fbpx

June 1, 2011

Israel considers options on Palestinian statehood bid

While U.S. officials are running a full-court diplomatic press against the Palestinian bid for U.N. recognition of statehood this September and officials at international Jewish organizations are trying to convince foreign leaders to oppose statehood, the Israeli government appears to be taking a different approach: acceptance.

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told a Knesset committee that there is no way to stop the U.N. General Assembly from recognizing Palestinian statehood.

“It would be possible to get a resolution that the world is flat” in the U.N. General Assembly, Netanyahu said in a jibe at the body, where anti-Israel resolutions have a virtual automatic majority. The Palestinians routinely have relied on the bloc of Arab and Muslims states and their allies in the non-aligned movement of mostly Third World countries to pass anti-Israel resolutions.

A senior Israeli official close to the prime minister said Israel is not particularly concerned about a vote for a Palestinian state in the General Assembly.

“We have very low expectations of the General Assembly,” he said. “Every year they pass at least 20 anti-Israel resolutions, including one condemning Israel for attacking the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.”

Rather, the Netanyahu administration is relying on the fact that General Assembly resolutions do not have international legal standing and that in the U.N. Security Council, where resolutions do carry the force of law, the United States would veto any such resolution.

But Israel remains concerned, the official said, that the Palestinians will use a General Assembly resolution to harden their positions against any compromise with Israel.

For now, Israeli officials are focusing on trying to limit the diplomatic damage that a General Assembly resolution could cause.

“The president of the General Assembly said that even if a resolution passes, this isn’t statehood,” said a former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Zalman Shoval, who accompanied Netanyahu on his recent trip to Washington. “But there will be negative repercussions. Countries will certainly use it for anti-Israel propaganda. They may even try to take economic steps against Israel, like divestment.”

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has gone even further, warning of a “diplomatic tsunami” in September. Opposition leader Tzipi Livni recently attacked Netanyahu for failing to prevent the expected unilateral declaration of a state, saying he is a weak and inadequate leader.

“Netanyahu has failed to recruit international support for Israel’s basic principles,” Livni, the head of the Kadima Party, told the Knesset. “Israel needs a leader, and this government has missed an opportunity.”

During the previous Israeli government, when Ehud Olmert was the prime minister and Livni the foreign minister, she held many meetings with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. According to recent statements by Olmert and Abbas, they made significant progress on the issue of the future of borders of a Palestinian state.

Most Israeli analysts say it is unlikely that peace talks will be renewed before September.

“I think Netanyahu knows that any political initiative for restarting peace talks is a non-starter and that the Palestinians have no intention of returning to negotiations,” said Yossi Alpher, a former Mossad official and the editor of the joint Israeli-Palestinian website Bitterlemons.org. “His strategy is to hunker down and not to rock the boat.”

Israeli officials say their strategy to achieve a peace agreement with the Palestinians is the same as it always has been.

“The only way to achieve peace is through Israeli-Palestinian negotiations,” Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev told JTA in an interview. “There can be no outside imposed solution that will work. Everything else is at best a mirage, and a one-sided vote at the U.N. could well set back the peace process decades.”

There is growing concern in Israel that violence could return to the region after the Palestinian action at the United Nations in September, including a third intifada, or uprising. There have been campaigns online calling for a third intifada, including a page on Facebook that was removed by the social media company.

Former Shin Bet security chief Yuval Diskin, who retired this month, said he is “very worried” about what may happen after a unilateral Palestinian declaration and warned the situation could quickly deteriorate. A recent survey by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 70 percent of the Jewish public in Israel expects a new wave of violence following September. A majority, 58 percent, believed that the Palestinian Authority would encourage the violence.

In recent weeks Palestinian groups have been using Facebook and other social media to call on Palestinians living in countries around Israel to reprise the marches on Israel’s borders that took place on May 15, when Arabs marked Nakba Day—the anniversary of the “catastrophe” of Israel’s birth. This time, Palestinians are calling for marches to mark the anniversary of the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel captured the West Bank. That war began on June 5, 1967.

