fbpx

April 24, 2012

Jason Segel on the universe — and ‘The Five Year Engagement’

Not long ago I interviewed Jason Segel (“The Muppets”) about his Duplass brothers film, “Jeff Who Lives at Home,” when he also talked about his views on life, God, the universe and – oh yes – his new film “The Five Year Engagement,” which opens April 27.  This new comedy – which Segel co-authored with the film’s director, Nicholas Stoller – stars Segel and Emily Blunt (“The Adjustment Bureau,” “The Young Victoria”) as a an interfaith couple whose nuptials are put on hold.  Here are some excerpts from our conversation, in which the 32-year-old actor waxed philosophical on everything from his penchant for Joseph Campbell to himself growing up in an interfaith family in Los Angeles.

NPM:  Tell me a bit about your religious background.

JS:  My dad’s Jewish, and my mom’s Christian, so I was raised with a little bit of everything.  I went to an Episcopal school during the day and Hebrew school at night.  I actually have a pretty thorough religious education.  It’s a lot of guilt – guilt from all sides [laughs].

I wasn’t considered Jewish at Hebrew school because my mother isn’t Jewish, and I wasn’t considered Christian at Christian school.  What occurred to me is, “This is not God.”  It’s the antithesis of the point.  I was a young kid who would have been happy to believe whatever I was told and I was being excluded from both sides?  It really informed who I became as a person.  You either become misanthropic or you become funny.  I went with funny.

NPM:  Is there any difference between Jewish and Christian guilt?

JS:  No, it’s all the same. It’s all people who think they know; you know the word we use for God is meant to be the most powerful force that you could possibly imagine.  I’ve come to terms with the idea that any of us who have any claim to think that we know what’s going on is pretty arrogant; that’s not the God we’re talking about. Everyone is so sure of what they believe in, but they have no idea. I think the smartest opinion is to say, “ I have no idea.”

NPM:  Isn’t it just as arrogant to say there’s no God as to say there is one? 

JS:  Well, atheism makes no sense, just logically. Do you know the story of the watch and the watchmaker?  It’s pretty compelling.  If you were back in caveman days, and you found a watch, you would know implicitly it’s different than a rock or a tree. You’d know that something made it.  And if you’re able to pull back, our planets are revolving around the sun in perfect order; these are the gears of the watch.  I think it’s foolish to think the universe isn’t designed by something; the big question to me is, is it conscious?  And I don’t know the answer to that.

NPM:  Did you have a bar mitzvah?

JS:  I did, at Kehillath Israel in Pacific Palisades.  And I nailed it.  It was a really fun day, actually, and Wolfgang Puck catered my bar mitzvah; it was very fancy.  And it was very 90s in some fashion; I remember I wore like a long purple jacket with mustard green pants; like, I looked like a terrible standup comedian.

NPM:  Did you get any laughs on the bimah?

JS:  A bar mitzvah is not a particularly funny thing.  It’s tough to get laughs in Hebrew.

NPM:  Do you identify as culturally Jewish?

JS:  Yes. But in terms of organized religion, again, I think the notion of “I know better than someone else” is wildly arrogant.

NPM:  Tell me about the genesis of “The Five Year Engagement.”

JS:  Nick Stoller [the film’s director and co-author] and I are like the least masculine men in Hollywood.  We’re super interested in relationships; that’s always been something that sort of drives me.  And what we thought was interesting was to explore the way a power dynamic shifts over five years.  You know, relationships are so fluid, and you meet new people and people’s jobs change and you move and it’s never stagnant.

NPM:  In the movie, you’re Jewish and the character played by Emily Blunt is not; in the film’s trailer, there’s a scene in which the couple is talking about whether the men will wear yarmulkes, and you say you have one in your “Jewish drawer.”

JS:  Actually we had a whole family dynamic that she was Christian and I’m Jewish, and the [ensuing] religious discussion; her family wanted the Christian wedding and I wanted the Jewish wedding, and our families wanted it more than us.  But we ended up cutting a lot of it.

NPM:  Have you noticed that most films that revolve around a Jewish guy have him involved with a non-Jewish woman?

JS:  That is true [smiles broadly].  But that I don’t have an answer to.

NPM:  I heard you improvised the line about the Jewish drawer.  Do you have one? 

JS:  Yes I do.  I definitely have a Jewish drawer; it’s in my office at home.  It’s like where my tallis and stuff are, which I only open on the high holidays.

