fbpx

October 16, 2013

USC-Shoah head named to genocide education chair

As the executive director of the USC Shoah Foundation-The Institute for Visual History and Education, Stephen Smith is known for his work preserving the memory of the Holocaust.

Now, the USC adjunct professor of religion is being given a platform to promote education about crimes against humanity on an even broader level. On Sept. 24, Smith was named the inaugural holder of the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) chair on genocide education. It was established in partnership by USC and UNESCO to promote research, training, information and documentation on genocide education and encourage collaboration among internationally recognized researchers and educators.

“I am a firm believer that education is the bedrock of our efforts to prevent genocide,” Smith said in a statement. “Through this partnership, USC and UNESCO are joining forces to develop the research networks and education programs essential to understand and limit genocide in future generations.”

Praising Smith’s and the Shoah Foundation’s awareness-building efforts, UNESCO director-general Irina Bokova said in a statement that she expects Smith to thrive as the program’s chair.

 “We anticipate that this new chair, placed under the leadership of Dr. Stephen Smith, will contribute to increased international cooperation on these matters by connecting with UNESCO’s network of university chairs and by supporting the activities of the organization in issues pertaining to the history of the Holocaust, genocide and to human rights,” she said.

Smith’s appointment is part of the UNITWIN (University Twinning and Network Scheme)/UNESCO Chairs Programme, which “enables chairs to serve as bridge builders between academia, civil society, local communities, research and policy-making,” according to a USC press release.

Established nearly 20 years ago, the USC Institute maintains an archive of nearly 52,000 video testimonies of Holocaust survivors and other witnesses from 57 countries and in 33 languages. Its collection also includes testimonies from eyewitnesses to genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia and Armenia.

USC-Shoah head named to genocide education chair Read More »

October 16, 2013

The US

Headline: Any U.S. sanctions relief on Iran likely to start slowly

To Read: Former US Ambassador Edward P. Djerejian views the US' intense diplomatic efforts on the Israel-Palestine front as an example of what should be done with Iran and Syria as well-

To the Obama administration's credit, it has reinitiated direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to try to achieve a permanent two-state solution. In this central issue, the United States is engaging in intensive diplomacy that goes beyond conflict management to conflict resolution. That should be the paradigm it follows toward the Syrian crisis and Iran. The United States can react to “one damn thing after another” in the Middle East or it can make the difficult but much more strategic effort to help resolve the underlying issues catalyzing conflicts throughout the region. It is a question of political will and commitment to promote and safeguard our national security interests and humanitarian values. In this respect, this is not a formula for overextension in the Middle East, but for the deliberate conduct of coherent and reinforcing diplomacy to achieve progress on issues that affect regional and global peace and security.

Quote:  “I'd say no. They've got a long way to go to demonstrate the kind of credibility that would lead us to believe we can move in a conciliatory direction. And sanctions are what has strengthened the administration's hand”, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), one of several Democrats in congress who are opposed to the lifting of sanctions against Iran, even if the President asks.

Number: 2, the number of days left before the debt default deadline.

 

Israel

Headline: Iran the main obstacle to peace with Palestinians, PM says

To Read: Lee Perlman, Executive Director of the America-Israel cultural foundation, writes about Israel's theater addiction-

Israeli theater is at the core of our Art-up nation. Interestingly, we’re in the top five around the world of per capita consumption of theater, including over three million theater visits per year in the seven major repertory theaters alone – Tel Aviv (Habima, Cameri, Bet Lessin), Jaffa (Gesher), Jerusalem (Chan), Haifa and Beersheba. My colleague, Dan Urian, has coined the oxymoron “synagogue for the secular” (Bet Knesset l’hilonim sounds better in Hebrew), referring to Israeli theater’s role as a venue for reflection for a large subset of Jewish Israelis about their identities, problems, fears and hopes. Observant Jewish Israelis and Arab citizens also create and consume theater here and to varying degrees are integrated into the mainstream theater activities.

Quote: “in the present circumstances, keeping people incarcerated for up to three years, as allowed by the law, is unconstitutional. Furthermore, the state intends to keep these migrants locked up for the entire period of three years permitted by the law. Some of these people have been imprisoned for over a year”, Israel's Supreme Court President's words in last month's ruling against prolonged incarceration of immigrants (here is the government's response).

