fbpx

January 18, 2012

Turkish Jews celebrate country’s Eurovision pick, but singer would prefer quiet about his religion

Turkey’s Jews are pleased as can be that for the first time, a Jew will be representing their country at the Eurovision song contest.

But the singer, Can Bonomo, isn’t exactly trumpeting his accomplishment – at least not the Jewish part.

“We would like to inform that Mr. Can Bonomo is bound to refuse answering all the questions about his religious beliefs, anti-Semitism and political subjects,” Bonomo’s spokesman, Ece Kahraman, wrote in a statement to JTA.

Bonomo has taken pains to tell fans that he will be participating in Eurovision as a Turk, not as a Jew.

“My family came from Spain 540 years ago,” Bonomo said in an interview on the “Aksam” news show in a video posted Jan. 11 that has gone viral. “I am Turkish and I am representing Turkey, I will go out there with the Turkish flag and represent Turkey. I am an artist, a musician. That’s all that everybody needs to know.”

Prior to his appearance on “Aksam,” radical right-wing papers had accused Bonomo of being a tool of Zionists and Freemasons.

The way in which the anchor framed her question in the interview probably didn’t put him at ease.

“People might say you were chosen because Turkey wants to ingratiate itself with Israeli lobby groups,” she said. “I would like to get your comments.”

The intimation that the state-run Turkish Radio and Television Corp., which makes the Eurovision selection, would kowtow to pro-Israel groups seems a little bizarre with Turkey’s moderate Islamist government doing its best to distance itself from Israel. One of the string of crises that fueled the current tensions between the two countries, in fact, was the broadcast in 2010 on state-run TV of a drama series that portrayed Israelis as harvesting organs from Iraqis.

It is true that Bonomo’s selection for the contest, which is being held in May in Baku, Azerbaijan, has sparked a glint of hope among Turkey’s 20,000 Jews, who have watched anxiously as their country’s historically strong relations with Israel have deteriorated.

“It is the first time in history that a talented young Turkish Jewish singer will represent Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest,” Derya Agis, a scholar of Turkish Jewish culture and history at Brandeis University, wrote on her Facebook page. “Turkey will show the importance of diversity in Europe where anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia have been problems since centuries.”

Or, put a little less academically by Denise Saporta, a spokeswoman for Turkey’s Jewish community: “A Jewish boy is going to represent Turkey!” she told JTA. “We’re all very proud.”

Saporta downplayed the attacks on Bonomo, saying they were typical of political factions that deride minorities in general and are not representative of Turks.

“This always happens with ‘firsts,’ ” she said. “If he were anything other than a Sunni Muslim male – a woman, even – these media would attack.”

Going by his Facebook fan page, Bonomo has a solid following among Turks of all stripes. The video of the “Aksam” interview drew hundreds of comments in support.  One fan, Osman Kural, denounced the “radical, right wing agitprop” and said it “in no way represents all of the country.”

Bonomo, 24, oozes hip, from his retro caps and his blazer over T-shirt look. His Twitter biography describes him as “musician/illustrator/writer/drunk/bast'E'rd. (- Chill dude.).” (His facility with English is another factor riling Turkish ultranationalists.)

EuroVisionary, a Eurovision fan site, describes the singer-songwriter’s style as “Istanbulian music that works with tunes from Alaturca to international indie style” with the Shins, Wax Poetic, the Kinks, the Libertines and the Beatles listed by the site as his influences. His vocals incorporate the rising and falling quartertones typical of his country’s music, and are set against throbbing drums and guitar and oud riffs.

Should Bonomo, who was born in the coastal city of Izmir, decide one day to shuck off his hesitancy about his Jewish roots, he might discover how they informed his music.

Jewish cafe singers drew crowds in the 1920s and 1930s with their modernized versions of their parents’ aching and ancient Ladino love ballads. A number of their modern Israeli interpreters, including Hadass Pal-Yarden and Yasmin Levy, have taken their acts to Turkey and won acclaim.

Turkish Jews celebrate country’s Eurovision pick, but singer would prefer quiet about his religion Read More »

White House describes ‘progress’ in Jordan talks

The Obama administration heralded progress in Israeli-Palestinian talks held under Jordanian auspices.