Jason Segel on the universe — and ‘The Five Year Engagement’ Read More »

Songwriter Allen Shamblin on “The House that Built Me”

When I was covering the forced expulsion of 9,000 Jews from their beautiful, established homes in Gush Katif, the “Harvest Belt” of Gaza, in the summer of August 2005, it amazed me how supporters of the “Disengagement” plan were so glib about the destruction of these homes, despite what they viewed as humanistic reasons for supporting it. Couldn’t people realize a happy home is the lifeblood of a person, the roots of someone’s character?

No political argument, no logic, no plea really worked to make the majority of Israelis empathize with the happy homes of the families in Gush Katif—the memories they lost—although the predictions of the Gush Katif “refugees,” as they have come to be called, have been vindicated by the turn of events in Gaza.

But maybe a song will have an impact, almost seven years later.

When a friend forwarded me the video of the Grammy-award winning country song “The House that Built Me” written by Allen Shamblin and Tom Douglas that solidified Miranda Lambert’s career, I cried. The song is about a young woman knocking on the door of the home she had left as a child, occupied by another family since. Since leaving, she’s not the same, and by returning to the “house that built her”, to “touch or feel it,” she hopes to heal the brokenness inside her. Watch it here.

The people of Gush Katif can’t return to their home—ever. Their houses have been bulldozed, and even if they were still standing, the people living in Gaza now wouldn’t dare let them come back inside to “touch or feel it” or “take a memory.” Today, many “refugees” continue to live in government “caravillas,” just scraping by, desperately trying to remember where they came from, holding onto faith of the “house that built them.”

So as we celebrate Israel’s Independence Day on April 26—yes, we should celebrate Israel’s major achievements—its thriving hi-tech industry, the economy, its contributions to art and Hollywood. But let’s also remember what’s most important about Israel—the reason it was created—for the freedom for Jews to build their homes—and keep them—on ancestral land they love and earned. And as Israel rises up the ladder of success, let her not forget her foundation—those embodied by the Zionist pioneers of Gush Katif who built their homes with a deep tie to Jewish heritage, ethics, and the land of Israel—the House that Built…Israel.

And for all you songwriters (and creators) out there, here are a few inspiring quotables from Shamblin:

“Live from a place of abundance….God’s got all the good ideas.”

“Run to the roar. Whatever you’re afraid of, run to it.”

“Don’t get mad at the people that reject you. There are so many reasons that come into play that day.”

“You have to be absolutely tenacious learning your gift and your craft, but sometimes the final thing that pushes everything over to where the dominoes start falling, is when you’ve give everything over. Then God steps in.”

“Songs are written. Great songs are rewritten.”

“When I have blocks in my writing I’m usually avoiding something that emotionally big.”

“Great songs in my opinion are not written by willpower. Great songs are written by yielding and serving the idea.”

“If your baby needs a diaper changed—embrace that moment—that’s where the songs are.”

“Love music, but don’t make it your idol.”

 

Songwriter Allen Shamblin on “The House that Built Me” Read More »

Opinion: What’s in a name?

When Morrie Stanley Mosk decided on a political career, he began referring to himself as M. Stanley Mosk and then Stanley Mosk. It was the 1940s and ’50s, and anti-Semitism was much more virulent than it is today. Mosk feared his Jewish name would hurt his chances of being elected.

In 1958, by then a distinguished Los Angeles superior court judge, Mosk ran for state attorney general. His Republican opponent continually referred to him as Morrie. Mosk won anyway, becoming the first Jew to be elected to statewide office in California. Later, he became a state Supreme Court justice. He died in 2001.

“Names are important,” Mosk’s son, state Appellate Court Justice Richard Mosk, told me. 

The justice contacted me because, more than a half-century after his father’s first fight for election, an ethnic name is figuring in the re-election campaign of Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Sanjay T. Kumar. Kumar is being opposed by Hawthorne Assistant City Attorney Kim Smith, who ran for the bench two years ago and was found to be “not qualified” for judicial office in that election.

What makes this an unusual election is that Kumar’s supporters say Smith is running against Kumar only because they believe he is vulnerable because of his name, bequeathed to him by his father, an Indian-born physician educated in Britain and at Massachusetts General Hospital. In the view of Kumar’s friends, a foreign-sounding name, especially one that hints of Indian, Pakistani or Middle Eastern ancestry, could be as risky politically in today’s world as a Jewish name was in the days when Stanley Mosk first ran for office. 

District Attorney Steve Cooley, who once was Smith’s colleague in the district attorney’s office, opposes Smith.

