fbpx

GET HOME DELIVERY! CLICK HERE »

ADVERTISE
pick up locations
HOME DELIVERY
donate

Jewish Journal

Connect. Inform. Inspire.

June 1, 2011

Most U.S. Jews see Israel as serious in peace bid, poll finds

Leave a Comment / Israel, United States /

American Jews strongly believe in Israel’s commitment to peace, and largely think the Palestinian leadership and people are opposed to it, according to a new poll.

Eighty-four percent of respondents in the survey released last week said the Israeli government is committed to a lasting peace, compared to just 20 percent who said the same about the Palestinian Authority. More than half think the Palestinian people are opposed to peace with Israel.

Sponsored by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, the poll sampled more than 1,000 American Jews several days before President Obama called for the 1967 borders to be used as the basis for negotiations for a future Palestinian state.

More than 75 percent of those polled said the biggest obstacle to peace in the region is the Palestinians’ “culture of hatred” and promotion of anti-Israel sentiment.

Seventy-eight percent said it was essential for the Palestinian Authority to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and 62 percent did not believe that Israelis would be free from Palestinian terror attacks even if a Palestinian state were created in the West Bank and Gaza.

Nearly one in four said they would consider it “the biggest tragedy of my lifetime” if Israel were to no longer exist, and 58 percent said they would call it “a major tragedy that personally concerned me.”

Andrea Levin, executive director of CAMERA, said in a release that the results get to what most Jews in the United States believe.

“Some news media accounts have tended to amplify a vocal fringe in the American Jewish community that espouses extreme views and policies far out of the mainstream,” Levin said. “This poll clarifies what American Jews actually feel and believe.”

Most U.S. Jews see Israel as serious in peace bid, poll finds Read More »

Hollywood power player: The Nina Tassler Interview

Leave a Comment / Culture, Entertainment, Hollywood, Hollywood Jew /

Except for her petite frame and that little black dress, you’d never know Nina Tassler once wanted to be an actress. She was entirely in her element at The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles’ Once In 100 Years party last week, working the 1,300-plus crowd scattered across Santa Monica’s Barker Hangar, many of whom had come to see Tassler, the president of CBS Entertainment, honored for her work as chair of Federation’s Entertainment Division. Too tiny to be bigheaded, Tassler even wandered to the back, where media entrepreneur David Lonner and director Jon Turteltaub were sitting. 

“I feel so blessed to have the life I have now,” Tassler, 54, said by phone a few days before the event. “But there is a part of me,” she added wistfully, that wonders what it would have been like to be a theater star. “I tried my hardest. I used to call myself ‘the callback queen,’ but it got very frustrating having your life being subject to somebody else’s decisions.”

It’s no small irony, then, that Tassler has become The Decider, making and breaking the dreams of other artists who long for a spot in the CBS lineup. And since she took over as chief of the network’s entertainment programming in 2004, Tassler has proved her taste; she is credited with launching some of the most successful dramas on TV, including the “CSI” franchise, “Without a Trace,” “The Mentalist” and “The Good Wife.” But though the ratings race demands her choices have wide appeal, they are not arbitrary.

“Before I go to bed, sometimes I’ll just sit outside and philosophically assess the day,” she said. “I feel it’s our responsibility to keep our ear tuned to public discourse. There’s a lot of noise out there, and our responsibility is to pick up on the themes and issues that work their way through all of society. You have to present characters an audience can relate to.”

Tassler’s own journey echoes that trope. She grew up variously in Manhattan, upstate New York and Miami, in what she describes as a “politically progressive,” multicultural family. Her late father was a Jewish audiovisual engineer and her mother, born in Puerto Rico, converted to Judaism. Holidays, she said, were steeped in an awareness of the social movements of the day — the civil rights movement in particular — and when her father inherited a bungalow colony in upstate New York, the family ran it as a camp, welcoming African American and Native American children, in the 1960s, when such was not common practice.

Tassler’s worldview was shaped as much by this exposure as it was by the broad-mindedness of the theater world, and it’s one of the reasons she never felt hobbled by being a woman in male-dominated Hollywood.

“I’ve always seen the world as very gender-neutral,” Tassler said. “I mean, I’m a feminist, but as far as having any greater or lesser opportunity because of my gender? I never thought of it that way.”

It didn’t hurt that Les Moonves, the entertainment titan and current president of the CBS Corp., took Tassler under his wing more than 20 years ago and has given her some big breaks. “He’s always been a huge supporter of promoting women,” she said. And while being female hasn’t defined her, it has informed her style. “Because I’m a mother and a wife, I’m the consummate multitasker, and in terms of caregiving, I’m predisposed to making sure people are content and enjoy coming to work.”

Through Federation, Tassler has also helped buttress Hollywood’s relationship with Israel. In 2009, she traveled to Israel to participate in a Los Angeles-Tel Aviv master class connecting Israeli artists with Hollywood tastemakers. “What we’re trying to move toward is taking that art and the dialogue that has been ongoing and build joint-venture commerce out of it,” she said.

For an industry leader so comfortable in her Jewish skin, it must have been awkward when one of the year’s most unsavory anti-Semitic episodes came from within her own network. Last February, when former “Two and a Half Men” star Charlie Sheen erupted in a diatribe aimed at his Jewish boss, Chuck Lorre, it was an embarrassment for CBS, which swiftly canceled the season’s remaining shows, fired Sheen and shortly thereafter replaced him. It was a debacle Tassler would like to forget — and prefers not to discuss. “We’re beyond that now,” she said. “We’re looking to the future and not talking about the past.” But Tassler admits the year’s spate of anti-Semitic ranting — from Oliver Stone to Lars Von Trier is “frustrating and disturbing.”

“I do feel that because of the Federation and the network of Jewish artists and their strength of voice, that there is a system in place whereby there is a swift response from the Jewish community when these kind of remarks are made.”

In the meantime, she’s focused on other pursuits, like her daughter’s upcoming bat mitzvah. “As I’ve gotten older, I’ve become more spiritual and more active in the religious life of our family. We’re at this place right now where we’re kind of waiting for the other shoe to drop, so finding that time to pray and reflect has become more important in my life.”

Hollywood power player: The Nina Tassler Interview Read More »

Zionism With Hope

Leave a Comment / Israel, Opinion, United States /

Just 11 minutes after its independence was declared, the State of Israel was recognized by the United States. But up until the last moment, President Harry Truman had opposed the establishment of a Jewish state. For months, a battle waged between the State Department and Zionist leaders for Truman’s allegiance, and he was weary of the issue. The State Department had persuaded him that a Jewish state in Palestine would never survive the threatened Arab invasion and advocated shelving the partition plan and turning Palestine over to U.N. trusteeship. When New York’s pro-Zionist senators met with him, Truman erupted: “You cannot satisfy the Jews anyway. … They are not interested in the United States!” He washed his hands of Zionism and Israel, and refused to discuss it further. As a last resort, the Zionists brought Truman’s old Army friend and business partner, Eddie Jacobson, to the White House to request one last meeting with Chaim Weitzman, one last appeal for Jewish independence.

Sitting with a crowd of 10,000 at the national AIPAC Policy Conference just 63 years and a few blocks from the White House, waiting for President Barack Obama to arrive and address us, I thought about Eddie Jacobson. I imagine him sitting nervously in the antechamber of the Oval Office, wondering what he would say to his stubborn old friend. Could he convey to the president, born of America’s heartland, what this moment meant to the generations of the Jewish people?

How did he feel carrying on his shoulders two millennia of Jewish hopes and prayers? How was it that Providence chose him, Eddie Jacobson, a simple Kansas City haberdasher, to deliver an ancient people’s dreams?

