fbpx

December 16, 2009

Devorah Halberstam awarded for anti-terrorism advocacy

The FBI recognized the Brooklyn mother of a terrorist victim for her advocacy of anti-terrorism and anti-gun laws.

Devorah Halberstam, whose 16-year-old son Ari was shot and killed in 1994 while traveling across the Brooklyn Bridge in a van with other Chabad-Lubavitch yeshiva students, was presented the FBI Director’s Community Leadership Award in a Dec. 10 ceremony.

Since his murder, Halberstam has worked to promote legislation combating terrorism, including securing the passage of the New York Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 with then-New York Gov. George Pataki and establishing Ari’s Law, an interstate gun-trafficking measure. Pataki also appointed Halberstam to sit on the state’s first Commission on Terrorism.

FBI Assistant Director Joseph Demarest in presenting the award recognized Halberstam’s “endless pursuit of justice, everlasting love for her family, dedication for victim’s rights and patriotism for her country,” according to Chabad.org News.

“I am proud of the FBI for helping me transform my grief into battling terrorism,” Halberstam said at the ceremony, Chabad.org News reported.

In the Brooklyn Bridge shooting, Muslim gunman Rashid Baz ambushed the students’ van on a ramp leading to the bridge and allegedly shouted “kill the Jews” in Arabic while spraying the van with submachine gun fire.

Halberstam’s accomplishments since her son’s murder also include helping to found the Jewish Children’s Museum in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn.

Devorah Halberstam awarded for anti-terrorism advocacy Read More »

What’s Happening

Last week, I met a guy named John who moved out to Los Angeles many years ago, dreaming of Hollywood.

He found an apartment around Argyle Street, then one day he wandered into the Stella Adler Studio of Acting. He didn’t have any money, so John offered to clean toilets in exchange for classes, and the school took him up on it.

With his piercing blue eyes, sculptor’s hands and a lyrical, baritone voice, John fit right in with a young Mark Ruffalo and with Michael Richards, pre-“Seinfeld.” He worked hard and eventually won the chance to perform before Adler herself.

“She was 86 years old,” John told me. “I knew I’d never get to perform for her again, so I wanted to pick something really hard. I did a soliloquy from ‘Hamlet.’ She was kind to me, but I was really bad.”

John talked around the details, blaming health problems, botched surgeries, conditions that contributed to other conditions, but around that time, things began to fall apart.

For the past year, John has lived on a corner of Lincoln Boulevard in Venice. Every day for the last year, I’ve driven by him on my way to and from work.

It took me a full year to talk to him. The simple reason: I saw him as a problem someone else was going to take care of.

Last September, I e-mailed City Councilman Bill Rosendahl about “the homeless man at the corner.” Last week, Rosendahl called me back. He suggested I call the St. Joseph Center in Venice, which runs an outreach program.

The St. Joseph’s people didn’t return several phone calls. The first big winter rain was days away. I decided to talk to John.

John is tall, with a heavy beard. “I know I’d look better if I shaved it,” he said.

Filthy grey sweats cover his thin frame, and his feet are cracked and black: He refuses to wear shoes. His corner is sheltered from above by a plywood scaffold. He has no sleeping bag: day and night he just sits, huddled in a thin blanket. Close up, the area smells of dried urine, diarrhea, rotting food. John tells me he has battled all sorts of kidney and stomach ailments lately. There are no public restrooms for blocks.

John has a fine intellect. He said he doesn’t drink, smoke or take drugs — one of the reasons he chose Lincoln Boulevard, he said, is that he can’t abide the addicts camped out on Skid Row, or by Venice Beach.

His encampment is piled up with alternative healing elixirs. Colon Cleanse, Macro Green, Miracle Red. Within moments we were discussing the merits of raw food, alternative medicine, his acting pals, my work at a Jewish newspaper. He told me an Israeli named Udi, who worked at a nearby futon store, used to bring him some supplements, and John asked Udi to teach him Hebrew.

Boker tov,” John said — Hebrew for “Good morning.” “Ma koreh?” he said, which means, “What’s happening?”

While we were talking, a black SUV pulled up, and a fashionable woman jumped out and handed John a Target shopping bag.

“Are you hungry?” she asked. “Here’s a peanut butter sandwich.”

John said thank you, took it, and the woman was gone. He told me someone recently gave him some blueberry scones from Ralphs, but after he read the ingredient list he wouldn’t eat them. “Why do they have to use blue food coloring?” he said. “They’re blueberries.”

