fbpx

December 1, 2011

This week in power: 2012 election, Egypt, Stripsearch, Kobe Bryant

A roundup of the most talked about political and global stories in the Jewish world this week:

Eying the election
With Rep. Barney Frank, a popular Jewish politician for the past 30 days, ” title=”http://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/opinion/fl-jjps-ettinger-1130-20111129,0,3669807.story”>syndicated column. While Israel remains a ” title=”http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/theslant/blog/2011/11/obama_and_me.html”>said Elazar Hiller in the Florida’s Sun-Sentinel. Florida will remain a battleground state all the way through, and Vice President Joe Biden is making his ” title=”http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/1129/1224308279761.html”>according to reports. “We are witnessing an Islamist wave washing over the Arab world after decades of stable military rule,” Binyamin Netanyahu said. “We are facing uncertain times. One cannot estimate how long it will take until things stabilise. We must act responsibly and carefully. This is not the time for rash actions.” And this unrest is sparking new disputes at the Temple Mount. “If there is to be any hope for peace between Israel and its neighbors it will have to wait until there is a sea change in the political culture of a Muslim world still stuck in their irrational hatred for the Jews,” ” title=”http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-holds-anti-semetic-rally-draws-thousands-cairo-top-mosque-vowing-day-kill-jews-article-1.982830?localLinksEnabled=false”>fear is there?

A controversial stripsearch
Israel apologized on Monday after officials had ” title=”http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/84337/israel%E2%80%99s-infuriating-treatment-of-lynsey-addario/”>said Allison Hoffman at Tablet. “This, from a country that treats women’s fertility and prenatal health as a paramount public policy issue.” Joe Klein at TIME agreed: “This is completely outrageous, of course. It is another indication that Israel has been brutalized by its occupation of Arab territories since 1967. For those of us who feel strongly about the need for Israel to exist–especially those of us who love the place, warts and all–this incident is yet another reason to fear for Israel’s future,” ” title=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/a-jewish-thanksgiving-blessing/2011/11/24/gIQAwz6vrN_blog.html”>said Rabbi David Wolpe in The Washington Post. He’s not the only one reflecting on the meaning of the holiday season. “It’s true that Judaism provides ample opportunities outside of this non-Jewish holiday to recognize our spiritual and familial selves. It has often been noted that the Jewish festival of Sukkot has several elements in common with the multifaith holiday of Thanksgivin,” ” title=”http://blogs.jpost.com/content/do-i-hate-america”>said Rivkah Lambert Adler in the Jerusalem Post. You can take your mind off wondering if Twilight is actually a ” title=”http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-28/sports/30449426_1_jewish-roots-stoudemire-hebrew-school”>rumors that Amar’e Stoudemire is considering opening a Hebrew school. Then, we got word that Kobe Bryant, trying to get into shape for the upcoming NBA season, was ” title=”http://ca.shalomlife.com/culture/16252/kobe-bryants-private-training-session-at-jcc/”>said Ashley Baylen at Shalom Life. What’s next: LeBron James in Tefillin?

This week in power: 2012 election, Egypt, Stripsearch, Kobe Bryant Read More »

Are Mormons Any Weirder Than the Rest of Us?

I have watched with mild amusement as the debate surrounding the beliefs of Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman have gained steam. Aren’t the Mormons weird fanatics? Should we trust people who have such strange beliefs with high office?

This is an interesting question coming from my Evangelical brothers and sisters, whose belief that a man, born of a virgin, was the son of God, only to die on a cross, and then be resurrected — a belief that is, with all due respect, not exactly the most rational belief either. It is equally interesting coming from Orthodox Jews, like myself, who believe that the Red Sea split, a donkey talked to Balaam, and the sun stood still for Joshua.

