fbpx

May 31, 2011

Linux creator cancels Israel talks

The creator of the Linux computer operating system canceled three lectures at Israeli universities because of pressure from the Palestinian Authority.

Richard Stallman, an American, said his Palestinian hosts threatened to pull their financial support for his July trip if he spoke to an Israeli audience along with his planned lectures to Palestinian audiences, Haaretz reported Tuesday.

“They are unhappy that I offered to give talks at Israeli universities, and say they won’t buy the tickets if I’m going to do that,” Stallman wrote in an e-mail to his Israeli coordinator.

Stallman said he will speak in the Palestinian regions as planned.

“I think it is best if I go and give the speeches they originially invited me to give,” Stallman said. “I am sorry for the disappointment this will cause.”

Stallman is a self-described software freedom activist and is the founder of the Free Software Foundation, which seeks to promote computer user freedom and campaigns against software patents.

Linux creator cancels Israel talks Read More »

Nazis, newspapers and Nuremberg

Once again, the summer season, noted for youth-oriented blockbusters, manages to include some serious fare aimed at more mature, discerning audiences, including several projects dealing with the World War II era and its aftermath.

The filmmakers of “The Debt,” a Nazi-hunter movie slated to open Aug. 31, could not have planned their release any better. The movie, which arrives on the heels of the American assassination of Osama bin Laden, concerns three Mossad agents who become iconic figures for having hunted down and killed a Nazi war criminal (Jesper Christensen). The plot cuts back and forth between the 1960s, when the capture and killing is reported to have occurred, and the late 1990s, when the three are confronted by unexpected and unsettling events. “The Debt” is double-cast, with one set of actors playing the Israeli agents during the earlier time period and another set portraying the three some 30 years later. The older version of the central character is played by Helen Mirren, the younger one by Jessica Chastain.

Director John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”) said he was attracted to the material because he felt it had the potential to engage audiences on several levels.

“It has to do with people accounting for sins of the past, as it were — in particular, the pursuit of a Nazi war criminal, and the bringing of that person to justice. So the material is compelling to start with. It’s also an extraordinarily good thriller. It has a great narrative. But, above and beyond that, and this is what’s unusual about it, it has a psychological and emotional complexity, and, indeed, a moral complexity that is unusual to find in contemporary thrillers.” 

Madden continued, “It’s about the relationship between present and past, not just in the whole idea of what does it means to bring somebody to justice some period of time after those events have been supposedly committed. … But, the film is also about moral responsibility.”

The moral and legal responsibility of the major Nazi perpetrators was ultimately determined in the precedent-setting war crimes trial at Nuremberg, which was documented in 1948 by Stuart Schulberg in his film “Nuremberg: Its Lesson for Today.” The doc consists of highlights from the trial, including the legendary opening and closing speeches by Justice Robert H. Jackson, and presentations by prosecutors from the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union. The prosecution bolstered its case using footage that Schulberg and his brother, Budd, had helped assemble from the Nazis’ own films and photographs, along with motion pictures taken as the Allies liberated some of the concentration camps, and the documentary interweaves that material with the trial segments.

Although shown in Germany after the war, “Nuremberg” was never released in the United States. Stuart Schulberg’s daughter, Sandra, along with Josh Waletzky, spent some five years restoring her father’s film so it could be shown in this country. 

“If I were not a professional film producer,” Sandra Schulberg said, “it might never have occurred to me to restore the film and try to get it released in the U.S. But, faced with the facts — the fascinating mystery of what had happened to ‘Nuremberg’ after its German release — this seemed to be my schicksal, my fate. ‘If not I, then who?’ I thought. ‘If not now, when?’ ” 

Schulberg also wanted to find out exactly why her late father’s film had been suppressed in this country.

“In the fall of 1949, nearly a year after the German release of the film,” she said, “John Norris, a reporter for The Washington Post, began an investigation. His first story, dated Sept. 19, was headlined: ‘Army Reluctant To Clarify Inaction On Nuremberg Film.’ ”

As part of his article, Norris wrote: “It is known that strong forces in the Army opposed the entire war crimes program from the beginning — or at least after it was decided to try German army chiefs and general staff members. Army Secretary Kenneth Royall and Undersecretary Draper were said to be in this camp and clearly were in favor of rebuilding Germany as a bulwark against communism. Too quickly and with too little regard for a resurgence of Nazism, some said.”

Kristin Scott Thomas in “Sarah’s Key.” Photo by Hugo Production/JulienBonet

Schulberg explained that Norris’ charges were substantiated by a letter from Secretary Kenneth Royall, addressed to Justice Jackson.

“To my surprise,” she said, “the letter is dated November 1948, almost a year before The Washington Post got on top of the story. Royall writes to Jackson: ‘In this country no general release is under consideration. It is my opinion that the theme is contrary to present policies and aims of the government; therefore it is felt that the picture at this time can be of no significant value to the Army and Nation as a whole.’ ”

Now, more than 60 years after it was made, “Nuremberg: Its Lesson for Today [The Schulberg/Waletzky Restoration]” is being seen by American audiences for the first time.

The documentary has a one-week exclusive engagement, June 3-9, at Landmark’s Nuart Theatre, and Sandra Schulberg will appear on June 3 at the 5:15, 7:30 and 9:45 p.m. screenings; and on June 4 and 5 at the 12:45, 3, 5:15, 7:30 and 9:45 screenings.

Another film that involves the Nazi era is the French offering, “Sarah’s Key,” scheduled for a June 3 release. As with “The Debt,” this movie goes back and forth in time. It begins in 1942, during the German occupation of France. Ten-year-old Sarah Starzynski (Mélusine Mayance) is playing with her younger brother Michel (Paul Mercier) when the French police, who are arresting Jews in the notorious Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup, knock on their door. To protect him from being captured, Sarah locks her brother in a cabinet, tells him not to move until she returns, and keeps the key as she and her parents (Natasha Mashkevich, Arben Bajraktaraj) are taken to a stadium, the Velodrome, where thousands of Jews are held under inhuman conditions. Sarah, desperate to return home and free her brother, is ultimately transported to a camp and housed with other children. She and a friend escape and eventually are given refuge by a couple (Niels Arestrup, Dominique Frot ) who live on a farm. When the couple finally takes her back to her old apartment, now occupied by another family, she makes a devastating discovery.

