fbpx

November 29, 2011

In Sherman-Berman race, grass-roots strength faces off with Capitol Hill heft

The California race between Democratic congressional incumbents Howard Berman and Brad Sherman is seen as pitting experience against energy, compromise against confrontation and—painfully for many in the Jewish community—pro-Israel stalwart against pro-Israel stalwart.

“These are two guys who are extraordinary leaders on issues of importance to those who care about Israel,” said a pro-Israel insider in Washington who, like many others in the community, asked not to be identified in order not to offend either congressman.

“Congress will be lessened by one of them not being there,” said the insider, who likened the choice to Solomon’s judgment to split the baby.

Berman, 70, and Sherman, 57, currently represent adjacent districts in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley. They have been thrown against one another because of the post-census redrawing of California’s electoral map by a nonpartisan commission.

Both men reside in the new 30th District, which encompasses most of Sherman’s current district in the western San Fernando Valley. Berman opted not to run in the new 29th District in the eastern San Fernando Valley, which includes much of his current district but has a larger Hispanic majority than he now represents.

The 30th includes a substantial Jewish community, making it a natural fit for either lawmaker—but not for both.

Under California’s election laws, the two top vote-getters in the nonpartisan June primary will face off in the general election. In a strongly Democratic district, that means a Berman-Sherman showdown in November is likely.

While they do have some policy differences on issues such as trade policy—Berman last month supported recent trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia, while Sherman voted against them—both lawmakers are liberal Democrats. The fight between the two congressmen—who never have been close to one another—is shaping up as more about effectiveness and style.

Berman, who has served in the House of Representatives since 1983 and exercised considerable political influence locally through his longstanding alliance with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), has racked up support from Hollywood bigwigs and elected officials. Twenty-three of the state’s 34 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives have endorsed Berman, as have Gov. Jerry Brown and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Sherman, a Congress member since 1997, may have fewer high-profile politicians in his camp—his website lists only two members of Congress as endorsers—but he has shown strength on the grass-roots level. Earlier this month Sherman received the endorsement of the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley, an umbrella group for 27 local Democratic clubs.

Sherman insists the race will be won locally.

“Talk to your cousin’s old friend in college and if they happen to live in 818, they’re for me,” he said, using the area code for the San Fernando Valley.

Widely acknowledged as a dogged grass-roots campaigner, Sherman says he attends 300 community events a year.

Berman, for his part, acknowledges that Sherman is an energetic candidate. But Berman, who has enjoyed decades of large-margin victories and has a reputation as a quieter political operator, says he is ready to take it to the streets.

“There’s no doubt Brad is tireless and getting himself out there,” Berman said in an interview. “I’m building an endorsement list of people within the district, neighborhood councils, homeowner associations, chambers of commerce.”

Berman has his work cut out for him. A poll done for the Sherman campaign and released publicly in August, just after the new district’s lines were finalized, shows Berman scoring just 24 percent to Sherman’s 51 percent in a two-way race. With a third candidate in the race, local Republican businessman Mark Reed, Sherman had 42 percent, Reed 26 percent and Berman 17 percent. The survey of 600 likely voters had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

Berman, who has been less visible locally than Sherman, says he will be pitching an ability to get things done in Washington.

“My bet is that the voters care at least as much about what we have done in Washington,” he said. “They will have plenty of me before the June election.”

Berman’s record is playing well with the entertainment industry.

“Howard has been a champion of the entertainment industry since he was first elected to Congress in 1983,” DreamWorks founders Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen wrote in a fundraising letter, which included an invitation to a Nov. 10 Beverly Hills gala fundraiser for Berman. “As a lead member of the Judiciary Committee, he plays a key role in shaping the copyright, trademark and patent laws that are so vital to our industry. And as the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, he has fought to strengthen aid to Israel, continue U.S. foreign assistance on global HIV/AIDS programs, and improve America’s diplomatic standing in the world.”

The Beverly Hills fundraiser reportedly raised $1.6 million for Berman’s campaign.

That kind of heft has made up for much of the disadvantage faced by Berman as he chose to run on mostly unfamiliar turf, said Raphael Sonenshein, a political science professor at California State University, Fullerton.

“At the start it looked like Sherman would run away with it,” Sonenshein said. “Berman has made a massive move in terms of fundraising and endorsements.”

The latest Federal Election Commission figures, which reflect fundraising through the end of September and thus would not include Berman’s November fundraiser, show the candidates boasting competitive war chests: Sherman had $3.7 million in available cash, while Berman had $2.25 million.

The local Jewish community is paying attention to the race. The L.A. Jewish Journal even launched a special blog devoted to chronicling the contest.

Sherman, however, says that he does not believe pro-Israel donors as a group will take sides, saying their money would be better spent elsewhere because both candidates are strong on the issue.

“There are a hundreds of things you could do,” he said. “Give your money to the Friends of Magen David Adom, to the Friends of the IDF, to AIPAC,” he said. “Who’s going to say, ‘I’m not going to give my money to Israel, I’m going to give it to an effort to defeat Brad Sherman’?”

But pro-Israel Democrats, speaking off the record, suggest more givers may do so than Sherman may acknowledge.

Berman has an edge among Washington pro-Israel insiders. Whereas Sherman wears his advocacy for Israel on his sleeve, Berman is seen as more of a closer. A review of bills sponsored by each congressman shows that Berman’s are likelier to advance further through the system—and eventually become law.