But it is equally strange coming from evolutionists like Richard Dawkins who have said, without a single shred of evidence, that life on our planet may have been seeded by space aliens. Even those evolutionists who reject Dawkins’ faith in extraterrestrial life have a belief system of their own, namely, that intelligent life somehow evolved capriciously and accidentally from inorganic matter, even though the possibility of complex organisms evolving without guidance is mathematically nearly impossible. This is how Julian Huxley, who stemmed from the world’s most famous family of evolutionary proponents, put the probability of the evolution of a horse: “A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound like much, but is probably generous … and a total of a million mutational steps sounds a great deal, but is probably an understatement. … With this proportion, we should clearly have to breed a million strains (a thousand squared) to get one containing two favorable mutations, and so on, up to a thousand to the millionth power to get one containing a million. … No one would bet on anything so improbable happening …  And yet it has happened!” Yes, even men of science can believe things that can be construed as highly irrational.

Now, do I believe that Joseph Smith found ancient tablets written in reformed Egyptian in upstate New York, that Jesus Christ appeared to the people of South America as recorded in the Book of Mormon, or that when a Mormon dies he becomes a god and gets his own planet? No. Respectfully, I do not. Nor should it matter. It is what a person does, rather than what he believes, that counts. It took four years for the Dalai Lama to be identified as the reincarnation of his predecessor in a process that to Western eyes can appear highly arbitrary. Yet, the Dalai Lama remains one of the most respected men alive because of his commitment to world peace and good works.

Misguided attacks on groups like the Mormons stem from a willful desire on the part of many to fraudulently identify people with a different faith system as fanatics and, therefore, a brief discussion of religious fundamentalism is in order.

The most confusing story of the Bible involves God’s commandment to Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. What was the God who would later declare that all human — and especially child — sacrifice to be an abomination, thinking?

The most insightful commentary I have seen on this story comes from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, who says that the key to the story is to see Isaac not as an individual but as a religion. Who was Isaac? He was Judaism. He was the person who would continue Abraham’s belief system. With his death, everything that Abraham had taught in terms of his rejection of paganism and the belief in one God would be lost.

The test, therefore, was this: Would Abraham follow God’s commandment to kill off his religion or would he put his religion before God’s will? What really mattered to Abraham? God or Judaism? And if they were to be put in conflict, what would he choose? The religious fanatic is the man or woman who has ceased to serve God and has begun worshipping his or her religion, making that faith into yet another false idol. Religion is solely the means by which we come to have a relationship with our Creator. But when it becomes a substitute for God, it becomes soulless and fanatical, seeing as there is no loving deity to temper it. It is in this light that we can understand why an Islamic fundamentalist is so deadly: In order to strike a blow for the glory, not of the deity, but of Islam, he is even prepared to go against God’s express commandment not to murder.

Hence, our concern need not be with a person’s faith in public office. It does not matter if he or she is Jewish, Evangelical, Mormon or Muslim. What does matter is whether the person’s faith is focused on relating to God and, by extension, caring for God’s children, or whether that person sees the purpose of his or her high station to promote a particular religion. It is easy to identify the difference. People who are in a relationship with God are humble and do their utmost to refrain from judging others. Their proximity to a perfect being reminds them of their own fallibility. Their experience of God’s compassion leads them to be merciful and loving. But those who worship a religion are arrogant and think they have the only truth. They are dismissive of other people’s beliefs and maintain that advancing the cause of their religion is more important than life itself. The rabbi in Israel who recently made the strange comment that soldiers should face a firing squad rather than listen to a woman sing is a classic example of this heresy.

Those who worship their religion evince the classic characteristic of cult members. Whereas a real faith system is empowering and makes one strong and capable of operating outside one’s own faith community, cult members can only identify with other members of their group and require the environment of the cult in order to function. They don’t have beliefs. Rather, they take orders.

I see none of these characteristics in Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman — who graciously hosted me along with my guest, Elie Wiesel, in the governor’s mansion in Utah a few years back — or any of my countless other Mormon friends. All should be judged on their merits as people and politicians, whatever their faith and whatever their beliefs.

Are Mormons Any Weirder Than the Rest of Us? Read More »

Arguing Zionism

“I came to see a clash!” the man bellowed from the back of the audience. “Instead, all I’m seeing tonight is two people getting along.” The man’s out-burst unleashed a mini-clash of its own, as I rudely interrupted him to ask: “Excuse me, Sir, have you and I been watching the same event? I have clashed with my friend Chaim here on a number of important issues.”