For a student of Jewish history, the AIPAC conference is a breathtaking experience. How far are we from Eddie Jacobson? This time, the president came to us, and early on a Sunday morning. On Monday, 70 senators and 270 members of the House sat down to dinner with us. On Tuesday, the prime minister of Israel received 29 standing ovations from a joint session of Congress. Zionism was about changing the Jewish story. Zionism was about gaining sufficient power so that the Jewish people would have a place in the world and would never again suffer the indignity of helplessness.

Sitting in front of the president at AIPAC, one can’t help but reflect on how the Jewish story has changed in one generation. And how it hasn’t changed.

We are still a nervous people. Throughout the conference, the president’s words were parsed and analyzed with talmudic acuity. Is he for us or is he against us? Is he our best friend or our worst enemy? The threats facing Israel are very real. And they are dutifully recited at each session of the AIPAC conference like a litany: Iran’s unabated march toward nuclear weapons. Hezbollah’s missiles. Hamas’ spirituality of murder. Abbas’ confused intentions. This coming September’s vote at the U.N. Rising Islamicism in Egypt. European boycotts and disinvestment. Israel’s international isolation. Amid all the remarkable gestures of our miraculous, new-found political power, AIPAC is an exercise in Jewish anxiety. 

Exile and its indignity, the Holocaust and its horrors have left us wounded. Sixty-three years of spectacular sovereignty have not yet healed the wounds of the Jewish spirit. From those wounds grows an overwhelming fear that all we have gained could be lost in a moment. That fear flows fluently into rage — too often, rage directed at our own. It flows into suspicion, the inability to distinguish friend from foe. It flows into drunken, chest-thumping bravado.  Eventually, its energy dissipates and it flows into despair and indifference. The great Zionist curmudgeon Ahad Ha’am warned that we might gain a state but lose our national soul.

The threats to Israel are existential and very, very real. They must be met with resolution and strength. That’s why I belong to AIPAC and support it passionately. But we must take care in deliberating our strategy of response. We are an old people. We have known existential threats before. And we have learned how to respond with wisdom in ways that bind community closer, instead of separating and isolating, and in ways that uplift us, instead of turning us cold and angry. Zionism grew out of that wisdom. Zionism was always about hope. Zionism always spoke in the language of Jewish aspiration. Zionism is a modern expression of ancient messianism, reaching beyond the bounds of the Jewish people to envision a world redeemed and made whole. With all our glorious new political power, I missed that spirit in our community’s advocacy for Israel. I miss the hope, the vision and the language of our higher aspirations.

On Monday evening, following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address, we exited the convention center and were met by a knot of anti-Israel demonstrators screaming rather vicious epithets. The huge AIPAC crowd soon surrounded the knot of demonstrators. Thankfully, there was no violence. Instead, they began to sing. The demonstrators’ hateful slogans were roundly drowned out by “Am Yisrael Chai!” and “Oseh Shalom,” until the whole neighborhood rang with Hebrew song. As the police came to remove the demonstrators, the crowd began to sing “Hatikva.” This time, hope had the last word.

Ed Feinstein is senior rabbi of Valley Beth Shalom in Encino. He serves on the faculty of the Ziegler Rabbinical School of American Jewish University.

Zionism With Hope Read More »

Obama and the quest for Mideast peace

Leave a Comment / Opinion, United States /

So, why was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu steaming when he came out of his tête-á-tête with President Barack Obama on May 20? The president’s inherently pro-Palestinian, con-Israeli stance may have been another rude awakening for the prime minister, but the handwriting’s been on the wall for some time now.

Take, for example, candidate Obama’s statement in March 2007 that “nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people.”  How about the Israeli people, who have had to live with the daily threat of terrorist attacks and bombings and hostile Arab armies on their borders since the inception of the Jewish state in 1948?   

Netanyahu was clearly disconcerted when he heard the president refer to Hamas as “an organization that has resorted to terror” during his press conference with the prime minister.  The imagery conveyed is of desperate Palestinian freedom fighters committing the occasional act of terror as a last resort to drive their Israeli oppressors from their rightful home, not of the coldblooded killers who routinely murder innocent civilians, as they did when they used a laser-guided anti-tank missile last April to specifically target an Israeli school bus, killing 16-year-old Daniel Viflic.

The president’s characterization of Hamas was particularly surprising as the organization has been responsible for the murder of more than 40 U.S. citizens since its formation in 1988 and was declared a terrorist group by the Clinton administration in 1995.  Netanyahu believed the United States and Israel stood shoulder to shoulder on the longstanding policy for both countrie — which, in the case of America, dates back to 1981 and the Reagan administration — that forbids negotiating with terrorists.  Yet Obama, in his Mideast policy address on May 19, soft pedaled the recent political accord between Fatah and Hamas, saying it raised “profound and legitimate questions for Israel” that Palestinian leaders will have to credibly address “… in the weeks and months to come.” 

But that’s far from the only reason Netanyahu was upset with the president.  Why is it that this administration feels compelled to set preconditions for Middle East peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA), and that those preconditions always require Israel to make the first concessions before negotiations begin?  In 2009, negotiations ran aground because Obama insisted on a moratorium on all new settlement activity in the West Bank that Israel rebuffed. Now, the principle he has set forth as a “foundation for negotiations” is that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that … the Palestinian people [can] govern themselves in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

In his speech to AIPAC on May 22, the president misled the 11,000 American Jews in the audience — 78 percent of whom had voted for him — when he stated that his framework for peace talks has “… been the template for discussions between the United States, Israel and the Palestinians since at least the Clinton administration.”  The truth is that the president’s so-called “even-handed” policy strongly favors the Palestinian position and represents a major change in American policy, with dire implications for Israel and the prospects for Middle East peace.

No U.S. president, from Lyndon Johnson (who was in office during the Six-Day War) through George W. Bush, has ever asserted, implicitly or explicitly, that the Palestinians have a right to 100 percent of the West Bank and the territory governed by the pre-1967 borders. Johnson said a return to pre-1967 borders “is not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities.” Reagan stated that “in the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point.  The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile armies.  I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.”  And Bush:  “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” None of the prior eight American presidents since 1967 have said anything about returning to the 1967 borders or land swaps.  By stating that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps,” Obama is asserting that (i) Palestinians are entitled to the territory governed by the pre-1967 borders and that (ii) should those borders differ, Israel must compensate the Palestinians with other land from the 4,000-year-old ancestral Jewish homeland.  This is a concession Israel is to make before negotiations begin?  What bargaining power would Israel have left?  And, since “mutually” entails the agreement of both parties, what if one party — the Palestinians — doesn’t agree?  Then you’re back to the indefensible 1967 borders.   

Why does this president consistently set Israel up to take the fall?  Netanyahu journeys to Washington to meet with the president at Obama’s request in March 2010 only to be presented with a list of ultimatums for restarting peace talks, including freezing settlement activity in East Jerusalem, and then, when Netanyahu hesitates, the president walks out of the meeting, snubbing him for dinner and the customary photo session for heads of state.  On the eve of last month’s summit with the prime minister, he again ambushes Netanyahu by unveiling a major change in U.S. policy that favors the Palestinians. During the first six months of his presidency, Obama journeyed to Saudi Arabia and Egypt; halfway through the third year of his term, he has yet to visit Israel, America’s staunchest, most democratic and most stable and reliable ally in the region.  Does anyone see a pattern here? 

If Obama wants to set preconditions for peace talks, then why not adopt the most logical, most fundamental and most simplistic one set forth by Netanyahu in his address before Congress on May 24?  Just as Netanyahu, and the Israeli prime ministers before him dating back to Menachem Begin in 1978, have stated that they will accept a Palestinian state, why doesn’t the president join him in calling for the Palestinian leadership to declare that they will accept a Jewish state?  How can there ever be peace if there is no meeting of the minds on this basic premise?  Why wasn’t that the framework for peace negotiations put forth by the president instead of dancing around the issue of having Hamas at the bargaining table? 