The present-day story centers on Julia Armand (Kristin Scott Thomas), an American journalist, who is in France compiling a story on the Vel’ d’Hiv. In the course of her research she is stunned to discover that the apartment she and her French husband, Bertrand (Frédéric Pierrot), plan to occupy was once the Starzynskis’ apartment and was obtained by Bertrand’s family shortly after the Starzynskis were arrested. She then goes on a quest to find out what happened to Sarah, who was raised by the French farmers as their daughter. In the course of her search, which ends in Brooklyn, layers of secrets are uncovered.

During an interview with reporter Gaynor Flynn that appeared in the Australian publication The Blurb, director Gilles Paquet-Brenner, who is Jewish, said that the story had personal meaning for him because he lost some of his family in concentration camps.

But he stressed in the interview that he wanted Sarah to be a symbol of what can happen to any group, not only to Jews, and he pointed out that such a character could easily be from Rwanda or Palestine, so that anybody can connect with the story.

Nazism is also present in the biopic “Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life,” opening Sept. 2, which chronicles the dissolute life of the famous French-Jewish singer/songwriter/musician Serge Gainsbourg.

The character’s chutzpah is evident when, as a youngster during the German occupation, he demands to be the first to get the obligatory yellow star. The story is essentially about the descent of a brilliant talent given to excess as a smoker, drinker and lover.  Gainsbourg became a huge success for his music, which encompassed jazz, pop, reggae, funk, calypso and disco, among other genres. He had affairs with a series of beauties, including Brigitte Bardot (Laetitia Casta). His third wife was the considerably younger British actress and singer Jane Birkin (the late Lucy Gordon) with whom he recorded “Je t’aime … moi non plus,” a highly erotic duet that, in the film, prompts Gainsbourg’s music producer (Claude Chabrol) to warn that the release could land them in jail.

When Gainsbourg died of a heart attack in 1991, at the age of 62, French President Mitterrand said: “He was our Baudelaire, our Apollinaire. He elevated the song to the level of art.”

Life in postwar Holland, as indicated by the film “Bride Flight,” was bleak, what with floods, housing shortages and very little opportunity for young people. Consequently, there were waves of emigration. The movie, which opens June 10, covers some 50 years and was inspired by the “Last Great Air Race” of 1953 that began in London and ended in Christchurch, New Zealand. The term “Bride Flight” refers to the young women on the plane who were following their fiancés to New Zealand to begin what they hoped would be a better life.

Though the characters are fictional, the events are based on the actual experiences of women who were interviewed by the script’s writer.

The film revolves around three such women and one man who all become friends on the flight; Frank (Waldemar Torenstra), whose family died in a Japanese prison camp and who is looking for a new beginning; Marjorie (Elise Schaap), who makes a happy marriage but is unable to have children; Ada (Karina Smulders), who gets married because she is pregnant, but whose marriage is marred by her attraction to another man; and Esther (Anna Drijver), a budding fashion designer who remains unmarried but gets pregnant and, as a Jewish woman, is adamant that she doesn’t want a Jewish child. “Esther had terrible experiences during Holland’s occupation by the Germans,” director Ben Sombogaart explained. “Her entire family, including her parents and little brother, were taken away from her and killed in the Nazi camps. Then she decided not to have a Jewish child because she wanted to avoid the same thing happening to him or her.”

Nazis, newspapers and Nuremberg Read More »

Summer reads in all varieties

Some beloved and celebrated authors will hit the road in support of their latest books as this summer begins. Here are a few of the most intriguing titles and some of the places where their authors will be reading and signing their books in Southern California:

Lisa See, author of “Snow Flower and the Secret Fan” (now a motion picture) and other recent best sellers, continues the tale she began in “Shanghai Girls” by chronicling the further exploits of the characters — the sisters Pearl and May, and May’s daughter, Joy — during the tumultuous 1950s in China and other exotic locales around the world in “Dreams of Joy” (Random House: $26). “Looks like another hit,” predicts Publishers Weekly. A reading group favorite, See works her magic yet again in a tale that shows how the intimate experiences of life play out amid the great events of history. See’s national book tour will bring her to Vroman’s Bookstore, 695 E. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena, on Thursday, June 2 at 7 p.m. and, as a sign of the times in the publishing industry, she will also sign books at Costco, 6100 Sepulveda Blvd., Van Nuys, on Friday, June 3, at 1 p.m.


Former prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi first came to national attention by putting Charles Manson and the Manson Family behind bars — an experience he chronicled (with Curt Gentry) in “Helter Skelter” — and he went on to write about other notorious people and events in “And the See Will Tell” (with Bruce Henderson), “Reclaiming History” and “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.”  Now Bugliosi tackles the biggest and oldest question of all in “Divinity of Doubt: The God Question” (Vanguard Press: $26.99). As he surveys the arguments for and against the existence of God, he directs our attention to “the uniform thread of common sense in the evidence,” which is, he asserts, “my only master.” The verdict? Bugliosi is neither a believer nor an atheist, but a principled agnostic. He will appear at Book Soup, 8188 Sunset Blvd., West Hollywood, on Tuesday, June 21, at 7 p.m.


Comedian Paul Reiser, among those first-generation stand-up comedians who reinvented themselves as sitcom stars, made a third career for himself on the best-seller lists with his chatty and lighthearted humor and advice books, “Couplehood” and “Babyhood.” Now he completes the trilogy with “Familyhood” (Hyperion: $26.99), a likable look at the aspirations and realities of family life. He confides that he chronicled his own family of origin in a list titled “Things I’m Not So Crazy About in My Family,” and he is just as frank about the family he belongs to now. Reiser will appear at Barnes & Noble at The Grove at Farmers Market in Los Angeles, on Wednesday, June 15, at 7 p.m.


Paris has the Eiffel Tower, London has Big Ben, and we’ve got the Hollywood sign, an artifact that is explored and explained in compelling color and detail in Leo Braudy’s “The Hollywood Sign” (Yale University Press: $24).  The story that Braudy tells is all the more surprising for the fact that we see the sign every day, and he reveals what we don’t know about it — how and why it was built, the scandals associated with it and the powerful role it has come to play in popular culture. Braudy will be featured in conversation with another Los Angeles institution — Kevin Roderick, founding editor of L.A. Observed (laobserved.com) — in the ALOUD series at the Los Angeles Public Library, on Thursday, July 21, at 7 p.m.