“Kim Smith is eminently unqualified to be on the Superior Court, and he has proven that,” Cooley told me. “When I heard he was running, I called him personally to urge him to not pursue the challenge against Kumar. I explained to him that Kumar was widely considered by me and others to be an outstanding jurist with impeccable character and superior qualifications. There is not any reason to challenge him on the merits. I suggested to Smith he was running because of Sanjay Kumar’s foreign-sounding name, and I thought it was despicable and un-American and that he, Kim Smith, would be properly vilified for making this challenge. He said something to the effect, ‘I have got to take my best shot, I’ve got to do this, and I’m going to do it.’ ”

Roger M. Grace, editor and co-publisher of the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, a Los Angeles legal newspaper, has written that Smith is targeting Kumar, “it can’t be doubted, based on his name.” Grace had asked Fred Huebscher, who managed Smith’s 2010 campaign, if the name “Kim Smith” was enough to defeat Kumar, solely on the basis of the name. Huebscher responded yes, Grace wrote.

I asked Huebscher about this in an e-mail. He e-mailed back: “I don’t know Smith’s reason for running or what he is saying if anything about Kumar. I haven’t heard anything about it from anyone.” I asked him if he was running Smith’s campaign. “No, I’m not,” he said.

The Los Angeles Times also brought up the name issue in an editorial endorsing Kumar. “Why Smith is challenging Kumar is of particular concern because of the known tendency of voters, who have little information on which to make their decisions, to reject judges with foreign-sounding names. Because Smith won’t speak to us, we can’t ask whether that was a factor in his thinking in selecting his opponent.”

Smith wouldn’t reply to my questions when I left them on his voice mail. Obviously, he doesn’t have to. I’m just a journalist, and The Jewish Journal is just a newspaper. Nor does he have to answer the Times’ questions.

So, if Smith won’t defend himself, let me try. Why is he running? Perhaps he wants to be a judge and he thinks he’d be a good one. After watching many judges while serving as a deputy district attorney and Hawthorne city attorney, he may figure he can do a better job. What about the county bar association declaring him unqualified two years ago? He’d probably say they’re a bunch of stuffed shirts.

However, there is history to consider. In 2006, in a campaign run by consultant Huebscher, Lynn D. Olson, a non-practicing lawyer who ran a bagel bakery, defeated a well-known incumbent, Dzintra Janavs. Interestingly, the Times is endorsing Olson’s re-election this year, criticizing her for taking advantage of the “foreign name” phenomenon six years ago but saying she has learned to be a good judge.

All this has come as an unpleasant surprise to Kumar, who is highly praised by his colleagues, and is one of the few trial judges called on to be an appellate judge when a temporary replacement is needed. “I was always under the impression, if you work hard and do a good job, you keep your job,” Kumar told me. “I had never met this guy. Steve Cooley asked him directly if it was my ethnic-sounding name and he didn’t deny it. It is disappointing. I would rather not have to deal with it, but I intend to fight for my job, and plan to keep it.”

Kumar’s ability to fight is limited by personal tragedy. His wife died of cancer in July, and he is raising their sons, ages 15 and 11.

It could be that Smith is being wrongly portrayed in this affair, that the thought of running against Kumar because of the judge’s name never occurred to him. And if he wins, perhaps the Los Angeles Times, as it did in the case of Olson, will eventually conclude he has learned to be a good judge.

Or it could be that by singling out Kumar, Smith is tapping into an undercurrent of War on Terror prejudice against Americans whose families immigrated here from the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent or other places seen now as foreign danger spots.

As Justice Richard Mosk put it, “Names are important.”


Bill Boyarsky is a columnist for The Jewish Journal, Truthdig and L.A. Observed, and the author of “Inventing L.A.: The Chandlers and Their Times” (Angel City Press).

Opinion: What’s in a name? Read More »

Opinion: Our man in Havana

I just returned from a week in Cuba on a people-to-people exchange tour to meet with members of Jewish communities in several cities and to learn about the country.

It has intrigued me that this weak and crumbling country has the mighty United States so terrified that we would rather deal with Vietnam, North Korea, Syria and Iran before talking to the Castro regime.  Much is the result of politicians of both parties who fear the disproportionate power wielded by a small but influential and vindictive émigré community, primarily in south Florida.

Fidel Castro, 85, is in failing health and has turned over the presidency to his brother, Raul, 80.  The Castro era is over, we heard from academics and others we met, and the country is entering a period of transition; the Americans are very likely to miss an opportunity to help shape the future because our policy is driven by forces more concerned with revenge on the Castros and getting back property lost in the 1959 revolution.

