fbpx

December 4, 2013

Hezbollah accuses Israel of slaying its weapons chief

Hezbollah claimed that Israel assassinated its technology and weapons chief near Beirut.

According to the Lebanese terror group, Hussein al-Laqis was shot at a parking lot outside his home south of the Lebanese capital on Tuesday night and died the next morning in a hospital. Israel denied involvement in the shooting.

“The Israeli enemy is naturally directly to blame,” the Hezbollah statement read, according to Haaretz. “This enemy must shoulder complete responsibility and repercussions for this ugly crime and its repeated targeting of leaders and cadres of the resistance.”

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor denied the Hezbollah claim.

“Israel has nothing to do with this incident,” Palmor said, according to reports. “These automatic accusations are an innate reflex with Hezbollah. They don’t need evidence, they don’t need facts; they just blame anything on Israel.”

Laqis, according to Haaretz, was a member of the group’s military elite and was in touch with Syrian and Iranian government intelligence. His death is a setback for Hezbollah, which has involved itself heavily in Syria’s civil war, sparking violence in Lebanon.

Hezbollah accuses Israel of slaying its weapons chief Read More »

Palestinian peace envoy urges Kerry to ‘save talks’ with Israel

The top Palestinian peace negotiator urged U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday to salvage American-brokered Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that both sides say are faltering.

Sixteen Palestinians and four Israelis have been killed since negotiations began in July and Palestinian officials say the sides remain far apart on the central issues of borders, security, Jerusalem's status and Palestinian refugees.

“Mr. Kerry must work to save the talks, to work to stop the deterioration of the talks caused by Israel's continuing settlement activity and crimes committed in cold blood,” Saeb Erekat told Palestinian radio.

For its part, Israel has accused Palestinian leaders of engaging in anti-Israel incitement and hampering talks by refusing to recognize the country as a “Jewish state.”

Palestinians have objected to continued Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank they want as part of a future state.

Kerry is scheduled to meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Thursday to try and set right peace talks that he and many analysts say may be the last chance to achieve a “two-state solution” for the two peoples.

An Israeli newspaper report on Wednesday said that 2,000 hectares (about 5,000 acres) of West Bank land that is privately owned by Palestinians — but is in areas where Israel exercises military and civilian control – will be given to Palestinians in the next 90 days for agriculture and commerce.

The Maariv report said Israel had bowed to a U.S. request to hand over the land to show that it is prepared to allow Palestinian projects to be advanced in these areas. There was no official Israeli comment on the report.

Palestinians want the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, areas that Israel has controlled since capturing them in the 1967 Middle East war, as well as the Gaza Strip, which is ruled by Hamas Islamists, for an independent state.

Erekat and his fellow Palestinian envoy Mohammed Shtayyeh offered to resign last month after Israel announced the latest in a series of plans to build thousands of new settler homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

“The last negotiations meeting took place on November 5 — there have been communications with the Israeli side since then, but I couldn't call them negotiations,” Erekat said.

Officials from both sides have said that the American sponsors of the talks may soon present a “bridging proposal” to bring the two sides closer together, although Erekat said he doubted that would happen on Thursday.

Reporting By Noah Browning and Ali Sawafta in Ramallah, additional reporting by Ori Lewis in Jerusalem, editing by Mark Heinrich

Palestinian peace envoy urges Kerry to ‘save talks’ with Israel Read More »

Mary Poppins does not come back

I knew better than to expect P.L. Travers to write something sweet in my copy of Mary Poppins, but I didn’t think it would be quite so medicinal. 

It was 1988, and I’d been a vice president at Disney for two years.  From the time I got there, studio president Jeffrey Katzenberg had wanted to make a sequel to Mary Poppins, and I was assigned to develop a script. The story we wanted:  Jane and Michael Banks, the children in the first film, now have children of their own. A problem comes up, and the one person who can solve it is Mary Poppins, played again by Julie Andrews, who arrives, sets things right, and departs as mysteriously as she came.  We called it the title of the second book in the series: “Mary Poppins Comes Back.”