The last time Israel swapped land for peace —the Gaza Strip in 2005 — the direct consequence was to have less land and less peace.  With Hamas governing Gaza, suicide bombings, rocket attacks and terrorist strikes against Israeli civilian targets increased markedly, Hamas’ charter (Article 7) advocates the killing of all Jews (not just Israelis, mind you) by Muslims and it has never accepted Israel’s right to exist, stressing its commitment to “obliterating” Israel (preamble to Hamas charter).  Hamas is no friend of America, either.  FBI Director Robert Mueller, whose tenure Obama wishes to extend another two years, cited in testimony before the U.S. Senate that “there is a … threat of a coordinated terrorist attack in the U.S. from Palestinian terrorist organizations, such as Hamas.” According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Hamas and another terrorist organization, Hezbollah, have joined with Iran in fomenting “subversive activity” in Latin America. 

So, if the president is bound and determined to set preconditions for negotiations between Israel and the newly united Fatah-Hamas Palestinian Authority, why did he not insist — in firm, clear language — that Hamas first renounce terror, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and affirm the previous agreements between the PA and Israel?  Why does the first olive branch always have to come from Israel, and how can it when the party across the table is aiming a gun at its heart?  Although the president took a tougher stance on Hamas in his speech to AIPAC — clearly appealing for the Jewish vote — why didn’t he do so during his national address, when the entire Arab world was listening?  Modified messages for different audiences brings to mind imagery of Yasser Arafat’s pro-peace remarks in English for Western audiences and his pro-violence oratory in Arabic for Muslims.

In his Mideast policy address, Obama also referenced two “wrenching and emotional issues” that remain: “the future of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees.”  But his avowed two-state solution with “Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people” is illusory if you give any credence whatsoever to a so-called Palestinian “right of return.” The Jewish state ceases to exist if Palestinian refugees are allowed to return to their former homes in Israel. Hamas knows this, Fatah knows this, and the president knows this. Hamas has never agreed to the permanent (as opposed to “transitional”), peaceful, side-by-side coexistence of a Palestinian state with a Jewish state — not when Hamas chieftain Khaled Meshaal met with ex-President Jimmy Carter in 2008 and not now.  In the words of another Hamas leader, Nizar Rayyan, “Israel is an impossibility.  It is an offense against God.”

If he was going to mention refugees, why didn’t the president raise the issue of the 3,000-year-old Jewish communities in Arab lands that were ethnically cleansed between 1948 and the early 1970s?  Commencing with Arab League retaliation for the declaration of the State of Israel by the United Nations, 1 million Jews were forcibly removed from their homes and personal property, forfeiting 62,000 square miles of land (nearly five times Israel’s 12,600 square miles) and assets worth approximately $300 billion.  What of their “right of return”?  No one believes Jews will ever be allowed to once again peacefully coexist in Muslim lands where they lived for centuries, so why should Israelis think they can survive in a Muslim-majority Israel?

Instead of bringing the parties closer to the bargaining table, Obama has pushed them farther apart.  President Bush gave voice to what has been understood by every American president since Johnson when he observed in 2004 that “an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.” By reintroducing the Palestinian refugee issue, Obama has further emboldened Fatah and Hamas, leading them to take yet another negotiating position that is a nonstarter for Israel.  After all, you can’t expect Palestinians to take a less pro-Palestinian stance than the president of the United States …

Hamas is no more America’s friend than is al-Qaeda or Hezbollah. Israel may be Hamas’ immediate target, but Jews everywhere and all of Western culture — those who “have closed [their] ears to the Messenger of Allah” (Rayyan) — is in their crosshairs. The president had a golden opportunity to send a strong, unequivocal message that there is no place for a defiant Hamas to be a part of the Middle East peace process, and he didn’t take it, a fact that is troubling for any number of reasons, not the least of which is why the president used a speech that was billed to be a major policy pronouncement on the Arab spring to instead put Israel once again on the chopping block.

The Arab spring movement is not about Arabs rebelling against Israelis; it’s about the Arab street rebelling against repressive Arab rulers in Iran (June 2009), Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya and Syria.  So why divert attention away to once again scapegoat the Jews?  Osama bin Laden did it when, post-9/11, he adopted the mantle and “justification” of Palestinian freedom fighter. Bashar al-Assad did it when he orchestrated having Palestinian refugees storm the Syrian border with Israel on May 15, the day after the anniversary of Israel’s independence.

When Obama remarked in April 2010 that the Middle East conflict ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure,” he drew an explicit link between Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.  This is not the first time the president has expressed this distorted view that blames Israel for the threat of Islamic terrorism facing Western countries.  In October 2007, he asserted that “our neglect of the Middle East peace process has spurred despair and fueled terrorism.” This outrageous blood libel accepts the narrative of al-Qaeda and speaks volumes about this president’s beliefs and thought processes. Perhaps the virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Israel preachings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who was Obama’s pastor for nearly 20 years, officiated at his wedding, baptized his children, gave him the title of his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” and served as his “sounding board” and spiritual mentor, have had more of an influence on Obama’s world view than people realize.

If the president is endeavoring to curry favor in the Muslim world by pressuring Israel back to the bargaining table with (i) a seemingly irreconcilable partner, (ii) a new, “zero-sum” game tied to 1967 borders with “swaps” that means Israel has to give up some of its own pre-1967 territory to get West Bank settlements, (iii) a contiguous Palestinian state that borders Israel, Jordan and Egypt that could connect Palestine while dividing Israel and does nothing to ensure Israel’s security, (iv) a potential “right to return” for Palestinian refugees — despite their now getting their own sovereign country, and (v) a divided Jerusalem, then the Obama administration has for the second time in three years doomed peace talks before they can even start.  Is it any wonder Netanyahu is steaming and this president has the lowest approval rating among Israelis of any sitting American president?  Now, if only American Jews would wake up … 

Lloyd Greif, the son of Holocaust survivors, is president and CEO of Greif & Co., a member of the board of directors of the California Chamber of Commerce and benefactor of the Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at the University of Southern California.

Obama and the quest for Mideast peace Read More »

David Suissa: Sitting shivah for peace

Leave a Comment / David Suissa, Opinion /

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his speech to the U.S. Congress on May 24, was like a battered fighter entering the final round of a championship bout. He knows his only chance to win is by a knockout. With nothing to lose, Bibi got up, and with the “Rocky” music blazing in his ears, fought the fight of his life.

It is hard to overstate the brilliance of Bibi’s speech. Knowing he needed America on his side, and that he couldn’t succumb to President Barack Obama’s demands, he put all his chips on the U.S. Congress and mesmerized a nation. No better case for Israel’s position has ever been made. He was rewarded with 26 standing ovations from the most powerful legislative chamber in the world.

Sadly, the speech was 18 years too late.

Bibi’s message should have been delivered to the world in 1993, at the very beginning of the Oslo peace process with the Palestinians.

That was the perfect time to declare that “Israel is not a foreign occupier” and that while it is willing to make painful compromises for peace, it “will never compromise” on things like defensible borders and security guarantees, the unity of Jerusalem and the impossibility of a Palestinian right of return.

Had Israel been resolute with its red lines from the start, it would have better established the credibility and justness of its cause.

Instead, the opposite happened. It was the Palestinians who stuck to their guns, and the Israelis who kept undermining their own position. At every step, the Palestinians pocketed Israeli concessions and just waited for more. They realized all they needed to do to strengthen their cause was to keep saying no.

Meanwhile, Israel, desperate to be loved by the world and to make peace with a hostile neighbor, went bipolar. One day, it would make an “unprecedented” peace offer; the next, it would become disillusioned with Palestinian violence and unleash its military. In 2005, it even showed the world how it can dismantle settlements by expelling 8,000 Jewish settlers from Gaza and the northern West Bank.

On and on this game went, until Israel woke up one day and said: “Hey, wait a minute. The more we compromise, the more the world hates us. The less they compromise, the more the world loves them.”

