Old Jews Telling Jokes: Richard Levine, “You Dont Know From Business” [VIDEO]
German Jewish leader criticizes national soccer coach over Holocaust commemoration
Germany’s top Jewish leader lashed out at the country’s national soccer team manager for failing to properly commemorate the Holocaust ahead of the Euro 2012 soccer championship in Poland and Ukraine.
Dieter Graumann, head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, said he wished team manager Oliver Bierhoff had heeded his advice to bring the entire team to Auschwitz last week, in order to send a message to thousands of young German fans.
Bierhoff visited the site with three athletes, in addition to Germany’s ambassador to Poland, Rüdiger Freiherr von Fritsch, and Charlotte Knobloch, former head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany.
“It would have been nice if it had not been a secret commando, but a bit more open,” Graumann said in Hamburg on Sunday, after meetings with some 240 representatives of Jewish communities from across the country.
He said the German Football Association, or DFB, had rejected the idea, with the excuse that the German players were “too sensitive” to visit as an entire team, as the British national team plans to do.
Graumann said Bierhoff told him he “could not demand that the team do this.” As an alternative, Bierhoff suggested “a fireside chat” on the Holocaust with the team.
Those words betrayed a “colossal insensitivity,” said Graumann, explaining that the German term “Kamingespraech” is close to the word for chimney, Kamin, which “brings up certain associations: people were gassed, burned and sent up the ‘Kamine’—including my grandparents.”
Graumann conceded that the German Football Association continues to do good work, he said, noting that the Central Council bestowed its highest honor, the Leo-Baeck Prize, on association head Theo Zwanziger in 2009, for his commitment to fighting right-wing extremism in sport.
German Jewish leader criticizes national soccer coach over Holocaust commemoration Read More »
Ulpana activists begin march to Jerusalem
Hundreds of settlement activists began marching Monday from the Ulpana neighborhood on the outskirts of the Beit El settlement in the West Bank toward Jerusalem.
The protest march is against plans to raze five apartment buildings in Ulpana, which are on land claimed by Palestinian families.
Some 300 supporters of Ulpana waving flags and carrying signs set out from the neighborhood to march to a protest tent in Jerusalem located outside of the Supreme Court, where hunger strikers have been sitting. They plan to reach Jerusalem on Tuesday.
The marchers are supporting a bill to be voted on in Knesset on Wednesday that would that would override a Supreme Court decision to remove the Ulpana buildings. The legislation would retroactively legalize buildings built on contested land if the owner does not challenge the construction within four years.
Israel’s Supreme Court ruled in September that the neighborhood should be razed, siding with a lawsuit filed by Palestinians who said they owned the land.
On Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposed a three-point plan to physically move the buildings to land that is not claimed by Palestinians, build new housing and vigorously defend the neighborhoods in future litigation.
The plan requires the approval of Israeli Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, who spent Sunday in consultations about the possible move.
Ulpana activists begin march to Jerusalem Read More »
The doubled value of an American support
It’s a small world after all, and Globalization makes it even smaller. In the last few decades, thanks to technology mostly, the many civilizations of the world are gradually turning into one, as the citizens of the world share more and more interests. Those shared interests are somewhat “western” interests, such as capitalism and individualism. There is also shared mainstream music, movies, dress codes and more. Most of those western interests are driven by the country which became the center of the world, and is unofficially the world’s largest empire, the United States of America. If you don’t believe me, check the Magic Kingdom’s “it’s a small world” and see for yourself…If you need a less solid proof, read the research and scientific articles pointing in that direction.
As a worldwide trend setter, the American opinion is worth the most. When you vote in favor of something, it will soon spread all over the world- from east to west. Just to meet the eye, there are more than 33,000 McDonalds outlets worldwide, only 18,590 of them are in the U.S. But your opinion doesn’t only set cultural trends; it sets economic and political trends as well. In fact, I believe that American opinion can make a country sink or rise, just like that. It doesn’t happen overnight, of course, and also doesn’t rely on a small group within the American population. But sometimes an event takes place in an American city that can change the opinion that some people have on a certain thing, place or a person.
That is why I believe the annual Celebrate Israel Parade is worth more than in seems. Seeing pictures of Israeli flags which are NOT burning at an event which takes place somewhere else is something of an excitement for me. Not to mention thousands of Israeli flags. In New-York. I’ve never heard of the Celebrate Israel Parade up until Sunday, but this is the 48th time people march for everything that’s good about Israel. It may sound weird, but I don’t see this parade as a political statement. I don’t believe the marchers were expressing a solid opinion about the situation with Iran or the Israeli-Palestinian relations. I believe this was a celebration for Israeli culture and for the place on earth called Israel, where there is beautiful scenery, relaxing beaches and warm people. We are involved in many of the world problems, and many disagree with our policies, including Obama, sometimes. In this case, however, I believe that the public’s opinion may have a greater impact on the citizens of the world than the opinion of world leaders’. I see the age of Globalization as an opportunity for the public opinion to move mountains, and to make a difference, much more than any state cabinet.
