single-payer. With added responsibility as a Jew and a physician, I face each day empowered to heal and know I am doing the right thing.
Jerome P. Helman
Venice
I write as a Jew who feels strongly about health care and taking care of the people’s needs, but the history of our great nation and public dole programs has not brought this country to where it is. Thank you for your learned writing, but I think we have to look inside of the Obama plan and not go blindly into it because as Jews we normally vote Democratic. Discussion and a time to read that huge document is in order.
John Osten
via e-mail
Rabbi Elliot N. Dorff’s article, “Why We Must Support Universal Health Care,” provides a skillful and comprehensive overview of Judaic sources relevant to the important issue of health care. However, in my reading of his source material, he appears to undermine his own call for universal health care.
First, many of his sources clearly prioritize care for self, family and the Jewish community over universal care. More importantly, a Jewish politician like Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) who prioritizes defense and opposes a public option in health care, would find support for his views here, as shown in the quotation about the importance of “saving people who are threatened by human attackers … first.”
More importantly, the only truly universal bill in the form of a single-payer, Medicare-for-All model, H.R. 676 — supported by Jewish politicians like Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) — is omitted from this article completely. In short, the rabbi’s own material shows that universal care — as a concern of the Jewish community — is a low religious priority and, as a secular issue, is totally missing in action.
Gene Rothman
Culver City
When are you going to print the real truth? This is a travesty and it has to be answered. I’d like to know who is doing the article giving the real information as to why we must NOT support universal health care and ruin America.
Mara Kochba
via e-mail
Revising History
Rob Eshman is concerned by what he sees as historical revisionism in Tarantino’s Holocaust revenge fantasy (“Kill Wilhelm,” Aug. 28). The Bear Jew in “Basterds” — clubbing Nazis with baseball bats — does Samson ring a bell, defeating his Philistine enemies with a jawbone of an ass? Are Jews really so inept according to Mr. Eshman that they could pull off upset victories unique in the annals of world history? A tiny nation holding at bay the Seleucid Hellenistic Empire (in the Chanukah story); the two Judean revolts that forced the all-powerful Roman Empire to call reserves from Gaul and Germania to suppress? How about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising that held off the German armies for many weeks — Jews fighting with Molotov cocktails and limited weaponry? How about the emaciated, starving concentration camp inmates who upon liberation tore apart their SS prison guards with their bare hands? Is that also Hollywood-ization? The recent film “Defiance” is based on the true stories of Jewish resistance and survival in the Russian forest.
It seems that Mr. Eshman’s view of the banality of Jewish resistance is the real revisionism here; perhaps it’s the Ghandi-ization of contemporary American Judaism that has distorted actual Jewish history, de-emphasizing Jewish strength, faithfulness and courage while admiring their victimhood and helplessness. In other words, Jews have survived the many formidable challenges in our history not by litigating, but by liquidating our enemies.
Richard Friedman
Los Angeles
A Healthy Debate
Thanks to Marty Kaplan for his spot-on analysis of the health care debate (”Kumbaya, Not Kevorkian, Will Kill Granny,” Aug. 28). There has been an abysmal failure on the part of the media to name lunacy and lies when they are fully apparent. Moreover, I am deeply disappointed about President Obama’s lack of leadership on the health care issue. It is patently obvious that the Republicans have no interest in any reform that might inure to the benefit of the administration. I worked tirelessly to elect this president including taking my 10-year-old grandson to Nevada to walk precincts and knock on doors in 110-degree heat. I trusted him to know when conciliation and compromise might work and when assertive and perhaps aggressive leadership would be necessary. Now I fear that whatever comes out of the administration will be too little, too late.
Barbara H. Bergen
Los Angeles
I guess I need a new dictionary, or a translator, for the new language used by Marty Kaplan in his Kumbaya article.
Kaplan has brought to our attention in this article the only valid accusation the Democrats have against the health care bill’s opponents. Yes, Sarah Palin said something that has no direct basis in the bill. That is it. All the other concerns and charges are valid and cannot be refuted by Kaplan and the bill’s supporters, and so they go after the messenger.
The accusations leveled against the plan’s detractors have nothing to do with the agenda at hand. Their concerns are not addressed; they are lied to by the president and all the president’s men who at the end of the day will not be able to pull this plan together again.
Calling names is what Kaplan is doing in earnest. No Hitler signs have been carried, nor Nazi calls been heard, certainly not by a majority of concerned citizens who feel they are been duped and lied to. The same political discourse that Nancy Pelosi welcomed when it was directed against Bush is now anti-democratic when it is in opposition to her policies.