Cuba is a failed state with a deteriorating economy and infrastructure. It is said that three buildings collapse every day in Havana. More than half a century after the revolution, Cubans still have food rationing and extensive shortages of essential commodities including medicines.

Participants in Jewish missions are asked to bring such basic staples as medicines, toiletries, toothpaste, soap, first aid kits, as well as sports equipment, musical instrument and art supplies, dance shoes and attire for children.  Medicines of any kind go to the Patranato, the large Havana synagogue which operates a community pharmacy.

Many people can’t get electricity around the clock.  The plumbing is often in disrepair and unreliable. The government controls the media and there is no independent news coverage.  Only the hotels for foreign tourists and the few Cubans with power and money can get foreign cable news; CNN and China’s CCTV broadcast English and Spanish channels, when it is working.

Internet service is rare, antiquated, expensive, tightly controlled and at the heart of a Cuban-American dispute that involves Jewish communities in both countries.

Alan Gross, from the Washington, D.C. suburb of Potomac, MD, was a subcontractor hired by the U.S. Agency for International Development as part of an American initiative to promote democracy by bringing computer and communications equipment for the Cuban Jewish community.

He made five trips in 2009 – the year after the ban on ownership of computers and mobile phones was lifted – until he was arrested as he prepared to leave on December 3 and charged with bringing in electronic equipment without the required Cuban government permits.

He had traveled that year with several missions sponsored by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, asking participants to put small items like modems, cables, cell phones in the carry-on bags – but not checked luggage where it might be inspected – and return it to him after leaving the airport. Gross brought the larger items and apparently had no trouble getting them into the country.  Their bus would drop him at his hotel and they wouldn’t see him again until boarding their return flights.

When they found out about Gross’s arrest, some of those who had helped him and been assured there was no risk, felt they’d been needlessly put at risk.

When I arrived in Cuba earlier this month I had to fill out a customs form asking whether I was bringing in satellite or other communications equipment.  I was not.

Gross was accused of attempting to “undermine the integrity and independence” of Cuba and sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Cuban President Raul Castro told two visiting U.S. senators in February that Gross “was no spy,” but he refused the request of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) to let them take him home.

My conversations with Cubans I met – no government officials, per se, but all meetings had to be approved by the government – left no doubt that the real motivation behind Gross’s arrest was very likely a swap for five Cuban intelligence agents serving prison sentences in the United States.

One of those Cubans, Rene Gonzalez, was paroled and allowed to return to Cuba for 15 days to visit his terminally ill brother, prompting efforts to persuade the Cubans to reciprocate by letting Gross visit his mother, 90, who has inoperable lung cancer, and his daughter who has breast cancer.  There was hope that both men would be able to stay at home and not return, but the Castro government refused.  Gonzales returned to Florida this week.

Gross, who gets one phone call a week, used last week’s to contact NBC’s Andrea Mitchell with a simple plea, “Get me the hell out of here.”  He told her, as his family and friends continue to insist, “I did nothing legally or morally wrong.”

The Cubans have suggested a five-for-one swap, which under standards set by the Israeli government in exchanging a single prisoner for over a thousand terrorists, doesn’t seem like much.  But the Cuban Five, who were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage, conspiracy to commit murder and other crimes, are symbolically more important to both governments.

A swap for Gross would be popular in the Jewish community but not in the Cuban-American community, which rails against any deals with the “terrorist regime” in Havana, especially since it could mean handing the Castros a major propaganda victory.

Signs extolling the five as heroes are seen around Cuba and their giant size portraits are on the memorial to revolutionary hero Che Guevara.

And in this volatile political year, where Florida’s electoral votes could be decisive, a swap is highly unlikely.

Meanwhile, it seems unlikely the Cubans will send Alan Gross home any time soon.  Like relations between the two countries, he is being held hostage to outmoded, counterproductive and politically motivated policies.

Opinion: Our man in Havana Read More »

Egypt’s new politics make Israel ties a target

To mark the day Egypt regained control of the Sinai peninsula from Israel, a group of protesters pledged they would this week cover a memorial to Israelis killed in the war with an Egyptian flag bearing the words: “Sinai – the invaders’ graveyard.”

The gesture will be one of the most public expressions of anger against Israel since the fall of President Hosni Mubarak, marking the emergence of a long-repressed hostility among many ordinary Egyptians.