I asked John what he wanted. He said his goal is to get someone to give him a car to sleep in, or a room in a garage.

“It’s the only thing that makes sense, unless somebody opens their door for me,” he said. “Then I have privacy, I have autonomy over my space. I could stay clean and keep warm. It would be helpful. I’d rather not be sitting on the corner and having people feed me.”

He said he has rejected help from the St. Joseph Center, the United Methodist Church across the street, the Tabernacle of God outreach and most social workers.

“Look, I’m the age that I am, to have people dictating to you how you’re going to do things….” he said. “I have people come up to me, social workers, and they always talk to you like you’re 9 years old.”

He turned down the Lamp Community downtown, which offers programs to stabilize and give permanent housing to the mentally ill homeless. Lamp is the organization that serves Nathaniel Ayers, the violinist made famous in a series of columns by Steve Lopez and in the movie, “The Soloist.”

John said he turned down Steve Lopez, too.

“I used to hang out near the Times building,” John said. “He tried to get a story out of me.”

In a column about Ayers, Lopez wrote, “I’ve come around to the conclusion that laws intended to protect the rights of Nathaniel and other mentally ill people are well-intended but inhumane.”

So who’s in charge of getting John off the street and into a humane living situation? Who can force him to save himself? Choose life, the Torah commands us. But what are we commanded to do for those incapable of making that choice?

I told John it was about to pour rain for three days and that a shelter had to be preferable to sitting on the street. I said everyone has to occasionally deal with rules and jerks and people who treat them like 9-year-olds to get what they need — that’s one of life’s trade-offs. He nodded.

“Sometimes your instincts run totally counter to what rationality tells you to do,” he said. “Guess I’ll find out tonight if my instincts were right.”

I left him the $7 in my wallet and said I’d be back the next day with a jar of Miracle Red.

“OK,” John said, then called out after me: “Laila tov,” which means, “Good night.”

What’s Happening Read More »

Britain Supreme Court: London Jewish school discriminated [VIDEO]

A Jewish school in London discriminated against a child denied entrance because his mother was not recognized as Jewish, Britain’s Supreme Court said.

The court on Wednesday narrowly rejected an appeal by the Jewish Free School against an earlier ruling stating that its admission policy was illegal and that the North London school broke the Race Relations Act.

An Appeals Court had ruled in favor of a 12-year-old boy, known as M, who claimed that the school’s rejection of his application was discriminatory. M’s father is Jewish and his mother converted to Judaism, but not through an Orthodox synagogue. The school rejected his application because he is not considered Jewish according to the office of the Chief Rabbi.

(story continues after the jump)

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court said the school’s admission criteria are discriminatory on the grounds of ethnicity. The ruling means that Jewish schools in Britain can no longer base their admission on whether a child is Jewish according to the Orthodox tradition.

The justices made it clear that they do not think that the school or the chief rabbi acted in a racist way, adding that they are free from moral blame.

The school said it was disappointed by the court’s decision but would work out a new admission policy for 2011.

British Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks said the closeness of the decision illustrates the complexity of the case, adding that “I welcome the justices’ indication of the good faith in which the United Synagogue, the London Beit Din and our office had acted.”

Rabbi Tony Bayfield, the head of the Movement for Reform Judaism, was pleased with the decision.

“We are delighted that the admissions policy of the JFS, which actively delegitimizes our converts and our rabbis, has been confirmed as unlawful and unacceptable by the highest court in the land,” Bayfield said.

He did express reservations as to the applicability of the Race Relations Act to the issue of Jewish status and to the involvement of the courts in matters that should be dealt with by the Jewish community.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews was disappointed by the court’s decision, saying in a statement released Wednesday that “We will be exploring, as a matter of urgency and after consultation across the community, the possibility of a legislative change to restore the right of Jewish schools of all denominations to determine for themselves who qualifies for admission on the basis of their Jewish status, which we consider to be a fundamental right for our community and one with which the members of the Supreme Court had great sympathy.”

Britain Supreme Court: London Jewish school discriminated [VIDEO] Read More »

Chanukah Gift: Miracle of Sara Berlin

It is odd for the house phone to be ringing at 1:10AM, especially in August. The house phone rarely rings. Mom is sleeping in my room because Dad is sick. I had just crawled into bed. The phone rings again. Groggily, Mom picks up the phone. The caller is a stranger from California – something is wrong with Aunt Joan.