Israeli officials, who were caught unprepared when hundreds of Arabs from Syria breached the Israel-Syria border and thousands more marched on the Lebanon-Israel border two weeks ago, resulting in Israeli and Lebanese fire that left some 14 protesters dead, said they will be more prepared this time.

Israel considers options on Palestinian statehood bid Read More »

Seeking a conversion in time for Shavuot

Ruth’s day is coming. Not the Ruth with all the home runs. The other Ruth, the biblical one who hit an eternal shot for Jews by Choice.

We read her book and story on Shavuot. Her words of commitment spoken to her mother-in-law, Naomi, travel over time to us on the holiday: “Wherever you go I will go, and wherever you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people and your God my God.”

As more organizations like the Jewish Outreach Institute, Interfaithfamily.com and Jewsbychoice.org, as well as Jews by Choice themselves, take note of the connection between Shavuot and Ruth, it’s a good time for a Ruth Check—a Shavuot look into how we are getting along with the converts in our lives.

Are we welcoming or standoffish? Perhaps even a bit uneasy with the notion of having a Jew by Choice standing by our side at Sinai? Do some of us fear losing our spots in religious and communal organizations, even in our own families, to men and women new to the faith?

I know it’s popular to say that all Jews now are Jews by choice. But don’t some of us feel a bit more chosen than others?

I know I sometimes do.

A few weeks before Passover I was sitting in Shabbat morning services keenly aware that the woman chanting the haftarah was a Jew by Choice. The morning’s reading was long and difficult. Why was I listening more closely than usual? Why was I making extra sure that every word was perfect, every trope observed? What was going on here?

Recently I had a conversation about the acceptance of converts with a born Jewish friend who firmly stated his objections.

“They just don’t feel it in their bones,” he said.

What about my bones? What was I feeling? Maybe I needed a different kind of conversion.

“They said that about Abraham,” responded Rabbi Dov Gartenberg when I asked him about the “bones” comment.

“It’s so easy for born Jews to feel superior,” said the rabbi, who works extensively with JBCs and is the spiritual leader at Conservative Temple Beth Shalom in Long Beach, Calif.

Speaking about converts, he said, “Sometimes they don’t get the cultural clues.”

It takes time, Gartenberg suggested, for those cultural clues to become second nature. That’s where born Jews can offer a helping hand.

“It’s our responsibility to actively mentor those who have not been born Jewish,” he said.

Gartenberg has not always found that kind of support forthcoming, even in the most expected places.

More than once he has observed that the born Jewish partner of a couple in which the other partner has converted is ambivalent about Jewish life, or at best unenthusiastic.

“It’s as if they say, ‘I didn’t bargain for this,’ ” said Gartenberg, adding that often it is the convert who wants to “share the joy.”

At a pulpit he had in Seattle, the rabbi said he observed that “a high percentage of Jews by Choice became involved and engaged in community life.” But that fact doesn’t always translate into people’s perceptions, especially if they don’t know the convert’s personal story.

At Gartenberg’s suggestion I called Mary Lane Potter, a convert in Seattle who has a doctorate in Christian theology from the University of Chicago Divinity School. Today she teaches a Living Judaism class.

After her conversion 20 years ago, “Some people were suspicious and assumed I didn’t know anything, or were very sensitive about my ideas,” she told me.

Potter today sees more of an embrace of converts.

“In our community, sometimes people don’t even know people are converts,” she said.

Through her work at the Conservative Congregation Beth Shalom in Seattle, Potter has seen that “conversion is helpful” and can “bring a new passion to a community.”

In her class, which has Jewish students and those wanting to learn about Judaism, she welcomes a surprisingly more diverse group than what I might have imagined: gays, singles, people who think their ancestors might have been Jewish and lots of couples.

“One comes to support the other,” Potter said.

Several couples in which neither partner was Jewish recently attended her class.

“There are a lot of people who are seeking,” she said.

Potter says the biblical Naomi is her role model, that “She was welcoming, faithful.”

