fbpx

February 12, 2015

Son’s postcard to Lodz Ghetto resurfaces 72 years later

Almost 73 years ago, on March 21, 1942, Stefan Prager wrote a postcard from Sweden to his parents, who had been deported from their native Berlin to the Lodz Ghetto in Poland.

He wrote about his recently celebrated 18th birthday, adding, “I’m feeling healthy and the winter passed well. How are you doing?”

Prager never got a response or heard from his parents.

Now, as Prager approaches his 91st birthday, the postcard has resurfaced within the extensive digitized archives of the Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust (LAMOTH). The postcard’s discovery has led, in turn, to new inquiries and some answers about his parents’ fate.

Stefan Prager was born in Berlin, the son of Ruth Prager and her husband, Ernst Wolfgang Prager, who was wounded three times fighting in the German army during World War I.

The boy attended a Jewish school in Berlin for four years, and in March 1939, the parents sent their 15-year-old son and 11-year-old daughter on a Kindertransport (children’s transport) to Sweden.

Stefan, a big-city boy, spent the war years with a farmer in a remote forest area, living in a house without electricity, a toilet or running water, feeding the livestock and chopping down large trees in the icy winter. He kept writing to his parents in Berlin until they were deported in October 1941.

This was the time of Hitler’s greatest victories, and as the German armies came closer and closer to Sweden, Stefan wondered, “Where would I go to hide?” he told the Journal in a recent interview.

“In the [Swedish] village where my sister lived, there were several known Nazis who would tell [the Germans that she was Jewish].”

Thus the story — like those of millions of other Holocaust victims — might have ended, but for the resilience of this postcard, which eluded destruction through all the upheavals.

In late 2011, Edward Victor, a retired Los Angeles lawyer, donated to LAMOTH an unusual collection of Nazi-era mementos that he had acquired and organized during a 30-year period. It consisted of some 2,000 stamps, letters, identification cards, visas, school records and currency receipts, which frequently traced the fate of a given Jewish family from the beginning of the Nazi era in 1933 to its bloody end in 1945.

At LAMOTH, Vladimir Melamed, director of Archives, Library and Collections, integrated the material in the Archon Platform-LAMOTH, the museum’s online archive, which now holds close to a million document pages (lamoth.info).

In December, Melamed received an email from Stefan Prager, who was living in Stockholm as a retired manager at SGS, a company that provides inspection, testing and certification services, primarily for international shipping.

“A relative of mine found a postcard at your museum which I sent to my parents from Sweden to the Lodz Ghetto in 1942. … I never heard from them,” Prager wrote.

Melamed and his staff went to work and tracked down the postcard in one of his digitized files labeled “Correspondence to and from Lodz Ghetto.”

No one knows how the card survived, but Prager speculates that “it was found at the Jewish administration office [in Lodz] among lots of similar stuff following the total evacuation of the ghetto to Auschwitz.”

With the recovered postcard as a lead, Melamed contacted the State Archive in Lodz for details on Prager’s parents’ fate. Last month, he received copies of handwritten entries by a Nazi official to the effect that Ernst and Ruth Prager were deported from Berlin Oct. 27-29, 1941, to the Litzmannstadt Ghetto (German for Lodz).

The next paper is an “Announcement” from the ghetto’s “Eldest of the Jews,” dated May 22, 1942, that Ruth Prager, now widowed, was being moved from the one room where she lived with her husband to another room shared with three other persons.

The last notice, dated Oct. 13, 1942, simply stated that Ruth Prager had vacated her room the previous day. Under “Reason for the Move,” an official entered “Death.”

LAMOTH president E. Randol Schoenberg noted that “the recovery of the Prager postcard reinforces the point that even 70 years after the end of the Holocaust, there are still undiscovered documents, still descendants of families searching for the fates of Nazi victims and still large gaps in our knowledge of concentration camps.

“For instance, who has heard of the Maly Trostenets extermination camp near Minsk? Yet, 65,000 Jews were murdered there.

“We owe it to the generosity of collectors like Edward Victor and the dedication of archivists like Dr. Melamed and his staff that large parts of the still unknown history of the Holocaust are coming to light.” 

Son’s postcard to Lodz Ghetto resurfaces 72 years later Read More »

Nobel winner Elie Wiesel lends support to Netanyahu’s U.S. speech

Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel is lending his support to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's March 3 speech to Congress on the dangers of Iran's nuclear program – an address that has antagonized the White House and divided American Jews.