Aunt Joan (AJ) is Mom’s only sister, living three thousand miles away, but still playing a prominent role in my childhood. She has no children of her own; we are her only family.

AJ is glamorous. She had been the first female Vice President of the William Morris talent agency in Los Angeles. Attending awards shows on the arm of one or another of her famous clients, she epitomized the success that everyone seeks in Hollywood, but few rarely achieve. Everyone sought her legendary advice, including me. I remember the advice she gave me on the first day of high school; I was very nervous because I was coming from a middle school that had eighteen students per grade to a high school with over 3000 students.

“Sara, I’m going to tell you what I tell the stars. You are fabulous! You have your own strength and power. Take a deep breath and walk in as if you owned the place. Get involved and make a difference. But most importantly , hold your head up high and take a deep breath. It’s all you, baby.”

Now it was two years later, I had taken her advice, and I was a success. I was in student government, involved in my community, and playing sports. I was looking forward to the start of my junior year, and an upcoming visit from AJ.

But that early morning phone call made it clear that AJ’s only travel plans were a helicopter flight to the hospital; she had been struck by a car while crossing Pacific Coast Highway, tossed 25 feet in the air, landing violently on the pavement, and doubling her injuries. My parents flew out immediately; I started my junior year.

Six weeks later, I was allowed to join them. When I finally saw AJ in the ICU, she was wrapped in a full body cast, with tubes and wires
sticking out everywhere. She had just awoken from a coma that she had been in since the accident, but she was barely awake.  It was painful to watch vibrant Aunt Joan lying still, struggling for every breath of air.

I spent my visit in the hospital, sitting next to her bed. I would talk to her even though she wouldn’t respond; her eyes would just stare blankly at mine. AJ had multiple broken bones, spinal injuries, nerve damage, a collapsed lung, and possible severe brain injury – the doctors were not hopeful that she would live, much less recover. Throughout my visit, doctors and nurses continued work on different parts of her body. On my last day in LA, the speech therapist came in for one last visit. She placed an amplification device on AJ’s trachea in an attempt to get her to speak. AJ was awake, and following the therapist’s movement with her eyes. I asked the therapist if I could
try and get her to speak.

“Hello. Do you know who I am?” I asked with teats rolling down my face. Barely audible, AJ spoke her first words since the accident: “Yes, you’re Sara.”

Stunned by her responsiveness, the therapist tried to ask her some questions, but AJ fell silent again. She just kept looking at me, as I
continued to look at her. Our eyes locked together.

“I’m leaving, but please tell me my name again before I go.”

In a voice that didn’t sound at all like the energetic, outspoken, vivacious AJ that I knew, she weakly said: “Sara, I love you.”

On the six-hour flight home, AJ’s words resonated in my mind. It took so much effort for her just to speak; each word was so difficult. Over those few days that I had sat by her bedside, I had watched her struggle with every task – holding her head up, or moving a finger. The smallest movement became the ultimate goal. I realized that even from an ICU room, barely able to talk or move, Aunt Joan was still my role model. She was going to live. Thirty thousand feet above the ground, I suddenly had a new insight into the meaning of success: It is not measured by fame or fortune, but by the obstacles we overcome, and breaths we learn to take.

My junior year was spent going back and forth to Los Angeles, while striving to meet the pressures of a chaotic year, a rigorous academic schedule, and extra curricular activities. I was a long way from being the nervous freshman entering an overwhelming school; I was a seventeen year old who understood that it is possible to meet challenges by following AJ’s wordless example: strive to overcome obstacles, believe in yourself, hold your head up high, make each breath count, and never forget to say “I love you” to those who matter most.

P.S. As I write this essay one year later, AJ has moved out of the hospital, back to her house. Using a walker instead of a limo, she is resuming the life that everyone (but us) thought was over.

Chanukah Gift: Miracle of Sara Berlin Read More »

Jewish exorcism record discovered

David Goyer’s thriller “The Unborn” proved to be a bit of a letdown for moviegoers hoping for a uniquely Jewish horror film, but new dybbuk source material has been uncovered that could make for an interesting period piece.

A text detailing a Jewish exorcism has been discovered among a collection of 11,000 manuscript fragments rescued from a 1,000-year-old storeroom – or genizah—in Cairo’s Ben Ezra synagogue.

