fbpx

May 3, 2011

We Will Remember to Never Forget

I remember the first moment I imagined a monster lurking beneath my bed. (I was 2 years old.) I remember the first time my mom told me where babies come from. (I was 5.)  I remember the day when I found out the Tooth Fairy isn’t real. (I was in the second grade.) But I don’t remember the first time

 

It’s just something I’ve always known. Like gravity, it’s a given.  It’s embedded in my genetic memory.

 

So, I don’t know how my parents told me about the horrors that happened just a few decades ago. I don’t know what words they used, or what questions I asked.

 

I just know that I know.

 

Last night was Erev Yom HaShoah – the evening before Holocaust Memorial Day.

 

And for the first time, my children watched the memorial ceremony streaming live from Yad Vashem on Chanel Two. M sucked her thumb. The music made her sad. Little Homie nursed, oblivious to the solemn speeches, and powerful stories shared by the six honored survivors chosen to light the six memorial candles.

 

Six nightmares.

 

Six miracles.

 

And after we stood for Kaddish, we sang HaTikvah.

 

I let my children see me cry.

 

And Little Homie brushed my tears with his fingertips. M looked at me. “Sad, mama?”

 

Yes. I am sad. And devastated. And appalled. But deep within these feelings – overtaking the horror of it all– I am proud…because we have not lost our Hope. No matter what happens to us. We are still here.

 

Remembering.

 

And now, 13 hours later, the siren’s primal howl sounds throughout Israel, and the entire country grinds to a halt. We put aside all the grievances and stress. Arguments end midsentence. Even the children stop playing, their bodies eerily still on the playground. Every car pulls to the side of the road. We stand.  Together. Our ears ring with the sound of too many screams mixed down into one keening wail.

 

Terrible things – unspeakable things happened. But. We. Are.  Still. Here. And we will not let them happen again. Not to us, not to anyone. And our children will know and they will remember, even if they can’t remember when they learned to never forget.

 

Kveller.com offers a Jewish twist on parenting, everything a Jewish family could need for raising Jewish children—including crafts, recipes, activities, Hebrew and Jewish names for babies…and advice from Mayim Bialik.


 

We Will Remember to Never Forget Read More »

Netanyahu to Abbas: Cancel Fatah-Hamas unity deal

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to step away from a unity deal with the Islamist group Hamas a day before it was due to be officially signed in a ceremony in Cairo. On Tuesday it was announced that the deal itself had already been inked, and the scheduled Egyptian event would merely be ceremonial.

Nevertheless, following a meeting with Quartet envoy Tony Blair, Netanyahu released a statement imploring the Fatah head to reconsider. “I call on Abu Mazen (Abbas) to cancel the agreement with Hamas immediately and to choose the way of peace with Israel,” Netanyahu said.

Fatah responded to Netanyahu’s calls for a cancellation of the unity deal, saying this is an “unacceptable interference,” AFP reported.

Read more at JPost.com.

Netanyahu to Abbas: Cancel Fatah-Hamas unity deal Read More »

Jewish settlers accused of torching mosque

Palestinian leaders are blaming Jewish settlers for a fire in a West Bank mosque.

The fire early Tuesday morning broke out in a mosque inside a village school building in Hawara, near Nablus. The governor of Nablus, Jibreen al Bakri, accused settlers of arson, Reuters reported.

Two Palestinian men from Hawara have been arrested and reportedly confessed to the murder of five members of the Fogel family from the nearby Jewish settlement of Itamar.

Israeli police are investigating the mosque incident. Unlike other recent arson and vandal attacks in West Bank Palestinian areas, where graffiti written in Hebrew was found at the scenes, no such signs were found in Hawara, police told Reuters.

Jewish settlers accused of torching mosque Read More »

Fatah-Hamas unity deal: Can a marriage of convenience survive?

If past Fatah-Hamas kiss-and-make-up sessions are any indicator, this one will have the life expectancy of a fruit fly.

No sooner did the secular Fatah try to sell the agreement as a move toward peace than the Islamist Hamas declared just the opposite.