Long before “Twilight” and “True Blood,” there was “Dark Shadows,” a groundbreaking variant of the standard American soap opera featuring a cast of vampires and a young actress named Kathryn Leigh Scott as the much-preyed-upon ingenue.  She recalled her experiences in “My Scrapbook Memories of Dark Shadows,” a memoir that launched her parallel careers as both an author and a publisher. Now Scott conjures up a thriller of her own — and something of a roman a clef — in “Dark Passages” (Pomegranate Press: $14.95), which depicts the various kinds of bloodsuckers who haunt the set of a ’60s-era soap opera. Scott will be feted at a publication party for her new book at Diesel Books, Brentwood Country Mart, Santa Monica, on Sunday, Aug. 7, at 3 p.m.


Jonathan Kirsch, author and publishing attorney, is the book editor of The Jewish Journal. He blogs at jewishjournal.com/twelvetwelve and can be reached at {encode=”books@jewishjournal.com” title=”books@jewishjournal.com”}.

Summer reads in all varieties Read More »

Obvious vs. the-Not-So-Obvious!

Lately I’ve been thinking about the many jobs I have had, all through my teenage years and adulthood.  The reason I started thinking about them is simple: every time my children talk about what they want to do when they grow up, and it changes daily, I usually have a funny anecdote about the many jobs I’ve done and why I’ve had so many.

Here is a list of all of them:

– Nanny – actually did this for a couple years, only God knows why… I hate kids, but the money was good and for some reason the kids loved me…  Go figure.

– Assistant/File Clerk – did this for about a year, was fun until one of the Managers started hitting on me.  Sexual harassment was an unknown behavior then, it was just something you put up with, kind of like a creepy old Uncle who your family insists you “have” to give a hug to, even though you know it’s lasting way too long and way too tight.  After professing his undying love for me, in the form of a three-page letter to a then-sixteen-year-old me, I quickly realized that this Manager wasn’t going to stop trying.  Having an on and off boyfriend didn’t help either, so I hired a senior football jock from my high school to pose as my boyfriend, which worked for a while.  After a couple months the jock kept showing up to my work, even though I had already let him go as my pretend boyfriend.  To make a long story short, I lost one 30-year-old stalker but gained a new one.  At least the jock was of decent age.  I had no choice but to quit this job for two reasons now…

– Dental Assistant – did that for one day, once I had to place my hand into a patient’s mouth, it was all over for me.  Does not require much explanation.

– Sales Associate at Lechter’s Housewares in the mall – remember that store?  I left due to heavy recruiting from my next job, see below. And a promise of a fifty cent raise!

– Sales Associate at Robinsons-May – was a fun job, loved talking to all the customers, not sure why I left…  Oh yes, I did more talking than selling.  I had the lowest sales of pots and pans in the whole department, but I gained many friends and various kitchen appliances.

– Front Desk Receptionist at YMCA – loved having this job, and letting people in that haven’t paid for a membership in years, great feeling until I realized that YMCA is a non-profit Christian organization…  But what non-profit Christian organization charges people $50 per month to work out in an old, mold infested basement without air conditioning?  I credit myself with the new electronic system that YMCA geeks installed after an old guy got hurt on my shift.  Turned out he lied about being a member of the YMCA, and didn’t really forget his card at home.  Really, I had no idea!

– Assistant Chef for a Catering company – worked there for three months, just because I love cooking and thought I can have a career in it.  The company went under due to Health Department finding out they consistently cross-contaminated work stations, left raw meat soaking in sinks overnight, used the same cutting boards for chicken, meat and vegetarian meals!!!  How do you think they found out?

– Various stints as a receptionist which I sucked at.  Who the hell can remember a name like: Kramer, Smetzel, Spaulding and Steinberg?  Not only remember it but be able to recite it every single time the phone rings?  So what if I a few times throughout the day instead I answered the phone like this: “Good Morning, thank you for calling Seinfeld, Sandler, Stiller and Kaufman.  How can I help you?”  When the President of the company came by to find out why he hasn’t had any calls, I was just as shocked as he was since all I kept getting were hang ups.  It probably didn’t help my case when I chatted up every person that called.  I just wanted to understand better why they were suing McDonald’s…  It must be frustrating to have an idiot for a child that drinks an accidentally left bottle of liquid bleach on the table.  Even more frustrating is to be that Mother who raised the idiot that doesn’t stop after one gulp and realize that it tastes like crap…

My point of listing all the mindless jobs that I’ve done over the years is this; do we ever truly know what we want to do for the rest of our lives?  I realize that there are some of us who, from the time they are five years old know what they want to do when they grow up, and sure enough end up doing it.  There are also those of us that have some kind of an inkling about what interests us, and in what direction we might go.  But what about those like myself who even at thirty-five-years-old still don’t have that “one thing” that we want to do?  Are we supposed to stick to just one thing and continue doing it, even if we are not that interested in it, however society telling us that we can’t jump from one thing to another, and need to pick just one job or field and concentrate on it…

What if I am interested in everything?

The one constant has always been writing for me.  I have always loved to write, and imagine will continue to do so until I am no longer able.  Then, I will recruit and pay some kid to do it for me.  Besides writing, I have tried so many different things and professions and feel better knowing that they are not for me after having done them.  I don’t understand how kids in their freshman year of college are supposed to pick their Major and stick to it having known absolutely nothing about it!  How can you know for sure that you want to be a Dentist when you’ve never stuck your hand into another person’s mouth and fixed a tooth?  How can anyone know for a fact what they want to do for the rest of their lives having never tried it?  Its only my opinion that parents throw away thousands of dollars on children’s college education before letting them “test-drive” their chosen profession.

Every high school graduate should take a couple months to go work in the field that they are interested in, before starting college in the fall.  I guarantee that half of those kids are going to change their minds, but better right then instead of four years down the road.  Maybe I got it all wrong, but somehow it makes a lot of sense to me…  Again, just my opinion…

Obvious vs. the-Not-So-Obvious! Read More »

The passion of David Lang

It may seem a sign of overconfidence for someone to tell you he’s rewriting a major work by Beethoven, but for David Lang, who reconceived Bach’s “St. Matthew Passion” for his Pulitzer Prize- and Grammy Award-winning 2008 opera, “The Little Match Girl Passion,” it’s just business as usual.

