fbpx

July 6, 2012

Milan’s Jews condemn meeting of right-wing movements

Milan’s Jewish community has condemned a meeting of European extreme right-wing movements due to be held at a Milan hotel Friday and Saturday.

In a statement, the Milan Jewish community expressed “alarm” at the meeting, which is to include representatives of Hungary’s Jobbik Party, the French Front National and Britain’s British National Party, among others.

They all form part of an alliance of “national” parties across Europe. Italy’s far-right movement, the Fiamma Tricolore (Tri-color Flame), is hosting the meeting.

“These organizations want to turn back the clock to the darkest period of European history,” the statement said. “The democratic institutions in the city must prevent it.”

It called on Italian authorities to see if there were provisions under Italy’s anti-racisim and anti-incitement laws to “cancel this worrying gathering, even at the last minute.”

The national “Italy-Israel Association” issued a similar statement, and the Jewish member of parliament from Milan, Emanuele Fiano, presented a note to the Interior Minister expressing concern that Milan would be the scene of a “meeting of European neo-fascist forces that, as always in history, try to take advantage of the difficult social situation to propagate their ideologies of hatred and death.”

Milan’s Jews condemn meeting of right-wing movements Read More »

Israel: A Republican Swing State?

The instability of the Arab Spring may have pushed a few more Israelis to be wishing they were not a part of the Middle East, but rather to think of Israel as the fifty-first U.S. state.  The instability of the Romney campaign may have the Republican Jewish Coalition head Ari Fleischer and his entourage traveling 5,683 miles to Israel, more miles than there are potential American Republican voters which I estimate to be around 2,500, in Israel.

The Republican Jewish Coalition has created estimates that roughly 150,000 U.S. citizens and eligible voters are living in Israel, including many from key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. So the RJC is organizing a registration drive in Israel.

The 2011 Statistical Abstract of Israel shows 154,000 originating from North America and Oceania, meaning primarily the U.S., Canada and Australia, of which 59 percent are Israeli-born, thus not likely to have registered to vote in the U.S.  That leaves about 64,000 of which 86% are Americans, leaving 55,000, if similar rates of registration and voting occurs as in the U.S. for Jews, then about 81 percent would vote in the best case, which would leave 45,000. 

45,000 potential voters is optimistic because of another hurdle to voting. Americans don’t vote directly for U.S. president, we vote for Electors from each state.  Therefore, American citizens ages 18 and older can register to vote. To register, voters must meet the residency requirements of their states, which vary, and comply with voter-registration deadlines. 

It would take a truly rabid political Israeli American political animal to maintain after a number of years registration in their last state of residence.  So if an optimistic 10 percent of Israeli Americans did so, only 4,500 might vote.  Let’s say Israeli Americans buck the Democratic voter trend and half vote Republican, that translates to 2,500 potential votes for Romney.

Flattr this

Pini Herman, PhD. has served as Asst. Research Professor at the University of Southern California Dept. of Geography,  Adjunct Lecturer at the USC School of Social Work,  Research Director at the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles following Bruce Phillips, PhD. in that position (and author of the “most recent” 15 year old study of the LA Jewish population which was the third most downloaded study from Berman Jewish Policy Archives in 2011) and is immediate past President of the Movable Minyan a lay-lead independent congregation in the 3rd Street area. Currently he is a principal of Phillips and Herman Demographic Research. To email Pini: pini00003@gmail.com To follow Pini on Twitter:

Israel: A Republican Swing State? Read More »

Simon Wiesenthal Center urges German Chancellor to pass law declaring circumcision legal

In the wake of a German court’s ruling in June that declared nonconsensual religious circumcision to be inflicting “bodily harm” on boys, Rabbi Marvin Hier and Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center have called on German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other leaders in the Bundestag to pass legislation declaring the practice legal in Germany.

Circumcision is a central rite for both Jews and Muslims, and the court’s decision provoked criticism from religious and political leaders both in Germany and beyond.