In the realm of odd bedfellows, the winners appear to be the terrorist group looking for international acceptance, its Iranian mentors and Israel’s rejectionist right, some of whom are calling for extensive West Bank annexation and economic sanctions in retaliation.  None is interested in a peace agreement that would see states of Israel and Palestine living side-by-side in peace.

But for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to say this unity pact endangers the peace process wrongly assumes there was one to begin with.  He and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have been doing their darndest to avoid two things:  serious negotiations and the blame for their absence.

Fatah and Hamas have signed reconciliation pacts in the past only to see them quickly collapse.

Factors bringing the two sides together this time include Fatah’s frustration with the deadlocked peace process, which it blames on weak American and Israeli leadership, and Hamas’ realization that the change sweeping the Arab world is led by liberal, secular forces, not by authoritarian Islamists like itself, plus the prospect of losing its patron and sanctuary in Syria.

Netanyahu must be pleased that Abbas has rescued him from having to offer dramatic concessions to launch serious negotiations when he comes to Washington later this month.  And it now appears doubtful President Obama, who was the target of a scathing attack by Abbas in a Newsweek interview for his handling of the peace process, will be inclined to produce his own peace initiative to pre-empt Netanyahu’s speech, as was expected only a week ago.

Abbas insists he is in charge of the peace process regardless of Hamas’ rejection, but he knows no Israeli government can negotiate with – much less make concessions to – a Palestinian government half-controlled by a terrorist group committed to the three No’s:  no recognition, no negotiations, no Israel.

A top Hamas leader, Mahmoud al-Zahar, said, “Our program does not include negotiations with Israel or recognizing it.”

Power sharing between these two bitter rivals is mind-boggling.  I suppose part of the division of labor will be Fatah continues relations with Israel and Hamas handles the terrorism.

Faux newsman Stephen Colbert aptly observed the unity pact means “They’ve agreed to hate the Jews together.”

Even before their agreement is signed, Hamas began pressing Abbas to rescind PLO recognition of Israel.  The two bitter rivals have diametrically opposed goals.  Fatah seeks a secular national state and Hamas wants to create an Islamic republic.  Their differences were emphasized again this week when Fatah welcomed the death of Osama bin Laden as “good for the cause of peace” and Hamas condemned the American assassination of “an Arab holy warrior.”

Abbas sees the unity government as bolstering his strategy of winning UN recognition of statehood this fall – something strongly opposed by Washington and Jerusalem.

Prominent bipartisan players on Capitol Hill are already talking of cutting the $400 million – and growing—annual aid to the Palestinian Authority.  They insist the apparent decision to bring the terrorist group into the leadership is a violation of law governing aid.

Hamas is demanding that Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad, the only PA leader with any credibility when it comes to finances, security cooperation and institution building, leave office as a condition for the unity government.

A major concern for Israel is the possible integration of Hamas figures into the U.S.-financed PA security forces, which until now have earned Israeli praise for professionalism and cooperation.

The agreement calls for an interim government of technocrats to run things until parliamentary and presidential elections can be held sometime next year.  For Hamas this will be an opportunity to reestablish its political – and terror – infrastructure on the West Bank, especially if Fatah agrees to demands to release hundreds of Hamas prisoners.

With Hamas a partner in the PA, how will Abbas respond when his new partner and its allies continue to fire rockets into Israel?  And what happens when Israel hits back?

Rep. Gary Ackerman called the pact “a recipe for failure, mixed with violence, leading to disaster” and something that “will be paid for in the lives of innocent Israelis.”

Look for the administration to resist pressure from the Hill to push it farther than it might want to go in moving against Fatah, while trying to avoid looking like it is protecting Hamas.

No matter how he tries to frame it, Abbas is surrendering to Hamas rejectionists and betraying everything he has said he stands for – a negotiated peace, two states living side by side in peace, a rejection of terrorism.

Those who insist Fatah-Hamas unification will lead to charting a course toward democracy should recall the expectations that Israel’s Gaza withdrawal would provide Palestinians with a showcase for democratic development, not a terrorist base and missile launch pad.

Abbas shrugs that off and insists his marriage of convenience will enhance his chances for UN recognition.  If it lasts that long.