Kaplan is distorting liberalism as well. No longer is it the tendency of fair-minded people to accept the acts of others, as deplorable as they may be. All of a sudden a liberal has been transformed with a lash of Kaplan’s pen into a militant social rights activist.
The true American liberal was once regarded as one who was willing to die so an opposing point of view would be heard. Somehow Mr. Kaplan, you have excluded yourself from our crowd.
Ethan Teitler
via e-mail
There is no question that both Republicans and Democrats realize the need for urgent reform in health care. The difference is in their ideology—how it can be achieved with the utmost efficiency, without having the government taking control of our personal life and without spending trillions of dollars we don’t have (and have China own our health care system as well).
In response to Marty Kaplan’s article: For someone who dreams of “fair and balanced” journalism, his article is plagued with inaccuracies.
Knowing how security works in protecting the president, I doubt anyone could carry “loaded assault weapons” into any of Obama’s events.
Also, Glenn Beck only mentioned the word “Nazi” when referring to the false statements made by Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein with regard to town hall meetings.
Mr. Kaplan claims that Obama’s presidency is held hostage to bipartisanship. Isn’t bipartisanship the way our government should work? Bipartisanship is not the problem. The problem is the president’s weak leadership of trying to please everyone all of the time.
Danny Bental
Tarzana
Iranian Threat: Overblown?
David Suissa accepts the widespread view that Iran is an existential threat to Israeli security (”Stopping Iran,” Aug. 21). My view is that this threat is considerably overblown, and this becomes clear when considering Iranian interests.
Consider the following arguments: (1) Any Iranian attack against Israel would lead to heavy Israeli retaliation that would end the Iranian state as we know it. To believe that Iran would nevertheless attack is to believe that the main objective of Iran at present is to cause Israel’s destruction. This is not credible. (2) An Iranian nuclear attack against Israel would kill many thousands of Palestinians, and possibly also Hezbollah and Hamas allies. Why Iran would sacrifice its friends to destroy its enemies is unclear. (3) If Iran wanted (God forbid) to hurt Israel, it has other methods available, including attempting to assassinate Israeli leaders. It has not used these methods. (4) The Iranian revolution occurred in 1978; if Iran had in mind to cause existential harm to Israel, we would have seen traces of that action by now, but none has been apparent. (5) President Ahmadinejad, who has threatened to attack Israel, does not control the decision to make war and peace in his country; the religious leadership has this responsibility. For this reason alone, in terms of the power makeup of his country, Ahmadinejad cannot be viewed as a modern-day Hitler. (6) An Iranian diplomatic official wrote last year that Iran had not made war against any other country for three hundred years; the idea that all of a sudden Iran should stake its existence on suicidal conflict now is not credible.
I believe these are strong arguments on the other side, which have not received their due attention. As to why the Israeli government nevertheless persists with the existential argument, I believe it is because that government uses the Iran issue to distract the world from the difficult problem of making peace with the Palestinians, which requires concessions to the Palestinians that Israel would rather not make.
Barry H. Steiner
Professor of Political Science, CSULB
David Suissa is right to emphasize that the U.S. is taking a laid-back approach to the looming threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, but mistaken to suggest that the threat posed to the U.S. isn’t nearly as serious as that posed to Israel.
Whatever the political, economic and security risks for the U.S. that might be entailed by a last-resort strike upon Iranian nuclear facilities, they will be as nothing against the shadow of nuclear blackmail under which America will be obliged to live once Iran gets such weapons.
Even if Iran never fires them at the U.S., who really believes Iran won’t give such weapons to terrorists? And who believes that, once possessing such weapons, terrorists won’t use them on the U.S.?
Unlike the situation in World War II, America cannot bounce back after initial losses. Just one nuclear attack on an American city would break our will to resist. Think about it—Japan was fanatically opposed to surrendering in 1945 and it took two atomic bombs to change its mind. Does anyone believe Americans will fight harder today than the Japanese did then, absorb one, two or three nuclear attacks and keep on fighting Islamic terrorists?
Once Iran gets the bomb, our freedom and security will be on the way out—forever.
Morton A. Klein
National President
Zionist Organization of America
New York
Roslyn Schulte and the Afghanistan War
Roslyn Schulte, a beautiful and talented young Jewish woman, died in the service of her country in Afghanistan. Her loss is deeply felt by family, loved ones, the community and the nation. Rob Eshman lovingly and respectfully eulogized her in his editorial, “Woman in Combat” (Aug. 21), and commended the growing equality of the sexes in U.S. combat forces. One rightly might feel uneasy about using a fallen soldier to defend or to criticize policy, but the issues Eshman raised (and did not raise) deserve a response.
