fbpx

November 13, 2013

REALITY CHECK! Which news site told you the truth about the murder in Israel today?

“An Israeli soldier died after he was stabbed multiple times in the neck Wednesday morning by a Palestinian youth on a bus at the central bus station in Afula.” This horrifying story, as described on Times of Israel shocked my country today.
The news spread this morning, leaving Israelis shocked and confused. The 18 year-old Eden Atias, a Private in the IDF, enjoyed a long-awaited nap while riding the bus, and suddenly, he ceased from existing. He was brutally murdered by a terrorist who, due to the democratic law in Israel, was only arrested, and not executed, by the policemen who arrived at the scene.

This story was the big headline of the day, and appeared on every single Israeli news website, but when it comes to leading news websites abroad, this story is not of high importance and is therefore barely noticeable. The question is: why?

CNN released a “>published a slightly longer article, also very informative and containing mostly quotes by Israeli sources. After describing the course of events, they added a reminder of the current situation of the “peace talks” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, mentioning that “On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered a halt to controversial plans for the construction of 24,000 new homes at Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank.”


The story behind the coverage: The BBC also doesn't fully trust the credibility of the event. They made sure they mentioned that the information was handed by the “Israeli police,” which question its trustworthiness (researches show that people tend to trust private people rather than organizations.) Much like CNN, BBC also lead the reader into supporting the “young Palestinian,” mentioning Netanyahu's “controversial plans” and thus implying the Palestinians are frustrated because of the Israelis.


The Guardian is REALITY CHECK! Which news site told you the truth about the murder in Israel today? Read More »

Abbas: Palestinian peace negotiators quit over absence of progress

Palestinian peace negotiators resigned over a lack of progress in talks with Israel, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said.

Abbas said he would try to convince the negotiating team to change its mind or find new negotiators, Reuters reported Wednesday, citing an Abbas interview with Egyptian CBC television. The Palestinian leader said he would need a week to get his team back in place.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Wednesday in a statement to Reuters TV that negotiations with Israel were frozen over the announcement of new housing construction in the settlements.

Meanwhile, Israeli lawmakers called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to halt peace talks over Wednesday’s stabbing death of an Israeli soldier in northern Israel by a Palestinian residing illegally in Israel, The Jerusalem Post reported.

Abbas: Palestinian peace negotiators quit over absence of progress Read More »

Obama: Lies and Consequences

We teach our kids two things about honesty: One, that “honesty is the best policy,” which means that, ultimately, it’s in one’s interest to be honest. An honest reputation is good for business, telling the truth will keep you out of trouble, and so on.

Parents who aim even higher teach a second, deeper lesson — that being honest is simply the right thing to do, whether it’s in one’s interest or not.

With the recent revelations of his false promises about his health care plan, President Barack Obama has introduced a third — and problematic — lesson on honesty: Sometimes, it’s possible that dishonesty could be the best policy.

Before you gag on that statement, consider the mindset of a president who has a staggering ambition and only a few short years to impact the world.

The biggest, most dramatic change he seeks is something no other president has been able to accomplish: Bringing universal health care to America.

His problem is that, in the midst of a stagnating economy, most of the country did not embrace his controversial plan, which aimed to take over almost a fifth of the economy and add a huge layer of government spending and bureaucracy.

With votes tight in Congress and his plan in jeopardy, the president made a fateful decision: He would say whatever he had to say to push his plan through, even things he knew were not exactly true.

Like, for example, this juicy and memorable promise: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

“This is a lie,” wrote Michael Cohen of the New York Daily News, “that is today causing the President no end of political headaches.”

He repeated it not once, but 34 times, according to the fact-checking site PolitiFact. If you’re among the millions of Americans today who are or will be forced to look for new plans and new doctors, you have every right to feel cheated and deceived.

Now, why would a president so concerned with his legacy do such a self-destructive thing? I see only one reason: Because, in his mind, it was worth it.

Since telling the truth might have put his plan in peril, he chose not to. He’s hardly the first politician, of course, to play with the truth, but for a president who campaigned on “transparency” and changing Washington’s ways, Obama’s record on this score is especially troublesome.

In fact, although it’s rarely been this blatant, Obama has had a pattern of evading the truth. This latest episode may turn out to be the tipping point that will forever hurt his legacy.