But while some of the new breed of politicians who emerged after the revolution are only too happy to exploit such defiance, there are still powerful reasons why mainstream leaders are not ready to burn their boats with Israel.

Calls for such a public act of protest would have been unthinkable under Mubarak, for whom the 1979 peace treaty with Israel was a cornerstone of regional policy.

Under him, public antipathy towards Israel – a nation with which Egypt has fought four wars – was kept in check, often brutally. It changed when the anti-Mubarak uprising erupted on Jan. 25 last year. Egyptians now openly voice frustrations and are demanding Egypt’s new political class listen.

“After the Jan. 25 revolution, the regime fell and with it everything linked to treaties and protocols,” said Saeed al-Qasas, head of the Revolutionaries of Sinai, which vowed to cover on Wednesday the Dayan Rock memorial, a large stone erected in the desert with names of fallen air force personnel.

Egypt’s transition to democracy from autocratic rule is transforming the political landscape at home but also promises to shift foreign policy of the Arab world’s most populous nation which was the first Arab state to sign a peace deal with Israel.

None of the mainstream politicians emerging in Egypt have said they would abandon the treaty, but the new order promises to make what was often described as a “cold peace” colder still, raising tensions on a sensitive border if mishandled.

Yet, even after handing over power to a new president by July 1, the generals who have ruled since Mubarak’s fall are likely to act as guardians of a deal that brings them $1.3 billion U.S. military aid a year.

Egypt, its economy in tatters, also can’t afford to alienate the United States or other Western states whose governments and investors are likely to be vital in reviving growth and creating jobs, crucial points to any Egyptian political career.

But Israeli politicians are already fretting over the political changes in Egypt and worry about the rise of Islamists, who swept the parliamentary election and are strong contenders in the presidential vote that starts on May 23-24.

One senior Western diplomat said the army, mainstream Islamists and other leading politicians recognised the benefits of maintaining a deal that kept the border peaceful for three decades.

“But there is zero traction in broader society,” the diplomat said, adding that this could encourage Islamists to test how far the boundaries of ties could be pushed.

Islamists and their rivals in Egypt’s presidential race, the final stage of a turbulent political transition, are already using Israel as a political punchbag to chase votes. They are vowing no repeat of Mubarak’s cosy ties with Israel.

“Democracy is about responding to public sentiment and public sentiment has little interest in maintaining a real relationship with Israel,” said Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Doha Center.

He suggested Egypt could follow Turkey’s example where once-close ties with Israel had worsened sharply after Israeli naval commandos killed nine Turks in May 2010 in a raid on a ship carrying aid to the Gaza Strip.

“What people should be focusing on is how domestic developments in Egypt will alter its foreign policy. I think the model here is probably something resembling Turkey’s approach to Israel, that you maintain diplomatic cooperation but there is a lot of anti-Israel bluster and symbolic gestures,” he said.

One such gesture may have been a decision this week to scrap a 20-year deal reached in 2005 to export Egyptian gas to Israel. It drew applause among the Egypt public, although both sides said commercial differences not politics were behind the move.

Professor Uzi Rabi at Tel Aviv University said that gas deal decision pointed to a region more “attuned to the street.”

“We are in (the midst of) a continuing deterioration in Israel-Egypt relations. One must hope that the interests will overcome the inflammatory direction,” he added.

The gas deal had long been criticised in Egypt’s opposition media and by the public even when Mubarak was in office. They said the gas was sold too cheaply and benefits were pocketed by Mubarak’s associates. The pipeline was sporadically attacked.

But the number of attacks has soared since the anti-Mubarak uprising. The line has been blown up 14 times in that period, halting the flow for much of the time. Officials and former Mubarak associates behind the deal have also been put on trial for corruption.

Islamists were swift to laud the gas deal’s cancellation and have been among the most critical of Israel, although such criticism crosses the broad spectrum of Egypt’s politicians.

“There is no doubt the peace treaty is unfair to the Egyptian side,” Mahmoud Ghozlan, spokesman and a senior figure in Egypt’s biggest Islamist group the Muslim Brotherhood, told Reuters, although he said all treaties would be “respected”.

He pointed to limitations on troop numbers allowed in Sinai since Israeli completed the pull back in the 1980s from the peninsula it occupied in the 1967 war. He also complained that Israelis were allowed into that area of Egypt with no visa.