According to polls, a majority of Americans do not now feel the U.S. war in Afghanistan is justified and worth the cost to life and limb (794 American deaths so far, more than 2,000 seriously injured). We in the Arbeter Ring (Workmen’s Circle) join with millions of others in mourning the deaths of combatants and civilians alike in war, and wonder if there are not perhaps other ways of turning hearts and minds of people around the world toward civility and justice. Our country’s military approach does not seem to have made much difference, and likely has made things worse. Domestically, too, isn’t it time to divert some of our enormous military budget toward more productive purpose? Perhaps old Isaiah said it best: “For the work of righteousness shall be peace.”
Ruth Judkowitz, Chairmentsh
Eric A. Gordon, Director
The Workmen’s Circle/Arbeter Ring SoCal District
Los Angeles
Film Rekindles Memories
Yes, “Inglourious Basterds” rekindles memories of the Jewish Brigade which participated at the tail end of World War II and immediate post-war period in Europe (see review of “Hands” by Kenneth Turan, L.A. Times Nov. 27, 1998). They established an underground railway that moved Jewish refugees across Europe to port cities en route to Palestine. I saw the brigade in action in Austria where I served on occupation duty with the 384th Military Police Battalion, Railway Security, 1946-49.
Their clandestine hit squads managed to locate more than a few Nazi officers in hiding and their “fundraising” activities (black market) were something to behold, although they denied it (“DP Heads Deny Black Goods Uncovered in Vienna”, Stars & Stripes, Jan. 25, 1947). The displaced persons camp was raided by Austrian police but DPs blocked their way and it was necessary to call U.S. MPs. Camp officials conceded that some black market activity may have been going on outside the camp in the general area. Us GIs turned our back on the activities of the brigade but provided some small help. A few packs of cigarettes and a few PX items for hard-to-get liquor.
Memories!
Val Rodriguez
Signal Hill
Ornithologist at Sinai
Thank you for your lovely article on Dr. Yossi Leshem’s visit to Sinai Temple. It should be noted that Dr. Leshem’s visit was part of a Jewish National Fund program to support Hula Valley. Also in March 2010, Dr. Leshem will be part of a bird-watching mission to Israel for the Jewish National Fund. For more information, please go to http://support.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=birdwatching2.
Michelle Grant
JNF Board of Directions
Santa Monica
Is Israel a Democracy?
I was very proud that the L.A. Times chose my letter to publish regarding Ben Gurion University’s Dr. Neve Gordon’s op-ed piece, “Boycott Israel.” To me it was the cry of an Israeli intellect to make the State of Israel the “Light unto the Nations” that the founding fathers and we Diaspora Jews wished for. Then I read the full page ad in your Aug. 28 issue by Doron Krakow of the American Associates of the university, inviting Gordon to leave his country. Krakow bandies the term “democracy” with regards to the State of Israel. In our country, Krakow will never have rocks and feces thrown at him if he drives through a heredi neighborhood on Shabbat. Non-Orthodox Israeli Jews cannot be legally married in their own nation. Democracy? The Israeli government spends almost six times more to educate a Jewish student than an Israeli Arab student. Democracy? (See Carol Smokler’s Viewpoint in June 22 Jerusalem Report.) I suggest that Krakow move to Israel, and in exchange we should welcome Neve Gordon and his family to come here and enjoy life in a true democracy.
Martin J. Weisman
Westlake Village
‘Taking Woodstock’ Promotes Offensive Jewish Stereotypes
A Jewish woman so obsessed with money that she shakes the sheets at her motel rather than washing them, charges extra for towels and soap and is found literally sleeping in a closet buried beneath her 20 year savings. If that isn’t subtle enough, she also routinely throws tirades and tantrums using an over-the-top “Yiddish” accent and even throwing in references to gas chambers when the bank manager has finally issued his last pre-foreclosure warning.
This is the offensive, not humorous, portrayal of the mother (a Holocaust survivor) of the main character in the movie “Taking Woodstock.” Her one-dimensional personality is actually the only energy or passion in this watered-down version of the glory of Woodstock.
Ang Lee, the director, shows sensitivity and compassion in his portrayal of the gay son and transvestite friend. The contrast is disturbing.