An outspoken New Jersey Orthodox rabbi, Shmuley Boteach, said on Thursday he is placing full-page advertisements in two of the leading U.S. newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, featuring Wiesel's endorsement of Netanyahu's speech.

Blindsided by the invitation that Republicans in Congress extended to Netanyahu, President Barack Obama has declined to meet the Israeli leader, citing what he has said is U.S. protocol not to meet world leaders before national elections, due to take place in Israel on March 17.

The advertisement quotes Wiesel as saying he plans to attend Netanyahu's address “on the catastrophic danger of a nuclear Iran.” Awarded the Nobel in 1986, Wiesel asks Obama and others in the ad: “Will you join me in hearing the case for keeping weapons from those who preach death to Israel and America?”

Speaking to Reuters by phone, Boteach said: “There's no personality more respected in the global Jewish community and few in the wider world than Elie Wiesel. He is a living prince of the Jewish people.”

“He is the face of the murdered 6 million (Jews killed in the Holocaust). So I think that his view on the prime minister's speech sounding the alarm as to the Iranian nuclear program carries a unique authority that transcends some of the political circus that has affected the speech,” Boteach said.

Boteach, the author of books including “Kosher Sex,” was the Republican nominee in 2012 for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives but lost to Democratic incumbent Bill Pascrell.

DEEP DIVISIONS

Wiesel, 86, who has written extensively of his imprisonment in Nazi camps, is the latest to join a fray that has exposed deep divisions among American Jews over the policy and propriety behind a speech in which Netanyahu is expected to criticize Obama's effort to forge an international nuclear deal with Iran.

The United States boasts the largest Jewish population outside Israel. American Jews, who make up roughly 2 percent of the U.S. population, historically have been a strong pro-Israel force in American politics.

John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, invited Netanyahu. Detractors say Netanyahu, who has long warned the West of the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran, is working with Republicans to thumb their noses at Obama, a Democrat. Neither Boehner nor Netanyahu consulted the U.S. president.

This week J Street, a Democratic-leaning pro-Israel group, started a petition drive opposed to Netanyahu's speech. Prominent Jewish leader Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League denounced that effort as “inflammatory and repugnant.”

The Republican Jewish Coalition lobbying group launched a petition countering J Street's campaign, titled “Stand with Bibi,” and has promised to publicize which U.S. lawmakers boycott the speech.

'BIBI DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME'

J Street said it had gathered more than 20,000 signatures for a petition asking Jews to say “Bibi does NOT speak for me,” using Netanyahu's nickname, in response to Netanyahu calling himself not just Israel's prime minister but also “a representative of the entire Jewish people.”

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, said American Jews had long been divided, with Republican Jews backing Netanyahu's right-wing government and liberal Jews more in line with the Israeli opposition.

“Perhaps the biggest mistake the prime minister has made is allowing his speech to be the wedge that has driven that argument more public,” Ben-Ami said.

He said about 70 percent of Jewish Americans vote Democratic and roughly a quarter identifies as Republican.

“But today, with a really divided society on both sides of the ocean, both there and here, it isn't possible any longer for there to be a single voice representing the views of all Jewish Americans,” Ben-Ami said.

Some of Netanyahu's critics accuse him of placing ties to Republicans above Israel's relations with the United States, its most important ally. U.S.-born Ron Dermer, Israel's ambassador to Washington, is a former Republican political operative.

Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and the most senior U.S. senator, said this week he would not attend Netanyahu's speech and accused Republicans of orchestrating what he called “a tawdry and high-handed stunt that has embarrassed not only Israel but the Congress itself.”

Matt Brooks, the Republican Jewish Coalition's executive director, countered: “It's important for the Jewish community to know that members of Congress have a choice … whether they're going to stand with the prime minister of Israel and the Jewish community in opposition to a nuclear Iran, or whether they're going to put partisan politics ahead of that and stand with President Obama.”

Nobel winner Elie Wiesel lends support to Netanyahu’s U.S. speech Read More »

Being There – Parashat Mishpatim

More than twenty years ago I read a wonderful book the title of which I’ve never forgotten because it states such a profound and obvious truth – Where ever you go – There you are! The book was written by Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn, the creator of the Stress Reduction Clinic and the Center for Mindfulness in Medicine, Health Care, and Society at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

The volume is both an instructional guide on how to meditate, how to sit, and how to breathe, how to calm the mind and live in the present, and it is about the physical, mental and emotional health benefits that meditators attain over time.