In their letter dated July 5, Hier and Cooper urged Merkel to condemn the ruling and “take immediate legislative steps to guarantee the right of Jews and Muslims to continue to practice their age-old core tradition of circumcision.”

The current controversy began when the District Court of Cologne ruled in a case involving a four-year-old Muslim boy who was taken by his parents to a hospital days after his ritual circumcision. The court acquitted the doctor, but ruled that in the future, doctors who carry out circumcisions should be punished, and declared that circumcision “even when done properly by a doctor with the permission of the parents, should be considered as bodily harm if it is carried out on a boy unable to give his own consent,” The Guardian reported.

The decision was met with immediate criticism from Jews and Muslims in Germany and beyond. German politicians and Christian leaders in the country also criticized the decision as infringing upon religious freedom and parental rights. The court’s decision rejected such claims, however, ruling that, “the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighs the fundamental rights of the parents.”

Many of the arguments on both sides of this debate will look familiar to anyone who followed the path of an anti-circumcision measure that initially qualified for inclusion on ballots in San Francisco in 2011.

In much the same way as the proposed San Francisco law would have only applied to men under age 18, a law professor involved in the debate over the legal status of religious circumcision in Germany told Reuters that the court’s decision was not an effort to ban religious circumcision, but to prohibit the surgery from being performed on anyone too young to give consent.

Such declarations are unlikely to mollify the concerns of Jews, who traditionally circumcise their sons on the eighth day of life.

By urging the German government to take action legislatively, Hier and Cooper are advocating for one strategy that was employed in 2011 by American lawmakers who passed a law in Sacramento and introduced another in Washington, D.C., that would have stopped the proposed anti-circumcision ballot measure from spreading beyond San Francisco. (The 2011 ballot measure was ultimately struck from the ballot after a court decided that a preexisting California law prohibited cities from regulating such procedures.)

Pointing to news reports that the Jewish Hospital in Berlin had stopped performing circumcisions, even though the Cologne court’s decision might not apply in the German capital, Cooper said that a law could put an end to the newly murky legal status of circumcision.

“One way to clarify this very important social issue is to pass a piece of legislation that specifically says circumcision is legal,” Cooper told The Journal in an interview. “We turn to Chancellor Merkel, really as the most important politician in Germany, to get her to exercise political leadership.”

But if the abortive attempt to outlaw underage male circumcision in a California city provoked strong reactions last year, the current controversy over the court’s binding ruling is stoking passions to an particularly intense degree specifically because it is taking place in Germany.

Calling the ruling “a frontal attack on religious freedom,” Cooper said that laws prohibiting circumcision, like similar legislation prohibiting ritual Jewish slaughter in certain European countries, were “an invitation for Jews to leave.”

“Hell will freeze over before the Jewish people will look for moral leadership from anyone in Germany about how we should exercise our religion,” Cooper said.

Simon Wiesenthal Center urges German Chancellor to pass law declaring circumcision legal Read More »

No business like the news business: Aaron Sorkin on ‘Newsroom’

Aaron Sorkin, the playwright, television writer and Oscar-winning screenwriter of “The Social Network,” is causing a stir with his new HBO series, “The Newsroom,” about the inside antics of a cable news show and its commentary on American journalism. Sorkin’s “The West Wing” and “Sports Night,” among others, have earned the veteran show creator a reputation for intense examinations of institutional milieus — government, sports and now the news industry. He’s also distinguished himself through his style of writing, famous for its prolix dialogue, withering wit and moral idealism, for which he ranks among the most literary of Hollywood writers. In an e-mail interview, Sorkin expounded on the journalism he trusts, how he copes with bad reviews and the unique rewards of having a daughter.

Read more at jewishjournal.com/hollywoodjew.

No business like the news business: Aaron Sorkin on ‘Newsroom’ Read More »

Presbyterian Church’s narrow rejection of divestment unlikely to slow anti-Israel push

Proponents of using economic pressure to force Israel out of the West Bank may have lost a key battle this week – by a hair’s breadth – but they have no intention of giving up.