“We believe that those talks offer the parties a real opportunity to make meaningful progress towards peace,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday ahead of a visit by Jordanian King Abdullah II. “So we support this progress, but we obviously recognize that there’s a long road to travel here to get to a final result.”

Israeli and Palestinian officials have said the talks have barely advanced since their launch in Amman earlier this month, with divisions on whether to freeze settlement building still deeply entrenched.

Later Tuesday, after a joint meeting, President Obama praised Abdullah for his role in cajoling the sides back to talks, which had been suspended since October 2010.

“We talked about the importance of us continuing to consult closely together to encourage the Palestinians and the Israelis to come back to the table and negotiate in a serious fashion a peaceful way forward,” he said. “And the Jordanians have taken great leadership on this issue, and we very much appreciate their direction on this issue.”

White House describes ‘progress’ in Jordan talks Read More »

Why we should attack Iran

[Counter-point: Why we should not bomb Iran]

This article has been adapted from an essay in the January/February 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

The United States and Iran are on a path toward direct armed conflict. In early October, U.S. officials accused Iranian operatives of planning to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States on American soil. In early January, Tehran sentenced to death an American citizen visiting family in Iran on charges of alleged espionage. And, over the past month, Tehran and Washington have exchanged military threats over the Strait of Hormuz, the vital Persian Gulf waterway through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply passes. These events have underscored the real and growing risk that the two sides could go to war sometime soon — particularly over Iran’s advancing nuclear program.

This article has been adapted from an essay in the January/February 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

For several years now, starting long before this episode, American pundits and policymakers have been debating whether the United States should attack Iran and attempt to eliminate its nuclear facilities. Proponents of a strike have argued that the only thing worse than military action against Iran would be an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Critics, meanwhile, have warned that such a raid would likely fail and, even if it succeeded, would spark a full-fledged war and a global economic crisis. They have urged the United States to rely on nonmilitary options, such as diplomacy, sanctions and covert operations, to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb. Fearing the costs of a bombing campaign, most critics maintain that if these other tactics fail to impede Tehran’s progress, the United States should simply learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

But skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease — that is, that the consequences of a U.S. assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.

DANGERS OF DETERRENCE

Years of international pressure have failed to halt Iran’s attempt to build a nuclear program. The Stuxnet computer worm, which attacked control systems in Iranian nuclear facilities, temporarily disrupted Tehran’s enrichment effort, but a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) this past May revealed that the targeted plants have fully recovered from the assault. And the latest IAEA findings on Iran, released in November, provided the most compelling evidence yet that the Islamic Republic has weathered sanctions and sabotage, allegedly testing nuclear triggering devices and redesigning its missiles to carry nuclear payloads. The Institute for Science and International Security, a nonprofit research institution, estimates that Iran could now produce its first nuclear weapon within six months of deciding to do so. Tehran’s plans to move sensitive nuclear operations into more secure facilities over the course of the coming year could reduce the window for effective military action even further. If Iran expels IAEA inspectors, begins enriching its stockpiles of uranium to weapons-grade levels of 90 percent, or installs advanced centrifuges at its uranium-enrichment facility in Qom, the United States must strike immediately or forfeit its last opportunity to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear club.

Some states in the region are doubting U.S. resolve to stop the program and are shifting their allegiances to Tehran. Others have begun to discuss launching their own nuclear initiatives to counter a possible Iranian bomb. For those nations and the United States itself, the threat will only continue to grow as Tehran moves closer to its goal. A nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East. With atomic power behind it, Iran could threaten any U.S. political or military initiative in the Middle East with nuclear war, forcing Washington to think twice before acting in the region. Iran’s regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia, would likely decide to acquire their own nuclear arsenals, sparking an arms race. To constrain its geopolitical rivals, Iran could choose to spur proliferation by transferring nuclear technology to its allies — other countries and terrorist groups alike. Having the bomb would give Iran greater cover for conventional aggression and coercive diplomacy, and the battles between its terrorist proxies and Israel, for example, could escalate. And, Iran and Israel lack nearly all the safeguards that helped the United States and the Soviet Union avoid a nuclear exchange during the Cold War — secure second-strike capabilities, clear lines of communication, long flight times for ballistic missiles from one country to the other, and experience managing nuclear arsenals. To be sure, a nuclear-armed Iran would not intentionally launch a suicidal nuclear war. But the volatile nuclear balance between Iran and Israel could easily spiral out of control as a crisis unfolds, resulting in a nuclear exchange between the two countries that could draw the United States in, as well.