But as the new movie, “Saving Mr. Banks,” does not depict, Mrs. Travers intensely disliked Walt Disney’s 1964 version.  And since she still controlled the rights to her Poppins books, my efforts at getting a sequel off the ground were entirely theoretical.  But in 1987, when Mrs. Travers was 87, Walt’s nephew Roy had been approached by writer Brian Sibley, an acquaintance of his and a longtime friend of hers. Sibley told Disney she was open to doing a second movie at the studio, and within a few months their agent closed a deal, but she extracted a steep creative price:  Unlike every other features deal at the studio, this one gave away control of the story, settings, and characters to the author of the underlying material.  To her.

And so, because the studio needed her approval of our Banks-children’s-children approach, Katzenberg and I went to London bearing porcelain Disney figurines, plus a bottle of Jack Daniels, which Sibley told me she liked, and paid a call on Mrs. Travers at her Chelsea row house. Her sitting room looked like it hadn’t changed for 30 years.

We pitched our next-gen sequel. She coolly blew us off. 

Then she and Sibley told us what the story would actually be. It would take place a year after the first film, not a generation.  Things are going badly for Mr. Banks at work because some documents have gone missing, leading to financial disaster for the family and requiring them to put Number 17 Cherry Tree Lane up for sale.  The only point of agreement with our scenario was that she wished Julie Andrews to play Mary Poppins.

She also unloaded her grievances about what Walt Disney did in his version, and her edicts about this one.  Mary Poppins must never wear red.  We must never see her undergarments; even if she’s upside down, her skirt must cling to her ankles.  There must be absolutely no intimation that she and Bert have a romantic relationship, as they seem to do in the 1964 film’s “Jolly Holiday” sequence (whose mix of live action and animation, by the way, was a terrible decision), nor may Bert, a minor character in the books who became a major character in the movie, have as prominent a part in the sequel, nor may he do any magic on his own, nor may Dick Van Dyke play the role again.  In fact, no American may play any role in the movie.  

It went on like that. We tried in vain to persuade her to reconsider her veto of our pitch, so hers was the direction we took.  Five months later, Sibley's treatment of the movie came in. I returned to her sitting room, again bearing whiskey, for the second of what would be five visits, for me to hear her notes on Sibley’s approach, and for them to hear the studio's notes. I was sure she would dislike our notes — they were all requests for changes — and indeed she did.  

But I felt the mood shift when some combat over a scene drew her into talking about the deeper mysticism of the Mary Poppins story.  We are all One, she said, that's the core of it.  I learned that she had been a follower of the spiritual teacher, or charlatan, George Gurdjieff, and an intimate of the poet William Butler Yeats.  As it happened, I was pretty familiar with Yeats's mystical work, A Vision, and I got really into it with her.  I was sure she was charmed by this conversation about an esoteric volume with a studio executive.  I was fairly sure she'd come round on most of the changes we wanted. I thought she might even have come to like me.  

At the end of the afternoon, I asked if she’d be willing to inscribe my copy of “Mary Poppins.”  As she wrote, I wasn't expecting a spoonful of sugar, just something to proudly show my future children. I waited until I was outside to read it. “To Marty Kaplan, hoping that your association with Mary Poppins will have a happy outcome. P.L. Travers”

Talk about vinegar. I took her words as a warning.  A note to the studio, not to my hypothetical kids. Don’t get on my wrong side, or else.

Seven years, and many treatments, scripts, notes, and a couple of writers after my association with Mary Poppins had begun, the studio abandoned the project — it was just too hard to work within her constraints — and she sold the rights to a stage version instead.  But that wasn't my only unhappy outcome. 