Lang, 54, a Los Angeles native who has lived in New York for the past 30 years (he’s a founder of the contemporary music organization Bang On A Can there), is currently rewriting the entire libretto of Beethoven’s 1805 opera, “Fidelio,” a mishmash story of domestic drama, mistaken identity and the problems of political prisoners. And though he won’t be using one note of Beethoven’s score, it’s not because he doesn’t like it.

“It has such beautiful music and some of Beethoven’s most noble and pure thoughts,” Lang said, speaking by phone from New York, “but the story and libretto are terrible. Just when you want the chorus to sing, ‘Down with tyranny and long live freedom,’ we get ‘Happy is the man who has a loving wife.’ ”

For Lang, issues of action and social justice and what people do in dire or unusual circumstances drive much of his work. On June 4, the composer will be in Long Beach for a conversation with Long Beach Opera artistic director Andreas Mitisek about his 2002 opera, “The Difficulty of Crossing a Field,” which will be presented by the opera company on June 15 and 18.

For that unusual and atmospheric blend of opera and music theater, Lang, along with experimental playwright Mac Wellman, expanded a one-page story by the satirist and fabulist Ambrose Bierce. A Civil War correspondent, Bierce is probably best known for his short story “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.”

Lang’s version of the author’s curious “Difficulty of Crossing a Field” is even stranger and more unsettling. Commissioned for the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco by artistic director Carey Perloff, another Jewish artist with Southern California roots, “Difficulty” explores the meaning of an incident in which a plantation owner crosses a field one morning in 1854 and mysteriously disappears.

“Even on one page, Bierce tells the story twice,” Lang said. “So we developed a ‘Rashomon’ aspect of seeing the story’s central event — the disappearance of a man — from several different points of view.”

But this is not just any man. He’s a white man from a slave-owning plantation family, whose presence is felt by his absence. “Almost everyone in the play is black,” Lang said. “Most of the characters are field slaves, who are present in every scene. And they know the truth. It feels as if, even though it may be supernatural, what really happens to this man is in some way his payment for slavery. That the system itself is so illegitimate and poisoned, that even the white power structure can’t survive.”

Lang said he liked exploring the subject of slavery because “it unsettles people very deeply in ways you can’t put your finger on.”

Lang’s “Little Match Girl Passion” is also deeply disturbing. He adapted Hans Christian Andersen’s tale of a girl starving to death on a street while people pass her by.

Lang said he loves Beckett’s line about always trying to “reduce things to its maximum.” For example, in transforming Bach’s “St. Matthew Passion” in “Match Girl,” Lang used minimal musical means, reconceiving the composer’s crowd and character responses, to moving and maximum effect.

“I’ve tried to have music that is direct and unornamented that says I’m going to identify the simplest way to describe this wound, and I’m going to stick my finger in it. That’s what makes ‘Match Girl’ work. It’s not histrionic or melodramatic. It says, ‘Here is this situation, and I’m just going to tell you the facts.’ And I’m going to tell it to you so simply that you’re not going to be able to avoid how terrible this situation is.”

Lang added: “I was trying to write something on a Christian topic, because that’s where choral music comes from in Western civilization. It’s always been amazing to me that Christianity is based on believing that there was a person whose suffering was so noble that it changed the world. But what’s always so peculiar to me is that Christians — and the rest of us — we’re all perfectly happy to have suffering happen all over the place and not do anything about it. So it’s a bit like, here I am, this Jew from New York, saying, ‘Well, if you’re going to pay attention to this person’s suffering, why are you not paying attention to that person’s suffering?’ ”

Lang said music is an opportunity to look around and try to make a difference. “But you feel kind of impotent to change anything, because it’s just a piece of music,” he said. “So it has to spur you on to something that’s even a deeper, more impassioned way of living your life, if you’re going to change society.”

Lang’s mother, who is from Germany, lost everything in the Holocaust, including many relatives. And his father, a Lithuanian immigrant, grew up in poverty. “I wouldn’t go so far as to say these are Jewish values that I’m espousing, but because I am Jewish and because of the experience of Jews in the 20th century, the peculiar history that brought my parents together had a huge effect on how I view the world and what I want my music to accomplish.”

Lang also stops short of saying that being Jewish means you have an obligation to do something as an artist. “But,” he said, “the issue of what being Jewish costs people, for my parents’ generation, was something I grew up with. For me, being religious has to do with making up for the loss as much as I can — making up for the tragedy that came to the generation before us, just because they were Jews.

“For me, the religion and the suffering have been wedded together, which is probably not healthy for me or the religion. But I think it’s the truth.”

David Lang’s “The Difficulty of Crossing a Field” will be presented by Long Beach Opera on June 15 and 18. For more information and to purchase tickets, visit The passion of David Lang Read More »

Why the Museum of Modern Art’s curators wanted to meet my husband

When the curators from Manhattan’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) came calling two years ago, my husband, Ron Magid, had prepared for them a veritable smorgasbord of art by the gothic filmmaker Tim Burton. Among the fare sprawled across our dining room table was a pointy-eared cowl from “Batman,” Jack Skellington storyboards from “The Nightmare Before Christmas” and puppets from “The Corpse Bride,” whose ghoulishly charming heroine sprouts a maggot from her eye. 

At the time, the MoMA curators, Ron Magliozzi and Jenny He, were on a global treasure hunt for work to include in “Tim Burton,” a career retrospective that would become the third-most-attended show ever at the museum — and is now on display, through Halloween, in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art’s (LACMA) new Resnick Pavilion.

Magliozzi and He had tracked down my husband through an archivist at Warner Bros. who knew Ron as a collector and purveyor of high-end movie memorabilia, specializing in horror and science fiction. To us, the prospect of entertaining curators from one of the world’s most prestigious museums sounded daunting, especially since, as Ron put it, “We’re not exactly Norton Simon.” 

Yet Magliozzi and He — who arrived with another museum colleague — did not prove to be art snobs. Rather, with the enthusiasm of youngsters in a macabre kind of candy store, they admired Ron’s Burton memorabilia, as well as the grisly décor in his office. They even made a faux-horrified remark or two about the 1933 “King Kong” shield that was carelessly stashed in a corner. 

But, to our surprise, they bypassed the cowls and the corpse puppets and began snapping photographs of a rather unobtrusive (or so we thought) prop from Burton’s 2001 remake of “Planet of the Apes,” that was sandwiched between some looming “Apes” warrior manikins. The “scarecrow head,” as Magliozzi calls it, is an approximately 3-foot-tall rustic structure, whose skeletal, simian visage sprouts shocks of twiglike hair. 