That’s why Potter thinks the Book of Ruth is read at Shavuot—it’s the holiday commemorating “the moment of revelation,” a moment when all need to be included and welcomed.

Maybe I needed a little more Naomi in my life, too—at least the welcoming part.

On the eighth day of Passover, in synagogue again, that same reader was chanting haftarah, on this morning from the prophet Isaiah.  It’s a portion filled with a series of transformational visions.

This time I sat back, relaxed and listened to her joy.

Edmon J. Rodman is a JTA columnist who writes on Jewish life from Los Angeles. Contact him at {encode=”edmojace@gmail.com” title=”edmojace@gmail.com”}.

Seeking a conversion in time for Shavuot Read More »

Gina Nahai: Staying true to our own heritage

I once wrote a novel about an Iranian Jewish woman who grows wings and flies away from her husband’s home. She escapes because she’s in love with another man, and she believes it’s better to abandon her family than to stay and shame them by having an illicit affair. A few months after the book was released, I overheard someone — an Iranian Jew who happened to be very observant and very trusted by Iranians and Ashkenazim alike — remark that the novel had no merit because it was based on an impossible premise. I braced myself for a comment about the implausibility of a woman growing wings and flying off a window ledge like a migrating bird. Instead, the gentleman went on to assert that the really improbable proposition was that any Iranian Jewish woman would ever, under any circumstances and for any reason, contemplate an extramarital affair. 

Now, God knows I’m no expert in Iranian Jewish history, but I’ve seen a thing or two in my time, and I can say without equivocation that by far the majority of our women are, and have always been, impeccably chaste, unfailingly faithful and indefinitely devoted to their spouses. I’m not saying this just to keep up appearances before our friendly American neighbors or to avoid being banished from all Iranian parties forever. I’m saying it because it’s true. Nevertheless, I believe it’s possible that, over the course of our 2,500-year history, one of our women has committed an indiscretion of the kind depicted in the book. What fascinated me about the gentleman’s remark, therefore, was not so much his faith in our women’s piety, as his manifest conviction that there are areas of human nature and behavior that remain, to this day, entirely closed to Iranian Jews.

I realize that’s not a terribly uncommon assumption for a Jew to make about other Jews. Just as the world holds us to a different standard, so do we hold, if not ourselves, then each other, to a higher code of ethics. I grew up hearing about a multitude of acts that were the exclusive domain of Muslims and Christians and Zoroastrians and Buddhists and basically anyone at all except for Jews. Murder was one. Adultery (for women) was another. Theft on a grand, gluttonous and unabashed scale was yet another.

According to all the Jewish adults in my Iranian childhood, Jews did not kill, sleep with anyone but their husband, or steal from their friends, neighbors and random old ladies because:

A. They were bound by a higher calling — halachah — than your average penal code.
B. They lived in a country where, by law, the entire Jewish community was held responsible, and would be punished, for the indiscretions of each of its members. And
C. They belonged to a culture in which a person’s good name and reputation was his greatest asset, where his or her children would be duly rewarded or punished for his or her actions, where “shame” was a penance greater than any jail sentence and more exacting than poverty, illness or even death.

That, regrettably, was then.

I don’t know if things have remained the same in Iran, but I hope my fellow Iranian Jews in this country will forgive me for saying in print what we all know and lament in person — namely, that somewhere between Tehran and Los Angeles, some of us became more religiously observant and less personally righteous, more outspoken about the virtues of piety and less capable of feeling remorse, more able to circumvent the law and less fearful of public shame.

And I hope my fellow American Jews in this city will resist the urge to wag a holier-than-thou finger and indulge in the all-too-common tendency to blame the entire Iranian community for the sins of a few individuals. For one thing, that’s rather reminiscent of what the non-Jewish majority did to the Jewish minority in Iran, Russia and even in this country up until the 1950s. It wasn’t right then, and it’s not right now. More importantly, I dare say that Iranian Jews are as Jewish and as American as all the parents and grandparents of the current “native” population. Like us, your parents prized their American citizenship but continued to speak both English and their mother tongue. Like us, they ate both hot dogs and latkes, were made to feel unwelcome in fancy neighborhoods, and were suspected of committing all sorts of offenses, from building unattractive houses to taking over the world.