The outspokenness of politicians taps a deep vein of anger against Israel but also reflects a desire since Mubarak was ousted to be more assertive and end what many saw as Mubarak’s subservience to policies of the United States and the West. Restoring Egypt’s “dignity” is a common refrain in speeches.

“Egypt’s next president can’t be like his predecessor, he can’t be a follower who executes policies put to him from outside,” Mohamed Mursi told his first news conference as the Brotherhood’s presidential candidate.

The challenge for Egypt’s new politicians, keen to win over the public, will be putting the genie back in the bottle as they respond to the popular mood and test the boundaries of how far they challenge ties with Israel.

A miscalculation risks riling U.S. politicians, quick to rally to Israel’s defence, and alienating a major donor with the might to sway international investment and support.

“It is not about explicit policies or some kind of master plan the Brotherhood has, but how misperception breeds misperception,” said Brookings’ Hamid, adding there was a chance that Egypt, Israel or the United States could misjudge events.

Some Israeli officials have shown increasing signs of worry as they have watched Egypt’s political drama unfold.

Amos Gilad, a top aide to Defence Minister Ehud Barak, said this month he was “concerned” about future relations with Egypt and said he was “not so sure” the Brotherhood was committed to peace, a break with the usually cautiously optimistic line.

An Israeli newspaper cited Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman saying Egypt was more dangerous to Israel than Iran, a country Israelis accuse of building nuclear weapons. Lieberman would not confirm those comments when asked later.

One of Israel’s biggest worries is the security vacuum in Sinai where Islamic radicals, some blamed for blowing up the gas pipeline, have gained a foothold as policing of the area collapsed after Mubarak’s fall. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described it as a “kind of Wild West”.

Yet, the Brotherhood, the dominant group in Egypt’s emerging democracy for now, may share Israel’s concern for the rise of extremism on its border. The Brotherhood has long been branded too pragmatic by more radical Salafis.

“So I think there is potential for a kind of understanding in the Sinai,” said Brookings’ Hamid, pointing to Gaza nearby where the Brotherhood-inspired Palestinian group Hamas cracked down on hardline Salafi Islamists.

And even the more hostile voices to Israel in Egypt seem to know the “red lines” that shouldn’t be crossed over a peace deal that won back the Sinai, which is now scattered with popular Red Sea tourist resorts where Israelis mingle with other visitors.

The Revolutionaries of Sinai had originally wanted the Dayan Rock memorial destroyed, but now said covering it in a flag would suffice. “We will make do with this,” said Qasas. “Though we call for its removal.”

Additional reporting by Maayan Lubell and Jeffrey Heller in Jerusalem and Tom Perry in Cairo; Writing by Edmund Blair; Editing by Giles Elgood

Egypt’s new politics make Israel ties a target Read More »

Obama outlines Holocaust lessons

One by one, the e-mails from the White House arrived in inboxes across Washington on April 23, each highlighting a unique initiative toward a different corner of the globe: Syria. Iran. Uganda.

The unifying factor was the president’s appearance that day at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, and together the seemingly disparate issues underscored a message carefully calibrated by top White House officials: The Holocaust was uniquely a crime against the Jews, and its lessons for today are realized both in protecting Israel and preventing atrocities from being inflicted on any other people.

Obama threaded the themes together in his Monday morning speech at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum following a tour guided by Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust memoirist and Nobel laureate.

The president segued from the uniqueness of the Holocaust to the threats facing Jews and Israel today.

“When efforts are made to equate Zionism to racism, we reject them,” Obama said. “When international fora single out Israel with unfair resolutions, we vote against them. When attempts are made to delegitimize the State of Israel, we oppose them. When faced with a regime that threatens global security and denies the Holocaust and threatens to destroy Israel, the United States will do everything in our power to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

Obama then transitioned to the threats facing others.

“ ‘Never again’ is a challenge to societies,” he said. “We’re joined today by communities who’ve made it your mission to prevent mass atrocities in our time.”

The two-part message — protecting Israel, preventing atrocities — was reflected in the makeup of the audience, a mix of leaders of Jewish groups and groups that have advocated for other populations under threat, including Bosnians and the Sudanese.

Obama’s nod to the Holocaust’s uniqueness and how its trauma shaped his sensitivities to other peoples facing atrocities is not new. But in tying the threats facing Israel to the Holocaust, he seemed to be trying to address a perception among some Israeli and Jewish communal leaders that he does not “get” how Israel figures into post-Holocaust Jewish thinking.

Wiesel, introducing Obama, gave voice to Jewish concerns about Iran’s potentially genocidal intentions toward Israel.