Entrance to MoMA’s Special Exhibition Gallery. Entrance designed by TwoSeven Inc.. Photo by Michael Locassiano

“That wonderful scarecrow head is very ‘Burtonesque,’ Magliozzi told me recently on the phone from London, where he is now researching an exhibition on the stop-motion animators, the Brothers Quay. “It’s almost like a fright, but it’s also appealing at the same time. It ties in with Tim’s visual theme of the carnivalesque: a liberating mix of the grotesque with the humorous in defiance of the status quo.” 

As it turns out,  we are one of only a few private collectors represented in the exhibition; the more than 700 items on display reflect not only Burton’s films but also his non-cinematic artwork. The curators had intended to focus the show on his movies, props and such, but decided to spotlight his two-dimensional work when they discovered Burton had already catalogued thousands of his drawings, dating from childhood and including numerous personal projects, in his archives in London.

Ron’s scarecrow head is one of relatively few props in the exhibition; he came to own it in a fashion anomalous for one in his profession, and it was, essentially, a gift. Actually, the head at one time had been for sale at a price of several thousand dollars, but hadn’t sold, and the owner, a friend of Ron’s, didn’t want to bother with picking up the enormous artifact at the auction house’s remote warehouse. He told Ron to feel free to take the piece — and so Ron did — although he was disappointed he would have to leave the work’s 20-foot-high base behind because he had no room to store it.

At LACMA, visitors enter the show through the mouth of a giant monster, which also sprouts twiggy hair, inspired by a film project Burton hasn’t yet brought to life. A lolling red-carpet tongue leads into the galleries, which display drawings, cartoons, short films, props, sketchbooks, ephemera and storyboards organized in three sections: work Burton created in response to his alienated childhood in Burbank; pieces he rendered while attending CalArts and as an animator at Walt Disney Studios; and works completed after his first cinematic success, “Pee-wee’s Big Adventure,” which in 1985 launched his career as Hollywood’s reigning morbid auteur.

Tim Burton “Untitled” (Edward Scissorhands), 1990 Private Collection. Edward Scissorhands © Twentieth Century Fox. © 2011 Tim Burton

Burton’s inspiration often returns to what Magliozzi calls “the Burbank muse,” the suburb as a mind-numbing place the young artist “hated and acted against and survived through his creativity.” Likewise, Burton’s protagonists, like Burton himself, tend to be sensitive misfits and misunderstood youths battling a repressive, cookie-cutter world, from the sad-eyed Edward Scissorhands to characters in his 1997 book, “The Melancholy Death of Oyster Boy & Other Stories.”

“[Burton’s] attention to the creaturelike qualities of his characters is a way for him to access their humanity,” Magliozzi wrote in his catalog essay. “The cartoon concept art for Batman and the Joker emphasizes their damaged psyches; the drawings of Edward Scissorhands’ sinister bondage gear and Jack Skellington’s freakish emaciation translates to their soulfulness on screen.”

My husband — who is a movie journalist as well as an entrepreneur — identifies with Burton’s characters, as well as with Burton’s disaffected childhood. “I felt pigeonholed as a nerd who liked monsters and hated sports,” Ron told me when I wrote about Ron’s love for the 1933 film “King Kong” in 2006. Ron views Frankenstein as an abused child; he also came to understand that there was something distinctly Jewish about his bond with monsters — Jews have also been reviled and accused of unspeakable crimes. “Planet of the Apes” — Burton’s version, as well as the original — could serve as a metaphor for the Third Reich: “When you have a master race enslaving people, what does that remind you of?” he asked, rhetorically. 

Actually, it was the original “Apes” that launched my husband’s career as a buyer and seller of memorabilia, in the nascent days of that profession. At 12, he once walked into downtown Long Beach wearing a gorilla mask and wielding a prop rifle from the film, both procured through friends at a science fiction convention. His mission on that hot summer day was to hand out fliers advertising “Apes” goods for sale. But when he became tired and chanced to sit down in front of a bank, he was stunned when police cars screeched up, cops drew guns and ordered him to take off his mask, mistaking the already 6-foot-tall preteen for a would-be bank robber.

“When they saw I was a kid, they laughed and drove me home,” recalled Ron, who was more embarrassed than frightened by the incident.

Fast forward to 2009, when Ron — like Burton — had parlayed his childhood obsessions into a career as well as a collection that was threatening to overtake our Westwood home.

The author’s scarecrow head from “Planet of the Apes.” Photo by Dan Kacvinski

“Actually, your house reminds me of Tim’s place,” Magliozzi told me when I complained about the mess. “Tim’s house [in London] is rather what you’d expect after seeing the exhibition — it’s like a big toy chest. I was more surprised by the fact that Ron has a whole exhibition going on in his office — that was intense.”

Magliozzi and He chose more than 500 pieces from Burton’s home and archives for the exhibition, which they organized with Rajendra Roy, MoMA’s chief curator of film. “We wanted to trace the current of Tim’s visual imagination from childhood to his feature films,” Magliozzi said. “In our gallery exhibitions, we tend to treat filmmakers as artists.” 

Not everyone has been so enthusiastic. A New York Times reviewer who lauded Burton’s films critiqued what he perceived as a “sameness to all Mr. Burton’ two- and three-dimensional output that makes for a monotonous viewing experience.” 

“That critic didn’t get it,” Magliozzi said of the review. “All artists have recurring themes in their work. And MoMA has been doing gallery exhibitions for cinema artists since the museum opened. I think the fact that Tim has created so much art that is not necessarily from his films has been more challenging for critics. But it’s art that speaks to a large audience and has influenced so many other artists, and that alone is enough to bring it into the museum. Our mandate is to put Burton next to Picasso, in the sense that viewers come for Burton and they go to see Picasso — that’s the kind of dynamic we want.”

Britt Salvesen, LACMA’s curator for the exhibition, agrees. “The show’s opening in New York was not only full, but undeniably all kinds of people were talking to each other,” she said. Salvesen has also organized a parallel exhibition, “Tim Burton Selects,” which consists of art from LACMA’s holdings that resonate with the filmmaker — it’s heavy on the Symbolists and German Expressionists.

In an e-mail, she called the scarecrow head “a real highlight” of the main exhibition, which proved thrilling for Ron. And even more exciting was the possibility of meeting Burton at the opening reception.