Number: 31, the percentage of Israelis who are at risk of falling below the poverty line.

 

The Middle East

Headline: Iran to allow ‘snap inspections’ of nuclear facilities

To Read: According to Udi Dekel and Orit Perlov, the Syrian chemical disarmament deal has changed the power balance in Syria in Assad's favor-

Between President Obama’s August 31, 2013 declaration on a retaliatory action against Syria and the abandonment of the attack option in exchange for dismantlement of Syria’s chemical weapons program, a dramatic change has taken place in the balance of power among the parties battling for the future of Syria. In an ironic if not absurd development, the diplomatic agreement has granted President Assad legitimacy, and made him a partner of sorts to the international community in implementing the resolution on Syria’s chemical disarmament. The long list of crimes perpetrated by Assad over two and a half years, which killed tens of thousands of innocent Syrian civilians, has ostensibly been erased.

Quote:  “We are now in a delicate state reflecting the turmoil in the relationship and anyone who says otherwise is not speaking honestly”, Nabil Fahmy, Egypt's FM, describing the precarious state of US-Egypt relations.

Number: 21, the number of people killed by a blast in southern Syria.

 

The Jewish World

Headline: Major Jewish organizations silent on recent Yeshiva University scandal

To Read: J.J Goldberg doesn't understand the excessive pessimism about the Pew stats on intermarried Jews-

Will their children be Jewish? Who knows? They themselves weren’t supposed to be Jewish, but they are. And they have a choice.

But this good news will never convince the hand-wringers. Every new survey provides new evidence that the end is just around the corner.

In May 1964, Look magazine published a cover story titled “The Vanishing American Jew.” Forty-nine years later, Look has vanished, but the Jews are still here. The children are turning out fine.

Quote:  “What would be a better act of generosity and reconciliation than the return of the Grand Synagogue of Toledo to the Jewish people and particularly to the Jewish community of Spain, as a symbol of dialogue between Jews and Christians”, Isaac Querub, the president of the Federation of Jewish Communities in Spain, asking the country's Catholic officials to give the historic Toledo synagogue back to the Jews.

Number: 70, Monday was the 70th anniversary of the Sobibor revolt.

October 16, 2013 Read More »

Coming through the Slaughter

I am in Lahore for Eidul Azha – it marks the sacrifice the Prophet Abraham (RA) was willing to make in his son for Allah (Yaweh). It is a story of near-violence and the ultimate sacrifice, layered in meaning. The ultimate sacrifice. It is the story of coming through a slaughter. 

It is the night before Eid. Some friends have taken me out to the professor's house. It is a rambling old one in a planned part of Lahore I have written about. The driveway would have taken a carriage, the double doors the sweep of a gharara. The ceilings are high, the rooms full of history. A Naiza Khan hangs by the door in the corridor. I am happy to recognise the art. The rest is strange, looks not expensive as much as heirloom. Famous. I know I am meeting famous people but won't know who they are.

I reach for a pickled gherkin; should I tell the story of AdiikaloOn? How the Russians can pack away so much vodka because they take a bite of a pickled gherkin in between shots. The salt keeps them steady. Absorbs the alcohol. When Garbacheev introduced prohibition, they drank perfume. Eau de Cologne = Adii-ka-loOn. Perhaps I am showing off. I am humbled by the professor. I do not mean to name drop. I mean to source. That brother-in-law comment on sourcing switched something on in me; I am subconsciously sourcing all the names for the stories, anecdotes, tales. The time I made the worst mistake of my career that sent my editor, Najam Sethi, through the roof. Cowasjee had called him up in the morning to ask what pubic servants were doing on page 2 of the Karachi metropolitan edition?

Perhaps I am trying to impress the professor. But, perhaps I want to open myself to get him to teach me. I want to show myself I am worthy of being talked to. I present my problem: the violence of Karachi. Steven Pinker, Susan Sontag, Mark Epstein, Slavoj Zizek. Hannah Arendt. Nichola Khan. He explains that Arendt was talking about something else. How the Germans could turn all those wonderful scientific, philosophical things into a thing for killing.