Fatah-Hamas unity deal: Can a marriage of convenience survive? Read More »

Canada re-elects Stephen Harper, its pro-Israel prime minister

Canada’s staunchly pro-Israel prime minister, Stephen Harper, was re-elected by a wide margin.

Harper, who heads the Conservative Party, has gone from heading two successive minority governments to a healthy majority.

In Monday’s federal elections, Harper captured 167 seats in the 308-seat House of Commons, or 40 percent of the popular vote.

In a stunning reversal, the left-leaning New Democratic Party replaced the Liberal Party as the official opposition. The NDP won 102 seats and the Liberals dropped to 34.

Harper, with his strong and clear support for Israel, drew many Jewish voters away from the Liberals.

In heavily Jewish districts, Israel emerged as a key election concern. In two Toronto-area districts, Jewish Conservatives played up the government’s support for Israel and defeated longtime Liberal lawmakers

In Montreal, Irwin Cotler, a former justice minister and well-known human rights advocate, won his district in a tough and close race against an Orthodox Jewish city councillor. Cotler, whose victories in the past were assured, won by fewer than 1,000 votes.

In Winnipeg, Jewish Liberal lawmaker Anita Neville lost to the Conservative candidate.

Canada re-elects Stephen Harper, its pro-Israel prime minister Read More »

Steelers lost Super Bowl; now Mendenhall tweets on bin Laden

Another from the ” title=”agree with Mendenhall on this” target=”_blank”>agree with Mendenhall on this:

“For those of you who said you want to see Bin Laden burn in hell and piss on his ashes, I ask how would God feel about your heart?”

” title=”another Mendenhall tweet” target=”_blank”>another Mendenhall tweet:

“What kind of person celebrates death? It’s amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We’ve only heard one side…”

After that, he mentioned how we don’t really know what happened on 9/11. I’m not going to touch that—” title=”more at ESPN.com” target=”_blank”>more at ESPN.com.

But I am going to take issue with the premises of the above statement.

Osama bin Laden’s bad public image was not the case of one-sided news reporting in which one man was bad-mouthed without a chance to respond. First, there was a time when ” title=”took credit for 9/11″ target=”_blank”>took credit for 9/11 and released Steelers lost Super Bowl; now Mendenhall tweets on bin Laden Read More »

World Press Freedom Day: New technology’s threats and potential

Newspaper readers might notice an empty white space in place of front page stories in their favorite broadsheets and tabloids on Wednesday morning. It’s part of a campaign organized by the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers to mark World Press Freedom Day.  Larry Kilman, WAN’s executive CEO told The Media Line that the idea is to “remind [readers] that without a free press, this is what the industry would look like.”

World Press Freedom Day was created twenty years ago by journalists in Africa who wanted to sound a call to arms to protect the fundamental principles of freedom of expression as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—a call repeated this year by the United Nations. Although at first glance it seems to be little more than just one more ceremony and one more day of commemoration, to journalists covering a volatile world the observance has taken on renewed meaning in 2011. While the news industry undergoes a sea change spawned by new technologies and the spiraling prominence of social media, reporters, photojournalists and producers who cover conflicts the old-fashioned way are doing so under more dangerous conditions than ever, as evidenced by statistics documenting one of the bloodiest years in history in terms of casualties among working journalists.

The extensive list of participants in this year’s World Press Freedom Day activities in New York and Washington, D.C., bears witness to just how seriously members of the profession regard the issues of press freedoms and journalists’ safety. The international conference organized by UNESCO and the U.S. State Department will focus on the theme of “21st Century: New Frontiers; New Barriers” and the increasing role of the Internet; the emergence of new media; and the dramatic rise in social networking.

The breadth of participating organizations is a clear indicator that World Press Freedom Day activities comes at a time when savvy consumers of news are as keenly aware as news professionals of the terrifying cases-in-point. Naomi Hunt, the International Press Institute’s (IPI) Press Freedom Advisor for Africa and The Middle East, told The Media Line that so far in 2011, 17 deaths were reported in that region alone – nearly twice the number of journalists killed there in the previous year and almost twice as many journalists as were killed in the entire rest of the world during the same time. In Iraq alone, 7 journalists have already been killed during 2011 while none died there in 2010.