The neatly written 150-word document describes a ceremony to dispel the evil spirit of Nissim Ben Bunya from his widow, Qamar Bat Rahma. Apparently, Qamar had been possessed by the spirit—or dybbuk—of her late husband while engaged to, or just married with, Joseph Moses Ben Sarah.

Renate Smithuis, the medieval Jewish studies scholar at The University of Manchester who found the text, thinks the Hebrew document was most likely written in the 18th century and probably originated from Egypt or Palestine. Professor Gideon Bohak from Tel Aviv University, who has worked with Smithuis, discovered that the prayer is ascribed to the famous 18th century Kabbalist Rabbi Shalom Shar‘abi.

JPost reports:

The fragment contains the second part of a prayer ritual in which the husband—or husband-to-be—of a widow recites an exorcism prayer, to which the other men gathered in the synagogue respond with a similar prayer.

Smithuis said that from the second half of the 16th century onwards, there were many stories about exorcisms in Jewish communities across the Mediterranean, primarily in North Africa and Palestine.

“But this fragment is so exciting because it’s not a story, but the record of a real event using a prayer which was actually recited in a synagogue,” he said. “The prayer was said in the presence of a minyan—the minimum number of 10 adult Jews required for a communal religious service.

“We think it likely to have come from Egypt or Palestine not only because the fragment originates from the Cairo Genizah but also because Qamar (Arabic for “Moon”) and Rahma (“Mercy”) are names of Arabic origin,” Smithuis continued, adding that “we know little more about what happened than what is contained within these 150 or so words – but it does throw some light on this mysterious and little known side of Jewish culture.”

Although Smithuis and many other Jews consider exorcisms beyond the pale of everyday Jewish practice, if you ask certain kabbalistic figures in Jerusalem’s Geula, Beit Yisrael and Mea Shearim neighborhoods, you’ll receive another answer altogether.

Kabbalist Rabbi Yitzhak Batzri said that exorcisms, which are known in Jewish parlance as “removing the dybbuk,” are a fairly common practice.

“My father has performed several of them in the past few years,” said Batzri on Tuesday, referring to Rabbi David Batzri, head of Yeshivat Hashalom.

In fact, a video on the haredi Internet site Ladaat shows Batzri performing the removal of a dybbuk to a man in America via Internet just two weeks ago. The procedure was “successful,” but it took several hours.

Batzri also performed exorcisms on a woman from Dimona and a woman from South America.

Batzri’s son said that the dybbuk talks “out of the throat” of the person which it inhabits, and that the exorcism ceremony is performed by 10 men with Shofars who read special liturgical texts.

“Basically, the dybbuk is encouraged to leave the body of the person it has entered,” said Batzri. “The dybbuk is in actuality a lost soul who did not merit going to the Garden of Eden but also did not deserve going to Gehinom. He remains in limbo and at some point enters the body of a person,” said Batzri.

In Ladaat’s video Batzri is shown reciting prayers together with nine men and coaxing the dybbuk out of the man’s body.

The goal is to get the dybbuk to leave the body through the small toe of the left foot of the person who was possessed, explained Batzri.

Jewish exorcism record discovered Read More »

Lieberman’s Health Care Hypocrisy

Sen. Joe Lieberman, although an ardent foe of a “public option” health insurance plan, has nevertheless been a fervent advocate of socialized medicine.  How can Lieberman-watchers make sense of this ideological contradiction?

To secure Lieberman’s support, in order to get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week replaced the public option in the health reform bill with a provision that would allow Americans age 55 to 64 to buy into the popular Medicare program. At the time, Lieberman said he was “encouraged by the progress toward a consensus.” Then on Sunday he suddenly flip-flopped, explaining that he would oppose the compromise that Reid had crafted to gain his support, and threatened to join with Republicans in voting against the measure. “You’ve got to take out the Medicare buy-in,” the Connecticut Senator said Sunday on CBS’Face the Nation, “You’ve got to forget about the public option.”

Last month, the former Democrat-turned-Independent, said: “If the public option is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow the bill to come to a final vote,” by using the filibuster to thwart any expansion of government-sponsored insurance. People who support a public option,” Lieberman said, “really want to have a government-controlled health insurance system. That’s their right. I think they’re wrong.”