The breaking point came with President Obama’s “1967 lines” speech, when Obama asked Israel to make more unilateral concessions, without, at a minimum, opposing a Palestinian “right of return” that would effectively end the Zionist project.

That’s when Bibi said “dayenu.” He saw how, after nearly two decades of unilateral concessions and rejected offers, here was Israel sitting isolated and hated, while the uncompromising Palestinians, who had just joined forces with the terrorist group Hamas, were sitting pretty on top of the diplomatic world — and delegitimizing the Jewish state at every turn.

So Bibi went for broke. He unleashed a stunning and unapologetic speech that reverberated with candor. Instead of offering false hopes, Bibi offered the naked truth.

What was that truth? The reason there is no peace has little to do with Israel’s refusal to make more concessions, and everything to do with the Palestinian refusal to accept the existence of a Jewish state — settlements or no settlements.

The speech forced us to confront the worst- kept secret in the Middle East: Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is a mirage. The conflict is about existence, not borders. The Palestinians would have had their own state 63 years ago if they could make peace with the Jews. But how could they make peace with those they have been taught only to hate?

As I see it, it’s time now for Jews to sit shivah for this false peace. We sit shivah all the time for loved ones who pass away. Well, peace with the Palestinians is a loved one that has passed away.

The death of a cherished illusion isn’t the end of the world. Freed from the burden of chasing a mirage, Israel can still ensure its Jewish and democratic character. How? By filing for divorce.

Israel can implement, at a time of its choosing, Bibi’s vision of defensible borders with maximum security provisions. Peace or no peace, this would remove the “occupation” albatross around Israel’s neck and co-opt Palestinian moves to get their state recognized at the United Nations. Instead of the world giving Palestinians a state with “1967 borders,” Israel would give them a state with “Bibi borders.”

If you ask me, it’s better to have a good deal without an agreement than a bad deal with an agreement. Let’s face it, any deal agreeable to the Palestinians would be terribly dangerous to the Jewish state — and who could trust the Palestinians to even honor it?

But here’s the clincher for Israel: Because Obama has coupled the two “wrenching” issues of Jerusalem and the right of return, and because the Palestinians are unlikely to compromise on their “sacred” right, under this scenario, Israel would keep a united Jerusalem indefinitely, and maybe forever.

In other words, Israel has a chance to protect its Jewish and democratic future, remove the stain of occupation, keep Jerusalem united, and divorce an enemy that can’t stomach its existence.

It wouldn’t be the first time Jews made the best of a tragic situation.

David Suissa is a branding consultant and the founder of OLAM magazine. For speaking engagements and other inquiries, he can be reached at {encode=”suissa@olam.org” title=”suissa@olam.org”} or davidsuissa.com.

David Suissa: Sitting shivah for peace Read More »

Rob Eshman: June 5, 1967

Leave a Comment / Opinion, Rob Eshman /

Levi Eshkol was one of the greatest Israeli heroes you never heard of. Eshkol was Israel’s prime minister during the Six Day War, which began 44 years ago this week, on June 5, 1967.

In six days — 132 hours — Israel defeated three major Arab armies. It turned imminent invasion into a rout — by the last day of war, Israel’s largely reservist soldiers had captured territories four times the size of pre-1967 Israel. The war changed the map of the Middle East — of the world — in ways so profound, our president and pundits spent last week arguing over its aftermath.

In the wake of victory, the laurels went to the military. Among other achievements, the Six-Day War redefined the image of the Jew — generals like Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin now symbolized a proud, virile sabra.

Eshkol, a Yiddish-speaking immigrant from Ukraine, was 72 when war broke out. His thick accent and bookish wit paled beside Dayan’s charisma and ambition. After Israeli forces captured East Jerusalem, Eshkol decided to race to the Western Wall to take part in the momentous occasion. Dayan dissuaded him, lying that it was still too dangerous. Meanwhile, Dayan posed for photos as the great liberator of Jerusalem, pushing Eshkol literally out of the picture.

Not surprisingly, as historian (and now Israel’s ambassador to the United States) Michael Oren wrote in a 2003 essay on Eshkol in the journal Azure, in a 1967 poll for “Man of the Year,” 42 percent of Israelis picked Rabin, 27 percent chose Dayan, and only 10 percent selected Eshkol.

But through the work of Oren, historian Tom Segev and others, Eshkol’s role in securing Israel’s victory has become clear, to the point that it’s possible to say, as Paul Johnson wrote of Winston Churchill, no one else could have done it. 

“Courageous yet wary, flexible but resilient, [Eshkol] combined an engaging personality with an unswerving dedication to his people and his homeland,” Oren wrote. “Rather than dictate his positions, Eshkol listened carefully to allies and opponents alike, and worked hard to forge a broad consensus before deciding on fundamental issues.”

In the accounts of the run-up to war, Eshkol is often the voice of both caution and vision. 

Israelis were panicked at news of Egypt’s massive army deployed at its southern border. Eshkol faced a war room full of generals who maintained that Israel would pay in lives and territory for every day it waited to strike.

Eshkol saw beyond the immediate to the essential. He knew time was not on his side, but he also knew Israel could not act without at least tacit approval from its most important ally, America.

“Military victory will end nothing,” Eshkol snapped at one cabinet member. “The Arabs are here to stay. So never tell me you don’t give a damn about allies.”

Even the left saw Eshkol’s patience as dithering. Historian Abraham Rabinovich recounted how the editor of the liberal newspaper Davar cornered Eshkol and asked, “What are we waiting for?”

“Blut vet sich giessen vie vasser,” Eshkol replied in Yiddish, his most expressive language — “Blood will run like water.”

Eshkol, historian Segev wrote, emerges in the history of these encounters as a “statesman with nerves of steel.”

The generals got well-deserved credit for daring and successful battles. But it was Eshkol, an expert in irrigation and agriculture, who planted the seeds of victory by methodically building up Israel’s armed forces and defense strategies during the previous five years.

On the eve of war, with every Israeli tuned in to the radio looking for strength and comfort from their leader, Eshkol rambled through an unrehearsed statement. At one point, he mixed up the pages of his address, lost his place, stopped.  National morale plummeted.  It made “The King’s Speech” look like Henry V on St. Crispin’s Day.

But if Eshkol hedged to avoid isolation and catastrophe, behind the scenes he pushed President Lyndon Johnson hard to understand Israel’s urgent plight.

When Egyptian planes buzzed Israel’s nuclear reactor at Dimona, Eshkol yelled at Ambassador Abba Eban to call Washington.

“You tell Johnson in 1964 he promised he will always back Israel if attacked. Write it down! Write it down!” Eshkol said, then broke into Yiddish: “Tell that goy we’re dealing with Arabs! Do you hear? Arabs!”

When the battle began, Eshkol pursued total victory. Though Dayan tried to snatch credit, it was Eshkol who made the fateful decisions regarding the capture of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem.

And when it was over, Eshkol, still mindful of Israel’s place in the world, was both generous and forgiving.

“Mr. President,” he addressed Johnson, “I come here with no sense of boastful triumph, nor have I entered the struggle for peace in the role of victor. My feeling is one of relief that we were saved from disaster in June, and for this I thank God. All my thoughts now are turned toward getting peace with our neighbors — a peace of honor between equals.”

Eshkol died two years after the war, of heart failure. Those close to him say he never recovered from the stress and burden of those six days.

It’s tempting to enlist the great man’s legacy to assert a specific course of action for Israel now. But it’s safer to recall the principles he stood for — a clear-eyed awareness of Israel’s place in the world of nations, a belief in the strength of Israel’s democracy, a pragmatic assessment of how far Israel can and must bend, without breaking.

Guided by those qualities, perhaps Israel, and its supporters, can avert yet more disasters in June.

Rob Eshman is the Editor-in-Chief of The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles.