At that point, Chaim himself interrupted me to weigh in, while our moderator, Rabbi David Wolpe, seemingly enjoying this impromptu show of emotions, said something to the effect of, “Take it away, guys.”

It was a scene right out of a Tom Wolfe novel — people clashing over the very idea of clashing, in front of a lively community audience trying to make sense of the spontaneous eruption.

It was also a good way to cap the evening’s debate between Rabbi Chaim Seidler-Feller and me at Sinai Temple in Westwood, which had been billed as “Toward a Renewal of the Zionist Idea.”

The truth is, Chaim and I did clash. He spoke first, giving a passionate and somewhat pessimistic appraisal of the state of Zionism today and offering a number of prescriptions for the renewal of the “dream.”

As some of you might know, Chaim is a good friend. I know how much he loves Israel and how deeply Zionism runs in his blood.

Maybe that’s why I was disturbed by his presentation. There was a negativity in his tone, a sense of deep disappointment. “We’ve lost the dream,” he kept saying. While he certainly included some positive points about Israel, as well as some important suggestions no one could argue with (such as the need for stronger Jewish connection and better education), the general take-away of his presentation was alarmist: Zionism is in deep trouble, and for it to survive, we need “a new Zionism.”

When it was my turn to speak, I discarded most of my notes and pushed back against what I saw as Chaim’s exaggerated alarmism. “Zionism is and always was an argument,” I said. Long before the creation of Israel, Zionism had a bitter history of ideological conflict. Those conflicts were never resolved; they are still playing out today — only now, they’re playing out in a real nation, not a theoretical one.

The greatness of the Zionist story, and, for that matter, of Judaism itself, is that it doesn’t resolve its epic conflicts. The Zionism of “refuge” is still clashing today with the Zionism of Jewish values, the Zionism of Hebrew culture, the Zionism of religion, the Zionism of socialism, the Zionism of land, the Zionism of liberalism and the Zionism of the Messiah.

Considering that each Zionism owns a piece of “the truth,” how realistic is it to stand up today and claim that this or that Zionism ought to win the day?

It is the image of Zionism that is in deep trouble, I said. Our enemies have succeeded in turning Zionism into an evil and contaminated brand, and, subsequently, too many of us have come to see the word itself as a source of shame or something to avoid.

That is the real tragedy. The Jewish community hasn’t been able to find a way to argue about Zionism in a way that would honor its complexity, nourish its evolution and make it a source of Jewish pride.

Under the guise of “tough love,” self-professed Zionists like Peter Beinart launch blistering, one-sided and bitter attacks on the liberal “failures” of Zionism, thus exacerbating the global perception that Zionism is a poisonous and failed enterprise worthy of the harshest condemnations.

While the “tough love” attackers focus mostly on the half-empty part of the glass, the “pure love” defenders make their own mistakes by focusing mostly on the half-full part.

With both sides screaming past each other, there is little room for Zionist critics who look lovingly at the whole glass, with all its conflicts and imperfections, but also all its wonders and accomplishments.

Zionism might be messy, I told the audience, but just as every democracy is a work in progress, Zionism is a “mess in progress.” Over-the-top criticism à la Beinart sets fires rather than sheds light. Enriching the Zionist conversation requires nuance, context, historical narrative, strategic insights and, when it’s called for, loving rebuke — what Rabbi David Hartman calls “the love of a mother, not of a mother-in-law.”

On the subject at hand, Chaim and I agree on a lot of things, but we do have our honest differences. In essence, his priority is to help remake Zionism in his ideal image, while mine is to highlight the complex struggles and debates that already exist. He critiques the state of Zionism; I critique the virulent criticism. He wants to help fix a problem; I want to help rehabilitate a perception.

It was obvious at our debate that we are both deeply loving of the Zionist movement. We might have chosen different ways of expressing that love, but what’s wrong with that? We’re different people, with different upbringings and different personalities.

In any event, our friendly and respectful tone apparently disappointed the man in the back of the hall who “came looking for a clash.”

All I can say is, you missed a really good argument, my friend.