Berman received high marks last year for the passage of an enhanced Iran sanctions act that tightened existing sanctions on Iran’s energy sector and made it easier to sanction Iran’s financial sector. As the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Berman is seen by many in the pro-Israel community as better positioned than Sherman—the senior Democrat on its terrorism subcommittee—to advance legislation.

Sherman says give him time.

“Yes, Howard did a lot more for the U.S.-Israel relationship in the 1980s,” he said. “I wasn’t here!”

But Capitol Hill insiders say Berman is better able to align the complex players needed to make such legislation work. As Foreign Affairs chairman in the last Congress, Berman sat on the Iran sanctions legislation until December 2009, liaising with the Obama administration and with foreign governments in order not to pre-empt sensitive negotiations aimed at maximizing multilateral sanctions.

“He was an effective and skilled negotiator at getting the right kind of legislation through,” said Joel Rubin, a former congressional staffer for Democrats who now is director of government affairs at the Ploughshares Fund, which funds projects aimed at advancing peace.

“He understood the tricky balancing act a broad-based sanctions bill from Congress is up against,” Rubin said. “He held out until he got the deal that would support multilateral sanctions, which are proving to be the most effective we’ve seen in decades.”

Berman says his low-key approach has proven itself.

“Those are the things the average voter doesn’t see but the leadership does, which we will communicate,” he said.

Yet Sherman’s aggressive approach is appreciated by some in the pro-Israel community for expanding the parameters of the sanctions debate. He’s now pushing sanctions that would ban the sale of replacement parts for civilian Iranian aircraft.

Sherman acknowledges that such provisions might not become law, but he says his agenda is to pressure the administration into accelerating Iran’s isolation.

“We need sanctions that are a challenge to regime survival and we’re not getting there anytime soon,” he said.

Sherman also emphasizes that he is willing to distance himself from President Obama, who has had a sometimes tense relationship with the pro-Israel community.

“I’m not afraid to criticize Obama when he says something that’s inappropriate and not afraid to praise him either,” he said.

“At this early stage he’s distancing himself from Obama without being anti-Obama,” said Bill Boyarsky, a veteran political journalist now writing for L.A. Observed and the L.A. Jewish Journal.

A Jewish staffer for a House Democrat who has not endorsed either candidate said, “The contrast between Howard Berman, a statesman who gets into the issue, and Sherman is sharp. Berman’s a pro-Israel lawmaker with nuance in an age where there’s very little nuance.”

Look for more of that contrast during a long election campaign, Boyarsky said.

“They’re just two different kinds of people,” he said. “Sherman is a scrapper, a nerdy personality, he’s relentless in his campaigning and that’s his strength. Berman has not had this kind of fight. It’s a question of whether he’s willing to scrap.”

In Sherman-Berman race, grass-roots strength faces off with Capitol Hill heft Read More »

Storming of UK Embassy complicates nuclear issue

The storming of British Embassy compounds by Iranian protesters complicates the search for a negotiated solution to the standoff over Tehran’s nuclear program, and appears to reflect infighting among Iranian factions.

The incident, a day after Iran’s Guardian Council approved a bill downgrading diplomatic relations with London in response to new British sanctions, was a sign of rivalry among political factions in Tehran in the face of intensifying Western pressure, said some analysts.

Britain has been at the forefront of the international campaign for tougher sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, which Britain and other Western countries suspect is aimed at developing a nuclear weapon but Tehran insists is peaceful.

“The incident raises the stakes to the point of very ill-disguised confrontation between Iran and one of the major players in the West,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, Iran expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think-tank.

It was a “further straw on the camel’s back,” coming on top of U.S. allegations of an Iran-linked plot to kill the Saudi ambassador and a U.N. report this month saying that Iran appeared to have worked on designing an atom bomb, he said.

The release of the U.N. report renewed speculation that Israel or the United States could carry out military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Britain, one of six powers which have for years been playing a complex game of cat-and-mouse with Iran over its nuclear program, said it was outraged by the incident and warned of “serious consequences” which Foreign Secretary William Hague is likely to spell out in a statement to parliament on Wednesday.

FACTIONAL RIVALRY

Iranian officials disowned the attacks but some commentators were skeptical of their assurances.

“The fact that demonstrators managed to get into the British embassy and cause such destruction will inevitably raise questions of government complicity in the raid,” said Alan Fraser of the UK-based AKE security consultancy.

“The government also wants to demonstrate its resolve in the face of Western action against it, so this portrayal of unity benefits the regime’s cause.”

Days before Tuesday’s attack, an Iranian lawmaker warned that Iranians could storm the British embassy as they did the U.S. mission in 1979.

Some analysts see the Tuesday attacks as a sign of deepening political infighting within Iran’s ruling elites, with the conservative-led parliament attempting to force the hand of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and expel the British ambassador.

“Radicals in Iran and in the West are always in favour of crisis … Such radical hardliners in Iran will use the crisis to unite people and also to blame the crisis for the fading economy,” said political analyst Hasan Sedghi.

Fitzpatrick said: “One also has to keep in mind there are various players in Iran, and not all of them will have thought it was wise to facilitate a break-in of the British embassy.”

Anthony Skinner of Maplecroft consultancy said it was “likely that those attacking the embassy are hardcore regime supporters.”

ROBUST RESPONSE

Hague has already promised a “robust” response if Iran expels the British ambassador, as called for by the bill approved on Monday.