For years, however, Lieberman has been big booster of one of the world’s largest government-run health care programs – the Veterans Health Administration (part of the Department of Veterans Affairs, often just called the VA).  Whereas Obama’s proposed “public option” plan, and even Medicare, is simply a government insurance scheme that pays private providers, the VA actually owns hospitals and clinics. Last year, the VA, which has a $45 billion budget, treated 5.1 million veterans at its 153 hospitals and 900 outpatient clinics throughout the country. The VA’s 200,000 employees, including 14,500 doctors and 60,000 nurses, are government employees. You don’t get much more “socialized” than that!

In Connecticut, the VA operates two major medical centers (in Newington and West Haven), six community-based outpatient clinics (in Danbury, New London, Stamford, Waterbury, Willimantic, and Winsted), three vet centers (in Norwich, Rocky Hill, and West Haven), and two intake sites at the Naval Submarine Base at Groton and the Coast Guard Academy in New London.

Lieberman has often voiced strong support for the VA. In 2002, he fought the Bush administration’s efforts to close VA facilities in Connecticut. In 2004, or Lieberman cosponsored a budget amendment that would have increased veterans’ medical care by $2.7 billion. The next year, he helped pass $1.5 billion in supplemental funds to the VA to meet the growing medical needs of military retirees and the Iraq war. In 2007, Lieberman said: “Our nation has no greater moral and patriotic responsibility than to ensure that these brave Americans receive first class treatment—not only immediately after their injuries, but for their entire lives, through the Veterans Administration.”

The overwhelming support for the VA isn’t surprising. The VA provides first-class healthcare. Two decades ago, it had a lousy reputation. But in the 1990s, the VA underwent a dramatic transformation that improved the quality of care and made it a model of medical efficiency. Experts say that the VA has an excellent track record for containing healthcare costs. A recent Congressional Budget Office report concluded that the VA had found a “substantial degree of cost control.” The VA has been a pioneer in the use of electronic medical records, which has led to significant cost savings and better medical practice.

In 2003 the New England Journal of Medicine published a study comparing the VA and fee-for-service Medicare. On all eleven measures, the quality of care in VA facilities was “significantly better.” Last year, according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index, patients at VA facilities gave the program an 85 satisfaction rating compared with 77 for private hospitals. Phillip Longman titled his 2007 book about the VA The Best Care Anywhere. He concluded that VA facilities provide “the highest quality care in the country.”
In 2000, when Lieberman was the Democrat’s vice presidential candidate with Al Gore, the duo endorsed the idea of expanding Medicare to allow Americans aged 55 to 64 to buy in. During a meeting with the Connecticut Post in September, Lieberman seemed to go even further, suggesting that he favored allow people aged 50 and over to participate in Medicare.  (See the video of his remarks here: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/video-watch-lieberman-endorse-medicare-buy-in-three-months-ago)

As Joshua Marshall of Talking Points Memo recently wrote, Lieberman is “now basically mocking his Democratic colleagues by moving the goalposts every time a new agreement is struck.”

Lieberman is not only a hypocrite on health care, he’s an ungrateful one. In 2006, when Lieberman faced a tough battle for his political survival, losing the Democratic nomination to Ned Lamont, he chose to run for re-election as an independent. Then-Sen. Obama was one of the first to travel to Connecticut to endorse and campaign for him. Last year he paid Obama back by endorsing Sen. John McCain and attacking Obama at numerous campaign events.  Now he’s opposing Obama’s top domestic priority.  (Lieberman had little influence in his own state. Sixty percent of Connecticut voters supported Obama in 2008).

For months, health reform activists have pushed back against the unholy alliance of insurance industry muscle and right-wing mob tactics. During the summer, the conservative echo chamber (especially Fox News shock jocks like Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck) and their “tea party” allies stoked fear and confusion by warning that Obama’s “socialized medicine” plan would create “death panels,” subsidize illegal immigrants, pay for abortions and force people to drop their current insurance. Public support for a public option eventually recovered after taking a tumble over the summer. By late October, a Washington Post/ABC poll found that 57 percent of Americans favored a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. If a public plan were run by the states and available only to those who lack affordable private options, support for it jumps to 76 percent. Under those circumstances, even a majority of Republicans, 56 percent, favor it.