I know the world-wide opinion towards Israel is not the most positive one, and this parade will not cause a 180 degree turnaround, but even if it got people to be a little bit more open minded, it has done its part. This parade is more important than any agreement to attack in Iran, or delegitimize the Palestinian state. This is a show of appreciation from people to people, and when it comes from the Word’s trend setter, it is worth much more.
The doubled value of an American support Read More »
Jewish group provides Israeli technology to East Africa
Jewish Heart for Africa is now serving 250,000 people in East Africa with Israeli technologies.
The New York-based organization announced the milestone in conjunction with the expected completion of its 57th project later this month. Founded in 2008 by Sivan Borowich Ya’ari, Jewish Heart for Africa has used Israeli solar and agricultural technologies to assist rural villages in Ethiopia, Tanzania, Malawi and Uganda.
“In these villages, solar technology isn’t an alternative energy source, it’s the only energy source,“Ya’ari said in a statement. “Powering a refrigerator, or even a light bulb, can save lives.”
Israel began offering solar technology know-how to Africa as early as 1960, when a team of African scientists visited the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot.
Jewish Heart for Africa announced its goal of doubling the number of people it serves within the next two years.
Jewish group provides Israeli technology to East Africa Read More »
Belarus Holocaust memorial vandalized
A Holocaust memorial in eastern Belarus was vandalized.
Brown paint was poured over about 60 percent of the marker, on the site of the Jewish ghetto in the Belarusian city of Mahileu, according to Radio Free Europe.
It is not known who damaged the memorial.
Jews have lived in Mahileu since the 16th century, Radio Free Europe reported.
Belarus Holocaust memorial vandalized Read More »
Syria: More leading from behind
The horrors currently unfolding in Syria offer further proof of what might reasonably be described as Kofi Annan’s law of international relations: Wherever Kofi Annan turns up, bloodshed is sure to follow.
During and after his scandal-ridden decade as UN secretary-general, Annan smoothed the ruffled feathers of brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Kim Jong Il in North Korea.
In October 1995, Annan remained at the UN’s peacekeeping helm as Serb forces seized control of the Srebrenica enclave in Bosnia, slaughtering the entire male population, including young boys. When he stepped down from the secretary-general’s post in 2006, he lambasted not Russia or China—the two states that did the most to prevent the UN’s lofty human rights principles from actually being implemented—but the United States, for allegedly “seeking supremacy over all others.”
Despite this shameful record, the UN and the Arab League jointly appointed Annan as their envoy to Syria in February of this year, as Bashar al Assad’s assault upon his own people grew in intensity. Sure enough, with Annan on the spot promoting a six-point peace plan that Assad assented to in public but violated on the ground, the “violence”— a lily-livered euphemism for the carnage orchestrated by the Damascus regime—got worse.
Now, more than a week after the bloodcurdling massacre in Houla, in which the bodies of at least 49 children turned up in the wreckage left by the shabiha, Assad’s execution squads, the west is again agonizing over the question of intervention. So far, expelling Syrian diplomats is about as tough as western countries have got. (Had Assad’s ambassadors instead been arrested for complicity in crimes against humanity, the democratic world might not look quite so feeble.)
In any humanitarian emergency, the prospects for intervention can be either helped or hampered by the decisions of the immediate past. In the Syrian case, the appointment of Annan as chief envoy indubitably strengthened the hand of anti-interventionist states, most obviously Russia, Assad’s key international ally. As a result, in both political and military terms, intervention is regarded by western policy-makers as more complicated and therefore less attractive.
As the commentator Michael Weiss cogently explained in a recent opinion article on Syria, Russia has a clear policy based on its commercial and military interests. And that policy is based upon ensuring that Assad retains the lion’s share of control over a rapidly fragmenting Syria.
But what about the U.S. and its policy? In the wake of the Annan plan’s failure, the Obama Administration implored Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, to use his influence over Assad to bring an end to the killing. When it comes to “leading from behind,” a phrase that has been consistently applied to Obama’s response to the upheavals across the Arab world, Syria has provided the most notorious example.
Of course, that approach bore no fruit, which may explain why Administration officials— like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who accused Russia of aiding the spread of open civil war in Syria—are sounding more impatient with Moscow. Yet the overriding American priority now seems to be making the most plausible case against intervention.