“How is it that the Holocaust’s No. 1 denier, Ahmadinejad, is still a president?” Wiesel asked. “He who threatens to use nuclear weapons — to use nuclear weapons — to destroy the Jewish state. We must know that when evil has power, it is almost too late.”

While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly expressed the desire to see Israel excised from the region, he has not explicitly threatened to use nuclear weapons against the Jewish state. Nevertheless, Israeli leaders have cited the rhetoric of Iranian leaders as evidence that the Islamic Republic cannot be allowed nuclear weapons.

Wiesel later made explicit the connection between Israel’s posture and the Holocaust.

“Now I hope you understand in this place why Israel is so important,” he said. “Not only to the Jew that I am but to the world. Israel cannot not remember, and because it remembers, it must be strong just to defend its own survival and its own destiny.”

Obama made it clear that he heard Wiesel’s concerns.

“As we walked through this exhibit, Elie and I were talking as we looked at the unhappy record of the State Department and so many officials here in the United States during those years,” he said. “And he asked, ‘What would you do?’ ”

Obama recalled telling an American woman he met while touring Israel’s Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, in 2008 — when he was a candidate — “I would always be there for Israel.”

Repeating that message seemed aimed at assuaging worries expressed by Israeli leaders that Israel stands alone in perceiving the potential of genocide in Iran’s belligerence.

“People who dismiss the Iranian threat as a whim or an exaggeration have learned nothing from the Holocaust,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in his own Holocaust remembrance message last week. “To cower from speaking the uncomfortable truth — that today like then, there are those who want to destroy millions of Jewish people — that is to belittle the Holocaust, that is to offend its victims and that is to ignore the lessons.”

Daniel Mariaschin, the executive vice president of B’nai B’rith International, said that Obama citing the threats facing Jews was a welcome development.

“This is the first speech that connected the dots on the current threats together with Holocaust remembrance,” he said. “You had delegitimization [of Israel], you had the Iran issue.”

Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a Holocaust survivor, said Obama’s speech was important for underscoring how “Never again” emerged from a Jewish tragedy. He also said Obama’s speech would help push back against accusations that Israeli leaders like Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres are overplaying the connection between the Iranian threat and the Holocaust.

Obama’s thinking about the Holocaust has been picked apart by the Jewish community since before his election as president.

On the one hand, Jewish leaders welcomed the sensibilities of a candidate who cited the postwar experience of a great-uncle helping to liberate a Buchenwald sub-camp.

“He returned from his service in a state of shock, saying little and isolating himself for months on end from family and friends, alone with the painful memories that would not leave his head,” Obama said during a presidential visit to Buchenwald in July 2009, also with Wiesel in attendance.
 On the other hand, a speech in Cairo by the president delivered the day before his visit to Buchenwald raised some Jewish hackles. In that speech, addressing the Muslim world, Obama said that America’s bond with Israel was based on “cultural and historical ties,” as well as “the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.”

While the president used the opportunity to condemn Holocaust denial and to make the case for Israel’s legitimacy — noting that threats to destroy the Jewish state evoked for Israelis memories of the Holocaust — some in the Jewish community were deeply troubled by the implications of his choice of words.

David Harris, the American Jewish Committee’s executive director, said at the time that it was “unfortunate” that Obama “implied that the Holocaust was the primary reason for Israel’s creation” rather than the Jewish state being the result of historic ties to the land.

Obama’s U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum appearance gave him an opportunity to more clearly articulate his views on the Holocaust. In his speech there, the president said one message of the Holocaust is that the capacity to inflict harm is embedded in everyone, as is the capacity to do good.

That thinking was reflected in one of the directives he issued Monday — recognizing Jan Karski with a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom for the Polish resistance fighter’s work providing some of the first eyewitness accounts of the Nazis’ mass murder of Jews.

“We must tell our children about how this evil was allowed to happen because so many people succumbed to their darkest instincts, because so many others stood silent,” Obama said. “But let us also tell our children about the Righteous Among the Nations.”

Obama’s thinking on genocide prevention has been informed by the work of his adviser Samantha Power, a top National Security Council official who has noted the West’s failure to do more to protect the Jews and other victims of genocide in making the case for intervention to stop modern-day atrocities.

Power, an architect of the Obama administration’s diplomatic and military strategies in helping to topple dictators in the Ivory Coast and Libya, and in aiding the creation this year of South Sudan, was named Monday by Obama to lead an Atrocities Prevention Board.