“Back when I was a special effects journalist, I had hoped to write about Tim Burton’s movies, and finally got the chance with “Planet of the Apes,” even though I didn’t get to interview Burton himself,” Ron said.

“I had hoped that ‘Planet of the Apes’ would bring us together, and of course, now it has — it just took an additional 10 years.”

For more information about the exhibition and related events, and to purchase tickets, visit lacma.org.

Why the Museum of Modern Art’s curators wanted to meet my husband Read More »

Those who say Israel should fear Obama

I have no beef with those who argue President Obama did nothing wrong by sliding in a reference to Israel returning to the 1967 borders, albeit with land swaps, in his major address on the Arab pro-democracy movement at the State Department. To be sure, I believe it ruined the President’s otherwise impassioned insistence that America would support the Arab yearning to be free of its tyrannical dictators by inserting an inflammatory and highly controversial distraction that dominated the headlines. Still, the President is entitled to his view even as it remains to be seen if pressuring Israel will lead to a lasting peace. What I do have a problem with is the large number of commentators – the vast majority Jewish – who say that in defying Obama on the ’67 borders Netanyahu has provoked the President’s wrath and Israel will now suffer the consequences.

As an American I have a visceral distaste for anyone arguing that we ought to fear our government or our President. I do not live in Russia. I do not live in Syria. President Obama is nothing but the elected representative of the American people. He has absolutely no power other than that which we, the American people, grant him. He is not a king and he is not an emperor. He cannot pursue his grudges and he cannot avenge his personal honor. He is a servant of the people. The idea that Israel, as a sovereign nation and most trusted ally of the United States, ought to fear the American president for not kowtowing to his every foreign policy whim when it feels he is desperately wrong, is distasteful in the extreme.

Worse, it is an incalculable insult to President Obama. What these commentators are implying is that Obama is a man so petty and immature that as pay-back to Netanyahu and Israel for defying him he will throw both under a bus. I do not believe this about Obama. I believe him to be a mature and dignified leader even as I disagree with him profoundly on so many substantive issues of policy.

But there were some of America’s top writers arguing that Bibi had pissed off Obama and now Israel would pay.  Leading the charge was Time magazine’s Joe Klein who titled his attack on Netanyahu, “Bibi Provokes Obama,” and ended his column with these words: “Given his congressional support, Netanyahu may be able to get away with playing so bold a hand — but it is inappropriate behavior for an American ally, and you can bet that Obama won’t forget it.” Won’t forget what? That an Israeli Prime Minister actually had the courage to tell an American President – finally! – that the sovereign State of Israel will not be pushed into compromising its security? And what is Klein suggesting Obama will now do. Retaliate against Israel and spitefully take the position of the Palestinians? Does he really believe Obama to be that frivolous? I most surely do not.

The Bibi-undermined-Israel’s-security-by-getting-on-Obama’s-bad-side argument continued with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic – normally one of my favorite writers – who titled his piece, “Dear Mr. Netanyahu, Please Don’t Speak to My President That Way.” Goldberg wrote, “And if President Obama doesn’t walk back the speech, what will Netanyahu do? Will he cut off Israeli military aid to the U.S.?” Perhaps Goldberg has confused the American political system with that, say, of Libya. Our President does not give any economic aid to Israel. It is the American people who, in their overwhelming support of the Middle East’s sole democracy, repeatedly elect leaders who share their pro-Israel posture and who in-turn vote to continue foreign aid to Israel. Whatever the tension between Bibi and Obama the American people are not now questioning why we give our must trusted ally $3 billion a year in military aid, but why we gave Pakistan, where Bin Laden was hiding, a total of $20.7 billion in aid from 2002 through fiscal 2011.

Goldberg continues: “Prime Minister Netanyahu needs the support of President Obama in order to confront the greatest danger Israel has ever faced: the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran. And yet he seems to go out of his way to alienate the President.” The inference is that by Netanyahu throwing what Goldberg called ‘a hissy fit,’ President Obama may withdraw his support for Israel on Iran. This is an unwarranted and unjust criticism of our President who knows darn well that a nuclear-armed Iran is as big a threat to the United States as it is to Israel. Last time I checked ‘The Great Satan’ label bandied about by the Iranians was a reference not to Israel but to America.

But the sentiment of Bibi’s foolishness in ‘provoking’ Obama was heard even in major Jewish publications. New York Jewish Week publisher Gary Rosenblatt, one of the most erudite and insightful of all writers on the Jewish scene, said, “This is more than a personal grudge match; it can affect strategic policy and the very future of the Jewish state. Israel, of course, has a lot more to lose here than the U.S., so the onus is on Bibi to make the relationship better…. Bibi has chosen confronting Obama rather than working at restoring their relationship. I hope it’s not a permanent mistake.”

I respectfully disagree. It was Obama who gratuitously threw in the provocative reference to Israel’s 1967 borders without, at the very least, calling on the Palestinians to withdraw the utterly unrealistic right of return. And it was Obama who was forced at AIPAC to dilute his ’67 border comment to the point of meaninglessness because he feared the wrath of American Jewry – one of his most important financial and electoral constituencies – rather than the other way around.

I mean no disrespect. But it seems to me it’s high time we reject the traditional court-Jew mentality that says that we must shimmy-up to powerful leaders in order to gain their protection. America does not support Israel because Jews are friendly or subservient. It does not respect Israel because it is polite or deferential. Rather, America, in its righteous, majestic might supports Israel because its cause is just. And any insinuation to the contrary is an insult both to our President and the American people.

Shmuley Boteach, “America’s Rabbi,” is Founder of This World: The Values Network, which promotes universal Jewish values in the mainstream media. His most recent book is “Renewal: A Guide to the Values-Filled Life.” Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

Those who say Israel should fear Obama Read More »

In foreskin fight, even terminology is being disputed

According to the proponent of a ballot initiative to prohibit the act of surgically removing a male baby’s foreskin, the term “circumcision” is nothing but a euphemism.

“Having your foreskin amputated is probably more like it,” said Jena Troutman, a doula and mother of two sons, who initiated the process of petitioning Santa Monica to include the initiative on a future ballot.

On May 19, Troutman filed a “Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition” with the Santa Monica City Clerk aimed to prohibit what she called “medically unnecessary genital cutting of male minors.”