“We’re nowhere near putting together any type of coalition other than to alleviate the suffering,” Clinton told reporters during a visit to Denmark. “We are working very hard to focus the efforts of those, like Denmark and the United States, who are appalled by what is going on, to win over those who still support the regime, both inside and outside of Syria.”
Clinton’s spineless rhetoric was accompanied by a further explanation that military action would require the support of the UN Security Council—another way of saying that, since Russia and China would never back such an outcome, don’t bother even thinking about it.
However, recent history demonstrates that the UN Security Council doesn’t have to be an immovable impediment. In 1991, lack of Security Council authorization didn’t stop the western allies from launching a military operation to protect the Kurds of northern Iraq following Saddam Hussein’s expulsion from Kuwait. In 1999, thanks to the efforts of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, NATO evicted the Serbian regime of Slobodan Milosevic from Kosovo without a Security Council resolution.
And in 2003, Blair and US President George W. Bush courageously proceeded with a war to remove Saddam Hussein from power, in spite of the objections of the Security Council.
Sadly, this administration is not possessed of the same resolve. That’s bad news for western nations, since history has proven time and again that democracy and human rights are the best guarantors of political stability. It’s bad news for the regional allies of the west, most obviously Israel, which has endured Assad-sponsored terrorism and understandably fears the political chaos that is likely to sprout from a Syrian civil war.
Most of all, it’s bad news for the people of Syria, 12,000 of whom have already been murdered by the regime, with no end in sight. If we continue to desert them in their hour of need, we will be making new enemies in a region where we have precious few friends as it is.
Ben Cohen is the Shillman Analyst for JointMedia News Service. His writings on Jewish affairs and Middle Eastern politics have been published in Commentary, the New York Post, Ha’aretz, Jewish Ideas Daily and many other publications.
Syria: More leading from behind Read More »
The great Independence Day debate: Letter 5
This the fifth letter in a debate on changing the date of Independence Day in Israel. Readers who are not yet familiar with the debate can read more about it here.
The fifth letter is by Rabbi Yehuda Brandes, head of the Center for Advanced Judaic Studies and Leadership, and lecturer at the Herzog College.
If you will permit me to interject in the basic discussion, here is a comment from the real world:
In the next ten years the picture looks like this:
5773 – Monday, 5774 – Monday,
5775 – Friday, 5776 – Friday,
5777 – Monday, 5778 – Friday,
5779 – Friday,
5780 – Wednesday
,
5781- Shabbat, 5782 – Friday,
5783 – Wednesday
[the numbers refer to the coming years by the Hebrew calendar, the days to when Independence Day falls in each respective year – S.R.].
In other words, the argument over the current situation and the new proposal is really over two Independence Days in the next decade, and the first will fall in another two Knesset terms (if there are in fact plenums, a rare event in and of itself in our location).
And if we are talking about fundamentals, it is necessary to take into account that the fifth of Iyyar can fall only on a Monday, Wednesday, Friday or Shabbat. In other words, on three out of four occasions the date will be moved from its original place. (unless we agree to Rabbi Benayahu’s proposal to hold Independence Day on a Monday as well, and then it will only be moved 50% of the time)
Those who are planning a public and political campaign should take this data into consideration.
Battles such as these should be managed with thought. And should leave, as with wartime sieges, another option open.
It’s vital that we don’t find ourselves celebrating Independence Day as we do Jerusalem Day – a celebration of religious Zionists exclusively [Jerusalem Day, for many years now, is a celebration marked mostly in Zionist-religious circles – S.R.]. But on the other hand, that won’t happen so quickly anyway.
It is important to remember that the law which was changed in 5772 can be changed again another few times between now and 5780. We should all hope that by then we will have to celebrate the coming of the Messiah, and may the Temple be speedily rebuilt in our lifetime, or at least there will be a majority of religious Zionists in the Knesset.
And with reference to the fifth of Iyyar which falls on a Monday – the heart of the matter itself will still need clarification, that the Chief Rabbinate did indeed ask for the change [the Chief Rabbinate oppose celebrating Independence Day on Monday, because this will require marking Memorial Day Saturday evening and will potentially lead to the desecration of Shabbat during preparation], and we find again that we ourselves are making a mockery should the rabbis themselves present a vague stance in this dispute.
The great Independence Day debate: Letter 5 Read More »
The Problem of Frum Hedonism
Is there anything that we will not put a heksher on? Has pleasure become the guiding religious principle? Many pockets of the American Orthodox community have become so consumed with Jewish law that values and limits on pleasure have been dismissed.