These security threats would require Washington to contain Tehran. Yet deterrence would come at a heavy price. To keep the Iranian threat at bay, the United States would need to deploy naval and ground units and potentially nuclear weapons across the Middle East, keeping a large force in the area for decades to come. Alongside those troops, the United States would have to permanently deploy significant intelligence assets to monitor any attempts by Iran to transfer its nuclear technology. And it would also need to devote perhaps billions of dollars to improving its allies’ capability to defend themselves. This might include helping Israel construct submarine-launched ballistic missiles and hardened ballistic missile silos to ensure that it can maintain a secure second-strike capability. Most of all, to make containment credible, the United States would need to extend its nuclear umbrella to its partners in the region, pledging to defend them with military force should Iran launch an attack.

Why we should attack Iran Read More »

Australian Jewry slams broadcaster over Jewish portrayals in series

Australian Jewry’s umbrella body slammed a national broadcaster for screening a controversial TV series that it says “endorses and reinforces demeaning stereotypes about Jews.”

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry submitted a detailed 31-page document to the ombudsman of the Special Broadcasting Service alleging that “The Promise” breaches the broadcaster’s code because it portrays its Jewish characters as “variously cruel, violent, hateful, ruthless, unfeeling, amoral, treacherous, racist and/or hypocritical.”

The four-part drama, which screened in Australia late last year, follows a young British girl who retraces the steps of her grandfather who was a British soldier in Palestine in the 1940s.

The consistently negative portrayals of the Jewish characters in the British-made series made it comparable to the Nazi film “Jud Suss,” an anti-Jewish propaganda film produced in 1940 on orders of Joseph Goebbels,” the council claimed in its submission.

“The series shamelessly and persistently utilizes the anti-Semitic motif of the greedy Jew,” the submission said. “It is a landmark in the creeping rehabilitation of anti-Semitism in Western culture.”

Executive Council of Australian Jewry officials last week also formally requested that the promotion or sale of the DVD of the series should not be allowed until the ombudsman has ruled on the complaint.

An SBS spokesperson said it expected the complaint would be resolved before the Feb. 8 DVD release.

The TV drama, by Jewish writer-director Peter Kosminsky, also promoted outrage in Britain when it was screened last year. But despite receiving more than 40 complaints, the Office of Communications did not find that the series breached the code.

Australian Jewry slams broadcaster over Jewish portrayals in series Read More »

Goldman’s Islamic bond raises questions about sharia compliance

Interesting story from Reuters about the latest trouble for Goldman Sachs: Questions about whether their Islamic bonds are 100 percent halal. ” title=”hadnt before understood” target=”_blank”>hadn’t before understood. This article helps explain that it’s a little like having a hechsher approve that food is kosher. The key feature is that at least three sharia scholars advising a bond program must confirm that the bank is not charging interest.

But I still don’t understand how the program is then supposed to be profitable for the bank. Is it a matter of charging “fees for service” instead of “interest”?

Goldman’s Islamic bond raises questions about sharia compliance Read More »

Why we should not bomb Iran

[Counter-point: Why we should attack Iran]

In endorsing bombing Iran as a neat way to address Iran’s nuclear program, Matthew Kroenig makes the case that the theoretical nightmare of a nuclear Iran could be more or less eliminated, and that even if that can’t be fully accomplished, the bombing could buy time. But the logic of his argument does not acknowledge that the facts on the ground are not so clear.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran’s intentions with nuclear technology are not definitively known. Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Jan. 8, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made clear that he does not believe Iran is working on the bomb.

However, we do know, as Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in a recent column in The Atlantic, that a “potentially out-of-control conventional war raging across the Middle East” could “cost the lives of thousands of Iranians, Israelis, Gulf Arabs and even American servicemen.”