Analysts said the British response could range from lodging a protest over a violation of international law to cutting off diplomatic relations.

But if it did downgrade or cut off diplomatic ties, it would have to gauge what damage that would do to the negotiated solution it says it wants to the nuclear dispute.

Fitzpatrick said prospects for resuming talks between Iran and the six powers were already marginal and “this certainly doesn’t help.”

The last round of talks between Iran and the six, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, took place in January in Istanbul and ended with no progress.

Alireza Nourizadeh of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies in London told Reuters he thought it possible Britain would sever diplomatic relations with Tehran over the incident, which he believed had the backing of Iranian authorities.

“The regime believes Britain is in control, (that) what the Americans and Europeans are doing is directed by Britain, and therefore they did it,” he said.

Claire Spencer, head of the Middle East program at London think-tank Chatham House, said it was a very sensitive moment in the Middle East, pointing out that Iran backs Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government which has faced months of protests.

“This risks all sorts of over-spill effects should things spin out of control. So it’s a very difficult moment for those arguing in favour of pursuing the diplomatic channel,” she said.

Additional reporting by William Maclean; editing by Andrew Roche

Storming of UK Embassy complicates nuclear issue Read More »

Tony Kushner awarded $100,000 prize for challenging status quo

Who said great artists must starve? Tony Kushner, the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright and screenwriter, and polarizing political voice, will be awarded $100,000 for “Creative Citizenship” at The Nation Institute’s Annual Gala on Dec. 5 in New York.

The award, co-sponsored by The Puffin Foundation and The Nation Institute, both organizations of particular social conscience, is designated for those who have “challenged the status quo through distinctive, courageous, imaginative, and socially responsible work of significance.” 

In a press release announcing the prize, the organizations explained their choice thusly:

[Kushner has] given voice to the marginalized and explored the most challenging issues of the past fifty years. He has tackled everything from AIDS and the conservative backlash (Angels in America), and the civil rights movement in the South (Caroline, or Change), to Afghanistan and the West (Homebody / Kabul), and the rise of capitalism (Hydriotaphia, or the Death of Dr. Browne). As John Lahr wrote in the New Yorker, “He gives voice to characters who have been rendered powerless by the forces of circumstances — a drag queen dying of AIDS, an uneducated Southern maid, contemporary Afghans — and his attempt to see all sides of their predicament has a sly subversiveness. He forces the audience to identify with the marginalized — a humanizing act of the imagination.”

A closer look at the sponsoring organizations’ social missions indicates Kushner is being recognized for more than work alone. Independent of his art, Kushner is known for his daring political views, especially as they concern Israel. He is outspoken about his philosophical struggles with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which he outlined in the book, “Wrestling with Zion,” a compilation he edited that showcases progressive Jewish-American attitudes towards Israel.

In 2007, Jewish Journal Publisher and Editor-in-Chief Rob Eshman interviewed Kushner on stage at American Jewish University, where he asked Kushner about his Jewish identity and relationship to Israel. In a follow-up editorial, Eshman wrote:

Kushner embraces uncertainty. “I have very mixed and complicated feelings about the state of Israel as a Jewish American,” he said on Monday evening, “and I’m furious at being represented as this kind of marginal crazy who’s plotting to destroy the state of Israel. I think everybody harbors their own secret doubts, or at least most of us do, and everybody’s afraid to say them, because the orthodoxy is policed with such violence and vituperation.”

Kushner and director Steven Spielberg endured a wave of criticism from some within the Jewish community who felt their film “Munich” stretched too far in trying to humanize Palestinian terrorists, or in trying to insert moral quandary into the minds of Israelis assigned to kill those terrorists.

I asked Kushner why [playwright David] Mamet, among others, finds his position so unpalatable. “It’s because they’re trying to defend the indefensible,” Kushner said. “It’s trying to uphold the reality you can’t uphold. It’s a cartoon version of Middle Eastern politics that almost no one in the state of Israel recognizes. There’s easily 50 percent of the Israeli population that’s progressive.”

I’m not sure of that number, especially in the wake of the Hamas takeover of Gaza, but Kushner was clearly still feeling the sting of “Munich.”

“I can’t feel neutral about the state of Israel because I’m a Jew,” Kushner said, “and I would like to see Israel survive and prosper. I absolutely don’t believe in single-state solution. I believe in a two-state solution. I’ve never anywhere on earth said I believe Israel should be forced to give up its identity as a Jewish state … that obviously wouldn’t work. It would be the end of Israel.”

Kushner’s willingness to challenge mainstream opinion on Israel has earned him the ire of more conservative Jewish minds. His outspokenness on the issue, he has said, has sometimes led to mischaracterization of his beliefs. Last May, a public debacle ensued when the trustees of the City University of New York (CUNY) voted to rescind an honorary degree intended for Kushner when a board member objected on account of his views on Israel. An outraged public, which provoked scores of media coverage and a pro-Kushner op-ed in the New York Times, helped to reverse the decision.

In this case, however, it is precisely Kushner’s “unorthodox” views that won him the recognition. The Puffin Foundation is devoted to minority and marginalized artists, and provides artist grants to individuals and organizations working on the fringe (in their words: those “excluded from mainstream opportunities due to their race, gender, or social philosophy”) which coheres with Kushner’s intense focus on civil rights. Likewise, The Nation Institute, a non-profit media organization that promotes progressive ideas (among their online and print publications is The Nation magazine), syncs well with Kushner’s liberal politics. Upon learning of the award, Kushner said, “Like most progressive Americans, I depend on The Nation magazine for serious, scrupulous, courageous reportage and analysis; I’m very proud to have been published in its pages and proud of my association with The Nation Institute.”