“The broken promises, false claims and tortured truths have reached a critical mass now,” Andrew Malcolm writes in Investor’s Business Daily. “Bludgeoned by Benghazi, IRS revelations, FBI probes, NSA disclosures, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Syria’s slips and now Obamacare’s sticker shock and outright whoppers, more Americans detect the odor of betrayal, however reluctantly.”

Malcolm adds that for the first time, according to Gallup, Obama’s daily job approval has sunk below 40 percent.

If you’re the president, how do you react to this painful loss of credibility?

One way is simply to accept that it’s the price to pay for getting things done. But losing your credibility is an enormous price to pay when you’re the leader of the free world — even if your intentions are noble.

And there lies the rub: What should a leader do when honesty appears to conflict with noble ambition? When the truth becomes an annoying inconvenience?

President Obama came into office with a laptop full of dreams and a track record of great speeches. When the truth became too inconvenient, as with his health care plan, he didn’t trust that the American people could handle it. Instead, he placed his trust in what Charles Krauthammer calls his “rather bizarre belief in the unlimited power of speech.”

When his bait-and-switch eloquence finally caught up with him, his speech met the limit of its power. Even his forced and belated “apology,” which liberal writer John Dickerson of Slate called “too little, too late,” failed to take personal responsibility for blatantly false statements.

Great leaders level with the people, even when it’s not popular. Early on, Obama could have treated us like adults and told us: “Yes, this plan will cause short-term disruptions, cancellations and, in some cases, even higher premiums. So, I will be asking many of you to sacrifice a little for the greater good of our great country, for a more humane future where no sick person will ever be left behind.”

By failing to level with us in this way, Obama has made his messy, fragile and divisive health care plan that much messier– and bought himself little forgiveness. In any event, if his implicit message is that it’s OK to lie to get things done, then we deserve better.

We already live in a generation saturated by marketing hucksters who tell us only what we want to hear. I suppose it’s natural that politicians—the ultimate hucksters– would follow suit. But great leaders don’t follow, they lead. They trust the truth. They tell us what we need to hear. They appeal to the better angels of our nature.

Maybe now that our president has been caught red-handed and is suffering the consequences, we can remind our kids that even when it’s not popular, speaking the truth is the right and great thing to do. Period.


David Suissa is president of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal and can be reached at davids@jewishjournal.com.

Obama: Lies and Consequences Read More »

Chanukah and Christmas: A legacy of bad timing

Admit it. It is bad timing, these two very unique festivals of two very different faiths colliding in time and space. Even when our Hebraic lunar calendar separates the two by a week or so, the commercial heralding of both in our consumer-focused society continually blends the two, as if Chanukah were some Jewish version of Christmas. Both having “light” as their theme doesn’t help matters either. And most people are oblivious to the fact that Chanukah preceded Christmas by more than four centuries and has nothing at all to do with the birth of Jesus or of anyone else. If there is any relationship between the two, it would be with the pre-Christian pagan rites of the winter Solstice, as opposed to the latter-day Christian adaptation of those rites to Church doctrine and mythos.

The irony of this situation is that Chanukah is a celebration of the triumph of the Jewish spirit against oppression and suppression of the very kind that was continually heaped upon us by Christianity itself more severely and for far longer than the short-lived Greco-Assyrian persecution of the Chanukah epic. 

In the early days of Roman occupation of Judea, two centuries after the Chanukah thing, a curious Roman noble visiting with the sages of Israel asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor’cha the following: “We have our festivals, and you have yours. Granted. So what happens is, that when we are rejoicing, you are not, and when you are rejoicing we are not. When, pray tell, can we both rejoice together, at the same time?”  Rabbi Yehoshua replied: “When it rains.” The Roman’s eyebrows raised in puzzlement: “When it rains?” The rabbi nodded nonchalantly:  “As Rabbi Tanchum bar Chiyyah taught, ‘Greater is rainfall than even the revelation of Torah at Sinai, for the gifting of Torah at Sinai was a joyful event for the Israelites alone, whereas the gift of rainfall is joyful for all peoples, and for all the plants, trees, birds, and wildlife’” (Midrash Bereisheet Rabbah 13:6 and Midrash Tehilim 117:1). 

If we are so bent on joining with others in celebration of something in common, we ought to celebrate what we indeed do have in common rather than contrive admixtures of ingredients that at their roots are antithetical to one another. Like the ancient rabbis put it: “When a pig lies down, it shows off its cloven hooves, as if to say, ‘See how kosher I am?’” (Midrash Bereisheet Rabbah 65:1).