In the past decade, the number of Americans without any health insurance and the number who face bankruptcy due to insurance bills have both increased significantly. And over the past decade, premiums have gone up 138 percent, 3.5 times the growth in family incomes. In addition, insurance deductibles, co-pays and co-insurance have been skyrocketing, to thousands of dollars a year for families, especially for those with the cheaper insurance plans. Despite rising premiums, insurance companies continue to refuse to pay claims or delay payments, both of which result in increased revenues for them. Last year, even in the midst of a recession, UnitedHealth raked in $2.9 billion in profits; WellPoint, $2.5 billion; Aetna, $1.4 billion; Humana, $647 million; and Cigna, $292 million.

Meanwhile, the number of uninsured Americans is up to 46 million. Millions more are underinsured—they pay for plans that leave them vulnerable in the event of unexpected health emergencies. More employers are shifting costs to employees or dropping coverage entirely. Medical bills are now the principle factor in 62 percent of personal bankruptcies. More than half of Americans, the majority of them people with insurance, are skipping needed care due to high out-of-pocket costs.

Understandably, liberals in Connecticut and around the country are furious at Lieberman for seeking to derail health care reform. They believe it is morally unconscionable for him to put the bill at risk over something as relatively small as Medicare buy-in for about three million people. And it looks like the Democrats have little choice but to bend to Lieberman’s will in order to get the 60 votes they need to pass a bill.

Polls show that Lieberman is increasingly unpopular in his home state. Thirty percent of Lieberman voters in 2006 said they would not vote for him again. In another poll, Lieberman trailed one possible Democratic opponent by 44 points. As much as they’d like to oust Lieberman from the Senate, he’s not up for re-election until 2012.  But many liberals and even moderates want the Senate Democrats to strip Lieberman of his committee chairmanship and seniority. He has so alienated Democrats that on Tuesday (December 15), Lieberman told CNN that it is a “possibility” that he will run as a Republican when he seeks reelection.

But why is Lieberman, the big VA advocate, attacking Obama’s “public option” plan?

Lieberman says its about the deficit. “I think that a lot of people may think that the public option is free,” said Lieberman. “It’s not. It’s going to cost the taxpayers and people that have health insurance now, and if it doesn’t, it’s going to add terribly to our national debt.” He told Politico he opposed “creating another entitlement that will end up increasing the national debt and putting more of a burden on taxpayers.”

But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the Democrats’ bill raises enough money to reduce the deficit. Most experts agree that a government-backed insurance plan would force private insurers to lower their costs in order compete. Such competition, experts say, would keep the private insurance companies honest.

Many Lieberman-watchers doubt that he’s suddenly become a deficit hawk after years of voting for major increases in military and social spending as well as costly corporate bail-outs. Some point to the fact that Connecticut is home to several of the nation’s largest insurance companies, and it’s the insurance industry that has been the major foe of the “public option. ” True, Connecticut has the nation’s highest concentration of insurance jobs, with the industry accounting for about 64,000 jobs, according to the state’s labor department. But only about 22,000 of those jobs are in the health insurance sector.

Approximately 325,500 Connecticut residents lack health care coverage, according to the Urban Institute and Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. Under Obama’s plan, many of them would receive subsidies to help them pay for health insurance. They can decide whether to purchase private insurance or take the public option. Another 154,000 Connecticut residents who currently purchase insurance in the individual insurance market would be obtain to obtain coverage at an affordable price.

Right now, the health insurance market in Connecticut is dominated by two companies—WellPoint, with 55% of market share, and Health Net, with another 11%.

The health insurance companies don’t want any competition from a government plan that would provide American consumers with a choice. They’ve been frightening their employees with warnings that the “public option” would put their jobs at risk, and urging them to contact their Senators and Congressmembers to oppose it. Even so, Chris Dodd, the state’s other Senator, is a strong advocate for the public option, and he’s up for re-election next year.

The insurance lobby has been a generous contributor to Lieberman. Since he started in the Senate in 1989, Lieberman has received $2.4 million donations from the health sector (including drug companies, nursing homes, hospitals, and doctors), over $1 million from the insurance industry, and over $255,000 from health insurance companies. Its hard to avoid the impression that Lieberman is in their pockets and doing their bidding. Indeed, some critics have taken to calling Lieberman the “Senator from Aetna.”

Connecticut residents have a right to ask Lieberman: which side are you on?

Peter Dreier is E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics and director of the Urban & Environmental Policy program at Occidental College.

Lieberman’s Health Care Hypocrisy Read More »

Deciphering the Obama polls

Opinion polls are expected to provide a simple answer to an important question: What are the people thinking? But the details often reveal a much more complicated picture.