But I digress.

In the three decades since the revolution, Iranian Jews tried to embrace the best of Western culture while maintaining the positive aspects of their own. The jury’s still out on how well we’ve navigated those waters, but until recently, we were pretty confident that we had indeed gotten one thing right: We had re-created in America a community that, while far from perfect, had nurtured and strengthened us through many a difficult time. Outside our little bubble, the world was moving fast and memories were short, people reinvented themselves with impunity every few years, and nothing was wrong unless the law said so. But inside, we continued to harbor the notion that there were some things in this world a Jew just did not do.

We assumed, for example, that a Jew would not solicit “investments” from other Jews only to use the money to build himself a big, fancy house. Or that a Jew, especially a very observant one, would not empty the trust funds of orphan children into his own wife’s bank accounts. Or rob poor widows to enrich his already wealthy siblings. Or cheat his closest friends to finance his children’s education at expensive Jewish day schools.

We assumed all this with the kind of foolish certainty that had driven the gentleman critic to assert that a Jewish Iranian woman would sooner grow wings than indulge in pleasures of the flesh with a man she was not married to. We were, alas, proven wrong. On the heels of Bernie Madoff and all his lesser likenesses, Iranian Jews discovered their own batch of “toxic assets.” One of them, you may be amused to learn, was our resident literary critic.  In a single year, he and his fellow luminaries did to our community what a 1,000 years of being persecuted by the mullahs and 30 years of living outside Iran did not: They took from us the notion that Jews, especially very religious ones, observed a higher threshold of ethical behavior; that a good name had an inherent value that could not be measured in dollars.

If you can’t trust your own, whom can you trust? 

We are, today, a wounded and perplexed community. The old laws don’t apply, and the new ones don’t protect against Old World behavior. We cannot enter a deal with a handshake, then expect the courts to enforce what we didn’t deem necessary to put on paper. For us, the question is no longer what a Jew will and will not do; it’s what we, as a community, will and won’t tolerate. It’s whether our increasingly Orthodox rabbis will take a public stand against larceny in our own midst, or choose to look away. Whether our fellow Jews will buy and sell with other people’s money, or pass on profiting from ill-gotten gains. Whether we continue to protect the guilty with our silence and save our hate mail for the young Iranian Jewish reporter who relates the news as it happened in this publication. Instead of yelling at him to stop shaming our community by reporting other Jews’ misdeeds, we could, for example, yell at the wrongdoers and their accomplices and enablers.

It’s a funny thing about shame, you know: Those who are capable of feeling it are inevitably at a disadvantage against the rest. That’s always been in the case. There have always been people who chose wealth in disgrace over the simple honor of a life of hard work and sacrifices. In the old country, this was a real, almost permanent choice. “Everything dies,” the old Persian expression went, “except a name.”

But out here, where bootleggers’ children grow up to become president and a few million can get your name above a school or synagogue door, who’s to say that’s not a false choice? Commit the crime, weather the storm, then go out and purchase an even better name than you had before. The question, for our community, is whether we’ll go the American way and buy and sell a name as easily as a used car, or whether we’ll pause, and remember, and stay true to our own heritage.


Gina Nahai is an author and a professor of creative writing at USC. Her latest novel is “Caspian Rain” (MacAdam Cage, 2007). Her column appears monthly in The Journal.

Gina Nahai: Staying true to our own heritage Read More »

Heed the lonely voice of reason of Canada’s prime minister

Pundits already are busy deciphering the performance of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his new foreign policy team at the just completed Group of Eight Summit in France. The G-8 meeting was convened amid pivotal crises ranging from global debt to human rights to nuclear energy safety, and how to nurture the complex Arab Spring impacting on 400 million people in the Middle East.