To prepare Katzenberg for our visit to Chelsea, I had briefed him on everything I could find out about her.  Stupidly – especially stupidly, since I’d worked in the White House and had reason to know better – I put this information in a memo.  “She has fixed views, which were formed during the Edwardian era,” I wrote.  “She loathes women; she’s a sucker for male flattery.”  Describing Walt’s 16 years of courting her, I wrote that “what couldn’t have attracted him [to the books] was the story – because there wasn’t one … Once Walt got Mrs. Travers to agree to the film, he set himself two tasks.  One was creating a Mary Poppins movie character substantially more charming and affectionate than the one in the books, where she’s somewhat too fastidious and vain (a bit like her creator).  The other challenge was to invent a story.”  

A couple of years later, someone at Disney who wanted to burn me leaked that memo to a magazine. When the reporter who obtained it called to ask how I thought Mrs. Travers would react to it, I said that none of that mattered because my relationship with Mrs. Travers had evolved since then.  “We’ve become very fond of each other,” I said, defrosting her inscription and denying the rest of my unsentimental education. “The experience has been the most extraordinary aspect of my life at Disney.  She is a legend.” 

A friend of hers sent her the article a few months later.  She was unmoved by my tribute.  Eventually I managed to patch things up enough so that the project lasted three more years, but never enough to get anywhere near what I hopelessly wanted from the creator of Mary Poppins: “Fondly, P.L. Travers.”


Marty Kaplan, the “>USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, this year won 1st place as columnist and 1st place for entertainment columns from the LA Press Club.  Reach him at martyk@jewishjournal.com.

Mary Poppins does not come back Read More »

The Tea Party and Israel: Dispersing the Smoke

The new Pew report on America's place in the world contains the usual mix of confusing public views that contradict one another. Americans in general complain that their country is doing “too much to solve world problems” while mourning the decline of “US global power and prestige” – without connecting the two and realizing that reversing the course of decline requires more, not less, involvement in world affairs. At this point in time, though, skepticism about greater involvement is clearly much more pronounced than the desire to restore American prestige and influence. “Currently, 52% say the United States 'should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.' Just 38% disagree with the statement. This is the most lopsided balance in favor of the U.S. 'minding its own business' in the nearly 50-year history of the measure”.

Somewhat surprisingly, there are relatively modest partisan differences when it comes to views about the US' role in the world. “Comparable percentages of Republicans (52%) and Democrats (46%) say the United States does too much to solve world problems; among independents, 55% express this view”. Within the Republican camp, one can be surprised yet again by the lack of difference between Tea-Party Republicans and 'Non-Tea Party' Republicans- “Tea Party Republicans hold about the same views as non-Tea Party Republicans about America’s role in solving world problems. About half of Republicans and Republican leaners who agree with Tea Party (54%) say the U.S. does too much to solve problems internationally, as do 52% of Republicans and GOP leaners who do not agree with the Tea Party.” The winds of detachment – “isolationism” is probably too strong a term for this – aren't confined to Tea Party quarters.

This fact makes it even more interesting to zero in on Tea Party views related to Israel. For the last couple of years, this movement has been a constant source of head-scratching and concern among pro-Israel activists in the US and Israeli policy makers, all trying to figure out if this movement portends a troubling trend of disconnection with Israel. You can see Israelis' bewilderment in an Israel Factor survey of Israeli experts from 2011, when members of our panel had a hard time reading the tea leaves. “What do Israelis make of the Tea Party movement? What do they know about it, and how do they think it will affect US-Israel relations?… We're confused, we don't yet know, we might not be as apprehensive as we were couple of months ago, nevertheless, we're still quite suspicious”.

It is no surprise that Israelis were – are – confused. The “tea party” sent mixed signals on Israel-related issues (it had relatively little interest in such issues to begin with). Some of its notable members were adamantly (and Hawkishly) pro-Israel, while others, notably Ron Paul and Rand Paul, were vague (I interviewed both). When I chased Ron Paul supporters in Iowa in 2012, I had to admit that “they were all very courteous and nice. If Ron Paul supporters – today we can start calling them voters – bear any grudge against Israel, for being such an annoying country, or for Israelis, for being so needy and apprehensive, or for anyone who might be suspected as being generally supportive of Israel, for being so sanctimonious about it – if they bear such ill will, they hide it well”.   