Sheila Williams
Sherman Oaks
Repair the Entire World?
Another trip to the Laemmele Theaters: another perusal of the Jewish Journal.
A rather mild issue, but I was struck by the letter from Simona Klein. She was upset about the Palestinians, praised Obama (of course) and then finished her missive with a question: “Aren’t we (the Jews) supposed to try and repair the entire world?”
This question needs an answer and the answer, Simona, is a loud “NO.” The “world” doesn’t want us to. They (the “world”) will get annoyed. I think the “world” wants us, the Jewish people, to mind our own business, take care of our own, prosper and endow universities and museums and contribute to real charities. I also think the “world,” that is the understanding people left in Europe and our country, will appreciate our concern about one million Israelis being incinerated while Obama and the secretary of state beg the mullahs to talk.
Mark Steinberg
Los Angeles
Please Be an Advocate For Israel
A quick note to Professor David N. Myers, who responded to my critical letter in the Jewish Journal: Please, just be an advocate for Israel. We desperately need them. Yes, there are injustices on both sides and even if you don’t agree that the Arab/Palestinian abhorrent behavior is over-the-top disproportionate in rhetoric and action, there are plenty people all over the world jumping all over us. We need you, as a Jew and a teacher with access to young, impressionable minds, to advocate and campaign for your people.
Allan Kandel
Los Angeles
Remind Readers of Yeshayahu Leibowitz
The Jewish Journal is continually infused with passionate articles and letters about the Israel versus Palestine situation. Of course, this is only to be expected.
However, I would encourage you to remind your readers of the moral viewpoint of Yeshayahu Leibowitz (professor at the Hebrew University), as expressed shortly after the 1967 war and subsequently.
Five of his essays are contained in his book, “Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State (http://www.amazon.com/Judaism-Human-Values-Jewish-State/dp/0674487761).
It would be great if you could publish a sample essay. But they are probably too long. And maybe there are copyright issues.
Israel is the first test of Judaism in charge in 2,000 years. I have told my sister (who lives in Israel) that we will have to wait a few hundred years for test results re the morality of Jewish leadership. I fear that the test results may come a lot sooner.
Amiel Shulsinger
El Monte
Recaliberation by Obama Will Not End Mideast Conflict
Your insightful column (”’Boycott Israel’ Nope: Boycott the Arabs,” Video/Web, Aug. 20) was right on the mark.
You rightly point out how ridiculous Neve Gordon’s one-sided column is in the Los Angeles Times (“Boycott Israel,” August 20.)
I find it quite troubling that the administration is asking a great deal of Israel while requesting little from the Arab world.
President Obama is wrong to press Israel on the settlements issue as the Arab world will not change its rhetoric or its positions. It wants Israel to be pressed to give back land and compromise its security in exchange for words of hatred from so-called “moderate” Arab leaders. This would only weaken Israel and threaten its security.
The Obama administration must not overemphasize the settlements.
Compromises between people of goodwill can be made on settlements, as Israel has demonstrated in the recent past. But no compromise can be made on Israel’s right to exist inside secure borders unmolested by terrorist groups or threatened by belligerent states.
Obama must first get the Arab world to accept Israel completely as a Jewish state within secure and defensible borders before Israel is forced to make one-sided concessions.
Israel is the only truly democratic Jewish state in the Middle East where the 20 percent Palestinian Arab minority enjoy full Israeli citizenship with voting rights.
Israel is right to take a defensive position against its enemies and ensure her citizen’s safety from both internal and external threats.
The Palestinian Arab goal continues to be the elimination of Israel by making unacceptable demands on her. Mahmoud Abbas and the Fatah party have been wrongly described as “moderate” by the mainstream media. Fatah’s charter, article 19, states clearly that “the struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.” The overwhelming majority of Americans that support Israel should be made aware of this fact and oppose one-sided pressure on Israel. I do not see how recalibration by Obama will end the Mideast conflict.
Josh Basson
Seattle
Rob Eshman’s column will return next week.
There are many, many more letters at jewishjournal.com.
THE JEWISH JOURNAL welcomes letters from all readers. Letters should be no more than 200 words and must include a valid name, address and phone number. Letters sent via e-mail must not contain attachments. Pseudonyms and initials will not be used, but names will be withheld on request. We reserve the right to edit all letters. Mail: The Jewish Journal, Letters, 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1510, Los Angeles, CA 90010; e-mail: {encode=”letters@jewishjournal.com” title=”letters@jewishjournal.com”}; or fax: (213) 368-1684.