Dr. Kabat-Zinn wrote that we are who we are everywhere we go, that we reveal ourselves fully all the time whether we’re aware of doing so or not, in all of our relationships, at home and in the work place, in our most private moments and in the crowd.

I read the book when Barbara, our then-young sons and I spent a week one summer in a home loaned to us by friends on Malibu’s famed-Broad Beach.

Each morning I awoke early before everyone else, made a strong cup of coffee and walked out on the sand to a bluff to sit on a weathered wooden bench where I’d look at the ocean, smell the morning salt air, listen to the waves, and read.

The book inspired me to begin meditating, and I did so for a year fairly religiously, and though I haven’t continued in a rigorous way since, I still find that I can, even for just a few moments at a time, settle myself down as I learned to do so long ago and feel refreshed and more present.

I recalled those summer days this week as I studied Parashat Mishpatim and encountered one special verse:

“The Eternal One said to Moses, Go up to me to the mountain – and be there, and I will give you the stone tablets and the Torah and the commandment that I inscribed [that you may] teach them.” (Exodus 14:19)

“עלה אלי ההרה – go up to Me to the mountain, והויה שם and be there.

A redundancy to be sure! God told Moses to go to the top of a mountain. Once there, where else would he be? And why was it necessary for God to say to him also “be there?”

I would imagine that God wanted Moses to pay special attention, to open his sensual and spiritual antennae as he received Torah that he may absorb it as fully as he was capable as the preeminent and most intimate of God’s prophets. God knew, of course, that Moses was human, that he, like all of us, was distractible.

The Kotzker Rebbe commented that sometimes we expend a great deal of effort to reach an exalted goal – a great job, success, wealth, fame, love, family, friends, community – but once we achieve that which we thought we wanted sometimes we no longer want or need it at all, that it’s wrong and destructive for us.

It may be that we’ve lost so much of ourselves in the climbing that we’re no longer in touch with who we really are, having become fragmented and lost along the way.

In moments such as these, what do we do? I believe we need to remember that no one achievement, no one person in our lives, and no one identity, and certainly not wealth or fame, is ever the totality of who we are as individuals.

The Kotzker taught that the goal of our lives cannot be merely to ascend and to reach for an exalted summit, but to “be there,” to be here now and nowhere else.

The Kotzker continued that since God can be everywhere there never was a need for Moses to have had to go up onto the mountain at all, that all Moses ever needed to do was to stop where he was and achieve an ascent in that very place. There he could have received the Torah.

So too is it for us.

May we be like children awakening in the morning, fresh, alive, vibrant, and filled with wonder at the fact of living itself, at the miracle of simply being here.

Shabbat shalom!

Source for the insights of the Kotzker Rebbe – cited in Larry Kushner's and Kerry Olitzky's “Sparks Beneath The Surface,” Jason Aaronson Inc,. New Jersey. 1993. page 91.

Being There – Parashat Mishpatim Read More »

Answering readers’ comments on “Don’t speak to Congress, Mr. Netanyahu”

I cannot promise to do this following every New York Times article of mine, but some of them do prompt a large number of responses and merit a follow up. So today I will answer comments and questions following my latest article, Don't Speak to Congress, Mr. Netanyahu – the same way I did with Answering readers’ comments on “France’s Jews Have No Choice but Israel” , with Answering readers’ comments on “Who killed the Israeli left” and with Answering readers’ comments on “Israel’s Fair Weather Fans” .

First, here's what I believe is the key paragraph from the article:

Of course, canceling the speech would be somewhat humiliating, not just for him but also for United States Republicans: Some lame excuse would have to be found, a smug response from the White House would have to be endured. But it’s a blow that Republicans could, and hopefully would, be ready to absorb. After all, they have long claimed that they and their constituents make fairer friends than their Democratic counterparts, and what better way to prove that than to take a hit for Israel?

You left wing hack

A collection from Twitter:

Your support of Iran nuke is remarkable.

Even @rosnersdomain comes out against #Netanyahuspeech

The left cannot bear the images of standing ovations to Netanyahu's speech, that's the only reason they oppose it.

No, I do not support Iranian nukes. I do not find it impressive that “even” I am against the speech. And I could easily bear the image of a standing ovation to Netanyahu.

Problem is: the speech isn't likely to contribute much to stopping Iran – as I explain in the article.

And: you can support Netanyahu's position on Iran and still oppose the speech.

And: what I find troubling is the prospect of Netanyahu speaking with no standing ovation. 

In other words: not everything in life is about left-right, Likud-Labor, Republican-Democratic, love-hate of Netanyahu. One can believe that Netanyahu is right on Iran and wrong to pick Congress as the place to speak about Iran.