Canada is no injury-time substitute in this game. It has paid in blood and treasure in Afghanistan, is involved in the NATO campaign in Libya against Moammar Gadhafi and is a respected international aid donor.

So this time, what Harper had to say surely got a serious hearing from his peers, including President Obama, as nations as diverse as Russia, England and Japan strove for consensus.

They found some. The official communique discussed the role of the Internet, nuclear safety and support for development of the sub-Sahara region in Africa. G-8 leaders also apparently agreed that Gadhafi and Yemen’s president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, must go. On Syria, however, the leaders could agree only that they were “appalled” by the regime’s actions and demanded an end to the killings of protesters.

Most significant, the leaders sent a powerful signal of continued support for the Arab Spring by announcing $20 billion in assistance for the democratic transformations in Egypt and Tunisia.

And then the G-8 leaders added, “We are convinced that the historical changes throughout the region make the solution of the Israeli-Palestine conflict through negotiations more important, not less. … We urge both parties to engage without delay in substantive talks with a view to concluding a framework agreement on all final status issues.”

That declaration came close to doing something that the overwhelming majority of protesters from Tunisia to Damascus never asked for: linking their drive for freedom to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Historically, such emotional pandering has been cynically deployed by every Mideast tyrant, from Saddam Hussein to Bashir Assad, to deflect from serious domestic problems. And it never helped a single Palestinian.

The masses yearning for freedom from Tehran to Cairo have earned our support by courageously putting their lives on the line. That should be the primary focus of North Americans’ diplomatic, political and economic support.

Which brings us to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

It is no secret that Harper was the only G-8 leader who rejected Obama’s new push for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. Harper ultimately prevailed against the pressure to go along with the posturing of the majority.

While consensus building, especially in diplomacy, is an important goal and powerful tool, Harper’s position is that this time the majority is wrong.

For Israelis who have fought five wars and absorbed suicide bombers and thousands of missiles, size counts. Even including the West Bank and the Golan Heights, Israel is 2,700 square miles smaller than Vancouver Island.

Israelis cannot go back to an “adjusted” version of its indefensible pre-1967 lines—dubbed the “Auschwitz borders” by the late Foreign Minister Abba Eban. If they did, they would still be facing 60,000 Iranian-supplied missiles from Hezbollah at the Lebanese border in the North and genocidal Hamas in Gaza.

Israelis also would have to fear a renewed wave of suicide bombers who could literally walk from the West Bank into major Israeli urban areas, including Jerusalem.

Speaking of the Holy City, since 1967, the undivided city has facilitated millions of pilgrims—Jewish, Christian and Muslim—and maintained the status quo of the Muslim presence on the Temple Mount, the holiest site of Judaism. No Israeli would ever agree to have to show their passport in order to pray at the Western Wall.

Stephen Harper has gained the trust and admiration of citizens of Israel and supporters of the Jewish state. On core issues of human rights, the United Nations and the Middle East, he has often broken loose from the obscurity and safety of the pack and exhibited real leadership.

Harper yanked Canada out of the so-called Durban II conference on racism when Washington dithered for months. Only when Iran’s President Ahmadinejad was given the opening keynote did the United States and most European Union members wake up and do the right thing. A few months ago at an Interparliamentary Conference in Ottawa, Harper delivered a blistering public rebuke to the largely ignored resurgence of worldwide anti-Semitism.

Now, at the G-8 Summit, he stood firm against shoving Israel down the gangplank of indefensible borders and another deadly war.

Harper often has been a lonely voice struggling against the din of politically correct attacks on Israel’s legitimacy and security. We can only hope that as he begins his new term as Canada’s leader that his lonely voice of reason will help calm the roiled Middle East and help set the stage for Israeli-Palestinian talks based on mutual respect and sacrifice.

(Rabbi Marvin Hier is the dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Rabbi Abraham Cooper is the center’s associate dean.)

Heed the lonely voice of reason of Canada’s prime minister Read More »

Ex-Mossad chief: Israeli firm didn’t break any laws in Iran deals

The Ofer Brothers Group did not break any laws in the Iranian tank affair, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan said on Wednesday, saying that he did not know of any boycott on Iran.