At first glance, the data offers an ambiguous message. For example, a 2008 article estimated that Orthodox Jewish families spent ” title=”http://www.jewishfederations.org/local_includes/downloads/7579.pdf” target=”_blank”>a 2005 report from United Jewish Communities noted.
These data appear to reflect continuing trends. Nevertheless, they may not explain what is happening today. What does Orthodox spending on Jewish experiences mean? Does having an income less than other Jewish families necessarily mean that Orthodox families have not been lured into an American consumerist pattern? Rav Aaron Lichtenstein, in an essay titled “Glatt Kosher Hedonism,” talks about the problem of the American Orthodox culture today:
I mention this point particularly to an American audience. In recent years, one observes on the American scene a terribly disturbing phenomenon: the spread of hedonistic values, but with a kind of glatt-kosher packaging. There was a time when the problem of hedonism for religious Jews didn’t often arise, because even if you wanted to have the time of your life, there wasn’t very much that you could do. The country clubs were all barred to Jews, there weren’t many kosher restaurants, there were no kosher nightclubs, etc. In the last decade or two, a whole culture has developed geared towards frum Jews, where the message is enjoy, enjoy, enjoy, and everything has a hekhsher (kosher certification) and a super-hekhsher. The message is that whatever the gentiles have, we have too. They have trips to the Virgin Islands, we have trips to the Virgin Islands. Consequently, there has been a certain debasement of values, in which people have a concern for the minutiae of Halakha (which, of course, one should be concerned about), but with a complete lack of awareness of the extent to which the underlying message is so totally non-halakhic and anti-halakhic (By His Light).
The goal of religious life is to choose the most noble of life paths and to strive to fulfill our highest values during our limited time on this earth. Judaism is certainly not an ascetic religion, but the danger of inappropriate or excessive pleasures has constantly been reinforced. Rabbeinu Bachye Ibn Pakuda, the 11th-century Jewish philosopher in Spain, addressed how pleasure, when over-embraced, can lead to a person’s destruction:
The instinct attracts them to an indulgent lifestyle and a pursuit of wealth, enamoring them of this world’s luxury and prominence, until finally they sink in the depths of the sea, forced to face the crush of its waves. The (material) world rules them, stopping up their ears and closing their eyes. There is not one among them who occupies himself with anything but his own pleasure—wherever he can attain it and the opportunity presents itself. [Pleasure] becomes his law and religion, driving him away from G-d. As it says, “Your own wickedness will punish you, your own sins will rebuke you….” (Yirimeyahu 2:19), (Chovot HaLevavot 9:2).
While the Jewish legal system includes legal rules and precedent, the guiding forces in the halakhic process are the meta-halakhic values. The Jewish tradition has purpose, meaning, and ethics, and thus the application of the holy law ensures that the intentional values are maintained. Overemphasizing the strict adherence to law (ikar ha’din) at the expense of going beyond the law (lifnim mi’shurat ha’din) is oversimplifying religion and missing the point. The Ramban teaches that one can be “naval birshut haTorah” (a scoundrel with the permission of the Torah) if they only follow the letter of the law. There is, of course, not one ethic but many that guide our religious lives. Rabbi Dr. Walter Wurzberger explains the importance of embracing a pluralism of Jewish ethics that …
… manifests itself in the readiness to operate with a number of independent ethical norms and principles such as concern for love, justice, truth, and peace. Since they frequently give rise to conflicting obligations, it becomes necessary to rely upon intuitive judgments to resolve the conflict. There is, however, another dimension to the pluralism of Jewish ethics: it is multi-tiered and comprises many strands. It contains not only objective components such as duties and obligations, but also numerous values and ideals possessing only subjective validity. Moreover, the pluralistic thrust of Jewish ethics makes it possible to recognize the legitimacy of many alternate ethical values and ideals (Ethics of Responsibility, 5).
It is time to revitalize a values discourse in the American Orthodox community. How do we salvage the community by enhancing our collective discourse and priorities toward our raison-d’être? This is not only the work of rabbis speaking from the pulpit and educators speaking from the classroom. It is the responsibility of every parent to properly model for their children how they use their free time and resources, and the duty of every community member to reinforce during conversation.
Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder & President of ” title=”http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Ethics-Social-Justice-Yanklowitz/dp/1935104144/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320275675&sr=1-1″ target=”_blank”>Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century” is now available on Amazon. In April 2012, Newsweek named Rav Shmuly The Problem of Frum Hedonism Read More »
Conservative rabbinic group issues guidelines for same-sex wedding rituals
A landmark vote last week by the Conservative movement’s rabbinic committee has established rituals for same-sex wedding ceremonies, affirming that same-sex marriages have “the same sense of holiness and joy as that expressed in heterosexual marriages.”