“You should read it regardless because of how well she writes,” he says, as I can only best re-quote him. The only way they could unseat the landed political elite, I hear him say, is to use violence. All the parties do it. There is someone who has been in power for generations. His family always wins in that constituency. What do you do to unseat him? You slit a few throats. That is violence. The government is forced to sit up and take notice. “You level the playing field.” I sit back, delirious. I have never heard this analysis. I was stuck in Karachi's urban fabric, searching for answers there. The 1992, 1996 operations subjecting them to violence that repeated itself; violence internalised after you have been brutalised. Am I wrong?

It is hot, but quite pleasant. Someone lights up a cigarette. I feel I need to get back to the bookstore and stock up. I am so far behind. I feel weak; under-read. Someone mentions the Baloch academic who studied the effects of the nuclear testing in Chaghi. She had to leave. No one knows where she is now. The Baloch websites list the number of missing. The brother-in-law feels the need to mention that there are so many different types of violence; you can't lump them all together. I make comforting and polite noises. “Oh, yes, absolutely.” I don't know if stating the obvious really helps here. Am I thinking about the homicide rate? The professor comes to my aid. We'd have to look at the numbers, he says in a measured tone. But then how would you compare Karachi's numbers? With another urbanised center? Per capita? I think that we are a city of 23 million souls.

How can I compare that with anything else in the world?

Coming through the Slaughter Read More »

Iran Talks: What Should You Do When You Trust No One?

This morning on the radio, minister Silvan Shalom – formerly Israel's Foreign Minister – said something almost funny: if there will be an agreement between the international community and Iran, this agreement will be an unworthy agreement. How would an Israeli minister know such a thing – how can he know in advance that the agreement can't be one with which Israel could be satisfied? The simple answer is that he doesn't know. He can't know. The simple answer is that Shalom's radio comment doesn't reflect the information he has about the talks, but rather the level of trust he has in Iran- and in the US (the talks aren't handled by the US alone, but Israelis tend to have zero trust in European countries).

The fact that Israel feels alone when it comes to Iran, and doesn't have much trust in others, is clear from Jodi Rudoren's piece on Prime Minister Netanyahu from a couple of days ago. This picture is also consistent with recent public opinion polls. The Israel Democracy Institute's Peace Index Survey  found that Israelis, by and large, view American foreign policy with growing alarm. “A clear majority (66%) of the Jewish public thinks the U.S. administration’s handling of the Syrian issue projects weakness”, the survey revealed. Interestingly, this view is shared by right wing, centrist, and left wing Israelis. On the issue of Iran the Israeli left still has some differences with the right and the center, but all in all “two-thirds of the Jewish public tends to doubt that President Obama will fulfill his promise that the U.S. will prevent Iran’s development of nuclear weapons at all cost”. Only the “hard left” believes Obama is committed enough to preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear armed power. 

The fact that Israelis don't buy Iran's new show of moderation is hardly surprising. A “broad consensus (80%)” says that “Rouhani does not represent a real change in Iran’s policy, only in style”. In a poll conducted by Panels Politics on October 3, 77% of the respondents said that they “don't believe” that Iran “truly aspires to reach an agreement”, with only 6% believing the new President of Iran. Of course, the level of trust in President Obama is still higher – but troublingly not much higher. 68% of Israelis “don't trust” President Obama “when he says that the US will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. 29% do trust him.

What are the options available for Israelis when trust in the ability of the international community to stop Iran's program is so low?

They have four options:

  1. They can ignore the stream of news about talks with Iran, disregard all news related to Iran's advancement of its program, plug their ears so as not to hear Netanyahu's warnings – and live in blissful ignorance, suppressing bad news. I wonder if any psychologist would recommend such a response.
  2. They can gradually become more agitated and develop an unhealthy anxiety. This will not necessarily be an irrational move. As one keeps hearing from one's leaders that one is in danger of being annihilated if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, and as one doesn't trust anyone's promises not to allow this to happen, anxiety would be a proper response. 
  3. They can decide to trust Netanyahu's promises not to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. But this is not an easy position to hold, as it means that A. Israel is truly alone, B. that Israel would have to go to war with Iran, and C. that this war isn't necessarily going to be supported by Israel's allies.
  4. They can decide that a nuclear Iran isn't as bad as Netanyahu claims it is. In fact, they can decide that “Israel should come to terms” with the fact that Iran is going nuclear and “devise a defense strategy based on the assumption that Israel is not the only nuclear state in the region”.