UCLA Prof. Judea Pearl heads a foundation dedicated to press freedoms that was founded in memory of his son, the Wall Street Journal’s Southeast Asia bureau chief Daniel Pearl, who was captured and murdered by Al-Qa’ida in 2002 while investigating a link between the terrorist syndicate and Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber.”  Pearl’s sense of accomplishment when in May 2010 President Obama signed the Daniel Pearl Freedom of Press Act turned to profound disappointment when he realized that the State Department is doing precious little to fulfill its mandate to deepen its reporting on press freedom issues worldwide. Specifically, according to Pearl and backed-up by a study conducted by the Committee to Protect Journalists, although the Daniel Pearl Law was intended to flag governments that participate in or condone press censorship,  the State Department has failed completely to catalogue the violations such as physical violence and censorship by governments, criminals and armed extremist groups.

The dramatic rise in journalists’ deaths and Pearl’s experience beg the question of whether correspondents have themselves become targets as they cover conflicts. Pearl thinks so. He told The Media Line that, “I do believe that journalists are targeted more these days as hostile agents rather than passive observers.”  New York Times Mideast correspondent Stephen Farrell doesn’t disagree, although he seems to see less overt intent to harm reporters. Farrell’s bona fides come with the distinction of having been captured three times in the course of covering conflicts: once in Iraq; once in Afghanistan; and most recently, as one of four New York Times journalists taken into custody and brutalized by Mu’amar Al-Qaddafi’s troops in Libya. He admits that there are times when either side of a conflict has a strong interest in preventing a story from being told either because it compromises strategy or is a source of embarrassment. He also admits that there are times when a regime seeks to send a message to a specific news organization – sometimes violently. Targeted violence, he says, is a much greater risk for local rather than foreign correspondents, praising the unsung courage of those local writers whom he says can find their families threatened, too. But Farrell believes that the greatest danger still more typically comes when the reporter is in the wrong place at the wrong time: the unanticipated victim of an incoming artillery round or a cross-fire.

In February, New York Times readers were captivated and horrified by a front page account of their time in captivity by pro-Qaddafi forces written by the four correspondents, including Farrell, who were taken prisoner while covering the retreat of anti-Qaddafi fighters. The now-safe captives bore witness to the unique sets of double-dangers which complicated the journalists’ plight. As described to The Media Line by Farrell, as if it weren’t frightening enough that he was standing before a Libyan soldier who was pointing a gun in his face, while this was happening, the rebel forces began shelling the pro-Qaddafi position where the Times group was being held. Farrell told of the instantaneous decision-making process that required he decide between two no-win solutions: bolting from his gun-pointing captor at the risk of being shot; or remaining in range of incoming rounds from which there appeared to be no escape. Absent his captor’s none-too-soon decision to join Farrell in his sprint to safety, Farrell’s third brush with death could have placed him on the IPI and CPJ lists. 

While New York Times readers presumably found the correspondents’ account of their experience both harrowing and entertaining, it is not amusing and is far more worrisome to working journalists who know well that the level of danger facing those reporting from theaters of conflict has increased significantly in recent years. Farrell tells of a warning he gave to an enthusiastic young journalists anxious to follow in his footsteps. Farrell’s warning was that without a major organization like The New York Times behind you, it’s suicidal to venture into harm’s way.

Potential havoc lurks even outside of the threat of physical harm. The newest technological age brings with it its own collection of tools available to would-be oppressors – whether state-sanctioned or not. The new era that was heralded by the ability to foment regime-changing demonstrations from a computer keyboard also brings with it a new set of tools capable of inflicting abuses as devastating as the advances are powerful.  In recognition of World Press Freedom Day, the Committee to Protect Journalists has catalogued the latest array of nefarious cyber craft in a special report on how on-line oppressors operate, including but not limited to the use of web-blocking; malware attacks; and state-sanctioned cyber-crimes.