When people automatically wish you a “Merry Christmas” don’t be afraid to correct them if you are not Christian. The age-old assumption by far too many that most everyone is Christian, or that everyone across the board celebrates Christmas, is not only arrogant and misleading, but it is also a convenient cover-up of tragic truths that linger beneath all that “Peace on Earth and Good Will to all Mankind” rhetoric. How many devout and Jew-friendly Catholics, for example, are aware that even at this very moment the Catechism of their Church preaches anti-Jewish diatribes? To mention just one: Jews bear a terrible burden because they willfully insist on being an obstacle to the well-being of the rest of humanity, preventing the arrival of the Messiah and human salvation because of their “unbelief” in Jesus (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 674). 

“It is likened onto a bear who was richly adorned with fine gold, silver, jewels and other attractive ornaments. Upon seeing the bear, some onlookers shouted: ‘Jump at the bear and seize riches for yourselves!’ But one wise person declared to them: ‘Alas! It is sad that you only notice the shining adornments. I notice the fangs and claws’” (Midrash Bereisheet Rabbah 86:4).

My recommendation: Since the original Chanukah celebration was intended to make up for not being able (or allowed) to observe the eight-day harvest festival of Sukkot, let’s reverse it and celebrate Chanukah during Sukkot from now on.

Any takers?

Chanukah and Christmas: A legacy of bad timing Read More »

Biblical numbers, mathematics and attributed patriarchal ages

     The Hebrew Bible is filled with numbers. There are different kinds of numbers — cardinals and ordinals, integers and fractions, even primes. And they are everywhere in the Torah text.

     There are numbers for days and numbers for life spans.

     There are numbers for populations and numbers for the duration of events.

     There are numbers for the measurement of quantities and numbers for the sizes of objects and areas.

     There are numbers for the duration of events.

     And there are numbers for a host of seemingly mundane things, such as the number of visitors and the number of palm trees.

     Some Biblical numbers are curiously round. For instance, Noah reportedly was 500 years old when his son Shem was born, and 600 when the great Flood occurred. Shem was, then, 100 years old at the time of the Flood, and he died 500 years later at age 600.

     And Isaac married Rebekah at age 40, became a father of twins at age 60 and was 100 when Esau was married. He died at age 180.

     Some Biblical numbers are identical and strangely coincidental. The rain that created the Flood for Noah lasted 40 days and nights. That is the same number of days and nights that Moses reportedly spent on Mount Sinai on each of two occasions to receive the tablets engraved with the teachings and the commandments. 

     Other numbers appear hyperbolic and incredible. The Bible states that Jacob’s descendants consisted of 70 individuals when the family entered Egypt. After centuries of involuntary servitude, the number of adult males that left Egypt with Moses is asserted to be about 600,000.  Including wives, concubines and children, the total number of those leaving must have been in the millions. Understood literally, the number seems absurdly large.

     When we encounter numbers in the Bible, what are we to do with them? Are all or some of the numbers to be taken literally or is one or more of them to be understood symbolically? And how can we tell which numbers fall into which category? Do we have a collection of essentially random numbers? Or, are there patterns that provide information, suggest meaning, or, maybe, reveal secrets?

     Of all the number puzzles in the Bible, perhaps none is more intriguing than the longevity of the generations from Adam though Moses.  Using a variety of approaches, scholars and others have long considered the numbers found in the Bible. They have speculated fancifully in an effort to make sense of some of them. With perhaps rare exceptions, though, these efforts have not been particularly satisfying, leaving the original problem, as the mathematician Lewis Carroll had Alice say in a different context, “curiouser and curiouser!” (See Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (Ch. 2.))

The data

     Let’s look at the data first.  According to the Torah text (meaning here the Masoretic text), there were 10 generations from Adam to Noah, inclusive. There were another 10 generations after Noah and to Abraham, inclusive.  Coincidence?

     The life spans recorded in the Bible for the first group are as follows: Adam (930), Seth (912), Enos (905), Cainan (910), Mahlaleel (895), Jared (962), Enoch (365), Methuselah (969), Lamech (777) and Noah (950). The life spans recorded for the second group, exclusive of Terah’s son Abraham, are as follows: Shem (600), Arphaxad (438), Salah (433), Eber (468), Peleg (239), Reu (239), Serug (230), Nahor (148) and Terah (205).