And that makes the decision against war a no-brainer. As Goldberg put it:

“Now that sanctions seem to be biting — in other words, now that Iran’s leaders understand the President’s seriousness on the issue — the Iranians just might be willing to pay more attention to proposals about an alternative course.”

That alternative course would be an attempt “to try one more time to reach out to the Iranian leadership in order to avoid a military confrontation over Tehran’s nuclear program.”

In short, dialogue.

The United States, to this day, has never attempted a true dialogue with Tehran. Even under President Barack Obama, all we have done is issue demands about its nuclear program and offer to meet to discuss precisely how the Iranians should comply with those demands.

That is not dialogue, and it’s not negotiation; it’s an ultimatum.

The one attempt at dialogue (i.e., a discussion that involves give and take by both sides) was initiated by the Iranian government in 2003. That was when it proposed, according to the Washington Post, “a broad dialogue with the United States … everything was on the table — including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.” In exchange, Iran wanted normalization of relations with the United States.

As is well known, the United States did not respond. Not a word. In fact, we chastised the Swiss intermediary who delivered the offer for having the temerity to do so.

It was the Unted States, not Iran, that spurned a process that could have led to improved relations.

Rather than diplomacy, we’ve pursued a policy of sanctions, which we escalate every time the war lobby demands them.

Why we should not bomb Iran Read More »

Two Palestinians planting bombs killed by Israeli troops

Two Palestinians were reported killed in an Israeli military strike near the Gaza border.

Israeli troops fired Wednesday on Palestinians that the Israeli military said were placing explosives near the border fence in order to harm or kidnap Israeli soldiers. Two other Palestinians were reported injured in the attack.

The explosives that were being planted also exploded during the attack, according to the Israel Defense Forces.

“The IDF will not tolerate any attempts to harm its civilians or Israel Defense Forces soldiers,” the IDF said in a statement, adding that it held Hamas responsible for violence emanating from Gaza.

Two Palestinians planting bombs killed by Israeli troops Read More »

Israel’s Yishai apologizes for saying soldiers do not have faith

Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai apologized for saying that Israel fell short in the Second Lebanon War because its soldiers did not have faith.

Yishai, amid calls for his removal from office, said Wednesday in a statement that his words were taken out of context and that only a small portion of his 15-minute speech, which was recorded, was played the previous day on Israel’s Channel 10 News.

“The quotes attributed to me were taken with intentional bias and are not correct,” said Yishai, who heads the Sephardic Orthodox Shas Party. “When people believe, it is clear to us that the victories in Israel’s wars depend on faith in the creator of the world.

“I apologize to all of the bereaved families whose sons gave their lives for the people and the land. The bereaved families and the fallen soldiers are holy to the people of Israel.”

Yishai had said earlier in the week in the remarks quoted by Channel 10 that the army was successful in the Six-Day War because every soldier and every Jew “raised their eyes to the creator” and prayed, and during the Second Lebanon War the soldiers only relied on their abilities.

“This is a great lesson,” Yishai had said. “When all Arab states are against the Jewish people, what will save the Jewish people is Torah study.”

Parents of soldiers who fell in the Second Lebanon War are sending a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanding that Yishai be removed from the Cabinet, The Jerusalem Post reported.

Israel’s Yishai apologizes for saying soldiers do not have faith Read More »

History lessons

Imagine you are a developing country in the heart of the Middle East. The entire world suspects you are starting to build nuclear weapons, but you deny it. The one country in the world that has the diplomatic, economic and military might to stop you — the United States of America — has made it clear, over at least three administrations, that it will not permit you to go nuclear. Fearful of its retaliation, you give your solemn promise that your nuclear development is entirely peaceful.

Within 10 years, you have two nuclear weapons.

To Israel’s supporters, the story of how a small country, against all odds, became a nuclear power is fascinating, an illustration of Israeli genius wedded to good old-fashioned chutzpah.

To Iranians, I fear, it’s instructive.

Most American Jews are not familiar with the history of Israel’s nuclear program. In part, that’s because many of the documents surrounding it weren’t declassified until recently. But it’s also because American Jews regard Israeli nukes the way America’s military treated gay soldiers: Don’t ask, don’t tell.