Last week the U.S. State Department announced sanctions on the Israeli business group and a Singapore-based subsidy, Tanker Pacific, for their roles in a September 2010 transaction that provided Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines with a tanker.

The Ofer group has denied the allegation, but no Israeli government agency has come forward to confirm that the state could vouch for it.

Read more at Haaretz.com.

Ex-Mossad chief: Israeli firm didn’t break any laws in Iran deals Read More »

Nazir: Sinner or Saint? Rabbi Barry Gelman

Nazir: Sinner or Saint? Weekly Video Parshat Hashavua Class: Rabbi Barry Gelman
I give a weekly live Video Parshat Hashavua Class. This week’s class was on: Nazir: Sinner or Saint? One Gemara praises the Nazir while another chastises. Whcih is is? A Solution is offered by Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein.

This class also touches on vegetarianism and other forms of voluntary abstentions.

Follow this ” title=”here” target=”_blank”>here:

I give the class every Monday at 12PM (Central time). If you would like to be added to the email distribution list to get a reminder and log in information for the class, please email me at rabbi@uosh.org

Nazir: Sinner or Saint? Rabbi Barry Gelman Read More »

X-Men: First Class — Top Moments From The Most Jewish Superhero Movie Ever [VIDEO]

As “X-Men: First Class” continues to glean first class reviews, it’s worth noting that the mutant saga is perhaps the most Jewish superhero film to grace the silver screen:  which makes sense considering the movie marks the return of producer Bryan Singer to the franchise. (He directed the first two “X-Men” films, but not this time. Now he gets a writing credit.)  As a gay and Jewish filmmaker, his work has long reflected his own outsider-group status. 

The Marvel Comics saga depicts the origins of the rivalry between telepath Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender)—who can manipulate magnetic fields—from their very different childhoods in the 1940s.  While Xavier grows up privileged, Erik spends his boyhood in the Warsaw ghetto and, ultimately, is tortured by a sadistic doctor in a concentration camp.  As the adult Lensherr tracks down that physician—who now has Armageddon on his mind—the movie becomes the best Holocaust revenge fantasy since Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds.” Here are some of the movie’s top Jewish moments, which chronicle Erik’s journey from tortured child to his transformation into the villainous Magneto. [SPOILER ALERT] 

1. As the film opens in 1944 Poland, Erik and his parents are herded in the mud and rain to the gates of a concentration camp, where the boy is forcibly separated from his family.  When the gates of the camp slam shut, Erik is restrained by guards who are shocked when his screams and gestures actually bend and twist the iron gates to the compound.  As the guards finally wrestle him to the ground, the camera zooms in on Erik’s yellow Star of David—a branding that will follow him for the rest of his life.

2. In an office gleaming with knives and other instruments of medical torture, the concentration camp’s sadistic doctor, Dr. Schmidt (Kevin Bacon), orders Erik to demonstrate his telekinetic talents on a Reich coin adorned with a swastika.  “Blue eyes, blond hair, pathetic,” the doctor tells the boy of the Nazi’s genetic goals.  Schmidt is far more interested in mutant powers.  “Genes are the key that unlocks the door to a new age…a new future for mankind, evolution,” he tells the terrified boy.  “A little coin is nothing compared to a compound gate,” he adds, encouragingly, referring to the gate incident.  But when Erik cannot move the coin via brain-power, Herr doctor changes his tactics.  Reflecting that while the Nazis don’t always have the greatest ideas, their methods seem to produce results, he gives the boy an ultimatum.  Unless Erik can move the coin by the count of three, he will shoot Erik’s mother, who is brought into the room for the occasion.  It’s only after the shot rings out that the enraged Erik practically destroys the office with his anger-induced magnetism.  Dr. Schmidt is pleased.  “So we unlock your gift with anger; anger and pain,” he says. “We’re going to have a lot of fun together.”