That’s the message from backers of a divestment motion at the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), which late Thursday night rejected a proposal to divest from companies selling equipment to the Israeli military in the West Bank.

The 333-331 vote, with two abstentions, at the church’s Pittsburgh gathering was the closest that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement—aimed at undermining Israel’s occupation of the West Bank—has come to a win in a major American religious denomination.

Friday morning also saw the defeat, by a substantial margin – 403-175 – of a resolution that would have likened Israel’s West Bank presence to apartheid. But one divestment resolution – targeting only products manufactured in the West Bank – did pass, 457-180. Delegates also approved by a 70-vote margin a resolution supporting investment in companies that help build the West Bank economy.

“We are concerned, but think it’s unproductive,” Ethan Felson, vice president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the agency’s point person on interfaith relations, said of the vote to boycott West Bank products. 

However, the main focus of the proceedings and their aftermath was on the divestment issue—and Presbyterian and Jewish advocates of it vowed to press on.

“It appears that church commissioners were swayed by a fear that divestment would cause irreparable harm to Jewish-Christian relations,” said Rev. Katherine Cunningham, the vice-moderator of the church’s Israel/Palestine Mission Network (IMPN), which recommended divestment. “In reality, the divestment motion was supported by a broad alliance of Jews, Christians, and others who believe that nonviolent means such as divestment are an effective way to pressure the Israeli government into abiding by international law and respecting Palestinian human rights.”

The IPNM “will continue its efforts to alleviate the suffering of Palestinians and to help bring peace and justice to Israelis and Palestinians alike,” she said.

A 2011 church report found that Caterpillar supplies bulldozers for the demolition of Palestinian homes by the Israel Defense Forces, Motorola provides cell phone technology to West Bank settlements and Hewlett-Packard manages information technology for the Israeli Navy.

The Presbyterian Church-USA had voted in 2004 to approach corporations that they said were aiding Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, asking them to reconsider business with the Jewish state. That effort – which held back initial calls for divestment – was reaffirmed in 2006, 2008 and 2010.

Felson called the vote against divestment a victory even though it was closer than previous such votes in other religious movements. Most recently, in May the Methodist Church defeated similar divestment proposals by a two-thirds-to-one-third margin.

“This is a major milestone that despite the full-court press from the denomination’s main institutions, when presented to the rank and file, divestment doesn’t fly,” said Felson, who was at the convention lobbying church leaders to tone down the resolution.

While divestment is now off the table for the church, more efforts targeting Israel should be expected, said Rev. John Wimberly, co-moderator of Presbyterians for Middle East Peace. He also cautioned that the vote should not be seen as approval of Israel’s policies.

“The fact is there was an overwhelming consensus that the Palestinians are in a very bad place and we want to help them,” he said.

“The anger from the pro-divestment crowd towards Israel is not over,” added Wimberly, who opposes divestment. “As long as there are Israeli troops on the West Bank, there are going to be different ways in which that’s tackled. We don’t know what this will be, but we know it’s not going to be divestment moving forward.”

A number of Jewish groups pushed hard against the divestment resolution, and more than 22,000 Jews signed a letter organized by JCPA and the Jewish Federation of North America’s Israel Action Network urging the Presbyterian delegates to reject the divestment resolution.

Their letter followed an earlier one signed by 1,300 rabbis and sent to the church that called on Presbyterians to deepen their “understandings of the multiple narratives in the region” and “focus on positive steps including economic development, Palestinian state building, and a return to negotiations.”

Americans for Peace Now and J Street each called on the church to reject the divestment resolution, even though both those groups oppose Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.

Rachel Lerner, the vice president of J Street’s education fund, said it was the means of divestment, not the end goal, that J Street opposes.

“This should not have been and this was not a choice about whether you support settlement expansion or peace in the region,” Lerner said of the Presbyterian vote. “This was a decision over a tactic, and that was what we wanted to emphasize.”