David Suissa is president of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal and can be reached at davids@jewishjournal.com.

Arguing Zionism Read More »

On Iran, one voice

I don’t know who will win the presidential election in 2012, but I know whom I don’t want to win it: Iran.

Yet I have a sickening sense that come next November, after two years of a nasty, slimy mud-wrestling match, the Democratic and Republican candidates will be left bruised and panting on the floor and the mullahs will walk away with the prize. 

That prize is an American electorate riven and confused about the Iranian nuclear threat and what to do about it.

The leading Republican candidates have already made clear that Iran is the devil’s playground when it comes to Campaign 2012.

“If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon,” Republican candidate Mitt Romney said in a speech in Spartanburg, S.C., last week. “And if we elect Mitt Romney, if you’d like me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon.” 

Romney is accusing President Obama of refusing to consider a military option against Iran. That is certainly damning. Except it’s not true. 

“We are not taking any options off the table,” Obama said as recently as Nov. 14 in Hawaii (and on other occasions). “Iran with nuclear weapons would pose a threat not only to the region, but also to the United States.”

Romney’s distortion of Obama’s record is not a mistake; it’s a plan. His advisor Daniel Senor acknowledged as much to the Huffington Post this week. 

From the Romney campaign’s perspective, I can see the temptation. It is hard to paint Obama as weak or indecisive on defense when the guy has more kill notches on his belt than Josey Wales. And Romney can’t well pick a fight over Chinese currency valuation because, well, who understands that? 

That leaves, in Romney’s mind, Iran. And if by painting Obama as ineffectual on Iran Romney can also pick off a few Jewish voters in Nevada and Florida, so much the better. 

But Senor, who co-wrote the terrific book “Start-Up Nation” with Saul Singer, should know better. In fact, his understanding of the Iranian situation as described in the interview with HuffPo is almost identical to what Obama has been saying. “Iran is a unique kind of threat. … It directly and unambiguously threatens core American interests: the security of the American homeland, the security of our access to vital resources in the Gulf and the security of America’s close ally, Israel.”

I’m not arguing that Obama’s Iran policy has been flawless. He fumbled badly by not doing more to support the June uprisings by the Iranian people who sought to topple the current regime. If Romney can convince me that he would have had the wisdom and experience to be more effective under those same circumstances, I’m all ears.

But I do think Obama deserves credit for focusing more of our attention on Iran, and more productively, than his predecessor.

Lost in all this partisan chatter are three facts: Iran’s nuclear program leapt forward while the Bush administration was otherwise engaged in Iraq. Under the Bush administration, the National Security Estimate downgraded the potential threat of Iran’s nuclear program. And it was the Bush administration that refused Israel’s request in 2008 for stronger bunker-busting bombs and for permission to fly over Iraq on a mission to destroy the Natanz reactor. 

Obama’s policy on Iran’s nuclear program has been more forceful and more focused.

“When I came into office, the world was divided, and Iran was unified around its nuclear program,” Obama said in a speech earlier this month. “We now have a situation where the world is united and Iran is isolated. And because of our diplomacy and our efforts, we have, by far, the strongest sanctions on Iran that we’ve ever seen.” 

This week, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak seemed to buttress Obama’s contention in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria. After reiterating the dangers a nuclear Iran poses to Israel and the region, Barak offered his assessment of Obama. 

“He is extremely strong supporter of Israel in regard to its security,” Barak said. “Traditionally, the president will support Israel in keeping its collective military edge and taking care of its security needs. But this administration is excelling in this. And it could not have happened without the immediate direct support of the president. So I don’t think that anyone can raise any question mark about the devotion of this president to the security of Israel.”

Even in an election year, there are times we need to present a united front against clear dangers.

On Sept. 24, 2008, as the tanking economy presented a national threat, then-candidate Obama and the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, issued a joint statement backing the Bush administration’s initial recovery plan.

“Now is a time to come together — Democrats and Republicans — in a spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people,” they said. “This is a time to rise above politics for the good of the country. We cannot risk an economic catastrophe. ”

If Romney and Obama really believe a nuclear Iran would be a catastrophe, they can prove it by speaking in a united voice.