In the IDI survey, 57% of Jewish Israelis (and 65% of Arab Israelis) said they “agree” with the view presented in option number four. That's down from 60% who gave the same answer a year ago, but still, a majority of Israelis essentially say that they see a way for their country to live alongside a nuclear Iran – a position which their quite popular Prime Minister strongly disagrees with.

Is he right, or are they right? We don't know the answer and we won't know it for a while. Obviously, if Israelis are wrong the consequences could be dire – annihilation – but if Netanyahu is wrong the consequences could also be quite bad – an unnecessary and very dangerous war against Iran.

In any case, the answer Israelis gave to this question about living with a nuclear Iran is interesting for several reasons. First of all- because it is an answer devoid of tactical manipulations. While with Netanyahu one can't conclusively discern between his real view and the propaganda aimed at prompting the world to act, with the public what you see is what they really think. Secondly – because it reveals that Netanyahu can't even convince the Israeli public of the idea he has tirelessly been trying to promote abroad – that a nuclear Iran means a catastrophe. The third reason – because as Netanyahu looks at the Israeli public, what he sees is in fact not much different from what he sees in Washington: a delusional hope that an evil regime can be contained. Fourth – because such this answer weakens Israel's official position, and might lead the Iranians and others to believe that Israel isn't truly adamant about preventing Iran from going nuclear at all cost.

When we look at the Israeli public's position we can attribute it to two possible reasons. It could be the logical conclusion reached by a public which is unwilling to submit to doom and gloom predictions, and which is quite confident about Israel's ability to survive no matter what happens in Iran. Or it can simply be a form of psychological suppression.

Iran Talks: What Should You Do When You Trust No One? Read More »

U.S. lawmakers close to deal on debt ceiling, reopening government

The U.S. Senate appeared ready to announce a last-minute deal on Wednesday to avert a historic lapse in the government's borrowing ability and a potentially damaging debt default.

But even if the Senate and House of Representatives manage to overcome procedural hurdles to seal the deal before Thursday – when the Treasury says it will exhaust its borrowing authority — it will only be a temporary solution that sets up the prospect of another showdown early next year.

Major U.S. stock indexes rose more than 1 percent on optimism that lawmakers would finally end the weeks-long fiscal impasse, but cautious investors are still wary over the final outcome. Although the cost of insuring U.S. debt hit its highest in over two years, the dollar held its ground against other currencies.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican leader Mitch McConnell were close to finishing a fiscal plan that could be considered by the full Senate later on Wednesday. The leaders were expected to announce a deal when the Senate convened at noon (1600 GMT).

Weeks of bitter fighting among Democrats and Republicans over President Barack Obama's signature healthcare reform law led to a two-week government shutdown, sidelining hundreds of thousands of federal workers.

The initial fight over the healthcare law turned into a bigger battle over the debt ceiling, threatening a default that would have reverberations around the world.

“If we don't get a default, it would be like Y2K. People were staying up all night worried about what would happen during that deadline. Then nothing happened,” said David Keeble, global head of interest rate strategy with Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank in New York, referring to worries about the millennium computer bug in 2000.

Both Democrats and Republicans are confident that the U.S. House of Representatives will have enough votes on Wednesday to pass the bipartisan Senate plan, a top Democratic aide said.

Aides to House Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, called senior Senate staff to say the House would vote first on the measure, the aide said, adding that it appears certain to be approved with mostly Democratic votes.

Lawmakers are racing against time. While analysts and U.S. officials say the government will still have roughly $30 billion in cash to pay many obligations for at least a few days, the financial sector may begin to seize up on Thursday if no deal is secured.

“I think folks on both sides of the aisle in the Senate are ready to get this done,” Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia told National Public Radio on Wednesday, a day after chaotic developments frayed the nerves of many members of Congress and global financial markets.

Even if a deal is reached, it must still clear the full Senate and possible procedural snags before moving to the fractious House of Representatives, which was unable to produce its own deal on Tuesday.

“Today is definitely not the day to be conducting any serious business as traders across the globe will be hypnotized by their TVs/terminals and anxiously waiting for something to hit the news wires,” Jonathan Sudaria, a trader at Capital Spreads in London, wrote in a client note.

Fitch Ratings warned it could cut the U.S. sovereign credit rating from AAA, citing the political brinkmanship over raising the debt ceiling.