     Looking at the three primary patriarchs separately, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived 175, 180 and 147 years respectively. Parenthetically, the only life span we have for a matriarch is that for Sarah, who died at age 127.

     Finally, while at one point the Bible states that Jacob’s descendants were in Egypt for 430 years (see Ex. 12:40-41), the book of Exodus records just four generations from Jacob to Moses. Jacob’s son Levi lived 137 years, Levi’s son Kohath lived 133 years and Kohath’s son Amram lived 137 years. (Ex. 6:16, 6:18, 6:20.) Moses, who was Amram’s son and, therefore, Jacob’s great-great grandson, lived 120 years. (Deut. 34:7; see also, The Torah: A Modern Commentary (URJ Press 2005), at 383 n. 20.)

     What, if anything, do these 26 numbers tell us?

Attempts to explain Biblical ages

     Even a quick review suggests that the life spans of the first group of Biblical humanity was reasonably consistent within a relatively narrow range of 895-969 years, with the notable exceptions of the seventh generation descendant Enoch and Noah’s father, Lamech.  As a general matter, the life spans of the second group, and through Moses, then continued on a downward slope. The first three individuals after Shem lived between 433 and 468 Biblical years, and the next three lived in a reduced range of 230 to 239 Biblical years. After Terah, no Biblical personality is indicated to have lived in excess of 200 years.

     Rabbinic sages of the past accepted the reported ages as accurate. To explain the longevity of Adam, one noted that Adam was made in God’s image and therefore physically perfect. Adam’s immediate descendants were similarly vigorous. To explain the decline after the Flood, one sage suggested that the Earth’s atmosphere deteriorated. Another opined that the people faced a harsher climate after the post-Babel dispersion. (See The Chumash (Stone Ed. Mesorah 1993) at 25, 51 n. 19.) There is, unfortunately, no actual evidence to support such speculation, no way to test any of these propositions.

     A more modern and purely mathematical analysis of the numbers by Charles A. Glatt, Jr. concludes that the longevity of the individuals from Noah to Joseph (and then to Moses) declined in a manner consistent with base e exponential decay (where e = 2.718 . . .).  (See Glatt, “Patriarchal Life Span Exponential Decay by Base e,” at “>www.bible.org/article/ages-antediliuvian-patriarchs-genesis-5.) 

     What we do know, though, and what is important to know, is that the attributed ages of the primary patriarchs, are neither random nor mere numbers to be located as data points on a line. They are numbers, whether products or sums, which suggest an intent by the author or editor of the text to convey something important about the three primary patriarchs, their distinctiveness from all others and their relationship to each other.

     A few final points need be made. First, this discussion has been limited to numbers that appear in the Masoretic text. There are some different numbers that appear in the Greek Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch.  (See Cassuto, From Adam to Noah, above, at 264-65; From Noah to Moses, above, at 258-59.)

     Second, Cassuto was not a disinterested academic. In addition to desiring to show what Torah text meant to those who first heard it, he was interested in demonstrating that the text of Genesis was part of a unified whole, rather than a collection of writings of different authors as postulated by the documentary hypothesis of higher biblical criticism. (See, e.g.,  Cassuto, From Adam to Noah, above, at 94, 193.)

     Nevertheless his insights cannot be denied. Sarna concludes that “the biblical chronologies of the patriarchal age are not intended to be accurate historical records in our sense of the term.” (Exploring Genesis, above, at 84.) Rather, they “fall within the scope of historiosophy, or philosophy of history, rather than historiography.” (Id.) In this view, they tell us less about actual time intervals than about the ideas of Biblical import. Numerical symmetry or harmony is not a matter of coincidence among random events, but a signal of importance, and a sign of presumed divine control and direction. (Id. at 85.)

     Lastly, whoever wrote or redacted the Hebrew Bible was more than a drafter of national history, a recorder or developer of laws and mores and a masterful storyteller. He, she or they also had a real competency with mathematics. We do not yet understand the signals, or even whether they were theologically purposeful or narrative drivers or both, but they are clearly there, mean something and deserve serious and further consideration.


A version of this article was previously published in Biblical numbers, mathematics and attributed patriarchal ages Read More »

EU official lauds Israel for treating injured Syrians

A European Union official based in Israel praised the Jewish state for providing medical treatment to Syrian civilians injured in their country’s civil war.