That language is being rejected by city officials. The official title, which was prepared by Santa Monica City Attorney Marsha Moutrie, is “An Initiative Measure Amending the Municipal Code to Prohibit Circumcising a Male Under the Age of 18 Except in a Medical Emergency.”

To get the initiative onto the November 2012 ballot in Santa Monica, backers will need about 6,000 registered voters to sign a petition that includes that language. More than 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition that successfully put a measure aimed at prohibiting “male circumcision” on the November 2011 ballot.

The term “circumcision” was used on the San Francisco petition and will be included on the Santa Monica petition, in spite of each measure’s backers having initially referred to their initiatives as measures prohibiting “genital cutting of male minors.”

Already the language of the self-described “intactivists” has provoked strong reactions from Jewish community leaders. A coalition led by the San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council is working to defeat that city’s proposition at the ballot box. Because the measure has not yet qualified for inclusion on the Santa Monica ballot, Jewish leaders in Los Angeles have been less vocal so far. At press time, a joint statement opposing the proposed measure was expected to be released in the coming days.

Jewish groups primarily are fighting the ballot measure on the basis that it infringes upon freedom of religion, however many are also accusing the measure’s backers of using misleading language.

“These people went out with a false approach, and they got this on the ballot by convincing people that they were signing something against genital mutilation, not something against religious circumcision,” said Rabbi Dovid Eliezrie, the national liaison from Chabad Lubavitch to Jewish Federations of North America.

Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, Gil Leeds, a rabbi and certified mohel (ritual circumciser), called the language of mutilation used by the proposal’s backers toxic and deceptive. “The Hebrew word for ritual circumcision, bris, literally means ‘a covenant,’ ” Leeds wrote. “It is a covenantal act that Jews have practiced since the time of the patriarch Abraham more than three-and-a-half millennia ago.”

The language of the San Francisco proposition and the proposed Santa Monica ballot measure originates with a San Diego-based group, MGMbill.org, which was initially intent on pursuing federal legislation prohibiting what it calls “male genital mutilation.” The language is based upon a similarly worded federal law, passed in 1997, that prohibits female genital mutilation.

Election law experts said that the actual language of the propositions that appear on each ballot could be contested. In both Santa Monica and San Francisco, city officials have to give “an objective title and summary” to the proposition, Colleen McAndrews, an election law attorney in Santa Monica, said.

“If they don’t like it, they have an opportunity to litigate it,” McAndrews said. “If the court deems it ‘false and misleading,’ the court can strike the words or rewrite them.”

It appears likely that the ballots, like the petitions, will use the word “circumcision” and not “genital mutilation” or “genital cutting.”

“American society has always regarded male and female circumcision very differently,” Howard Friedman, professor of law emeritus at University of Toledo and author of the Religion Clause blog, wrote in an e-mail. “It has generally been felt that government has a compelling interest in outlawing female circumcision because of the physical, psychological and health effects on girls. On the other hand, the widespread acceptance of male circumcision in the U.S. is not seen as giving the government a compelling interest in outlawing it,” Friedman wrote.

The medical benefits of circumcision — which are cited by opponents of a ban and disputed by backers — are sure to have an impact on the debate as it progresses.

The language used by each side is not likely to change anytime soon, however.

“There’s a baby male, and that baby male — either for medical ritual or religious ritual — is having its foreskin removed,” Suzanne Wertheim, a visiting lecturer at UCLA, said, illustrating what a neutral description of the act in question might look like.

But no matter what the courts or the voters decide, Wertheim, a linguistic anthropologist, said that people on each side of the argument are unlikely to start speaking neutrally.

“There are people who say that abortion should not be legal and should not be an option for women, and there are people who say that abortion should be legal and should be an option for women,” Wertheim said. “That is a neutral phrasing of those stances. But no one ever discusses abortion that way.”

In foreskin fight, even terminology is being disputed Read More »

Landmark study provides snapshot of new Jewish identity in Central Europe

A generation after the fall of communism, Jews in Central Europe feel comfortable where they live but are concerned about anti-Semitism.

They like to visit Israel but don’t want to move there. And they feel that they don’t have to be religious to be a “good Jew.”

These are some of the findings in Identity a la Carte, a landmark study of post-Communist Jewish identity, affiliation and participation released Monday.

“The most important feature for the post-Communist generation is that Judaism is no longer experienced as a stigma that needs to be concealed,” said Marcelo Dimentstein, operations director for the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee’s International Center for Community Development, which commissioned the study.

“On the contrary,” he said, “this is a generation that is proud of being Jewish and has positive feelings about it.”

Carried out in 2008-09 by a team of leading demographers, Identity a la Carte is the most wide-ranging and in-depth comparative examination of Jewish life and attitudes in Central Europe since the Iron Curtain came down more than 20 years ago—Central Europe’s version of the decennial U.S. National Jewish Population Survey. In fact, one of the demographers on the Identity a la Carte team, Barry Kosmin, directed the 1990 NJPS.

The European identity study focused on Jewish adults in five key countries that have witnessed a post-Communist Jewish revival: Hungary, Poland, Latvia, Romania and Bulgaria.

The main objective, the report’s authors said, was to help Jewish community leaders and organizations that work in Central Europe; the JDC is among them.

“It is very important that a Jewish organization wants to get real data and wants to face the reality in which it has to work,” Hungarian sociologist Andras Kovacs, who coordinated the survey, told JTA. “It’s important that Jewish organizations discover the importance of real data.”

Luciana Friedman, president of the Jewish Community of Timisoara, Romania, said that “as applied research, it will inform and enrich our policy and programs.”

The research that went into Identity a la Carte concentrated on several key areas, including religious observance, Jewish identity, anti-Semitism, Israel, Jewish knowledge and organizational affiliation.

The survey sample was made up of 1,270 Jews aged 18-60 living in urban centers, where most of the Jewish population in each country resides. Face-to-face interviews were carried out based on a common questionnaire for all the countries. Identical criteria and terminology were used in all five countries, where Jewish populations range from 5,000 in Bulgaria to 100,000 in Hungary.

The survey’s results are presented in a dense, 200-plus-page report full of charts and analysis that reveals both communalities and sharp divergences from country to country.

Some results confirm assumptions, such as findings that Jews have higher levels of education and better standards of living compared to fellow non-Jewish citizens. Other results challenge preconceptions.