U.S. lawmakers close to deal on debt ceiling, reopening government Read More »

Iran nukes talks to renew in November

Talks between Iran and major powers on Iran’s nuclear aims were “good” and will renew next month, the Iranian foreign minister said.

“The talks will continue in a few weeks in Geneva and during this period the members of the P5+1 will have a chance to acquire the necessary readiness regarding the details of Iran’s plans and the steps that they must take,” Javad Zarif said in a post Wednesday on his Facebook page, according to a New York Times translation.

The P5+1 refers to the five permanent veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council – Russia, the United States, Britain, France and China – and Germany.

Top officials from these nations met from Tuesday to Thursday in Geneva with Zarif, where he presented what he had described in previous Facebook posts as a PowerPoint presentation on what Iran was prepared to do to end the impasse over his country’s nuclear ambitions. He did not reveal the details of the proposal, although in his Facebook posting he said there were “good discussions.”

The major powers suspect Iran of running a nuclear weapons development program; Iran insists its program is peaceful. Under its newly elected president, Hassan Rouhani, Iran has offered increased transparency in exchange for an easing of crippling sanctions.

Iran nukes talks to renew in November Read More »

Bush to Jewish leaders: I don’t trust Iran’s peaceful intentions

Former President George W. Bush told a Presidents Conference gathering that he did not trust the Iranian regime to change its intentions toward Israel.

“I will not believe in Iran’s peaceful intentions until they can irrevocably prove that it’s true,” Bush told the 1,200 guests at the gala of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, according to several people in attendance. “The United States’ foreign policy must be clear eyed and understand that until the form of government changes in Iran, it is unlikely that their intentions toward Israel will change.”

The event, held Tuesday night at the Waldorf Astoria in New York City, honored several past presidents of the umbrella organization and its longtime executive vice-chairman, Malcolm Hoenlein.

Bush’s appearance had not been publicized, and attendees were asked not to record or tape his comments.

The program also featured video testimonials from President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as remarks from several Israeli and U.S. politicians, and Jewish notables.

Bush, Obama and Netanyahu all praised the Presidents Conference for its work in supporting Israel and strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship. Attendees said Bush thanked Presidents Conference leaders for always being professional, knowledgeable and respectful of the office of the presidency, even when there were disagreements over tactics.

Bush to Jewish leaders: I don’t trust Iran’s peaceful intentions Read More »

Sports teams should change racist names and logos, ADL says

Professional sports teams should seriously consider moving away from “the use of hurtful and offensive names, mascots and logos,” the Anti-Defamation League said.

Abraham Foxman, ADL’s national director, released a statement Tuesday amid increasing pressure on the Jewish owner of the Washington Redskins, Dan Snyder, to change the name of the NFL team.

Foxman said the ultimate decision to change a team’s name, however, “should come from the team’s ownership with input from the fan base. It is up to them to decide to let go of this hurtful tradition.”

Other teams have come under fire for similar reasons, including the Cleveland Indians, whose grinning, red-faced mascot Chief Wahoo has been called racist and offensive.

Teams such as the Redskins and the Indians “have a responsibility to be sensitive to the legitimate hurt that offensive names, mascots and logos cause,” Foxman said. “Tradition matters, but tradition should not justify the perpetuation of such names and mascots.  A name change will not impact how a team fares on the field, or in the standings.”

On Sunday, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones defended Snyder’s decision to adhere to the Redskins name.

“It would be a real mistake – a real mistake – to think that Dan, who is Jewish, has a lack of sensitivity regarding somebody’s feelings,” said Jones, according to the Washington Post. “I promise you that.”

The comments came after President Obama last week said that if he were the owner of the team, he would consider changing the name because it is offensive to some people.

Sports teams should change racist names and logos, ADL says Read More »

Outmoded divorce law leading to back-alley beatings a real shandah

The FBI arrested two prominent Orthodox Jewish rabbis and two of their associates overnight Oct. 9 in New York. Allegedly, these rabbis arranged back-alley beatings for men who refuse to divorce their wives. Understanding their alleged crimes requires a short background in Jewish law.

Jewish law recognizes that some marriages may end in divorce, and includes provisions for how it should be done. In order to divorce in Jewish law, the husband, who accepted the responsibilities of marriage and the financial obligations of divorce at the wedding ceremony, must formally end the marriage with a divorce document, a “get.” This document must be given by the husband to the wife.