Take two recent surveys—one of American Jews and one of Israelis—dealing with attitudes about President Obama. The former found that support for Obama has plummeted, but a closer look reveals that the findings are virtually useless as a measure of American Jewish opinion. The survey of Israelis is scientifically solid, but the numbers provide a more complex, divided view than previously thought.

The national Quinnipiac poll released Dec. 9 found that Obama’s approval rating in the Jewish community stands at 52 percent. While the general findings were based on interviews with more than 2,000 Americans, the Jewish number was derived from a sample of just 71 respondents, for a margin of error of plus or minus 11.6 percent—a sample size that pollsters generally say makes such surveys unreliable.

The problem with such a small sample size is underscored by the up-and-down results of three earlier Quinnipiac polls earlier this year based on responses from a similar number of U.S. Jews.

(story continues after the jump)

A July 27-Aug.3 Quinnipiac survey found Obama with a 66 percent approval rating in the Jewish community versus a disapproval rating of 30 percent—a result that most observers in the Jewish community would find unsurprising.

But two months later, in a poll taken Sept. 29 to Oct. 5 that few in the Jewish community even noticed at the time, Obama’s approval among Jews had dropped to 46 percent, with 47 percent disapproving of the president’s performance.

Six weeks later, however, in a third Quinnipiac poll, conducted Nov. 9-16, Obama’s approval rating jumped to 75 percent, while his disapproval figures plummeted to 22 percent.

Finally, the latest poll, taken Dec. 1-6, showed the 52-35 split of approval against disapproval.

Given that no series of developments would seem to account for such wild swings in Jewish public opinion, the polls reinforce questions about the reliability of any survey based on such a small sample size.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, though, heralded the poll as a sign of “buyers’ remorse” over Obama among Jews. Its executive director, Matt Brooks, said the hard numbers of the specific Quinnipiac poll were less important than what he said was an overall trend of falling support for Obama in the Jewish community. A Gallup poll of Jews in September showed that Obama’s approval rating was 64 percent, down from 82 percent in January—a rate of decline similar to his overall drop among all Americans.

The National Jewish Democratic Council emphasized the small sample size and called the RJC’s claims “desperate and overreaching.”

Meanwhile, the New America Foundation released a poll of 1,000 Israelis last week showing that Obama is more popular among residents of the Jewish state than had been believed previously—but he’s still not all that well-liked. Forty-one percent of Israelis have favorable feelings toward Obama, with 37 percent expressing an unfavorable opinion of the U.S. president, according to the poll, which had a margin of error of 3.1 percent.

But the poll also found that just 42 percent of Israelis believe Obama “supports Israel,” with 55 percent feeling that statement does not describe him. In addition, 43 percent said Obama is “naive,” and 39 percent said he is a Muslim.

The finding that 41 percent of Israelis have a favorable opinion of the president contrasts with a Jerusalem Post poll over the summer, often cited in the media, which found that just 4 percent of Israelis believed Obama’s policies are “pro-Israel.”

Jim Gerstein of Gerstein/Agne Strategic Communications, which conducted the New America Foundation survey, said the earlier poll has been mischaracterized as Obama’s approval rating in Israel, and noted that if one adds the 35 percent in the Post poll who answered “neutral” to the 4 percent who replied that Obama was “pro-Israel,” one gets a result consistent with the 41 percent in the New America poll.

Gerstein/Agne also has conducted polls for the advocacy group J Street, which supports U.S. pressure on Israel and the Palestinians. Gerstein is a member of the group’s advisory council.

Obama’s favorable rating was higher than those garnered by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak (30 percent) and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (38 percent), but lower than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 51 percent and two previous U.S. presidents, Bill Clinton (59 percent) and George W. Bush (48 percent).

But 16 percent of the poll sample was Israeli Arabs. When only Jews are counted, Netanyahu and Bush’s favorable ratings jump respectively to 58 and 55 percent, with Clinton’s increasing by three points. Obama’s goes down a point.

Gil Tamary, a reporter for Israel’s Channel 10, pointed out at a New America discussion introducing the poll that Obama’s approval rating of 41 percent was significantly lower than the 56 percent favorable rating that the United States received in the poll from Israelis.

That U.S. number “should be the same as the president’s,” Tamary said. He added that Clinton’s much higher popularity—even though he pushed “the same policies as President Obama”—demonstrated that Obama’s problem is “the way he handles the Israeli public.”