He added: “To be a good citizen, much less a creative one, is a tall order, and while I hope I can say I’ve never taken the blessings of citizenship (however abridged these remain, despite recent advances, for the entire LGBT community) for granted, I feel certain that I’ve achieved at best a rudimentary level of sufficiency regarding the obligations that come with the franchise. I can only add that since this will make me feel terrible every time I fail to be a creative citizen, it’ll be a goad to step up my game — since citizenship, like playwriting or the violin, requires practice, practice, practice.  I’m so grateful to The Institute and the Puffin Foundation for their wayward taste and misguided judgment, and I plan to keep blushing for several years to come.”

According to the release, Kushner is the 12th recipient of the prize. Past honorees have included the environmental activist Van Jones, human rights lawyer Michael Ratner, “Nickel and Dimed” author Barbara Ehrenreich, professor and anti-death penalty advocate David Protess and labor activist Dolores Huerta.

Tony Kushner awarded $100,000 prize for challenging status quo Read More »

Obituaries: December 2-December 8

Sofya Albukh died Nov. 15 at 55. Survived by husband Gennadiy; son Vadim; mother Revekka Paperno; brother Valery (Elena) Brudner; sister-in-law Alla (Michael) Olshamsky. Mount Sinai

Henry E. Artof died Oct. 30 at 91. Survived by wife Edith; daughter Marlene (Ed) Ruden; son Paul (Susan); 4 grandchildren; 2 great-grandchildren. Mount Sinai

Alyce Bloom died Nov. 5 at 95. Survived by son Steve; 3 grandchildren; 4 great-grandchildren.  Mount Sinai

Maxine Bookman died Oct. 23 at 89. Survived by son Robert; 3 grandchildren; brother Richard. Malinow and Silverman

Dorothye Boxer died Nov. 3 at 94. Survived by sons Sandor T. (Edith), Joel (Anita); 3 grandchildren. Mount Sinai

Flavia Burg died Oct. 19 at 85. Survived by daughters Melinda (Steve) Golod, Cindy (Steve) Burg Portigal; son Andy; 2 grandchildren. Malinow and Silverman

Alvin Cohn died Oct. 31 at 86. Survived by wife Helene; daughter Sandra Markham; sons Michael (Jacqueline), Jeffrey (Dana Flanagan); 5 grandchildren; sister Barbara Browne; brother Robert (Joanne). Mount Sinai

Tillie De Rusha died Nov. 11 at 99. Survived by daughter Suzanne; son Henry; 2 grandchildren; 3 great-grandchildren.  Mount Sinai

David H. Deitch died Nov. 7 at 87. Survived by wife Carol; sons Stephen, Kenneth (Anna), Jonathan. Mount Sinai

William Feinsilber died Nov. 1 at 87. Survived by wife Joyce; daughters Robbie (Jeff) Wise, Pam (Jerry Stark); stepdaughters Bari (Neil) Bucknam, Stacy (John) Rivera; stepson Jeff (Cathleen) Gordon; 8 grandchildren. Mount Sinai

William Finkel died Oct. 14 at 95. Survived by wife Rita; daughter Donna; son Martin. Malinow and Silverman

Gerald Martin “Jerry” Finn died Nov. 3 at 81. Survived by wife Marjorie; daughters Deborah Elizabeth, Stephanie Landers; 3 grandchildren; sister Rosalyn Demain. Mount Sinai

June Frankenberg died Nov. 4 at 77. Survived by husband Herbert; daughter Julie; son Eric.

Bernice Germaine died Nov. 5 at 80. Survived by daughters Allyson (Jim) Thurston, Jennifer (Dave) Schelling; son Matthew (Kimberly); 4 grandchildren; sister Jane Schiffer.  Mount Sinai

Paul Glasner died Oct. 31 at 87. Survived by wife Cecile; daughters Trudy (Bruce) Presser, Laura, Tina, Susan; son Peter (Jacquelyn); 10 grandchildren; 1 great-grandchild. Mount Sinai

Anita Goldstein died Nov. 1 at 89. Survived by daughters Betty (Steve) Wolfson, Ilene (Bruce Hart); sons William (Vicki), Reuven (Petriana); 10 grandchildren; 5 great-grandchildren.  Mount Sinai

Victor Helman died Oct. 23 at 86. Survived by wife Nancy; daughter Rozlyn.  Eden

Anne Leslie Herstein died Oct. 30 at 82. Survived by daughters Teri (Ted) Cantor, Sheri (Jeff) Levy; son Bruce Herstein; 6 grandchildren. Eden

Ada Hinden died Oct. 27 at 100. Survived by sons Michael, David. Malinow and Silverman

Irving J. Holstein died Nov. 5 at 98. Survived by wife Mollie; daughter Elaine Peterson; son Burt (Patricia); 3 grandchildren; 1 great-grandchild; brother Theodore. Mount Sinai

Ann Roth Hurwitz died Oct. 21 at 95. Survived by sons Jack (Maryann), Jerry (Susan Borkin); 5 grandchildren. Chevra Kadisha

Sanford Kaufman died Oct. 27 at 83. Survived by daughter Rona Greenberg; sons Les, Jeffrey, Brad, Adam; 7 grandchildren. Malinow and Silverman

Brunhilde Kellerman died Nov. 5 at 85. Survived by son Lawrence (Sharon); 1 grandchild.  Mount Sinai

Misha Khramov died Sept. 28 at 69.  Survived by son Dmitriy; sister Asya Esther (Elad Aron) Berwaldt. Hollywood Forever

Clare Koppelman died Nov. 7 at 87. Survived by daughter Daryl; son Steve; 3 grandchildren; sisters Emma Klein, Mary Woods.