3. It’s Geneva, Switzerland, in 1962.  While extracting information about Schmidt’s whereabouts from a smug Swiss banker, Erik makes his point by also extracting (via magnetism) one of the man’s tooth fillings.  “This gold is what remains of my people,” he says of the bank money. 

4. More ironic mayhem awaits German expatriates in a bar in Argentina who resist Lensherr’s questions about Schmidt.  “Let’s just say I’m Frankenstein’s Monster,” he tells them.  “I’m looking for my creator.”

5. As Xavier helps Erik unleash his powers without the use of anger, Xavier (via telepathy) unearths a tender memory from the Holocaust survivor’s brain:  Lighting the chanukiah with his deceased mother.  “I accessed the brightest corner of your memory,” he tells the baffled Erik, adding that there is so much more to the survivor than pain and anger.  To discover his full powers, Erik must “find the point between rage and serenity.”

6. At a crucial moment before Erik’s transformation into the evil Magneto— and in one of the most powerful sequences in the film—human soldiers attacking the mutants were “just following orders,” a fellow mutant tells Lensherr.  It’s not exactly the best thing to say to a man who has survived a concentration camp.  “I’ve been at the mercy of men just following orders,” Erik replies. “Never again.”

The film opens on June 3.  For another point of view about the movie, check out Geek Heeb.

X-Men: First Class — Top Moments From The Most Jewish Superhero Movie Ever [VIDEO] Read More »

Jon Stewart on Anthony Weiner [VIDEO]

Jon Stewart on Anthony Weiner [VIDEO] Read More »

U.S. won’t participate in Durban III, State Dept. says

The United States will not participate in Durban III, this September, the State Department said.

In a letter to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Joseph E. Macmanus, acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs, confirmed the United States would not attend the conference, which in its previous iterations has been a forum for anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment.

In November, the U.S. voted against a United Nations resolution to establish the conference. The following month, Gillibrand led a coalition of 18 senators in signing a letter to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, urging the U.S. not to participate in the conference, scheduled for Sept. 21 in New York City.

The Durban Commemoration is meant to mark the ten-year anniversary of Durban I, during which the delegations from the United States and Israel walked out in protest as the tenor turned increasingly anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.

“The United States will not participate in the Durban Commemoration. In December, we voted against the resolution establishing this event because the Durban process included ugly displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism, and we did not want to see that commemorated,” Macmanus wrote.

The U.S. and Israel, along with seven other countries, boycotted Durban II in 2009, during which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a keynote speech.

In November, Canada was the first country to announce it would not participate in Durban III. Israel announced it would boycott in the conference in December.

U.S. won’t participate in Durban III, State Dept. says Read More »

Goat Alert: Avoid Mark Zuckerberg

New Year’s Resolutions:
1. Wear a tie every day
2. Learn Chinese
3. Kill a goat??

I get that Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO, is innovative.  I’m all for swimming against the stream and forging your own path. But I’d rather my chicken arrives from the grocery store without a pulse. 

Every year ” title=”killed a goat in a humane manner” target=”_blank”>killed a goat in a humane manner by slitting its throat under direction from Palo Alto chef Jesse Cool, he then killed a pig in the same manner.

A pig killed humanely…still high treif.

There’s something to be said for putting a face on our entrée. I couldn’t do it.  I already guiltily avoid the eyes of aquarium fish in the sushi restaurant.  I’d sadly have to leave meat behind. But there’s still a gap in Zuckerberg’s food chain.  He kills an animal but then sends it to a butcher to be cut up for use.  Shouldn’t he be doing that? Gratefully and respectfully?

At least Zuckerberg kept his diet within the realm of reason.  There are always those who will only eat food that has fallen off the tree because picking the apple is murder.  Or raw foodies who would stare at my pot of boiling water in horror lest I kill my green beans. 

Aside from the pig, the whole diet has a kosher flavor with its intention of gratitude and respect.

Still, I think I’ll stick with gratitude via blessings.  I really should leave sharp knives to someone else.

Goat Alert: Avoid Mark Zuckerberg Read More »