Most divorces go smoothly, with the parties in full cooperation. The husband gives the get and all ties are severed. However, there are a significant number of cases in which a recalcitrant husband refuses to give the get. It can be for financial reasons, it can be for vindictive reasons and it can be simply because the husband is holding out hope for reconciliation. Whatever the reason, when a husband does not give his wife a get, she is chained to him and cannot remarry under Jewish law. We call this woman an agunah.

Few things play at the heartstrings in a more profound way than the agunah. The woman is a double victim. She is a victim of an arcane, one-sided system of dissolving a marriage, and she is a victim of a husband who is taking advantage of that system.

A woman can become desperate for her get. It can begin to consume her life. Protests and social pressure might help, but sometimes the recalcitrant husband digs in his heels.

In extreme cases, the woman in these dire straits would call the two rabbis who were arrested on Wednesday evening. For a fee, the FBI describes, these rabbis would make the husband “an offer he couldn’t refuse.” Allegedly, the rabbis’ thugs would physically coerce deadbeat husbands to give their desperate wives a get. Using props more familiar to mob films and torture scenes, the FBI complaint describes, the thugs would beat husbands until they actually handed over a signed get. Perhaps most shocking of all is that their actions, according to the complaint, were sanctioned by a rabbinical court.

It’s a clumsy solution, but it has precedent in Jewish law. It has its roots in the Talmud and is explicitly codified by Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Divorce 2:20).

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin explains the precedent well in his book “Jewish Wisdom”:

“Because the Rabbis were conscious of the inherent unfairness in divorce laws, over the centuries they established new laws to protect women. The tenth-century Rabbi Gershom, who also issued a decree against polygamy, legislated that it was illegal to divorce a woman against her will, a law that has remained in effect since. During the twelfth century, Maimonides ruled that if a man refused to grant a divorce to a woman who was entitled to it, he was to be whipped without mercy until he did so (Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Divorce,” 2:20). The legal precedent for his ruling was the talmudic law, “If a man refused to give a woman a divorce, he is forced until he declares ‘I am willing’ (Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 50a). That Maimonides was willing to accept as voluntary a statement elicited by whipping indicates how anxious he was to assist a woman who was being mistreated.”

However, in the United States this kind of activity is illegal, and the public is painting these rabbis as villains.

It’s not so simple. In the ugly mess of the agunah crisis, these rabbis could be a woman’s only hope. While I can’t condone violence, and while I can’t support thuggery, we must see these rabbis for what they are. They are knights in shining armor for these chained women. Like our favorite fictional vigilante, they may not be the hero that we want or deserve, but sometimes they are the hero that we need.

Disgusted might not adequately describe our feeling over the allegations of violence and Mafia-like tactics toward recalcitrant husbands, but these rabbis were heroes to women left with no options.

There is no doubt that these arrests will serve as another wake-up call to the Orthodox Jewish community. The agunah crisis must be solved.

One solution for preventing an agunah crisis is the Halachic Prenup. This is available and comes recommended by foremost rabbinic authorities. The prenuptial agreement triggers a daily fine of $150 if a husband withholds a get. It’s not a very elegant solution, but it works. The Halachic Prenup is gaining traction and hopefully our discomfort with violent solutions will push more rabbis to insist on it at every wedding they officiate.

Perhaps there is also an alternative solution: a conditional get that triggers after an agreed-upon event. There are halachic nuances that would be required to make it work, but I believe there is a way. Perhaps all Orthodox Jewish marriages should include a conditional get that triggers with a specific future event. If the husband refuses to give a new get during subsequent divorce proceedings, the conditional get takes effect. I think it’s at least an option worth exploring.

Until such time that all Orthodox Jewish marriages are subject to the Halachic Prenup or some other preemptive solution we will have an agunah issue. That it came to violence in the most recently reported case is a very sad commentary on what it feels like to be an agunah.

That rabbis were inflicting violence is a terrible consequence. But the real villains are the recalcitrant husbands. Let’s not forget that these rabbis were heroes to the chained women. But at the same time, we should not need such complicated heroes. There are preemptive solutions, and they must become universally instituted.

A version of this column originally appeared in Haaretz.