Legislation guaranteeing the right to communicate to the press that is as old as Sweden’s 1766 Freedom of Press Act has not outlived their need. But as Judea Pearl has discovered, passing legislation designed to expose and pressure government offenders into compliance with standards of good behavior fall far short of guaranteeing protection for journalists working in theaters of conflict.  To that end, Professor Pearl seconds an idea he credits to a friend: that the United Nations create a category of crime called “a crime against society” that would criminalize the harming of journalists on the theory that the injured journalist is not serving a single newspaper but “all of society.”

World Press Freedom Day: New technology’s threats and potential Read More »

Remembering my friend, Phoebe Snow

She had been leaving messages of varying degrees of urgency on my answering machine for three decades, but this one from Phoebe Snow sounded particularly worrisome.  “Something bad happened, and I’m not sure how to deal with it.  Please call me a.s.a.p.”  I couldn’t imagine what was wrong.  Previously, I would have assumed some new problem had developed with Phoebe’s beloved, disabled daughter, but Valerie Rose had passed away two years earlier, so this was a mystery.

My longtime tradition was never to return a call from Phoebe until I had a free hour; short conversations were not part of this singer’s repertoire.  But this sounded dire, so I called immediately and asked what was wrong.  “Here’s the background”, she began.  “I got a call from a local magazine saying they were doing profiles of musicians who live here in Bergen County, New Jersey.  I agreed to an interview, which I did over the phone, and they sent a photographer and makeup artist for the picture, and it was all very nice”.

“Sounds great”, I said.  “What could be bad about that?”  “Well”, Phoebe continued, “the magazine just hit the stands, and it turns out it’s an article about African-American greats in the music industry who have homes here!  I’m in there with Stevie Wonder, George Benson, and P. Diddy.  The magazine is already getting e-mails from people asking why I’m trying to pass myself off as black.  I had no idea; they never told me what the theme was!”

She was truly upset, but I burst out laughing.  Although Phoebe embraced Buddhism in her later years, she was as Jewish as a knish, and despite the fact that we often commiserated about our respective “Jew-fros”, she was quite Caucasian.  Many fans had thought she might be African-American, and I suggested a simple statement of explanation would suffice.  Phoebe did that, but went one step further:  she announced plans to take a DNA test to see if perhaps there really was some African connection. 

The test never happened, as Phoebe suffered a stroke some months later that ultimately led to her death last week.  As a friend of more than 30 years, I’ve gotten some comfort from the obituaries that shower extravagant praise on her glorious voice and speak of her unparalleled devotion to her daughter.  But none of the articles can convey what a wild ride it was to be her buddy. She was fascinating and frustrating and wise and wacky, and above all, hilariously funny.
Although some may view her life as tragic, my strongest memory will always be how much we laughed together.

I first met Phoebe in 1977, when she participated in a telethon to benefit the foundation that grew out of Geraldo Rivera’s expose of the Willowbrook mental institution.  She had given birth in 1975 to Valerie, who was severely brain damaged and physically disabled, and wasn’t expected to survive for long.  Despite advice that the infant be institutionalized, Phoebe wouldn’t hear of it, and spent the next 31 years being, quite simply, the Mother of all Jewish Mothers.

In 1980, for the first time, Phoebe felt comfortable enough to speak publicly about her little girl, and a mutual friend arranged an interview.  I was news director of a rock radio station at the time, and although we were ostensibly scheduled to discuss her latest album, most of the conversation was about Valerie.  “She is, without a doubt, the strongest, bravest person I’ve ever seen”, Phoebe told me.  “She fights for every gain”.  As for anyone who pitied Phoebe’s situation, they needn’t have bothered.  “I don’t think I would have been able to learn half the things I do today, and live my life as well as I do, without what I’ve learned from brain-injured and retarded people”.

Our friendship began during that heartfelt chat.  We would talk for hours, on the phone or in person, about everything and everyone. She started calling me “Steve-ela”, so I called her “Phoebela”.  She told me about her family, the Laubs, and said the name had originally been Laubenstein.  Phoebe was a gossiper par excellence, and nothing delighted her more than sharing the latest rumors about affairs and sexual orientations and scandals.  We discussed low-carb diets and low self-esteem and whether someone could be a “Jew-Bu” (Jewish Buddhist)  and recovered memory (a phenomenon she investigated during an intense and deeply odd friendship with Roseanne Barr).