In all countries, respondents said that Jewish identity was more important to them today than it was in their childhood: 81 percent in Poland, 73 percent in Hungary, 66 percent in Bulgaria, 63 percent in Romania and 62 percent in Latvia. About one-fifth of the total respondents said their Jewishness had been concealed from them in their childhood home.

At least one-third of respondents in each country—and more than half in Poland and Romania—said they were more involved in Jewish life now than five years ago. Between a quarter and one-third of respondents said they wish to be more active in the future.

“The strength of Jewish identity, when contrasted with the mixed backgrounds of participants, is something that is quite surprising,” Dimentstein said.

In all five countries, however, religious observance was found to play a minor role in the formation of Jewish identity, with cultural, educational, social and other “non-religious communal activities” ranking higher.

“A majority of respondents in each country agree that someone can be a good Jew without participating in organized Jewish life,” the report said.

Israel’s role as an identity factor was deemed “significant” for more than half of the respondents in each country, except for Hungary.

But while respondents maintained close connections with Israel—85 percent have traveled to Israel and 66 percent have visited several times—only 15 percent to 22 percent were considering making aliyah.

Respondents in all countries expressed concern at anti-Semitism. But at the same time, the report said, anti-Semitism “plays a relatively minor role in the formation of Jewish identity throughout the sampled countries.”

Only in Hungary, the study said, did a majority of respondents foresee a significant increase of anti-Semitism in the future. Nearly half in Poland said they believed the level of anti-Semitism would fall.

In fact, respondents had generally optimistic views of the Jewish future in Europe.

Most respondents believed that European Jews “differ greatly” from Jews in Israel and America. Respondents who said they believe their Jewish community will continue to thrive in the next few decades consisted of 46 percent from Romanian respondents, 55 percent from Poland, 64 percent from Latvia, 74 percent from Bulgaria and 87 percent from Hungary.

High numbers also agreed with the statement that Europe today “is a safe place for Jews to live”—57 percent in Latvia; 59 percent in Poland; 61 percent in Romania; 67 percent in Bulgaria; and 77 percent in Hungary.

Contrary to expectations, most of the survey respondents in each country were affiliated in some way with organized Jewish life.

“We had hoped to have a two-thirds majority of non-affiliated Jews in the sample, but this did not prove possible,” Kovacs said.

“It was not a problem to contact non-affiliated Jews in Hungary and Latvia,” he said. “But it was very difficult in Poland and Romania, if such Jews exist, as the network is broken: They have no links to the Jewish community.”

Strategically speaking, Kovacs said, this means that future outreach programs there targeting non-affiliated Jews “could face extreme difficulties.”

Landmark study provides snapshot of new Jewish identity in Central Europe Read More »

Opinion: Time to assert Jerusalem’s Jewish heritage

Among his many statements related to Israel in the last couple of weeks, President Obama got at least one thing right when he said at a London news conference that Jerusalem goes deep into how the Jewish people think about their identity.

As we mark 44 years of a reunited Jerusalem this week, we should appreciate the centrality of Jerusalem to Jewish identity.

This is why most Israelis and American Jews consistently reject the idea that Israel surrender swaths of the holy city as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians.

Jerusalem has been a touchstone of our identity throughout our history, and our contemporary experience gives Jerusalem a central place in our faith today.

From the religious perspective, when Jews pray, we face toward Jerusalem—and the Temple Mount in particular—no matter where we are in the world. We pray each day for the welfare of Jerusalem, and we conclude our most sacred services, the Passover seder and Neilah on Yom Kippur, with the pledge and prayer, “Next year in Jerusalem.”

Historically, we regularly read biblical accounts of our forefathers and mothers that take place in and around Jerusalem. King David made the city his capital 3,000 years ago, and it has been the national capital of the Jewish people—and no other nation—ever since.

Only brute force has kept us out. Such was the case, we must still recall, from 1948 to 1967, when Jews were barred entry to the Old City and denied worship at the Western Wall during the time that the West Bank was controlled by Jordan.

Since Jerusalem’s reunification in 1967, the city has been open to all. As noted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his recent address to Congress, “Only a democratic Israel has protected freedom of worship for all faiths.”

Moreover, reunification has enabled Jerusalem to flourish economically and culturally. While it is a poorer city than Tel Aviv, Jerusalem has a vibrant tourist trade, entrepreneurial businesses and first-rate theater and museums.

Some, in Israel and elsewhere, assert that Jerusalem can be easily divided with minimal impact upon the life of the city, let alone the sanctity and safety of its holy places. Indeed, there are neighborhoods, especially those to the east of the West Bank security barrier, where Jews seldom venture.

But modern Jerusalem is far more an interwoven checkerboard of Jewish and Palestinian areas than starkly segregated enclaves. The Arab area of Beit Safafa lies between the Jewish neighborhoods of Talpiot and Gilo, while the Arab neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah lies between the Old City and the Jewish neighborhood of French Hill. Moreover, an area like the City of David or Silwan may have more Palestinian than Jewish residents, but it is deeply connected to Jewish history.

It is no more feasible to separate the Palestinian and Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem from one another than to ethnically divide the neighborhoods of Manhattan.

Proponents of a “two-state solution” are wont to say that “everyone knows” what the details of a deal are. Those details often include the presumption that Jerusalem will again be divided and will serve as the capital of two states: Israel and Palestine.

It is high time to repudiate this presumption. The international community would never expect the Muslims to cede sovereignty over Mecca, the cradle of their faith and history, any more than Americans would be asked to return Philadelphia to the queen of England. The Jewish people should be afforded no less respect. Jerusalem must remain united under Jewish sovereignty.

Days after the 1967 Six-Day War and the reunification of Jerusalem, one of the great leaders of religious Zionism, Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Neriah, wrote that the Jews were not worthy to hold onto Jerusalem in 1948 because they were divided into many factions.

“In 1967,” he wrote, “we entered the city through one gate, the Lions’ Gate, with one army, the IDF, under one flag.”

Of course, we Jews find ourselves in many factions today. We must fight on many fronts to assert the Jewish heritage of Jerusalem. On this Jerusalem Day, or Yom Yerushalayim, we must commit ourselves to confronting those who would redivide our capital from without and to working to unify the Jewish people from within.

We must do it for the sake of Jerusalem.

(Nathan Diament is the director of public policy at the Orthodox Union.)

Opinion: Time to assert Jerusalem’s Jewish heritage Read More »