Sigmund “Bud” Markel died Nov. 5 at 88. Survived by wife Beatrice; daughters Carole Langston, Michelle Markel Cohen; 2 grandchildren; sister Sue Spangler. Mount Sinai

Aron Kuppermann died Oct. 15 at 85. Survived by wife Roza; daughters Sharon, Miriam (Andy Avins); sons Barry (Jan), Nate (Nicole Glaser); 8 grandchildren. Malinow and Silverman

Benjamin Levin died Oct. 21 at 82. Survived by wife Ione; daughters Tracy, April; son David; 3 grandchildren; sister Mira Saroni. Malinow and Silverman

Marilyn Medeiros died Nov. 3 at 77. Survived by daughter Debra Breckheimer; sons Michael (David), Jeffrey (Karla), Steven (Tracy), Dana (Lisa); 6 grandchildren. Mount Sinai

Brian Mendell died Oct. 20 at 25. Survived by mother Ellyn; father Gary. Malinow and Silverman

Linda Millman died Oct. 30 at 57. Survived by daughter Lauren A. Franklin. Mount Sinai

Walter Newman died Nov. 6 at 91. Survived by wife Lotte; daughter Judy (Edward) Green; son Fred (Linda); 5 grandchildren; 4 great-grandchildren. Mount Sinai

Lydia Pofcher died Oct. 30 at 92. Survived by daughters Jean, Karen Ziskind; 1 grandchild. Hillside

Donald Paul Robinson died Oct. 30 at 57. Survived by wife Bonnie; sons Joel (Leslie), Glenn; 1 grandchild; mother Nyletta; father Donald; sisters Deborah (David) Sebring, Kimberly (Brett) Holthe; brother, Albert; mother-in-law Ellen Wohl; sisters-in-law Nancy Wohl, Janis Holland, Laura (Steven) Cunz. Mount Sinai

Stephan Rothman died Oct. 24 at 59. Survived by wife Carol; daughter Courtnie; son Hunter; brothers Michael, Paul (America) Carpenter. Malinow and Silverman

Gladys Simon died Oct. 30 at 91. Survived by daughter Barbara Grofe; son Mikel Simon; 7 grandchildren; 2 great-grandchildren; sister Deloris Barr. Hillside

Robert N. Sirkin died Oct. 29 at 74. Survived by wife Arlene I.; daughter Janice (Edward) Ross; son Steven (Aileen) Sirkin; 6 grandchildren. Mount Sinai

Sophia Weisenberg died Oct. 26 at 95. Survived by daughter Karen (Richard) Leaf; sons Mark, Gary (Sharon); 5 grandchildren; 2 great-grandchildren. Malinow and Silverman

Rita Wohl died Nov. 3 at 81. Survived by daughter Susan (Mark) Vedel; son Dewey (Julie); 4 grandchildren; sister Mildred. Mount Sinai

David Michael Wolf died Nov. 6 at 52. Survived by partner Kelly Ashwell; son Devin Allen; mother Elaine (Larry) Baum; sisters Lisa (Darrell) Hammack, Kalyn. Mount Sinai

Pauline Zwern died Nov. 2 at 97. Survived by daughters Deborah (Richard) Katler, Rita; 2 grandchildren. Mount Sinai

The Jewish Journal publishes obituary notices free of charge.

Please send an e-mail in the above format with the name, age and survivors of the deceased to {encode=”obits@jewishjournal.com” title=”obits@jewishjournal.com”}.

If you have any questions, e-mail or call (213) 368-1661, ext. 116.

Obituaries: December 2-December 8 Read More »

Cain campaign reeling amid affair allegations

” title=”Herman Cain”>Herman Cain is ” title=”statement that Cain’s lawyer sent”>statement that Cain’s lawyer sent to the Atlanta TV station breaking the affair allegations today:

Mr. Cain has been informed today that your television station plans to broadcast a story this evening in which a female will make an accusation that she engaged in a 13-year long physical relationship with Mr. Cain. This is not an accusation of harassment in the workplace – this is not an accusation of an assault – which are subject matters of legitimate inquiry to a political candidate.

Rather, this appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults – a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public. No individual, whether a private citizen, a candidate for public office or a public official, should be questioned about his or her private sexual life. The public’s right to know and the media’s right to report has boundaries and most certainly those boundaries end outside of one’s bedroom door.

Mr. Cain has alerted his wife to this new accusation and discussed it with her. He has no obligation to discuss these types of accusations publicly with the media and he will not do so even if his principled position is viewed unfavorably by members of the media.”

Obviously, Cain is not a student of American politics. Politicians’ affairs matter. Even when between consenting adults, they are more than just a prurient interest to the media and public. Just ask Bill Clinton. ” title=”values voters”>values voters.” But, even more broadly, a politician having an extramarital affair—let’s just call it what it is: adultery— Cain campaign reeling amid affair allegations Read More »

Barney Frank leaves as he served: With a sharp wit

Barney Frank’s talk of retirement was anything but retiring.