EU Ambassador-designate Lars Faaborg-Andersen on Wednesday visited the Ziv Medical Center in Safed to see the care being provided to the injured Syrians. More than 300 Syrians have been brought to Israel for treatment since the civil war began about 2 1/2 years ago.

“I was deeply impressed by the dedication of the medical staff that is sparing no effort to provide the injured patients, many of them children, with the best possible medical care,” Faaborg-Andersen said in a statement. “This commitment to the welfare of other human beings, regardless of the fact that they belong to an enemy nation, should be a source of pride to all Israelis.”

Earlier this month, a 20-year-old woman became the first Syrian civilian fleeing the civil war to give birth in Israel, according to reports.

EU official lauds Israel for treating injured Syrians Read More »

Jersey boy ponders his home state’s governor

I was once a Jersey boy. I grew up in Nutley, N.J., just about 20 minutes from Manhattan. I still wear my T-shirt from Rutt’s Hut in Clifton, N.J. — known to many as the maker of the best hot dog in America.  

Even when New York City was the central core of Jewish America (before the rise of Jewish Los Angeles), New Jersey had its own Jewish world. Philip Roth, another Jersey boy, set his fiction in Newark, which was even closer to Nutley than the metropolis across the Hudson. Weequahic High School was then the Newark high school where the Jewish kids went.

So I’m all ears about the state’s Republican Gov. Chris Christie handily winning re-election and making the cover of Time as the biggest news story in his party’s 2016 presidential effort. Is the Republican resurrection at hand? Who knows, but it’s a big moment for New Jersey, if you also add in the media coverage of the African-American mayor of Newark Cory Booker’s recent election as a United States senator. 

I love my California, and its revival from dysfunctional cautionary tale to role model for blue states has been inspiring. New Jersey is a different case. It’s not the state’s success under Christie that is gaining attention; it’s Christie himself. In fact, the state is not doing well at all in economic terms, with growth and jobs lagging. But Christie appears to be just what Republican strategists ordered: a strong personality who can win votes outside the Republican base in a blue state. 

The national media, always in search of the elusive (and nearly extinct) Republican moderate candidate are already swooning. It helps that Christie is a very effective speaker and debater who keeps his opponents on the defensive.  

Christie has a definite Northern New Jersey/New York City style that both attracts and repels.  At its worst, it’s bullying; at its best, it’s toughness. (We saw both sides of that in Rudy Giuliani.) New Jersey voters seem to have shrugged off Christie’s rough edges and his well-known girth, and clearly Christie hopes America will see him the same way. It also helps that he is a devoted fan of Jersey’s own Bruce Springsteen.

New Jersey is a blue state that favors moderate Republicans (the old-fashioned kind, like the pro-choice Christie Todd Whitman) in the governorship. Republicans there have earned public support for being different from longtime urban Democratic machines in places like Hudson County. Jewish voters, who tend to favor political reform, were not at all uncomfortable with most of these Republican governors. The parties alternated governorships over the past 50 years.

U.S. senators are a different story. Only Clifford Case, a moderate Republican, held that office for any length of time beginning in the 1960s; the rest have been Democrats. So it’s not surprising that Democrat Booker swept into the U.S. Senate the same year as Christie’s re-election as governor. (And that’s one reason Christie spent $24 million of public money to separate Booker’s special Senate election from his own scheduled November race — to keep the focus on his own victory.)

The pro-life Christie is not quite as moderate as the traditional Northeastern Republicans in the Rockefeller tradition. He does not have achievements comparable to what Mitt Romney accomplished in Massachusetts in health care, although he did cross his party by accepting the expanded Medicaid funding under the Affordable Care Act. But he is a far better politician than Romney, with a much finer sense of his audience. Notably, Romney began running for president when he realized he had little chance of being re-elected as governor after his first term. While Romney did not wear well, Christie has.

Christie’s policies are not what bolstered his political fortunes. Instead, it was the disaster called Hurricane Sandy that gave him the chance to showcase his leadership, and his full-throated political embrace of President Barack Obama in that crisis saved him from a potential re-election challenge by Booker. Booker had been weighing a challenge to Christie but abandoned it after the governor’s post-Sandy surge, leaving the Democratic field bereft and guaranteeing Christie a runaway victory.

But, as Giuliani discovered when he tried to parlay his Sept. 11 leadership into a national campaign, Will Rogers might have been right: “Heroing is one of the shortest-lived professions there is.” 