Imagine — instead of finger pointing for political points — the power of a unified statement from Romney and Obama on Iran’s nuclear program. That would marginalize the isolationist Ron Paul wing on the right and the knee-jerk Israel-is-behind-it-all wing on the left. It would send a signal to world leaders that no matter who wins in November, the sanctions against Iran will endure. And it will let the mullahs know that no matter who wins in November, they lose.

On Iran, one voice Read More »

Is the bookstore dead?

On Dec. 31, when the Barnes & Noble at the corner of Pico and Westwood boulevards closes its doors for the last time, the “people of the book” and everyone else who lives on the Westside of Los Angeles will move one step closer to becoming the “people without a bookstore.”

“Are you serious?” asked Danielle Villapando, who was at the store with her family one evening last month. Villapando used to shop at the three Borders bookstores that had been located nearby — that chain went bankrupt last July. Villapando, who was in Barnes & Noble to pick up the newest “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” book for her 7-year-old son, knew what this store’s closure meant: No more trips to bookstores.

“There’s the one in Marina del Rey near Costco, but I’m not driving all the way there,” Villapando said. “Plus, it’s not nearly this big.” One also remains in Santa Monica.

But on Jan. 1, for the first time in recent memory, no major corporate bookseller will exist in the swath of Los Angeles between the coastal cities and The Grove.

“With no more bookstores in West Los Angeles, we are going to be relegated to a literature-less existence,” said Lee Shapiro, who was at Barnes & Noble on a recent evening. He had come with his wife, Miki, to look at books about landscape design.

The truth is, “literature-less” is something of an overstatement. For bookish folks in the area — including many Jewish residents who, on the whole, buy as many, if not more, books than the average consumer — four independent bookshops stand at the ready to help all comers, including two general-interest bookshops (Book Soup on Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood and Diesel in Brentwood), a children’s bookstore (Children’s Book World on Pico Boulevard) and the UCLA campus bookstore.

Still, it’s a major shift in just a few months. So how did this come to be?

For Howard Davidowitz, who has been following the book retailing business for 30 years, the question is a no-brainer with a one-word answer: Amazon.

Davidowitz is chairman of Davidowitz & Associates, a retail consulting and investment-banking firm headquartered in New York. Amazon, he said, began to take bigger and bigger chunks of the book market at precisely the moment when people started cutting down on the number of books they were reading overall. Of those still reading books, Davidowitz said, an ever-growing number have moved to e-books — most of them bought from Amazon for its e-reader, the Kindle. And many of the folks who do buy books in print are buying them online — if not from Amazon, then from some other Web-based retailer.

Amazon was, in short, a triple whammy for traditional bookstores. Borders, Davidowitz said, didn’t dedicate major resources to Web-based retailing and digital reading, and went bust as a result.

“Barnes & Noble is still alive because they did the Nook,” Davidowitz said, referring to the electronic reader developed by the last remaining national chain of brick-and-mortar booksellers.

The Barnes & Noble bookstore at Pico and Westwood boulevards, scheduled to close on Dec. 31.

Davidowitz’s account of the slow demise of the book business is convincing, particularly when it comes to the rise of digital reading. In May of this year, Amazon announced that it had sold more e-books for its Kindle e-reader than printed books — and that was before the company released the newest generation of the device, the Kindle Fire, in November. Today, Barnes & Noble stores are filled with advertisements for the company’s own e-reader-turned-tablet computer, the Nook Tablet.

But even if digital reading is the future, it’s not clear how much of these companies’ current revenues come from the sales of e-books and readers. Amazon, which didn’t provide sales data with its announcement earlier this year, prices some of its e-books as low as 99 cents and, according to a recent report, is selling the Kindle Fire at a small loss in an effort to lure customers into buying it.

Barnes & Noble’s Web-based retailing and digital reading businesses are growing, but according to Peter Wahlstrom, a consumer analyst who covers the bookseller for investment research firm Morningstar, that side of the company “isn’t profitable at this point.”