The Union for Reform Judaism welcomed the rejection of divestment, and expressed the hope that Thursday’s vote put the matter to rest.

“We hope that PC(USA)’s leadership and General Assembly will forego consideration of similar proposals at future gatherings and instead will work toward a more positive and constructive approach to promoting peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, a goal which we all share,” Rabbi David Saperstein, the director of Reform’s Religious Action Center, said in a statement. Those comments were echoed by other Jewish groups such as the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Jewish Voice for Peace, which supports BDS and has been labeled by the Anti-Defamation League as one of the top 10 anti-Israel groups in the United States, said it would not be dissuaded by the narrow loss of the divestment proposal.

“This is a historic moment in the struggle for dignity and justice, and I commend the PC (USA) for getting us this close to holding corporations accountable for profiting from the occupation,” said Rabbi Alissa Wise, the director of campaigns for Jewish Voice for Peace. The group, which includes Jews and non-Jews, sent members to Pittsburgh for the convention and lobbied on behalf of the resolution.

Presbyterian Church’s narrow rejection of divestment unlikely to slow anti-Israel push Read More »

The Declaration of Independence’s Inclusiveness

The Declaration of Independence’s Inclusiveness Read More »

Celebrity Schadenfreude: Hating on the stars

On the flight back from a recent trip to Italy, I took a slight flight risk and decided to watch Madonna’s critically maligned movie “W.E.”  Since I had not heard a single positive thing about it (save for Andrea Riseborough’s performance as Wallis Simpson) I was not particularly excited about my choice. But since the flight was 12.5 hours and it was either that or “Jeff Who Lives At Home” I went for stylized melodrama over modern melancholy.

And reader, I liked it.

The film tells the story of Wally Winthrop, a young, upper-crust New York City housewife whose marital turmoil fuels an obsession with romantic legend: the love affair between the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, otherwise known as King Edward VIII and the American coquette Wallis Simpson. Their romance scandalized a nation; it began when she was married and compelled him to abdicate his throne. The film has its flaws of course, but it was also intense and entertaining. The score, by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski was a highlight, and though the script was somewhat uneven in its focus on the modern thread (Wally’s affair with a Sotheby’s security guard) and not the classic story, the dialogue was sharp and smart.

By the film’s end I wondered if I liked it more than I should have because my expectations had been so thoroughly sullied beforehand.

As the one of the film’s producers, Harvey Weinstein acknowledged the disconnect: “Of all the movies this year that have gotten a bad shake from the critics, this is the one. And I think it’s Madonna. I think they see the personality behind the film.”

Weinstein’s suggestion that Madonna’s star-power undermined both her and the film’s ability to get a fair shake is an increasing phenomenon.

This is the dawning of the age of celebrity schadenfreude.

Several weeks ago, popular science writer Jonah Lehrer was unstintingly shamed in the press for—I think the term was “self-plagiarism”. The recent staff addition to The New Yorker reportedly lifted whole paragraphs from his earlier work at other publications—among them The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Magazine and Wired—and reproduced them on his New Yorker blog, Frontal Cortex. The media pounced. “Jonah Lehrer’s ‘Self Plagiarism’ Scandal Rocks The New Yorker” read a Daily Beast headline. Really, it rocked his less successful peers: From The New York Times to Slate to New York Magazine, reporters seemed to delight in Lehrer’s harmless gaffe, determined to crucify an otherwise stellar career for the crime of a little laziness.

As Slate’s Josh Levin put it, “[Self-plagiarism is] not a victimless crime. Lehrer’s readers deserve to know whether the stuff he’s representing as new material was first published in Wired in 2009.”

OK, so sue him.

The reason Lehrer received such a pounding in the press is not because of any crime—petty or otherwise. It is because he is young, brilliant and successful and oh what a delight it is to see him falter.