The board, Obama said, would oversee efforts in a number of departments to isolate and confront perpetrators of atrocities.

“We’re going to institutionalize the focus on this issue,” he said. “Across government, ‘alert channels’ will ensure that information about unfolding crises — and dissenting opinions — quickly reach decision-makers, including me.”

The White House was eager to convey the impression that the board’s agenda already was informing administration policy. Executive orders were issued Monday banning the sale of information technology to Syria and Iran that could be used to stifle dissent in those countries.

Obama also renewed the mandate of U.S. military advisers counseling Uganda on the pursuit of the Lord’s Resistance Army, a rampaging militia led by Joseph Kony that kidnaps children and rapes and murders civilians.

The president, however, has come under fire by those who say he has not made good on campaign pledges to defend human rights. The Republican Jewish Coalition in a statement after the speech faulted Obama for not doing enough to bolster Iranian democracy activists in 2009. Conservatives and congressional Republicans say Obama has shown a lack of resolve in failing to provide opponents of the Syrian regime with military support.

In his speech, Obama defended what he said were his successes but said the United States has to pick and choose its battles.

Preventing atrocities, he said, “does not mean we intervene militarily every time there is an injustice in the world.”

Obama outlines Holocaust lessons Read More »

Police come up empty in new search for Etan Patz

The latest round in the more than 30-year police search for Etan Patz ended without finding any “obvious human remains.”

On Monday, police ended the search for Etan, who was 6 years old when he disappeared near his parents’ New York apartment in 1979, without finding any substantial new evidence, according to reports.

The search had begun again three weeks ago when police believed a basement on Prince Street in lower Manhattan, which was on Etan’s route to his school bus when he disappeared, may have contained new evidence that would identify his abductor. Etan was walking to the bus on his own for the first time.

At the time of the Jewish boy’s disappearance, the basement housed the workshop of Othniel Miller, a handyman. Miller had given Etan a dollar the day before his disappearance for running an errand. Soon after Etan’s disappearance, a new concrete floor was poured in the basement.

After finding no human remains, however, police have not charged Miller. Police have been unable to identify Etan’s abductor.

Police come up empty in new search for Etan Patz Read More »

Honor Munich 11, International Olympic Committee urged

An online petition urging the International Olympic Committee to honor the Munich 11 at the Olympic Games this summer has garnered thousands of signatures.

The Jewish Community Center of Rockland County, N.Y., a member of the JCC Association, initiated the petition, which calls for a moment of silence at the Games in London honoring the 11 Israeli athletes who were murdered at the 1972 Olympics in Munich by the Palestinian terrorist group Black September. The Jewish Federations of North America is asking communities to support the petition, which is attempting to gather 1 million signatures.

“The Jewish Community Center movement is deeply involved in an effort to create a worldwide viral response to a wrong that has not been addressed since 1972,” said JCC Association President and CEO Allan Finkelstein. He adds, “Let us finally get the Munich 11 acknowledgement and respect they deserve from the international sports community.”

The JCC Association has recognized the Munich 11 during every Maccabi Games since 1995.

In an official letter sent to the IOC on Monday, Israeli Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon asked on behalf of the State of Israel for the 2012 Games to open with a moment of silence honoring the 11 Israeli athletes. Ayalon gave copies of the letter to widows of the murdered athletes, and also expressed support for a petition they initiated calling for a minute of silence.

Honor Munich 11, International Olympic Committee urged Read More »

Jon Stewart upsets Catholics [VIDEO]

“The Daily Show” with Jon Stewart has been the site of some controversies lately, and this week it was the host himself who was caught in a furor.

First, Ricky Gervais cracked some Anne Frank jokes on the show, then had to explain himself and his “intentionally ignorant” comedy. This week it was Stewart himself who found himself under fire from the Catholic League for suggesting that women use “vagina mangers” to call attention to threats to female reproductive freedom.

Stewart has criticized Fox News for using the term “war on …” from Christmas to salt, yet holding back from saying “war on women” in reference to recent abortion and birth control debates. To catch Fox News’ attention, Stewart advised women to put “vagina mangers” over their genitalia to catch the media’s attention. His suggestion came with a graphic that featured the manger as the Nativity scene.

That upset the Catholic League, which launched a campaign to boycott Stewart and Comedy Central. The league’s president, Bill Donohue, was scheduled to appear on Fox News’ “Hannity” on Tuesday to discuss the boycott campaign.

Jon Stewart upsets Catholics [VIDEO] Read More »