“The bread and butter, where they still make a lot of their money, is on the individual books that are not bestsellers,” Wahlstrom said, adding that the typical customer often comes in without a specific title in mind. 

Which may help explain why Mitchell Klipper, the CEO of Barnes & Noble stores, said that the reason his company is shuttering the Pico-Westwood store — which has operated, apparently successfully, in that location for more than 15 years — can be boiled down to a single word: Rent.

“We don’t like closing stores,” Klipper said of the 28,000-square-foot retail space, which includes a cafe with a killer view straight up Westwood Boulevard. “If the rent was lower, we wouldn’t be leaving.”

Those who know the book business know that at one time, major booksellers might have been able to count on a big break in rent from a mall owner.

Doug Dutton, the owner of the former Dutton’s bookstore in Brentwood, remembers how it worked, perhaps to his disadvantage. His store was a home for book lovers from the time it opened, in 1984, until it closed — to the great dismay of many Angelenos — in 2008. “I can’t say that in my negotiations I necessarily got a better deal,” Dutton said. But in the 1990s, “when Barnes & Noble and Borders were sort of duking it out with one another, I understood that there were some very lovely sweetheart deals being offered to both in order to get them into a retail area.”

Rachel Rosenberg, executive vice president at RKF, a commercial real-estate broker specializing in retail sales and leasing, confirmed what Dutton had heard.

“Absolutely,” she said. “These tenants were major draws.” This was, Rosenberg explained, in part because unlike the department stores that also occupy very large spaces in shopping centers, Borders and Barnes & Noble weren’t selling clothes.

“It’s just like putting a grocer to anchor a project, or a gym,” Rosenberg said, mentioning the businesses that today have begun occupying large retail spaces at shopping centers, bringing people in on a weekly, or even daily, basis. “Bookstores were once that. It was a go-to.”

So, did the Westside Pavilion just stop offering a “sweetheart deal” to its longtime tenant? It’s hard to say, because all that Barnes & Noble’s Klipper would offer was that he imagines the new tenant — a furniture store, called Urban Home, which is scheduled to open in summer 2012 — “paid probably double what we paid.”

Since nobody involved in the deal will disclose exact numbers, it’s equally possible that large bookstores like Barnes & Noble — despite their high traffic — have just become less- or unprofitable. “What I can tell you,” said Ryan Hursh, senior property manager at the Westside Pavilion, “is our real estate department worked with Barnes & Noble’s real estate department and tried to come to an agreement. But, in the end, it was Barnes & Noble’s decision to leave the property.”

Is the bookstore dead? Read More »

Occupy L.A.: Cute, then not so much

It was shortly after midnight on Wednesday morning when it happened. Occupy L.A. was shut down. Given that L.A. was one of the last active occupations in a major city, the Occupy movement – at least in encampment form – seems to be dying down.

Despite the string of Occupier evictions in multiple major cities, conversation about Occupy continues.

That’s because everybody has an opinion about the Occupy movements. It’s just one of those things. A co-worker, following an office birthday party, said that she believed in what the Occupiers were doing.

Another co-worker said he was bothered by what happened at UC Davis, where, in mid-November, a police officer used an obscene amount of pepper spray on college students who were demonstrating peacefully in solidarity with the nationwide Occupy movements.

My doctor said a couple of weeks ago that Occupy was by far the most exciting thing happening in this country.

An employee at 24 Hour Fitness told me she thought that the Occupiers weren’t accomplishing anything and needed to find jobs.

My favorite – and I don’t mean that sarcastically – commentary was from writer Matt Taibbi, who wrote in Rolling Stone that he didn’t understand the Occupy movement at first, but he eventually realized that the people camping out were showing that it’s possible to drop out of society for a little bit.

Dropping out of society – if only for a little bit. Reminds me of the 1985 Albert Brooks film, “Lost in America,” in which Brooks plays an advertising guy who is overlooked for a promotion he feels he deserves and decides to drop out of society – if only for a little bit. He convinces his wife it’s a good idea, and they take off in a camper across the country. The idea’s cute, only until it isn’t. Their first stop is Vegas, where Brooks’ wife loses all their money in a blackjack game.