So supporters of Israel and Israelis are confounded by the possible implications of Tea Party sentiments on the Israel-related tendencies of the Republican Party – but that is because Tea Party supporters themselves are also somewhat confused, as the Pew study documents. If Americans in general want to have more impact on the world while also having less involvement – Tea Party supporters are no less entitled to have views that might seem contradictory.

Take a look at the numbers.

“Tea Party Republicans have especially positive views of Israel: 86% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party view Israel favorably”, compared with 68% of non-Tea-Republicans and just 55% of Democrats (there's nothing new about the Republican-Democratic huge gap on Israel).

Yet when it comes to US involvement in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “Tea Party Republicans are considerably more likely than non-Tea Party Republicans to favor a greater role for the U.S.; 38% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party say the U.S. should be more involved in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, compared with 21% of Republicans and GOP-leaners who do not agree with the Tea Party”.

Why is this surprising and why does it seem contradictory? Because wanting 'more American involvement' in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is often considered to be a code-expression used by those who are more critical of Israel. We know that voters who are less likely to be highly supportive of Israel are more likely to argue that the US should be tougher with Israel on the peace process, and we know that they are the ones who want the US to “lean toward neither side” as it attempts to resolve the conflict – namely, to be neutral. But apparently it is wrong to include 'more involvement in the peace process' in the category of phrases that imply a critical attitude towards Israel.

From earlier surveys we already learned that “when it comes to U.S. involvement in the peace process, there's agreement across religious, partisan and ideological groups (from 66 to 70 percent) that the two sides should handle negotiations themselves”. In simple words: most (or a plurality – depends on the poll) of the American public doesn't want more involvement in the peace process. 69% in the ABC\WP poll say “leave it to Israelis and Palestinians”, 39% in the Pew study want the US “less involved” (compared to 36% “as involved” and 21% “more involved”).

The surprise comes when we discover (Pew) that “Tea Party leaners” – presumably the group which is most apprehensive about US involvement in any foreign adventure – are so supportive of more involvement with resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, what we have here is a double refutation of two Israel-related myths: One – that the more one supports Israel the less one wants more US involvement in peace processing. Two – that the more one leans towards the Tea Party the more one would be reluctant to have American mediation in far-away conflicts.

The question is why, and my theory is as good as yours.

I would assume that Tea Party leaners are making the Israeli-Palestinian conflict an exception because of their high level of support for Israel. In other words: they fear US meddling in foreign affairs, but they are highly supportive of Israel, so they are in favor of seeing a US involvement with Israel that is even more intensive than it is today. When they are asked about involvement in the peace-process they don't ask themselves if such involvement is to Israel's benefit, they just assume that it is (rightly or wrongly, that's a matter worthy of debate). Their support of the American-mediated peace-process is an expression of their support for Israel. This is Interesting, especially as one wonders if they might be willing to make a similar exception when it comes to an issue as sensitive and dear to the Tea Party as foreign aid.

The Tea Party and Israel: Dispersing the Smoke Read More »

Open Day Schools To Non-Jewish Students

Jewish day schools are in very serious shape. To be perfectly blunt about it, they are going out of business. I see it happening locally, where I live in New Jersey. And it seems to be a national phenomenon.

It seems to have hit Solomon Schechter schools particularly hard. Schechter schools lost 25 percent of their students during the the last five years. Since then, Schechter has lost seven schools. “>http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/short-takes/beit-rabban-pilot-cap-tuition-costs. But there are other issues. Demographics are challenged. Jewish identity has become attenuated (all that interesting Pew stuff).

I have a suggestion – and, no, it is not tongue-in-cheek.

Let’s open Jewish day schools to non-Jewish students.

I am not merely talking about the recent news that Schechter schools are considering admitting students who are Jewish according to patrilineal descent – a definition of Jewish identity that the Conservative movement has long rejected. Open Day Schools To Non-Jewish Students Read More »