The veteran Jewish congressman’s announcement on Monday that he would not seek re-election was replete with the same caliber of verbal bombs—lobbed and received—that characterized much of his career.

Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, attributed his decision not to run in 2012 in part on what he said was the Republican polarization of the legislative process.

The House GOP caucus, he said at his news conference, “consists half of people who think like Michele Bachmann and half of people who are afraid of losing a primary to people who think like Michele Bachmann,” referring to the GOP presidential hopeful and conservative Minnesota congresswoman.

“That leaves very little room to work things out,” said Frank, 71, who has served in the House of Representatives since 1981 and in 1987 became the first member of Congress to voluntarily come out as gay.

Frank also cited the redrawing of his district that made it more conservative as a reason for his decision.

His critics—among them a phalanx of Jewish conservatives—are not necessarily shedding tears over his impending departure from Congress. Some assailed his role amid the financial crisis as chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Finance Committee from 2007 until January of this year.

Frank is “a quick wit—all too rare on the left,” Joel Pollak wrote on the conservative website Big Government.

“Yet,” Pollak added, “his most damaging legacies—the housing crisis, the financial ‘reform’ that bears his name, and the hyper-partisanship to which he eagerly contributed—outweigh Frank’s positive contributions. How unfortunate that his constituents did not eject him much sooner.”

Frank at his news conference at the town hall in Newton, Mass., where he lives, pushed back against such claims, saying that much of the groundwork for the economic crisis was in place by January 2007. But answering the reporter who asked him if he regretted his role, Frank expanded his answer to say that he did have regrets about his time in Congress. And they were substantive.

Frank said he rued his vote against the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, as well as approving restrictions on the Internal Revenue Service that he now sees as impeding tax collection.

He was no stranger to public regrets. In 1989, Frank expressed contrition when it was revealed that a man he once paid for sex and later hired to do chores and errands had run a prostitution service from the congressman’s Capitol Hill apartment.

Jewish community professionals who dealt with Frank said that his ability to self-correct—the flip side of his acerbic wit and his unwillingness to suffer fools gladly—made him valuable: He was willing to be swayed by good arguments.

“Barney was willing to admit when he was wrong,” said Nancy Kaufman, CEO of the National Council for Jewish Women, who for years dealt with Frank in her previous job as director of Boston’s Jewish Community Relations Council.

“If he stepped out too far on an issue, he would call the Jewish community leaders to apologize,” she said. “If he didn’t understand all the ramifications, he would check in.”

Rabbi David Saperstein, who directs the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center, recalled a few hair-raising encounters with Frank.

“He could be scathing in his critique of your view,” he said. “It didn’t mean he was always right, but he would push you hard to defend your position. If you didn’t come really prepared, you’d find yourself in deep trouble. When you came prepared, he respected that.”

Frank was one of the few Jewish lawmakers who would push back against what he saw as the excesses of the pro-Israel lobby.

At the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Washington, he attended what the American Israel Public Affairs Committee calls its “breakfast with mishpocha”—a get-together with the unofficial Jewish congressional caucus.

AIPAC’s then president, Bernice Manocherian, pressed Democrats in the room, according to those who attended, on how the lobby could better make its case to the left—a constituency with which Manocherian was concerned that Israel was losing ground.

The lawmakers politely demurred, insisting AIPAC was doing fine—until Frank spoke up and blasted AIPAC for insisting that Jewish lawmakers back bills they might otherwise object to. He cited a Republican funding bill from the late 1990s that slashed funds to Africa; AIPAC had insisted on passage because of its Israel funding components.

Slowly, as the other lawmakers saw Manocherian nodding and taking notes, they joined in, backing up Frank’s complaint. In 2008 and 2010, Frank accepted the endorsement of the dovish J Street’s political action committee.

“On particular Jewish concerns,” like Israel and Soviet Jewry, “he was as front and center as he was on our broad agenda,” Saperstein said. That included gay rights, hate crimes and financial reform.

Frank did not often invoke his Jewishness, although he reveled in pushing back against Israel critics by noting that the Jewish state had been more advanced than the United States for years when it came to gay rights.

More recently he took up the cause of clemency for Jonathan Pollard, the Israeli spy serving a life sentence since 1985.

“Last year, Congressman Frank played a vital role in spearheading a key Congressional letter to President Obama which called for a commutation of Jonathan’s sentence, and he has been a vocal supporter and an outspoken advocate for Jonathan’s release ever since,” Esther Pollard, Jonathan’s wife, said in a statement to JTA. “We are extremely appreciative of Congressman Frank’s efforts to free Jonathan and we are confident that he will continue playing a leading role in the fight for clemency in the weeks and months ahead.”

When Frank did bring up being Jewish, it was often as a witticism.

When a woman at a town hall meeting in 2009 called President Obama’s health care proposals “Nazi policy,” he famously said, “I’m going to revert to my ethnic heritage and answer your question with a question: On what planet do you spend most of your time?”

“It’s a loss of a sense of humor” that will be keenly felt, said David A. Harris, president of the National Jewish Democratic Council. “A rapier wit.”

It was the loss of a reason to enjoy Congress that drove out Frank, the NCJW’s Kaufman said.

“He was depressed, watching what was happening in the Congress of the United States, with Ted Kennedy’s death and the lack of people talking across the aisle,” she said. “It’s not been fun, and it has to be fun.”