There are probably plenty of people who believe – Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa apparently one of them –  that the Occupy Los Angeles movement was a good thing when it first sprang up at the beginning of October, starting with a march that took off from Pershing Square. The protestors’ ideals, slogans– “We are the 99%” being the most famous – were catchy and spoke to the hearts of people making up the 99%—everybody except the uber-wealthy in this country. Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution, in fact, in support of the Occupy L.A. movement, and Villaraigosa was quoted in support of it. That’s why Occupy L.A. supporters have filed a lawsuit against the city, claiming it’s their right to be there, following the mayor’s announcement that the site must be cleared. On Wednesday, LAPD evicted all of the L.A. Occupiers, making 200 to 300 arrests, a few hours after police in Philadelphia shut down the encampment there. (The Occupy camps in New York, Oakland, Detroit and St. Louis were also recently shut down, according to the New York Times.)

What changed? Why did city officials suddenly decide they didn’t want Occupy L.A. around? Why did the movement’s idea of dropping out seem sweet at the beginning and become tiresome to city officials as it continued on for eight weeks?

According to the Los Angeles Times, the mayor decided to close the camp when learning there were children sleeping there; the Times also reported that the camp’s method of reaching decisions – by unanimous agreement – made it impossible to negotiate with them.

The police showed restraint during an early morning raid on Monday, Nov. 28, but Ben Zandpour, a spiky-haired and friendly Occupy L.A. participant, said it was only because the mayor has post-mayoral political ambitions.

Maybe the trajectory of the city’s response – first love, then hate – was calculated.

On Nov. 9, I went to a rally at Occupy and had the fortune of meeting Sam Slovick, who has written for the L.A. Weekly and lived at Occupy L.A. for weeks, writing about it at samslovick.com). Slovick said that LAPD’s initial “love-fest” were a “tactic” and they would eventually turn on the activists.

It looks like Slovick’s prediction – nearly three weeks before the shut-down – was dead-on. Why exactly it happened this way, I don’t have the answer—but the way it went down reinforced what Brooks’ character learned: dropping out ain’t easy.

Occupy L.A.: Cute, then not so much Read More »

The Minister of Absorption vs. American Jewish “foolishness”

Israeli Minister of Immigrant Absorption Sofa Landver is furious. How can anyone not like the campaign aimed at bringing back emigrant Israelis? How can anyone not understand its true motivation and meaning?

Yes, she heard that there’s a growing amount of criticism directed at this campaign (I wrote about it yesterday). She heard about the Jewish Channel report, and about Jeffrey Goldberg’s harshly disapproving post. Her office is in charge of the advertisement campaign in a couple of American communities “that warn Israeli expatriates that they will lose their identities if they don’t return home”, as Goldberg described it, or to “call on Israeli emigrants to come back home”, as the minister describes it.

Goldberg wrote: “I don’t think I have ever seen a demonstration of Israeli contempt for American Jews as obvious as these ads”. And she says: Do I really have to respond to such “foolishness”?

Landver later calls the criticism (while not mentioning Goldberg by name, it’s obvious she’s aiming mostly at him – and in that regard, maybe this post’s headline is a bit of a stretch) “out of touch”, and “tzimmes”, and talks about a “journalist with zero understanding”. As I’ve said, she is angry. Every journalist, she tells me, “needs to have some intelligence”. (Post continues below video clip)

I spent a fair amount of time on the phone with the minister this morning, and I’m afraid to say that she doesn’t quite get it. She doesn’t understand why anyone would be upset with the ads and the videos and the message. “We took upon ourselves to try and connect with Israelis abroad, this has nothing to do with American Jews for which I have the highest respect”, she said. The American Jewish community is “dear to our hearts”, she tells me, but at the same time, it’s not her issue of concern. “Minister Edelstein (Yuli Edelstein, Minister of Information and Diaspora) is the one who needs to communicate with the Jewish Community”, she says. “I’m in charge of returning Israelis”.