It may well turn out that Sandy is Christie’s Romneycare — his one signal achievement, which also ties him to the most hated figure in his own party. Seeing the problem, Christie told Politico’s Maggie Haberman, “President Obama came in, he did a good job, I said nice things about him, so all the sudden, I’m a moderate … I’ve governed conservatively.”

Recall, though, how this approach weakened Romney’s case. By the end of the nomination phase, Romney was essentially implying to Republicans that he had misrepresented himself as a moderate to Massachusetts voters, who are a bunch of liberals anyway and who cares what they think, but conservatives could trust him because he was always one of them, a “severe conservative.” Go down that path, and you lose the trust of your old friends, and make your new friends suspicious. Christie’s other option is to challenge the ascendant right wing of his party to change its ways, but recent history shows that’s a tough slog.

While the pundits are gearing up for the battle among Christie, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, I think they are missing the point. Republicans are unlikely to actually nominate one of their many available crackpot wannabes, although they are likely to flirt shamelessly with them. Despite all their noisemaking, none of the 2012 contenders laid a glove on Romney, despite his wide array of vulnerabilities. They were not running for president so much as for a seat on Fox News, and as a result, they were more likely to fight each other to be the most visible right-wing voice than to systematically dismantle the determined and persistent Romney. Although we will have to see if Cruz is the exception, these folks are probably not Christie’s biggest problem.

The real challenge for Christie is whether he will lose his temper in an argument with right-wingers, as Rick Perry did when he called his opponents “heartless” for opposing immigration reform, or if he will face other serious Republican candidates more familiar, comfortable and at home with the Republican base. Without an incumbent in the race for the White House, the interest among serious candidates may be stronger than it was in 2012.  

Christie’s initial foray into the national public eye shows that he will work extremely hard to keep the focus on personality and leadership and not on specific issues that could clarify the contradiction between the conservative Republican base and the general electorate. Those who want to block him from the nomination will have to work hard to make him answer specific questions on the issues that divide Americans today.

For example: “Gov. Christie do you favor a path to citizenship for undocumented residents?” (He supported such a policy as recently as 2010.) Or: “Do you favor or oppose changing Roe v. Wade as specifically proposed by the 20-week period being proposed in Congress? Or: You vetoed a minimum wage increase in New Jersey that the voters then passed; would you veto a minimum wage increase sent to you by Congress?” Or: “A number of states under Republican control have passed laws to restrict access to voting; do you favor or oppose such laws?”

Christie will wait as long as he possibly can to answer such questions, but he may find that the Michael Dukakis route of insisting that the election should be about competence and not ideology does not work in a country even more ideologically attuned today than in 1988.

Beyond the question of Christie’s prospects, the continuing isolation of the Republican Party from the rest of the nation —  whether Democrats, independents or moderates — is the most important fact of American politics today. Pundits wish for a personality who can magically bridge the divide. The real challenge is not whether Christie can pull off appearing to be a moderate in New Jersey to win a big re-election, then become a conservative for the Republican base to win the nomination, and then become a moderate again in a general election, but whether the Republican party as a whole can adjust positions that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

And so it all comes back to Jersey. With Christie and Booker all over the news, at least my childhood state will not be ignored and may for a time get out of the shadow of New York City. I’m all for that, and when you get back there, go to Rutt’s. Trust me; you won’t be disappointed.


Raphael J. Sonenshein is executive director of the Edmund G. “Pat” Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University, Los Angeles.

Jersey boy ponders his home state’s governor Read More »

Semyon Bychkov on Bruckner

If anyone can lay claim to the moniker “citizen of the world,” it is Semyon Bychkov. Born in Russia, the conductor, who leads the Los Angeles Philharmonic starting Nov. 15, now boasts U.S. citizenship, but lives in Paris with his wife, pianist Marielle Labèque, among other places all over Europe.

It’s been a long road from Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) to the outdoor cafe across from Lincoln Center, where he meets for an interview fresh from his performances with both the Metropolitan Opera and New York Philharmonic. 

As someone the KGB once deemed “politically unreliable” — following an interrogation by that notorious Soviet agency — in 1973, Bychkov was blocked from a scheduled conducting debut with the famed Leningrad Philharmonic. Being a Jew, to boot, ultimately ended his career in his native land.