“We’re willing to make major concessions if you hug us and kiss us,” Tamary said. “If we get the cold shoulder, we’re giving the cold shoulder back.”

The poll also showed that Israelis would support a Netanyahu-backed peace treaty, but felt no urgency to reach that goal. Sixty-nine percent approved of the prime minister’s handling of security, and 59 percent said they would support “any agreement he reaches with our enemies.” That included 75 percent of Likud Party voters, 67 percent of Kadima voters and 51 percent of Yisrael Beiteinu voters.

But just 50 percent agreed that Israel “cannot afford to continue the current situation.” Nearly as many (46 percent) said that Israel can “continue the current situation as long as necessary and should not rush into a peace agreement.”

Deciphering the Obama polls Read More »

Freeze inspectors, settlers clash in West Bank

A border guard and 11 settlers were injured when Civil Administration inspectors attempted to reinforce the construction freeze in a West Bank settlement.

A clash broke out between residents of Tzofim and police when the inspectors attempted to enter the settlement to remove building equipment that they said was being used in violation of the 10-month freeze.

Tzofim is located about two miles east of the Green Line, north of the Palestinian town of Kalkilya and near the central Israeli city of Kfar Saba.

About 60 teens tried to block the inspectors from entering the settlement by laying rocks in the road. Construction workers and residents tried to stop the inspectors from confiscating the equipment.

It was the first such incident in eight days.

Freeze inspectors, settlers clash in West Bank Read More »

Israeli police to American student: “I’m sorry but we had to blow up your laptop.”

Israeli border police questioned an American student and blew up her laptop computer when she entered the country through Egypt.

Lily Sussman, 21, was questioned Nov. 30 for two to three hours and had all of her possessions thoroughly searched. She recorded the incident in detail on her blog.

“They had pressed every sock and scarf with a security device, ripped open soap and had me strip extra layers,” wrote Sussman, a Northeastern University student. “They asked me tons of questions—where are you going? Who do you know? Do you have a boyfriend? Is he Arab, Egyptian, Palestinian? Why do you live in Egypt? Why not Israel? What do you know about the ‘conflict’ here? What do you think? They quizzed me on Judaism, which I know nothing about.”

Sussman wrote that she heard on the loudspeaker system that Israel security was going to blow up a suspicious piece of luggage.

“I went inside to check on my bag. I had left it unattended, where they instructed. It was still there so I went back outside,” she wrote. “Moments later a man came outside and introduced himself as the manager on duty. And then, ‘I’m sorry but we had to blow up your laptop.’ “

Sussman reported that she was able to salvage her hard drive and thus several years’ worth of work. She said the security officials gave her an address where she could have her laptop replaced for free.

Responding to the story, the Israel Airports Authority said that “A check that the lady’s luggage underwent raised an indication that required security figures to act according to procedures. A police officer, who carried out the stated operation, was called to the scene.”

The authority said the Israel Police should be approached for additional information.

Israeli police to American student: “I’m sorry but we had to blow up your laptop.” Read More »

Jews can live anywhere in Israel, deputy PM tells ZOA

Israel’s deputy prime minister said Israel will “not compromise on the right of Jews to live in any part of Eretz Yisrael.”

“We do not accept that Arabs can live anywhere, whereas Jews may not live in some parts of Eretz Yisrael,” Moshe Yaalon told a crowd of 700 at the Zionist Organization of America’s annual dinner Sunday in New York.

Also speaking at the dinner was U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the minority whip of the House of Representatives. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered brief remarks by videotape.

“We must answer our enemies’ dangerous resurgence with renewed vigilance, lest we invite greater dangers for both Israel and the United States,” Cantor said. He added that “too many American Jews have become desensitized to the fires that threaten the Jews of Israel and of Europe.”

“Israel’s security is synonymous with our own,” Cantor said. “Her enemies are our enemies—and polite silence amounts to complicity in our own demise.”

Netanyahu lauded the evening’s honoree, philanthropist and Las Vegas Sands Corp. CEO Sheldon Adelson, as “the most committed Zionist I have ever
known” and praised the ZOA as an organization that “refuses to compromise on the truth regardless of prevailing fashion and no matter what the costs may be.”

Yaalon was booed briefly—by what ZOA President Morton Klein described as a handful of people—when he spoke about Israel’s 10-month settlement freeze.

Jews can live anywhere in Israel, deputy PM tells ZOA Read More »