Rob Eshman: June 5, 1967 Read More »

Letters to the Editor: Anti-semitism, Israel Independence Day, Barack Obama, bin Laden

Leave a Comment / Letters to the Editor, Opinion /

Different Kind of Anti-Semitism?

Danielle Berrin did the Jewish community a great service by showing why Lars von Trier should be singled out as the lone exception from a rogue’s gallery of anti-Semites, including Mel Gibson, Oliver Stone, John Galliano and Charlie Sheen (“Not Mel Gibson,” May 27). Both Berrin and Marvin Hier went beyond reactionary, black-and-white thinking to express their sense that it was ghosts in von Trier’s soul that had him behave in such a peculiar way at Cannes, and again as he sought there and in The New York Times to cajole his ghosts back into his tormented psyche. At least von Trier is struggling with his ghosts while the others have surrendered to them. Surrendering is the reason for anti-Semitism and all the other -isms that emerge from like minds.

Roger Schwarz
Los Angeles

Israel Independence Celebrations of Days Gone By

I read with anguish the inability of The Jewish Federation to hold an Israel anniversary celebration (“Can L.A. Support an Israel Festival?” May 20). It is just another example of The Federation not accepting the role of being the organized Jewish community of greater Los Angeles.

In 1963, the 15th anniversary of Israel’s establishment, the San Fernando Valley Community Relations Committee — I was the director; Abe Boxerman, the director of the West Valley Jewish Community Center; and a magnificent lay person, Harriet Rechtman — decided to hold an anniversary celebration in the Valley. Arrangements made with Pierce College were free, and every Jewish organization in the Valley was offered a booth. Theodore Bikel arranged for a daylong group of entertainers. The result was one of the largest turnouts of Jews in L.A. history. The police estimated the attendance at 35,000. The total cost to The Federation was $55, for mimeographed material and stamps.

Harriet had the brilliant idea to ask her butcher for a roll of wrapping paper, and everyone there signed a “Happy Birthday, Israel” to Golda Meir. Names, addresses and phone numbers were added by the attendees. Before this was sent to Israel by the Israeli Consulate, those names and addresses were given to the Valley Federation office, tripling the number of Jews on its rolls.

At the time, The Jewish Federation was reaching out to Jews in the county. Not now!

Al Mellman
Los Angeles

Border Lines the Source of Much Misunderstanding

Robert Satloff is simply wrong in claiming that President Barack Obama departed from long-standing policy by stating that final borders will be based on the 1967 lines (“Obama Walking a Fine Land on Borders Issue,” May 27). In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was the administration’s highest-level administration speaker at the March 22 AIPAC conference.  The official State Department transcript of her remarks reads: “We believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree to an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the ’67 lines, with agreed swaps, and Israel’s goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel’s security requirements. (Applause.)”

For Netanyahu and his supporters to now act surprised and misstate and mischaracterize our government’s position on the future boundary of Israel and Palestine is another reason why most Western democracies mistrust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, don’t believe he is sincere in wanting to resolve the conflict, and blame our country for enabling Israel, in the words attributed to Angela Merkel, to continue to fail to take “a single step to advance peace.”

Michael Several
Los Angeles

Cautionary Words for Reform Movement Head

Rabbi Richard Jacobs’ statement that leaders of the Reform movement must never be defined by organizational affiliations is both self-defensive and incredibly naïve. As the incoming head of U.S. Reform Judaism, his affiliations, presence at demonstrations, speeches, statements, writings and petition-signings carry with them the weight, and, by implication, the support of the Reform movement.

If Jacobs tries to pull the organization to the left, he will be playing with organizational fire and the Reform movement will be scorched.

Robert Friedman
Los Angeles

Get Serious About Serious Matter

Rob Eshman’s facetious idea — and I sure hope he was kidding — to hold a Free Syria concert next time an Arab mob pushes across Israel’s borders once again displays his naiveté and refusal to accept uncomfortable facts (“Street Smarts,” May 20). The Arab mob and the Arab street, inculcated with years of leadership-sponsored incitement, would still choose to remove us rather then join and sing “Kumbaya” together. Of course they prefer Western-style democracy to the wretched style of life they have now, but that doesn’t translate to mean they’ll be our BFFs once they achieve some form of independence. Eshman’s ideas are just “Blowin’ in the Wind.”

Allan Kandel
Los Angeles

Celbrate bin Laden’s Death?

When I heard President Barack Obama announce that he’d given the order for the Navy Seal raid on the suspected Osama bin Laden compound and that bin Laden was killed in that operation, I was thrilled that the evil mastermind of 9/11 and so many other deaths and injuries was killed (“Can We Celebrate the Death of Evil People?” May 27). The way I celebrated was taking pride that Obama, who couldn’t be sure that bin Laden was in the compound, staked his presidency by giving the order for the sake of our country and all those who had suffered and died because of the acts of bin Laden. I thought back to the news conference of George W. Bush when he said that he didn’t spend his time thinking of the whereabouts of bin Laden. Obama in his first day in office gave the order to find bin Laden.

Unlike Dennis Prager, I didn’t run to the Bible and Talmud to see how I should react to the death of an evil man. Unlike Dennis Prager, I didn’t write in The Jewish Journal or tell my family and friends, “Celebrating the death of bin Laden is a moral imperative.” Unlike Dennis Prager I don’t have the chutzpah to think I am the keeper and interpreter of the moral code of behavior and that code is written only in the Torah.

Leon M. Salter
Los Angeles

Disecting Hahn’s Record

Janice Hahn is hyping her pro-choice stance in an attempt to scare prospective voters in California’s 36th Congressional District from voting for her Republican opponent, whom she mischaracterizes as an “out-of-touch” Tea Party extremist (“The 36th Contenders: Both Pro-Israel, Different on All Else,” May 27).

In fact, Hahn has only confirmed how out of touch she is: out of touch with the needs of her constituents, and out of touch with the voters’ capacity to discern when a candidate is debating a valid issue versus simply throwing up a distraction to minimize a poor record of service. Hahn’s open attack is just a petty smear to distract the voters of this district from the economic realities, which would imperil any Democratic candidate’s candidacy.

The State of California has 12+ percent unemployment, worse than any other state in the Union. President Barack Obama, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic demagogues spent more time shoving an unwanted medical mandate down the throats of the American people instead of making necessary reforms to improve our nation’s economy. The United States is still facing trillion-dollar deficits plus a growing $14 trillion national debt which will sink our bond ratings, cripple our borrowing capacity, and scare away future investors. In two years, Democratic cabal of out-of-touch liberals in Congress have only deepened this nation’s economic crises. Janice Hahn would be one more nail in the coffin of this nation’s recovery from the Great Recession.

What is Hahn’s record for improving the business climate in her Council District? Pretty abysmal, at best. The cruise-line industry in the Port of Los Angeles is lagging during this nation’s slow recovery. Downtown San Pedro is turning into a failed ghost town. She even sat back while the parking fees went up 400 percent! Hardly a way to drum up business for a struggling business area.

During her tenure on the Los Angeles City Council, Hahn and her colleagues have failed to balance a budget, to resolve staggering pension liabilities and to stave off massive layoffs — all major problems which our next Congressman will have to face.

Hahn has not distinguished herself as a constituent, a councilwoman or a candidate for Congress. The CA-36th needs a Representative who understands the needs of the entire district, from San Pedro to Venice, and every city in between. We need a Congressman who will advocate for us in a chamber of 435 ambitious pols who stop at nothing to beef up their own districts. Hahn is nothing more than a limited, lackluster politician who coasted to office on the coattails of an established name, who seeks to advance only one constituency: herself.

Janice Hahn is not the candidate for the CA-36th.

On July 12, for California’s 36th Congressional District, vote for Craig Huey!