The decision by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly was several years in coming, following a 2006 vote by the committee “favor[ing] the establishment of committed and loving relationships for gay and lesbian Jews.”
But the 2006 responsum declined to specify rituals for establishing gay and lesbian relationships, calling them “complicated and controversial questions that deserve a separate study.”
Last week’s position paper, which was adopted by a vote of 13-0, with one abstention, fills that void by outlining two possible marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. The paper’s authors, Rabbis Elliot Dorff, Daniel Nevins and Avram Reisner, were also the authors of a 2006 responsum titled “Homosexuality, Human Dignity and Halakhah,” which declared gays eligible for rabbinic ordination.
“This is the next step in the process of bringing about the full inclusion of LGBT Jews,” said Rabbi Aaron Weininger, the first openly gay student admitted to the rabbinical school at the Conservative movement’s Jewish Theological Seminary, using the acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “Visibility of LGBT people as individuals and couples makes us stronger as a Jewish community.”
Weininger, who received his rabbinic ordination this month, was consulted during the composition of last week’s paper.
The paper acknowledges that “same-sex intimate relationships are comprehensively banned by classical rabbinic law,” or halachah.
The biblical prohibition against homosexual intimacy appears in twice in Leviticus. “A man who lies with a male as with a woman, the two have committed an abomination,” says Leviticus 20:13. “They shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
The Conservative movement’s decision said that, “for observant gay and lesbian Jews who would otherwise be condemned to a life of celibacy or secrecy, their human dignity requires suspension of the rabbinic level prohibitions.”
Dorff, Nevins and Reisner proposed two possible ceremonies that incorporate what they deem to be the four key elements of a Jewish wedding—welcoming the couple, symbols of celebration, a document of covenant and blessings thanking God.
One ceremony hews closely to the traditional Jewish wedding, making changes in the language and the blessings based on the couple’s gender and sexuality. The other departs from that ceremony, with three blessings, for example, instead of the traditional seven.
The Conservative decision did not call same-sex marriages kiddushin, the traditional Jewish legal term for marriage, because that act of consecration is non-egalitarian and gender-specific. In the traditional kiddushin ceremony, a pair of blessings is recited and the bridegroom gives his bride a ring, proclaiming that he is marrying his bride “according to the laws of Moses and Israel.”
Such a ceremony would be inappropriate for same-sex ceremonies, the Conservative rabbis suggested in their position paper. They also noted that the use of kiddushin opens the door to divorce disputes in which husbands may deny their wife religious writs of divorce, or gets—something that “has been the source of great suffering in many Jewish communities.”
Rabbi Menachem Creditor, who has been performing same-sex marriages since 2002—four years before the movement permitted them—said that Jewish law is flexible, and should respond to changes within the Jewish community.
“Modern halachah has always seen the Torah as its center, but not any one meaning as the final interpretation,” said Creditor, the rabbi of Berkeley’s Congregation Netivot Shalom. “There is a growing understanding from within Conservative Jews that our responsibility is to steward our community with clarity. Conservative Judaism believes halachah changes when it must.”
Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, who heads the LGBT Congregation Beit Simchat Torah in New York, said that these new guidelines represent a major step forward in Conservative Judaism’s sensitivity toward the LGBT community.
“We can’t be held hostage to the radical right wing of the Jewish world,” said Kleinbaum, who was ordained by the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College. “The Conservative movement is rejecting religion based on bigotry.”
While the 2006 decision to ordain gay and lesbian rabbis and accept gay couples was controversial, even Rabbi Joel Roth, who resigned from the law committee in the wake of that decision, called this latest responsum “a very fine thing.”
“The fact that they created the ceremony is five or six years overdue,” he told JTA. “In the Conservative movement as it exists, the classical position [of forbidding gay relations] is considered non-normative.”
The Reform movement’s Central Conference of American Rabbis endorsed Jewish gay marriage in the late 1990s while acknowledging the right of rabbis to choose whether or not to officiate at same-sex ceremonies. The Orthodox movement does not allow gay marriage.
Kleinbaum said she hopes that the Conservative movement’s next step in addressing LGBT issues will be in accommodating bisexual and transgender people.
Rabbi Gerald Skolnik, the president of the Rabbinical Assembly, said that the movement’s constituency will determine its priorities.
“Ultimately,” he said, “the Jewish people have a tendency of deciding what the next item on the agenda will be.”
Conservative rabbinic group issues guidelines for same-sex wedding rituals Read More »