I also wondered whether this ravenous need to topple the talented played into the scathing reviews Aaron Sorkin received for his new HBO series, “The Newsroom.” The New Yorker’s Emily Nussbaum wrote, “The Newsroom’ gets so bad so quickly that I found my jaw dropping,” and Maureen Ryan wrote on Huffington Post that she found it “obvious and self-congratulatory,” “manipulative and shrieky.” They were hardly the only ones. The tenor of criticism towards Sorkin has been so harsh it reeks of the perverse pleasure the insecure and inferior experience when the brilliant and successful err.

By contrast, one “Newsroom” review that was even-handed and fair (though no less critical) was Jake Tapper’s piece in The New Republic. Before he delved into his critique of “The Snoozeroom,” Tapper, the senior White House correspondent for ABC News admitted, “I wanted this show to be great,” and disclosed that he had “eagerly” participated in a research conference call with Sorkin and other writers and journalists during the show’s development stage. His criticism of the show stood apart because it was mostly about the show, not just Sorkin. While Huffington Post’s Ryan decried “giving Sorkin yet another platform in which to Set the People Straight” and Nussbaum snidely remarked that “Sorkin’s shows are the type that people who never watch TV are always claiming are better than anything else on TV,” Tapper was the only one who clearly outlined the show’s conceptual and structural failings: “McAvoy [Newsroom’s protagonist played by Jeff Daniels]—and by extension, Sorkin—preach political selflessness, but they practice pure partisanship; they extol the Fourth Estate’s democratic duty, but they believe that responsibility consists mostly of criticizing Republicans…The fact that the show begins at the height of the Tea Party’s fervor—is no accident… Sorkin’s intent is to show how events of recent memory coud have been covered better by the media if journalists had only had the courage.” 

A contrarian spirit is an essential quality in criticism (and in fiction, and in a democracy, for that matter). It is the oil that fuels a show like Sorkin’s “Newsroom”, that enlarges and complicates Madonna’s public image, and challenges abnormally brilliant minds like Lehrer’s to stay fresh. Mediocrity should never be acceptable within the status quo. But, to tear down some of our brightest stars when they are not at their best is a pitiful consolation for the indignity of human envy.

Celebrity Schadenfreude: Hating on the stars Read More »

Netanyahu wants two teams to examine draft alternatives

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Friday that he has ordered the formulation of two teams to examine universal draft alternatives.

One team will be headed by Prime Minister’s Office representatives and the other by ones from Kadima, Ynet reported.

Kadima Chairman Shaul Mofaz, however, has rejected Netanyahu’s plan to form two new committees.

Netanyahu had said Mofaz had agreed to the move, but the Kadima chairman stressed that any advancement on the issue must be based on recommendations of the Plesner Committee, which was charged with formulating a new law on haredi Orthodox military service.

The Plesner committee released its preliminary findings on Wednesday, despite being dissolved two days earlier by Netanyahu.

The committee’s report calls for universal service for all Israeli citizens, including mandating the draft of haredi Orthodox men and upgrading the National Service program for the Arab sector. It also calls for formulating an effective enforcement system and incentives for serving.

The report calls for individual financial sanctions against draft evaders, as well as sanctions against yeshivas that prevent their students from entering the draft.

In February, the Israeli Supreme Court declared that the Tal Law, which allowed haredi Orthodox men to defer service indefinitely, to be unconstitutional, and set Aug. 1 as the deadline for a new law to be passed.

Netanyahu wants two teams to examine draft alternatives Read More »

Clinton meets with Abbas

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called her talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas productive.

Clinton, who met with Abbas Friday, said she hopes to build momentum for another peace push when she visits Israel in 10 days, the Associated Press reported.

She said the two discussed how to build on a recent letter exchange between Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Clinton said the U.S. is committed to a two-state peace agreement. “We cannot lose sight of the critical importance” of Israeli-Palestinian peace despite upheaval across the Arab world, she said, according to AP.

Clinton and Abbas met in Paris, where the secretary of state was attending a conference on Syria.

Clinton meets with Abbas Read More »