Arthur Christopher Schaper
Torrance

It’s All About Land

In David Myers’ argument this past week for Palestinian statehood, he takes a selective historical view on the issue (“Accept ’67 Borders, Recognize Palestinian Statehood,” May 27). The professor tells us that “just as the land of Israel was ‘the birthplace of the Jewish people,’ so, too, the land of Palestine was ‘the birthplace of the Palestinian people.’ ” Now that’s what I call a moral equivalency!

What the professor does not tell you is that Palestinians only recognized the area as a “birthplace” because they realized sometime in the early ’50s that the Jews were a little tougher than they expected. The inability of the Arab world to extinguish Israel through war gave way to inventing a nationalism that before 1960 never really existed. In fact, the genesis for the formation of Palestinian nationalism (Fatah in the ’50s and the PLO in the ’60s) was not born out of a desire for liberty but to take back precious Muslim land from the infidel Jews.

We Jews are ready, in fact we have always been ready, to make the sacrifices to end this conflict once and for all. The vast majority of Jews inside and outside Israel want a peace treaty for all the important reasons the professor cites in his article. In fact, Jews want independence for the Palestinians so much that the professor points out that Jewish scholars and other intellectuals gathered a month ago to declare a Palestinian state. What’s missing here? Where are the Palestinians? Can’t they declare their own state?

Does anyone else see the irony in that?

Professor Myers does not address the right audience. Palestinians should be reading this article, not Jews.

The Arabs in that area have never accepted the Jewish state no matter what size it was, whether one small city or a country that expands from the Nile to the Euphrates. If it’s sovereign by anything else other than Muslim rule, it’s an abomination and Muslims are bound by their religion to destroy it. And, until they change that fundamental view, there will never be peace.

The question is not whether the Palestinians deserve a homeland. The question is whether they can accept Israel alongside it.

Professor, go tell it to the Palestinians.

Larry Hart
L.A. Jewish community examiner at Examiner.com

As I read — and re-read — the many articles in The Jewish Journal regarding the historic speeches by our President and the Israeli prime minister, something troubled me. Indeed, these speeches may profoundly shape the future of our world; but that was not what troubled me and stirred my thoughts (“The Face-off,” May 27).

And then, suddenly, as I lay in bed (after an evening of winning poker), it came to me:  As important as is the basis for territorial divisions between the Israelis and the Palestinians, more crucial is the Arab mindset which was recently explained to me by a bright young Arab man (also a winning poker player) who was born and raised in Jordan, well educated and worked in Jordan’s equivalent of our CIA. He explained that he, like most other Arabs/Muslims, had been taught from his earliest days that the land where Israel exists, “that land, all of it, is Arab land.” In my other discussions with Arabs/Muslims, that was the over-riding issue.

And that is the KEY point! So long as this position regarding the land remains firmly implanted in the minds of Arabs, especially Muslims, how can here be a real peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis? That is what leads to terrorists such as Hamas.  Yet, neither President Obama nor PM Netanyahu addressed this issue — the basic, root cause of the conflict; nor did any of the writers or religious leaders in the various articles published in The Jewish Journal. Logic tells me that it is imperative that the world deal with this issue — or else …

George Epstein
via e-mail

David Myers calls David Ben-Gurion not the founder of the state of Israel, but a “Zionist leader.” More and more, the chorus of Israel haters are comparing Zionism with Nazism, racism and apartheid. They do not shy away from using anti-Israeli propaganda, but liberals are afraid to be “offensive.” Mr. Myer is a naïve liberal who cries wolf about the recognition of Palestinian state, but doesn’t care about safety and security of Israel. Mr. Myer, there is NO partner for peace! Most Palestinians are supporting Hamas!

Boris Blansky

CORRECTION

An article about the conviction of Ezri Namvar on four counts of wire fraud (“Financier Namvar’s Conviction Reveals Community Wounds,” May 27) stated that Namvar can expect to receive a minimum of 78 months on each count, without the clarification stated by David Peyman, a Los Angeles attorney, that the counts should run concurrently under federal sentencing guidelines.  

Letters to the Editor: Anti-semitism, Israel Independence Day, Barack Obama, bin Laden Read More »

Amigos in San Miguel de Allende: A Shavuot Story of Conversion

Leave a Comment / Cover Story /

Click here to read this article in Spanish.

Earlier this year, I got a call from an old friend, Rabbi Juan Mejia. Juan asked me if I’d be willing to accompany him and Rabbi Felipe Goodman to San Miguel de Allende for a couple of days in early February. Juan, Felipe and I have a lot in common: We laugh at the same jokes, we all speak Spanish, and we’re all rabbis. A little getaway to Mexico in the middle of winter? Sure, I could fit that into my schedule — no problem, I said.

Three Spanish-speaking rabbis were needed for a beit din (rabbinic court) in the quaint village of San Miguel de Allende. Our purpose was conversions. It sounds like the set-up to a joke: One day a Colombian rabbi from Oklahoma City (Juan), a Mexican rabbi from Las Vegas (Felipe) and an Argentinean rabbi from Los Angeles (me) get on a plane and fly to a little colonial town in Mexico. Many of the people in the town have never seen a rabbi before; as a matter of fact, it’s the first time in more than a century that three rabbis have gathered together in the town for a beit din. The townsfolk don’t know quite what to make of them …

So, late on a Saturday night, I went to LAX to catch a plane. I knew the flight number and the time, but I didn’t really know where I was flying, exactly. I met Felipe and his assistant at the gate, and together we boarded the red-eye to Guanajuato/Leon. Exhausted, we landed an hour late. Waiting to meet us was a young man with payot wearing a black kippah, white shirt, black slacks, black vest and tzitzit. I have to admit, we gawked. It was as if a character had just stepped out of a production of “Fiddler on the Roof” — only with a much darker complexion.

The young man introduced himself as Josue and drove us to his house in Guanajuato. There, his wife, Paola, and their 2-year-old son, Salomon, joined us for the next leg of our journey. Salomon is almost criminally cute, and he kept us entertained and in high spirits, despite our fatigue from the overnight flight. We continued driving for another hour and a half until we reached San Miguel de Allende.

We arrived at the home of Dr. Daniel Lessner, co-president of the Jewish community in San Miguel de Allende. He graciously served us a sumptuous breakfast — and, immediately after, herded the six adult conversion candidates and us into another car, in which we drove to a palatial home. Eager to get started, they urged us to begin the beit din immediately.

Before us stood six people who didn’t know what to expect from three American rabbis. As they faced the beit din waiting for the questioning to begin, we must have seemed formidable. It was evident they felt a considerable measure of fear and anxiety. Little by little, they began to open up. One by one, they shared their stories with us.

In their journeys to become Jews, most of them had encountered daunting obstacles. Some of them had already been denied the opportunity to convert. When they had inquired about it in Mexican synagogues, they had been summarily turned away; they had even been prevented from attending services. For more than a year, five of the six conversion candidates had to drive for an hour or more every week in order to attend services and classes in San Miguel de Allende, because every other place had rejected them.

Their stories were remarkable; we felt privileged to hear and witness them. Each personal journey was both a struggle and an epiphany. These six adults deeply yearned to become part of the Jewish people. It made me think of how often we who are born Jewish take our rich traditions and cultural heritage for granted. All six candidates were well prepared and passed with flying colors. As I reflect on their inspiring stories, I realize that as much as we are dayanim (judges), we are also witnesses to people’s entrance into the Jewish tradition. It is an honor beyond measure. The depth of their commitment to Judaism inspires me.

Rabbi Daniel Mehlman officiates with Josue and Paola under the chuppah. Behind the bride, Rabbi Juan Mejia videotapes with a small camera. Photo courtesy of Rabbi Daniel Mehlman

After the beit din, another man joined us for a long lunch. Just off the bus from a five-hour ride from Guadalajara, he accompanied us on a walk through the charming town center. This man had ridden for five hours to be with us for only a short time, to see if we could help him pursue his own dream of conversion, along with his wife and their two little girls. He rode five hours, spent just two hours with us, then rode back for five more hours — just because he wants to live his life as a Jew.