That’s too bad, because you can’t really understand Israeli history or geopolitics without an appreciation of Israel’s tremendous nuclear capabilities. And, by the way, you can’t make sense of what the Iranians are trying to get away with unless you understand how the Israelis already have.

Israel’s President Shimon Peres was the architect of the country’s nuclear program. The man whom today’s rightists love to disparage as a hopeless internationalist spent years cultivating French cooperation in Israel’s nuclear program.

The details of Peres’ mission are reported in Michael Bar-Zohar’s 2009 biography, “Shimon Peres,” based on what were then newly released documents. Other facts have come to light in interviews by journalists and military historians.

Peres began his quest in the aftermath of the 1956 Sinai Campaign, as the 33-year-old director-general of the Defense Ministry. A secret meeting between Peres and the French foreign and defense ministers in 1956 secured French cooperation in helping Israel develop nuclear weapons.

At the time, France itself was not a nuclear power, and Israel functioned as a kind of secondary development unit. It was French technicians who built the secret underground reactor in Dimona, in Israel’s Negev desert.

When a new French president, Charles de Gaulle, suspended cooperation, the Israelis convinced him to continue helping by promising not to use the nuclear power to make nuclear weapons.

President John F. Kennedy, too, adamantly opposed Israeli nuclear development. He feared it would lead the Soviets to introduce nukes into the region. Kennedy threatened to review the entire Israeli-American relationship unless the Israelis vowed not to develop weapons and allowed regular inspections.

Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion promised Kennedy that Dimona was for peaceful purposes and agreed to inspections.

But the Israelis only permitted the inspectors to visit above-ground control rooms, while the weapons development was taking place underground. For these visits, the control rooms were simulated and the elevators leading to the plutonium reprocessing plant below were bricked over.

The way Ben-Gurion saw it, if Israel intended only to use the nuclear arms for defensive purposes, they were not, technically, “weapons.”

When Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol made his first state visit to the White House on June 1, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson exacted yet another promise regarding Dimona. The briefing papers relate that Johnson told Eshkol that Israeli nukes “would have the gravest possible repercussions on U.S.-Israel relations.” Johnson also pressed Eshkol on Israel joining the International Atomic Energy Agency. “We can’t make Israel an exception, because we’re making 60 or so other clients of ours toe the line,” Johnson’s briefing book read.

The United States, Johnson reminded Eshkol, “is violently against nuclear proliferation.”

Eshkol, who pleaded with Johnson for American missiles, assured the president that Israel “was not engaged in nuclear weapons production.”

Back in the Negev, of the 50 American Hawk missiles Israel received, 25 were used to form a defensive shield around Dimona.

Meanwhile, through intense secret channels, Israel secured uranium from West Germany, heavy water from Norway and additional uranium from Argentina and South Africa.

Relations between Israel and the United States became so strained over the nuclear program that Israel’s ambassador urged Abba Eban, then the country’s U.N. representative, to avoid the General Assembly for fear of running into Secretary of State Dean Rusk and having to answer questions about Dimona.

Nevertheless, by 1967, just before the Six-Day War broke out, Israel had two nuclear devices. It became the sixth nation in the world to go nuclear.

By the time of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel’s nuclear weapons stockpile and advanced missile delivery system all but guaranteed that the United States would help Israel maintain its conventional weapons superiority so it would not be forced into a position of using its nuclear weapons.

Today, Israel is a country with advanced nuclear weapons capability, giving it a qualitative edge over its Arab — and Iranian — neighbors.

“Arabs may have the oil,” Ariel Sharon is reported to have said, “but we have the matches.”

So what can we learn from Israel’s nuclear weapons history?  Inspections are made to be subverted.  When a country is dead set on developing nuclear weapons, it is very difficult to stop it.  If your friends would lie to your face, risk your considerable financial and military support and spy on you in order to go nuclear, imagine what your enemies would do.  Once you actually get the weapons, the world treats you with significantly more care.

History teaches many lessons. Let’s hope the Iranians don’t read history.