The fact that she possessed a magnificent singing voice took a back seat in our relationship, although it would surface from time to time.  While driving through New York once, Phoebe revealed she’d been taking opera lessons, and broke into an aria.  I had to pull over and pay full attention to the impressive free concert taking place in my Toyota Camry.

In 1994, I began working at CNBC in Fort Lee, New Jersey, just a few blocks from Phoebe and Valerie’s modest but comfortable apartment.  For 15 years, we hit most of the town’s eateries, but her favorite was the local diner, where she always ordered latkes, and was treated as a celebrity.  Her focus on Valerie had caused her career to fade, and she often would say “When I was famous…”  I once took her on a tour of the TV network and introduced her to one of our anchors, saying “This is my friend, Phoebe Snow”.  When he responded “THE Phoebe Snow?”, she was thrilled.

A high note came in 2000, when our mutual friend, Bernard Carabello, told us his 50th birthday wish was to meet Bill Clinton.  Bernard, who’d survived growing up in Willowbrook, is now a widely-respected advocate for the disabled.  Phoebe had become a favorite of the president’s after performing at several Democrat fundraisers, and I was senior producer of “Rivera Live”, a program on which Geraldo nightly expressed his support for Clinton during the impeachment saga.

Between us, we managed to arrange a private meeting with Clinton before an event in Manhattan.  It went perfectly, with the president spending a good 15 minutes chatting with the three of us; it was clear he was a fan of Phoebe’s.

As I drove her home, she said, “You know, one of those fundraisers where I sang was in a private home, and when I was chatting with Clinton after my performance, I could swear he was hitting on me.  I also have a feeling he may think I’m African-American.”

“Uh, Phoebe”, I commented, “do you not remember that he sort of has a well-documented thing for somewhat zaftig Jewish girls?”  She laughed all the way across the George Washington Bridge.

Throughout it all, there was Valerie.  She was 12 years old in 1987, when Phoebe brought me to see how her daughter was doing in school.  We arrived one afternoon, and the principal fetched Valerie from her class.  When the girl who was predicted to live her life in a vegetative state… and certainly never walk… saw her mom from down the hall, she virtually flew to greet her.  I took a picture of Phoebe encircling Valerie with a hug that epitomized what Phoebe once called their “exquisite and divine love”.

Six years later, I threw a summer party at my home, and hired a clown/magician to entertain my friends’ children.  Valerie, 18 at the time, was as enthralled as the 5-year-olds.  At one point, her home health care aide brought her to the bathroom, then came to Phoebe and whispered there had been a major mishap.  Phoebe quietly asked me for some materials, disappeared for 20 minutes, then returned to the backyard with Valerie to enjoy the rest of the party.  This was her life, and she never complained.

After Valerie’s sudden death in 2007, one morning while eating breakfast, Phoebe was inconsolable and began to slide into depression.  But friends like Linda Ronstadt insisted she resume her long-stalled career, and by 2009, she had.  She began touring, there was a new CD, and she even sang at Howard Stern’s wedding.  I attended one concert and brought my cousin, a lifelong fan, to Phoebe’s dressing room to meet her.  She was as funny and gracious as always, although she complained of a kind of exhaustion that I think was as much emotional as physical.

It was the last time I saw her.  In January, 2010, she suffered a stroke and never recovered.  There were to be no more messages, urgent or otherwise, on my answering machine to return.  But since I still use that device, I realized I could create my own little memorial to her.  Many years ago, she recorded an outgoing message for me, making up a cute little song on the spur of the moment.  It says:  “Hi.  This is Phoebe Snow, as Steve’s answering machine.
Ahem.  (sings) Stevie isn’t home right now, so leave your name and number.
And if he doesn’t call you, he’ll turn into a cucumber!”

It’s quintessential Phoebe, and although I hadn’t used it in decades, it’s back on the machine now, and will stay there for a while.  As for my magical friendship with Phoebe Snow, that pleasant melody will linger in my mind forever.

Steve North is a longtime broadcast journalist, currently with CBS News

Remembering my friend, Phoebe Snow Read More »