“It’s complicated, though,” he said. “My being a freethinker had nothing to do with being Jewish. But my liberal views came to attention, as those things do. Later, Jewish was no good either. It was a sensitive subject. Nothing exactly black and white. Yes, there was plenty of anti-Semitism, but despite that, I was accepted as the youngest person [at 17] at the [Leningrad] Conservatory, for its single conducting spot.”

What’s more, in 1973 he won the Rachmaninoff Conducting Competition’s first prize: a debut concert leading the Leningraders. 

But the concert never happened. His event was canceled after authorities “viciously” attacked him in print. What would happen going forward became clear. “So I quickly started learning English and sought emigration, helped along by an international Jewish Agency for Refugees,” Bychkov said. Four months later, in 1974, he landed in Vienna “with nothing but my tailcoat, a briefcase with some scores and $100; this after living for 22 years on the same Leningrad street.” 

But the budding conductor discovered a network of refugee musicians. After his first brief stop in Vienna were six months in Rome, where he lived in a tiny room outside the city and hitchhiked to concerts given by Russian friends. 

Bychkov finally received his immigration papers and arrived in New York on Aug. 6, 1975, “in the heat, the humidity, the dirt, the stink — it immediately seemed right. I felt literally reborn.” Especially so, with the support of the New York Association for New Americans, a former agency of the United Jewish Communities (now The Jewish Federations of North America).

Truly, that was Bychkov’s second beginning. Mannes College waived its tuition fees for the gifted conductor and quickly put him in charge of its orchestra. Next came a post with the Buffalo Philharmonic — by which time his then-wife had given birth to their two children, who still reside in the United States. 

Since the 1980s, he’s held important orchestra directorships in Cologne and Paris, among others, and piled up rave reviews throughout the West. There was even a nod by Austrian conductor Herbert von Karajan for Bychkov to take over the Berlin Philharmonic — a notoriously political organization, so it did not come to pass. (The mere mention by Karajan of a preferred candidate carried a downside.)

Now 60 and free from the obligations of a tenured podium, he’s in demand as a guest conductor for major orchestras worldwide. He’s currently on an American tour that includes Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco, as well as Los Angeles, and then on to the orchestras and opera houses of Berlin, Moscow, London, Amsterdam, Vienna and Rome. 

In Los Angeles, Bychkov will take on Bruckner’s mighty Symphony No. 8. “It’s all about Bruckner’s relationship with God,” he said, “a complex and confrontational thing. And it would be so even for the pope. In the end, though, there is doubt. No one will ever convince me that doubt does not exist.”

Bychkov said he is unattached to any belief system and never had a Jewish education. He admits that some would not even regard him as a Jew, as he never practiced or learned the religion.

“But we are what we are. And I’m proud of being Jewish,” he said. “Still, that is not a factor in one’s music making. You don’t have to be Catholic to conduct a convincing Verdi Requiem. You don’t have to be a Jew to conduct a profound Mahler.”

What it takes, he asserts, is an ear that hears the composer’s voice. In the Shostakovich memoir “Testimony,” for instance, Bychkov says he can’t verify whether biographer Solomon Volkov based the book on an actual interview with the composer.

“But when I conduct his Fifth Symphony, every word of those quotes I hear in the music.” Indeed it was Bychkov’s conducting of the condemned work that marked him, back then in the Soviet Union, as blasphemous by the ruling Politburo.

In October, The New York Times applauded the conductor’s “ear” for Shostakovich: “Bychkov led … a brilliant performance [of Symphony No. 11] … one that sizzled … and unfolded with breathtaking force.”

Also, in the ear, are languages — the worldly conductor speaks five — and describes himself as obsessive, although one could simply say he’s all-in. Multiple identities would define him well.  He recalls having summed it up this way:

“My whole body language changes according to the country I’m in. So who am I, after all? A Russian, born into the beauty of St. Petersburg. An American, one of many millions who found refuge and acceptance in the United States. A Frenchman, being part of a French family and sharing its destiny. A German and an Italian when conducting Wagner or Verdi, Beethoven or Berio. The roots of my life’s tree might be in one place called Russia, but the branches have spread wide and far.”


Bychkov conducts the Los Angeles Philharmonic Fri., Nov. 15 through Sun., Nov. 17 at Walt Disney Concert Hall, 111 S. Grand Ave, downtown. For more information, call (323) 850-2000 or visit laphil.com.

Semyon Bychkov on Bruckner Read More »