History lessons Read More »

Debbie Friedman’s gift

One evening last February, 1,500 people poured into the vast sanctuary of Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, filling every inch.

Rabbi Ed Feinstein stood on the bimah and addressed them: “With the ashes of Auschwitz in our throats, it was hard to sing,” he said. “With the death and darkness and destruction of Shoah, it was impossible to pray. And then God sent an angel, to teach us again how to sing.” That angel, the rabbi said, was Debbie Friedman.

Feinstein was speaking at a memorial concert staged at the end of a month of mourning Friedman’s sudden death at 59, an untimely death that shocked her vast cadre of loyal fans. At the event, just about every cantor and Jewish-music performer in town sang and recalled Friedman’s genius at putting prayer to music — some songs soft, others raucous, all of them offering solace and shared memory. At the end of the evening, just as the sadness seemed to have reached its peak, Julie Silver, an esteemed singer and songwriter in her own right, took the mike.

Silver opened with one more wistful Friedman song, then picked up the beat. “I know what you were waiting for,” she howled. And the dancing began.

Voices raised, hands linked, the mood rallied instantly as Silver belted out “Miriam’s Song,” just as Friedman had at innumerable concerts, campsites and simchas. It was a happy reminder that Friedman’s joyous legacy had not left the world with her passing.

It’s been a year since Friedman’s death, and another big memorial concert and study session in her honor is planned here for this weekend, titled “Songs of the Spirit: Debbie Friedman Remembered,” this one timed to Friedman’s first yahrzeit. On Jan. 22, Friedman’s friends Craig Taubman and Silver will join with members of her family as well as rabbis, cantors and the Temple Isaiah choir in a program at Isaiah sponsored by Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion’s Kalsman Institute.

With the image of Silver channeling her mentor still so vivid in my mind, I called Silver to ask how her own year has gone since losing Friedman. She sighed when I broached the question, and she told me she’d been memorializing her friend for the entire 12 months.

“It’s what I do when I’m in public — mourning her and singing about her. I sing her songs.” Silver said that through the many tribute concerts and memorial events, she’s come to a greater understanding of what it was that Friedman did for us.

“Debbie didn’t write about including the marginalized; she just did it,” Silver said. And she showed others how to do the same. We, her fans, celebrate the music that she left behind, most memorably her “Mi Shebeirach,” which is sung by every denomination as a prayer of healing. But what Friedman gave us actually goes much deeper.  She gave us all the ability to participate — not just listen — and it’s that shared experience of joining voices or being compelled to dance that is so valuable in keeping our liturgy alive.

“Debbie’s goal was always to get people to sing,” Silver said.

Silver is 45, a half-generation younger than Friedman, and says she was told from her earliest years growing up in Boston that she would be “the next Debbie Friedman,” long before they met.  When finally introduced, Silver said, they formed a “beautiful friendship with a common language.” Most importantly, Silver said, “I learned how to song-lead just by watching her on stage, by watching her interacting with people.”

Song leading is a very specific art, and Friedman took it very seriously. “Every breath she took was about making that connection,” Silver said. She kept at it until the end. A week ago, an article in The Forward revealed how just two weeks before Friedman became fatally ill, she was in New York and shared with a friend the melody for her new version of “Shalom Aleichem,” which she would never have the chance to formally record. Friedman told that friend she believed the new piece would become “my legacy. This is going to be bigger than ‘Mi Shebeirach,’ ” she reportedly said. You can see her sing it, too: See below for a very informal video of Friedman singing her “Shalom Aleichem” at a 60th birthday party for Los Angeles philanthropist Selwyn Gerber in 2010. And true to form, even as Friedman sings this new melody, she doesn’t just perform — she engages everyone there, calling out the words to encourage others to join her.

If, as Rabbi Feinstein suggested, Friedman was our angel, she also, as Silver recalled, compelled us all to “in Debbie’s words, ‘find the angel inside you and sing it.’ ” And that, above all else, may be why we love her so much. Her songs must be shared, and when our song leaders sing them today, they continue to ask the same of us, too — to experience what she wrote.

“This isn’t pop music,” Silver said. “It’s about faith. And it’s about keeping people alive and healthy.”