Barney Frank leaves as he served: With a sharp wit Read More »

Survivor: Rosalie Greenfield

The train pulled up to the platform at Auschwitz. Men and women were immediately separated. Rosalie Schwartz had only a couple of minutes to say goodbye to her 69-year-old father, a hearty man who now appeared weary and old to the 21-year-old. “A happy man is one who can die in his own bed,” he told her.

Rosalie then traded overcoats with her mother, both hoping the more stylish brown one would make her mother appear younger. But the ruse didn’t work. Under the scrutinizing eye of Josef Mengele, Rosalie was ordered to the right and her mother, 49, to the left. As they parted, her mother handed her a blanket. “Don’t catch a cold,” she cautioned.

Rosalie never saw her parents again.

Born on March 21, 1923, in a small town in the Carpathian Mountains of Czechoslovakia, Rosalie grew up on a 40-acre farm. Her father, Binyamin Schwartz, planted crops, and he and her mother, Ethel Blum Schwartz, also ran a small store.

Rosalie was one of five children in a religious family. After elementary school, she attended a trade school in the nearby town of Munkacs, becoming a professional seamstress at 13.

In November 1938, part of Czechoslovakia was annexed to Hungary, which, on March 19, 1944, was invaded by the Germans. In April 1944, Rosalie’s brother Peter was taken to a forced labor camp, and Rosalie and her parents moved to the Munkacs ghetto.

Rosalie worked peeling potatoes in the ghetto. Many evenings, she walked to the nearby train station and ladled water to the Jews who were packed in sweltering cattle cars, waiting, unknowingly, to be transported to Auschwitz. In May, Rosalie and her parents were on the last transport out of Munkacs.

After being processed at Auschwitz, her head shaved and her arm tattooed, she volunteered to work. Again, she was assigned a job peeling potatoes as well as unloading bags of potatoes and flour, often weighing 100 pounds, from the trucks. Additionally, she shoveled potatoes against the kitchen wall. She dug a small hole in the wooden wall, which bordered the yard, and pushed the potatoes out, a few at a time, for prisoners to pick up.

One day, from a distance, she spied her sister Bracha, 16 years older and married with three children, working at the transport station, sorting clothing. She remembers the day when Bracha found the clothing that had belonged to her three children. After that, Bracha was ill and wept continually.

Rosalie spent as much time as possible with Bracha. Together they were transported to Katowitz and Breslau. Then, in January 1945, they were sent on a forced march, in the bitter cold and snow, to Gross-Rosen. Only 50 of the original 2,000 survived, among them the two sisters.

More transports followed, including a forced march to Mauthausen, during which Bracha was so sick she asked a Nazi guard to kill her. Rosalie intervened and carried her sister on her back the rest of the way. From Mauthausen, they were transported by train to Bergen-Belsen.

There, with no bunks in the barracks, prisoners slept crowded together on the floor, which brought on constant shoving and arguing. One night, Rosalie inadvertently raised her head just as a guard entered. The guard dragged her out of the room and beat her repeatedly on her back with a thick wooden stick. “It was incredible pain,” she said, later learning her back had been broken. Fellow prisoners were astonished she was still alive the next morning.

Conditions worsened. Bracha contracted typhus and died; just a few weeks later, on April 15, 1945, Allied forces liberated the camp.

Rosalie remained in the Bergen-Belsen Displaced Persons Camp for several months, trying to regain her health. At the end of 1945, in Prague, she found both brothers and learned her sister Maria was in Budapest.

Later, Rosalie went to a DP camp in Leipheim, Germany, where she also worked as a sewing instructor for ORT. There, her brother Willie introduced her to Bela Greenfield, a Zionist in his early 30s who had been in forced labor camps. But they became separated after almost two years. Rosalie’s back needed treatment, and Bela immigrated to Palestine, where he joined the Haganah.

After spending several months in a body cast in a nearby hospital, Rosalie went to a sanatorium in Davos, Switzerland, where, with fresh air and special treatment, her condition improved. She stayed four years, eventually trading her bulky cast for a corset.

Finally, in 1955, Rosalie traveled to Israel and married Bela on March 24. In 1957, they moved to Los Angeles, where their daughter Esther was born and where Bela worked in construction.

Bela died of cancer last January. Rosalie still lives in their Fairfax-area duplex with her grandson and his wife. She receives reparations of about $1,400 a month, which, she believes, is not enough.

Rosalie’s back is still painful, and she uses a cane or wheelchair. During the day, she often goes outside with her part-time caregiver and also reads her siddur.

“We have to keep the religion and pray to God,” she said.

Survivor: Rosalie Greenfield Read More »

Showing Appreciation: Don’t Forget To!

Showing appreciation is so important. There isn’t a single human being that does not enjoy feeling appreciated. Sometimes, out of their awareness, people forget to show appreciation no matter how wonderful their intentions.

As a business owner, it is vital to your brand and livelihood to ensure you are communicating appreciation to your clients. One fundamental expression that transcends all cultural barriers and makes people stop and be in the moment is gift giving. This year at ” title=”http://www.bellacures.com”>Bellacures for the longest amount of time or spend the most amount of money. We are going to make sure that we say THANK YOU, as loud as we can.

No matter if you are in business or not, take a moment to think about who contributes the most to your livelihood and do something to show thanks!

Showing Appreciation: Don’t Forget To! Read More »

Egpyt’s post-Mubarak poll peaceful, high turnout

Egyptians voted Monday in the first election since a popular revolt toppled Hosni Mubarak’s one-man rule, showing new-found faith in the ballot box that may sweep long-banned Islamists into parliament even as army generals cling to power.