That evening we dined at the home of an American-born member of the community. There we met with several wonderful people, many of them Americans who had retired in charming San Miguel de Allende. After dinner, we were allowed a few short hours of sleep; we had to arise at daybreak to go to the mikveh, the ritual bath.

We were a tired but eager caravan of 12 people, driving to the Rio Laja. Abutting the river were three small lagoons fed by flowing thermal springs. Despite the early hour, the lagoons were occupied when we arrived. Townspeople were using them to take baths and wash their laundry, as many of them had no access to running water. So, eager with anticipation, we waited. After a while, one of the lagoons was vacated, and our natural mikveh was free. One by one, the adults immersed themselves. Little Salomon, the seventh to convert, was handed to Paola in the mikveh after both his parents had their tevilah (immersion). Now we were all Jews.

Time to party! From there we drove to a beautiful colonial hotel and showed everyone what Jews do best: eat. It was an amazing reception, with more than 100 people attending. And after the eating, naturally, came the talking. Everyone thanked everyone else for making the moment possible. They thanked the three rabbis for donating their time. And can anyone guess whether the three rabbis each wanted to get in on the act and give a little speech, too?

Rabbi Mejia was very emotional in his remarks, having personally experienced the same kind of rejection when he wanted to convert in his native Colombia. Rabbi Goodman emphasized the fact that the three members of The Rabbinical Assembly constituted a beit din that is widely recognized. I mentioned that on the same week we learn of the lighting of the menorah — our seven-branched candelabra and the oldest Jewish symbol — we participated in an event in which seven new lights were added to our people.

After the speeches, all six adults read the Declaration of Faith, in unison, and by then there was not a dry eye in the house. After the new members of the Jewish people received their certificates of conversion, a surprise took place — a Jewish wedding. Under the chuppah, the three rabbis officiated at the union of Josue and Paola. With a wide-eyed Salomon looking on, Yehoshua Ilan and Adina Tamar were married according to the laws of Moses and the precepts of Israel. A wonderful reception with more to eat came after, with an opportunity to mingle with the wonderful community in San Miguel de Allende.

And here’s another note: Remember the man who joined us after a five-hour bus ride? Last week, he flew to Los Angeles with his wife and two daughters, ages 7 and 4. They went straight to the American Jewish University to stand before the Rabbinical Assembly beit din. There they shared their remarkable story. Their yearning to join the Jewish people took them on a journey to a faraway land, a bit like Abraham and Sarah.

That evening, 20 or so people gathered at a charming little synagogue in Studio City and became an instant family. Most didn’t know one another; none knew the bride and groom or their daughters — yet they celebrated together. Yes, once again I was lucky enough to attend another Jewish wedding under a chuppah, to witness them sealing their commitment to each other in our traditional Jewish way. Jewish for only a few hours, they shared a millennia-old ceremony. Not only are they now part of our future together, they share our long history as well. Candlesticks and a Kiddush Cup were among the presents they received from people whom they had never before met. Then they spent a whole Shabbat with their brand-new community. The day spoke of a promising future for all Jews.

I will return to San Miguel de Allende. I must go back, not only for a Shabbat, but to be part of another beit din. I want to witness the next conversions that will occur in this holy place. We, the ones who were born Jews, often take our birthright for granted. We rarely dwell on what it means to be Jewish. On this trip, I was reminded that the Jewish journey is one of the most amazing adventures a person could experience. Every time I witness a conversion, my heart fills with joy and hope. Am Yisrael Chai — the people of Israel live. We are diverse, we are joyous, and despite our tragedies, we are yet alive. L’dor v’dor — from one generation to the next, the torch passes, and continues to be a light unto the world.

Rabbi Daniel Mehlman is the rabbi of Congregation Beth Meier in Studio City. He can be reached at {encode=”rabbidanytee@yahoo.com” title=”rabbidanytee@yahoo.com”}.


En Español

Amigos en San Vicente de Allende

Por Rabino Daniel Mehlman

Unos meses atrás recibí la llamada de un viejo amigo, el Rabino Juan Mejía.  Juan me pregunto si estaría dispuesto a acompañarlo junto con Felipe a San Miguel de Allende por un par de días a principio de Febrero.

Juan, Felipe y yo tenemos mucho en común: nos reímos de los mismos chistes, todos hablamos español, y todos somos rabinos.

¿Unas pequeñas vacaciones a México en la mitad del invierno? Claro, yo puedo acomodar eso en mi agenda- ningún problema dije.

Tres rabinos de habla hispana se necesitaban para una corte rabínica (Beit Din) en la villa de San Miguel de Allende. Nuestro propósito eran conversiones.

Suena como un chiste: Un día un rabino colombiano de Oklahoma City, un rabino mexicano de Las Vegas, y un rabino argentino de Los Angeles subieron a un avión y volaron a un pequeño pueblo colonial de México. Muchas de las personas del pueblo no habían visto a un rabino antes; de hecho, es la primera vez en mas de cien años que tres rabinos se juntan en el pueblo-incluso tal vez en territorio mexicano- para un Bet Din. Los pueblerinos no estaban seguros que hacer de ello…

Entonces el sábado tarde, a la noche, fui al aeropuerto a agarrar un avión.  Sabía el número de vuelo y la hora, pero no sabía realmente adonde estaba volando.

Me encontré con el Rabino Felipe Goodman y su asistente en la puerta, y juntos abordamos a Guanajato/León. Exhaustos arribamos a Guanajato con una hora de atraso. Nos estaba esperando un joven con peyes; estaba usando una kipá negra, camisa blanca, pantalones negros, chaleco negro y tzitzit. Tengo que admitir que eso nos asombró.

Era como si uno de los personajes de “Violinista sobre el tejado” se hubiera escapado de la obra -solo que este tenía una complexión mucho más oscura.

El joven hombre se presentó como Josué y nos condujo a su casa en Guanajato. Allí su esposa Paola y su hijo de dos años, Salomón, se unieron para la siguiente parte del viaje. Salomón es casi criminalmente encantador, nos mantuvo entretenidos y en buen espíritu aún con nuestra fatiga por el viaje nocturno. Seguimos manejando por otra hora y media hasta que llegamos a San Miguel de Allende.

A la mañana llegamos temprano y radiantes al hogar del Dr. Daniel Lessner,  co-presidente de la comunidad Judía de San Miguel de Allende.  Cortésmente nos sirvió un suntuoso desayuno, e inmediatamente después nos llevo junto con los seis candidatos adultos para la conversión.

Nos condujeron hacia un palacio, deseosos por comenzar. Deseaban que comenzáramos con el Bet Din inmediatamente.

Ante nosotros estaban seis personas que no sabían que esperar de tres Rabinos Americanos.  Encarando el Bet Din, esperando que el cuestionario empezara debimos parecerles formidables.  Era evidente que sentían una considerable cantidad de miedo y ansiedad.  Poco a poco comenzaron a abrirse. Uno por uno comenzaron a compartir sus historias con nosotros.

En su viaje a volverse Judíos, la mayoría de ellos se encontraron con intimidantes obstáculos. A alguno de ellos ya se le había negado la oportunidad de conversión.  Al preguntar acerca de esto en las sinagogas mexicanas, no solo se les había rechazado, incluso se les había prohibido atender servicios. Por mas de un año, cinco de los seis candidatos a conversión tuvieron que manejar una hora o más para poder asistir a los servicios y clases en San Miguel de Allende, ya que todos los otros lugares los habían rechazado. Mirándonos, es de esperar que pensaran que nosotros los íbamos a rechazar también.