Rabbi Eliyahu Fink, J.D., is the rabbi at Pacific Jewish Center/The Shul on the Beach in Venice. Connect with Rabbi Fink through Facebook, Twitter or e-mail. He blogs at finkorswim.com

Outmoded divorce law leading to back-alley beatings a real shandah Read More »

A deal with Iran can strengthen U.S.-Israel relationship

The beginning of talks with Iran this week in Geneva follow dramatic developments at the United Nations General Assembly last month that culminated in a phone call between President Barack Obama and President Hassan Rouhani. But the new atmosphere of at least minimal dialogue has created apprehension in Israel and some Arab states that the United States needs to alleviate. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s media blitz in the United States and the reported Saudi decision not to speak at the U.N. demonstrate the depths of this worry.

The issues in dispute are so complex and the domestic suspicions so intense that it may not be possible to achieve any agreements at all. However, some kind of Iranian-American bargain seems a possible outcome. For Iran, an American attack is a credible possibility, but perhaps more important are the international sanctions that are clearly working. Tehran cannot overcome its current economic malaise until many are lifted, and that requires a deal with the United States. As for the Obama administration, there is currently little stomach for a military attack on Iran, but there is clear preference for an accommodation that would stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The American global and regional position could thereby be resurrected and a dangerous confrontation could be avoided.

This rosy scenario is saddled with pitfalls, however, not least from Iran’s neighbors — Israelis and several Arab states, especially in the Gulf — who share the belief that the Iranians are trying to reduce sanctions and continue their nuclear weapons program secretly even as they pretend to moderate their policies. These states and many Americans would likely believe that the United States has been duped, even with a negotiated agreement.

If — and only if — the United States and Iran unexpectedly conclude and sign an accord in which the United States is satisfied that an Iranian nuclear weapon had been prevented, this skepticism would continue, possibly forming an obstacle to final acceptance in the United States. Washington should, therefore, take a step to further reassure these apprehensive regional states that if Iran tried to cheat, it would be deterred and stopped: Conclude NATO-like treaties with Israel and separately with those Arab states that wished to join under an American umbrella. The treaty arrangements should provide an American commitment to protect each of these states against a sudden Iranian nuclear breakthrough in violation of its agreements with the United States, the Europeans and even the U.N. Incorporation into NATO or stationing American troops in these countries as was done during the Cold War are other options. Such an arrangement should give a clear signal to Iran that it would suffer egregiously if it violated the agreement, and that a nuclear attack on any of these countries would be treated as an attack against the United States — the NATO formula.

For the Obama administration to actually reach a deal with Iran, which would necessarily include safeguards and inspections, it will undoubtedly be convinced that Iran would abide by the agreements or at least not be allowed to violate them. Therefore, providing a protective umbrella over neighboring states that are skeptical and require further assurances should not be onerous; American action should not be necessary. If the administration is not convinced that Iran is serious enough so that Washington can offer these guarantees, then an agreement with Iran should not be concluded.

Of course, the Arab states or Israel might reject a treaty with the United States, but if an American-Iranian agreement had been reached, even Israel would gain from relinquishing some flexibility. A treaty with Jerusalem would have to be negotiated carefully to address unpleasant contingencies, but the United States would also be losing flexibility inherent in its own guarantees — making the treaty more attractive. The Arab states would also be receiving more locked-in assurances from the United States than they are accustomed to gaining, but it would be worth the price for the United States. Through such a network of defense treaties, all parties would be trading some diminished flexibility of action in favor of intensified security — a good deal for all should a viable U.S.-Iranian treaty be reached.

Former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion initially raised a possible defense treaty between Israel and the United States during the first Eisenhower term. It was much discussed in the last 18 months of the Clinton administration in anticipation of an Israeli-Palestinian deal, and would undoubtedly be raised again if such a deal were to be consummated under the current talks with Secretary of State John Kerry. But the danger to Israel from an Iranian nuclear force looms incomparably larger, and a codicil to the treaty could always be added regarding Israeli-Palestinian matters. As part of the necessary assurances, this would be the wrong time to discuss a nuclear-free zone in the region.

Whether the Obama-Rouhani phone call will turn out to be the equivalent of the Nixon era’s breakthrough with China remains to be seen. But, as in the case of China, such a dramatic turn of events requires assuring neighbors that their vital security interests will be protected. We have the means to concretize these assurances. We can and should take them.


Steven L. Spiegel is director of the Center for Middle East Development and professor of political science at UCLA. 

A deal with Iran can strengthen U.S.-Israel relationship Read More »