Voters swarmed to the polls in a generally peaceful atmosphere despite the unrest that marred the election run-up, when 42 people were killed in protests demanding an immediate transition from military to civilian rule.

“We want to make a difference, although we are depressed by what the country has come to,” said Maha Amin, a 46-year-old pharmacy lecturer, before she voted in an upscale Cairo suburb.

The ruling army council, which has already extended polling to a second day, kept voting stations open an extra two hours until 9 p.m. “to accommodate the high voter turnout.”

The Muslim Brotherhood’s party and other Islamists expect to do well in the parliamentary election staggered over the next six weeks, but much remains uncertain in Egypt’s complex and unfamiliar voting system of party lists and individuals.

Political transformation in Egypt, traditional leader of the Arab world, will reverberate across the Middle East, where a new generation demanding democratic change has already toppled or challenged the leaders of Tunisia, Libya, Syria and Yemen.

Parliament’s lower house will be Egypt’s first nationally elected body since Mubarak’s fall and those credentials alone may enable it to dilute the military’s monopoly of power.

A high turnout throughout the election would give it legitimacy. Despite a host of reported electoral violations and lax supervision exploited by some groups, election monitors reported no systematic Mubarak-style campaign to rig the polls.

“We are very happy to be part of the election,” said first-time Cairo voter Wafa Zaklama, 55. “What was the point before?”

In the northern city of Alexandria, 34-year-old engineer Walid Atta rejoiced in the occasion. “This is the first real election in 30 years. Egyptians are making history,” he said.

ISLAMISTS SCENT POWER

Oppressed under Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist parties have stood aloof from those challenging army rule in Cairo’s Tahrir Square and elsewhere, unwilling to let anything obstruct a vote that may bring them closer to power.

In the Nile Delta city of Damietta, some voters said they would punish the Brotherhood for its perceived opportunism.

Nevertheless, the Brotherhood has formidable advantages that include a disciplined organization, name recognition among a welter of little-known parties and years of opposing Mubarak.

Brotherhood organizers stood near many voting stations with laptops, offering to guide confused voters, printing out a paper identifying the correct polling booth and showing their Freedom and Justice Party candidate’s name and symbol on the back.

“At least they are not giving people fruit inside the polling station,” said Mouna Zuffakar, of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, noting widespread breaches of a ban on campaigning near polling stations.

Many voters engaged in lively political debate as they waited patiently in long queues.

“Aren’t the army officers the ones who protected us during the revolution?” one woman asked loudly at a polling station in Cairo’s Nasr City, referring to the army’s role in easing Mubarak from power. “What do those slumdogs in Tahrir want?”

One man replied: “Those in Tahrir are young men and women who are the reason why a 61-year-old man like me voted in a parliamentary election for the first time in his life today.”

The world is closely watching the election, keen for stability in Egypt, which has a peace treaty with Israel, owns the Suez Canal linking Europe and Asia, and which in Mubarak’s time was an ally in countering Islamist militants in the region.

Washington and its European allies have urged the generals to step aside swiftly and make way for civilian rule.

The U.S. ambassador to Cairo, Anne Patterson, congratulated Egyptians “on what appeared to be a very large turnout on this very historic occasion.” British ambassador James Watt told Reuters the election was “an important milestone in Egypt’s democratic transition” that seemed to have gone smoothly so far.

SEGREGATED VOTING

In Alexandria and elsewhere, men and women voted in separate queues, a reminder of the conservative religious fabric of Egypt’s mainly Muslim society, where Coptic Christians comprise 10 percent of a population of more than 80 million.

Myriad parties have emerged since the fall of Mubarak, who fixed elections to ensure his now-defunct National Democratic Party dominated parliament. The NDP’s headquarters, torched in the popular revolt, still stands like a tombstone by the Nile.

Individual winners are to be announced Wednesday, but many contests will go to a run-off vote on December 5. List results will not be declared until after the election ends on January 11.

About 17 million Egyptians are eligible to vote in the first two-day phase of three rounds of polling for the lower house.

Egyptians seemed enthused by the novelty of a vote where the outcome was, for a change, not a foregone conclusion.

“It’s easy to predict this will be a higher turnout than any recent election in Egypt,” said Les Campbell, of the Washington-based National Democratic Institute. “We are seeing clear signs of voter excitement and participation.”

The army council has promised civilian rule by July after the parliamentary vote and a presidential poll, now expected in June—much sooner than previously envisaged.

But one of its members said Sunday the new parliament could not remove a cabinet appointed by the army.

Kamal Ganzouri, named by the army Friday to form a new government, said he had met the ruling army council Monday to discuss setting up a “civilian advisory committee” to work with his new cabinet, which he said could be unveiled by Thursday.

Polling day calm was reflected on financial markets battered by this month’s unrest. The cost of insuring Egyptian debt edged lower, with five-year credit default swaps slipping 10 basis points to 539. The Egyptian pound, which last week hit its lowest point since January 2005, held steady.

Additional reporting by Edmund Blair, Maha El Dahan and Tom Perry in Cairo, Marwa Awad in Alexandria, Shaimaa Fayed in Damietta, Yusri Mohamed in Port Said and Jonathan Wright in Fayoum; Writing by Alistair Lyon; Editing by Peter Millership

Egpyt’s post-Mubarak poll peaceful, high turnout Read More »