Sus historias eran extraordinarias; nos sentimos privilegiados de escucharlas y ser testigos de ellas. Cada camino personal fue, ambos, de obstáculos y de epifanía. Estos seis adultos profundamente desearon volverse parte del pueblo Judío. Me hizo pensar que tan a menudo aquellos nacidos Judíos tomamos nuestra rica tradición y herencia cultural por dada. Todos, los seis candidatos estaban bien preparados pasando con brillantez. Como he reflejado en sus historias que nos inspiran, me di cuenta que por mucho que seamos Dayanim, jueces, somos también testigos de la entrada de personas al la tradición Judía. Es un honor que no se puede medir. La profundidad de su compromiso al Judaísmo me inspira nuevo amor por nuestra tradición.

Después del Bet Din alguien nuevo se nos unió para almorzar. Recién bajado del autobús después de un viaje de cinco horas nos acompañó en un tour por el cálido centro del pueblo. Este hombre viajó por cinco horas para estar con nosotros por un corto periodo de tiempo, para ver si podríamos ayudarlo con su propio sueño de conversión, junto a su esposa y dos pequeñas hijas.  Viajó cinco horas, estuvo solo dos horas con nosotros y luego viajó cinco horas de regreso, solamente porque quiere vivir su vida como Judío.

Esa tardecita cenamos en el hogar de un miembro de la comunidad nacido en America. Allí conocimos personas maravillosas, muchos de ellos Americanos retirados en la cálida San Miguel de Allende. Después de cenar, se nos permitió unas horas de sueño, teníamos que levantarnos al amanecer para ir a la Mikveh, el baño ritual.

Éramos una caravana de doce personas, cansadas pero deseosas, manejando al Río Laja. Orillando el río había tres pequeñas lagunas de agua termal. Aunque temprano, las lagunas estaban ocupadas a nuestra llegada. Pueblerinos las estaban usando para bañarse y lavar la ropa ya que muchos de ellos no tienen acceso al agua corriente. Así que deseosos con la anticipación, esperamos. Después de un rato una de las lagunas se desocupó, y nuestro Mikveh natural estaba disponible. Uno a uno los adultos se sumergieron en la Mikveh. El pequeño Salomón, el séptimo a convertir fue entregado a Paola en la Mikveh después que sus padres tuvieron su Tvilah (inmersión). Ahora todos éramos Judíos.

La hora de festejar! Desde ahí manejamos hacia un hermoso hotel colonial y les mostramos a todos lo que los Judíos hacemos mejor: comer. Después de la comida, por supuesto viene los discursos. Todos agradecieron a todos por hacer ese momento posible. Agradecieron a los tres rabinos por donar su tiempo. Y puede alguien imaginar si los tres rabinos aceptaron dar una pequeña oratoria también?

El rabino Mejia fue muy emotivo en su comentarios, habiendo experimentado personalmente la misma clase de rechazo cuando quiso convertirse en Colombia. El rabino Goodman enfatizó el hecho que tres miembros de la Asamblea Rabínica constituyeron un Bet Din que es ampliamente reconocido.  Yo mencioné que durante la misma semana aprendimos del encendido de la Menorah, nuestro candelabro de siete brazos, el mas antiguo de los símbolos Judíos, participamos en un evento donde siete nuevas luces fueron encendidas en nuestro pueblo.

Después de la oratoria, los seis adultos leyeron la Declaración de Fe al unísono, para entonces no había un par de ojos secos en el recinto. Después de que los nuevos miembros del pueblo Judío recibieron sus certificados de conversión, una sorpresa tomó lugar- una boda Judía. Bajo la jupá, los tres rabinos oficiaron la unión de Josué y Paola. Con un Salomón de ojos bien abiertos, Yehoshua Ilan y Adina Tamar fueron casados de acuerdo a la Ley de Moises y los preceptos de Israel. Una magnifica recepción con mas comida sobrevino después, con la oportunidad de mezclarnos con la comunidad de San Miguel de Allende.

Agrego aquí una nota, ¿se acuerdan del hombre que se encontró con nosotros luego de viajar por 5 horas? La semana pasada, él, junto con su esposa y sus ni¬ñas de 7 y 4 años volaron a Los Ángeles. Fueron directamente a la Universidad Judeo-Americana presentándose frente al Bet Din, la corte rabínica de la Asamblea Rabínica, la organización rabínica del movimiento conservador. Allí ellos contaron su extraordinaria historia. Su deseo de unirse al pueblo judío los llevó a una travesía a una lejana tierra, un poco como Abraham y Sarah.

Esa noche unas veintitantas personas se reunieron en la encantadora pequeña sinagoga en Studio City y se convirtieron instantáneamente en su nueva familia. La mayoría no se conocían entre ellos, ninguno había conocido antes al novio, la novia o las dos niñas, y así y todo se reunieron para celebrar juntos. Sí, una vez más tuve la fortuna de presenciar otra boda judía bajo la jupá, para atestiguar su compromiso de crear un hogar judío y unirse de acuerdo a la tradición judía. Judíos por sólo unas horas, compartieron la milenaria ceremonia. No sólo son ahora parte de nuestro futuro, ellos comparten ahora nuestra larga historia común también. Recibieron los augurios y el amor de gente que nunca los había conocido. Y luego pasaron su primer Shabat como Judíos en su nueva comunidad.

Esos momentos llenan de esperanza el futuro del pueblo judío.

Regresaré a San Miguel de Allende. Tengo que volver, no solamente para un Shabbat, pero para ser parte de otro Bet Din. Quiero presenciar las próximas conversiones que sucedan en este lugar sagrado. Nosotros, aquellos que hemos nacido Judíos, a menudo tomamos nuestro derecho de nacimiento por otorgado. Raramente nos detenemos a ver que significa el ser Judío. La semana pasada fui recordado de que el camino Judío es uno de las mas maravillosas aventuras que una persona puede experimentar. Cada vez que soy testigo de una conversión, mi corazón se llena de alegría y esperanza. Am Israel Jai- el pueblo de Israel vive. Somos diversos, somos alegres, aun con nuestras tragedias, estamos aun vivos. LeDor vador- de una generación a la próxima la antorcha se pasa y continua para ser una luz sobre el mundo.

Rabbi Daniel Mehlman es el rabino de la Congregación Beth Meier en Studio City, California. Lo puede ubicar en {encode=”rabbidanytee@yahoo.com” title=”rabbidanytee@yahoo.com”}.

Amigos in San Miguel de Allende: A Shavuot Story of Conversion Read More »

European rabbis urge religious tolerance in Mideast

Leave a Comment / Worldwide /

Senior European rabbis urged the European Union to ensure that the burgeoning democratic movements sweeping across the Arab world also guarantee religious freedom in the region.

During a meeting Monday at the European Commission in Brussels, the four-member Conference of European Rabbis delegation stressed the importance of reversing decades of dictatorship and human rights abuses in some Middle Eastern countries.

“The quest for freedom, the most basic human right, is all-encompassing because, without it, human beings cannot enjoy all the blessings which life can give which brings out the presence of God in every person,” said Conference of European Rabbis Chairman Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, also the chief rabbi of Moscow.

Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders attended the meeting, which was hosted by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy. It was the seventh such meeting hosted by Barroso since 2005.

Barroso said after the meeting that Europe’s growing challenges can be solved only with the active participation of the continent’s religious communities.

“Our task and ambition is to promote democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, human rights and social justice not only in Europe but also in our neighborhood,” he said. “Today’s discussion confirmed our common commitment to the promotion of democratic rights and liberties, including freedom of religion and of belief.”

Prior to the meeting, the rabbis joined with several European Muslim leaders to issue a joint statement condemning “increasing manifestations of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism in countries across Europe.”

“We must never allow anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia or racism to become respectable in today’s Europe,” their declaration read. “In that regard, we call upon all political leaders not to pander to these groups by echoing their rhetoric.”

European rabbis urge religious tolerance in Mideast Read More »