That is one bureaucratic explanation that wouldn’t fly with critical American Jews. The minister, though, finds it hard to believe that many such critics exist. She’d agree with the report in the Boston Globe, three weeks ago, in which it was explained that “The message of the Cambridge billboard… is that Israelis who linger too long in the Diaspora risk losing their Jewish roots”. Israelis – not American Jews. In fact, this position of the minister does make sense: Second and third generation Israeli emigrants are in higher danger of assimilation that American Jews in general, because they often lack the ties to a strong and vibrant Jewish community.

She didn’t expect all this criticism, and up until two days ago was very happy with the campaign (she says she’s still happy with it). Her bottom line: The response from Israelis is great, “more than one hundred thousand” have looked at the videos on the ministry’s website in the first week (her spokesperson later gave me the current number: 155,000). We managed to “touch all the right emotional buttons”, she says. That is, the right Israeli buttons. The Israeli government had made the decision to try and lure more Israelis to come back in May 2010, and 14,000 have since responded to the call and returned, according to data provided by the ministry. “How would you like us to highlight all those things important to Israelis” without doing such a campaign, without arguing that being away from Israel might cause one to lose their identity?

During the conversation it was quite clear that Landver doesn’t bother to make the nuanced distinction between “Israeli” and “Jewish” identity. “We wanted to address the things that every Jew feels”, she says. Well, obviously it is not “every” Jew. Yet again – as I wrote yesterday – this little misunderstanding is a contemporary manifestation of the tension created by the classical Zionist position on relations between Jews in Israel and Jews in the Diaspora. It was always a point of disagreement between the two greatest contemporary Jewish communities.

 

The Minister of Absorption vs. American Jewish “foolishness” Read More »

Barak: No strike on Iran anytime soon

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Thursday an Israeli attack on Iran is not imminent but all options remain open to stop what Israel sees as an Iranian bid to develop nuclear weapons.

“We have no intention, at the moment, of taking action, but the State of Israel is far from being paralyzed by fear,” Barak told Israel Radio. “It must act calmly and quietly—we don’t need big wars.”

Iran says its nuclear energy program is wholly peaceful.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog, citing intelligence reports, said last month Iran appeared to have worked on designing an atom bomb and may still be pursuing secret research to that end.

Barak was interviewed a day after the top U.S. military officer said he did not know whether Israel would alert the United States ahead of time if it decided to strike Iran, the Jewish state’s arch-adversary in the Middle East.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also acknowledged differences in perspective between the United States and Israel over the best way to handle Iran and its nuclear program.

Dempsey said the United States was convinced that sanctions and diplomatic pressure were the right ways to take on Iran, along with “the stated intent not to take any options off the table”—diplomatic language that leaves open the possibility of future military action.

“I’m not sure the Israelis share our assessment of that. And because they don’t and because to them this is an existential threat, I think probably that it’s fair to say that our expectations are different right now,” Dempsey told Reuters.

Iran is facing new sanctions following the U.N. report.

In the radio interview, Barak said “Israel would be very glad if sanctions and diplomacy could bring the Iranian leadership to a clear decision to abandon its nuclear military program.”

But, “unfortunately, I think that is not going to happen.”

Asked about Dempsey’s remarks, Barak said Israel “greatly respects the United States” and maintained a continuous dialogue with its main ally on security issues.

“But one must remember that ultimately, Israel is a sovereign nation and the Israeli government, defense forces and security services—not others—are responsible for Israel’s security, future and existence,” Barak said.

“Certainly, a non-diplomatic option is the last option, and I think everyone agrees with the fact that all options are on the table,” the Israeli defense chief said.

Dempsey, asked directly whether Israel would alert the United States ahead of time if it chose to go forward with military action against Iran, replied flatly: “I don’t know.”

Last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta raised American concerns about the unintended consequences of any military action against Iran during talks with Barak at a security forum in Canada.

Those include U.S. fears about fallout on the world economy and that a strike would only delay—not derail—an Iranian nuclear program whose known sites are widely dispersed and fortified against attack.

The Islamic Republic has warned that it will respond to any attacks by hitting Israel, widely believed to be the Middle East’s only nuclear power, and U.S. interests in the Gulf.

Additional reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Mark Heinrich

Barak: No strike on Iran anytime soon Read More »