Backhand to Obama

Philip Turner on Twitter:

While dealing smug backhands to Pres Obama, rightist Israeli @rosnersdomain thinks Netanyahu shld cancel his speech.

Turner has a point: smug or not, a reluctance to see the speech train-wreck moving forward is hardly an endorsement of the emerging Iran deal. The deal is not a good deal. The case for the deal is not a convincing one. Read Kissinger on Iran. Read Why the White House Is Getting Lonelier on Iran by Walter Russell Mead. Here is one paragraph:

A nuclear deal under these circumstances that lifts the sanctions without addressing the question of Iran’s regional ambitions would have the inevitable effect of greatly strengthening Iran’s hand. Intelligent skeptics want to understand what the administration thinks about Iran’s growing predominance in the region. Is our strategy one of offshore balancing, or is it based on something like a return to the Nixon strategy of relying on the Shah of Iran as our right hand in the region? If the former, what does the administration propose to do about the imbalance that increasingly favors Iran? If the latter, what assurances does the administration have that a regionally dominant Iran would be our friend?

GOP, Adelson

By mail, from Paul:

Netanyahu cannot cancel his visit. He got an invitation from the top leadership of the Republican Party in congress and he cannot alienate his best friends… and Sheldon Adelson would not allow it.

Let me begin with the Adelson quip. I have yet to see one proof that Adelson did or did not take part in negotiations leading to the invitation and the speech. Until I see such proof, I prefer to address the issues and the persons that surely took part in this saga – Netanyahu and Boehner.

As for Boehner and the GOP: that is a good point and an important one. Netanyahu would find it hard to cancel the visit without first talking – and hopefully getting a nod – from Boehner. That is really why I wrote this article for the New York Times: to plead to a Republican leadership that is very friendly toward Israel to hand Netanyahu a ladder with which to climb off the speech tree.

Republicans more supportive?

James Adler wrote on Facebook:

…if the aim is to keep support for Israel bi-partisan, the column, where you speak almost as an attorney for the Republicans, and especially last 2 sentences, where you say they can use this to try to prove they are better supporters — insulting to me, and supporters of Israel or the Likud and Netanyahu? — only digs a deeper partisan divide and makes Israel even more of a partisan political football.

I have written extensively in the past about the “support gap” – namely, about the difference between Republicans and Democrats in their approach to Israel. And Adler has a point: In the article I do use the Republicans' claim to be the better supporters of Israel to make the case that they can yet again demonstrate their great support by helping Netanyahu in this time of trouble.

Do I think that the Republican claim about being more supportive has merit? I don't say as much in the article itself, but truth must be told, I think they have a case. This doesn't mean that the Democratic Party is not supportive of Israel, but it might suggest that it is not as supportive as the Republican Party. Just look at public opinion polls and see what the voters of each party say.

I do not think that such a claim should be counted as an insult to anyone. If you can make a case demonstrating that the Democratic Party is the more supportive party, I'd like to see it. If you can't make such a case, your options are still open: you can say that you don't care at all if the Democratic Party is supportive of Israel. You can say that you don't care if the Republicans are indeed more supportive as long as the Democratic Party is supportive enough. Or you can look at the Democratic Party and search for ways to make it more supportive.

There are other views

Carol Kort sent an email:

 …there is just possibly another point of view…. Here for example, is what someone in The Forward (plenty liberal) wrote….

Kort links to an article by my friend David Hazony in the Forward. Hazony writes: “Support for Israel and concern about Iran are not partisan affairs on Capitol Hill. We can easily understand the difficulty many Democrats may have in supporting Netanyahu’s speech when it has become such a public relations mess. But that doesn’t mean they won’t applaud his words”.

Of course, being a great writer, Hazony also makes other good points. My friend David Suissa of the Journal made an even more convincing case in his article yesterday.

I am still not convinced. Why? Because even after reading both – and I apologize to the readers who hear me say this for the hundredth time – I still see the damage and I still don't see enough benefit from the speech. The test is simple: what is Netanyahu hoping to gain – and does he have a way of gaining it by making the speech? Here is Suissa's main point – the speech is going to stir a debate:

Let’s put aside all the hysterics about politics and protocol and how Bibi has ticked off Obama. As sobering as those things may be, they pale in comparison to the strategic issue of how Obama deals with the Iranian nuclear threat. If he’s about to sign an agreement that many experts agree is a bad one, don’t we deserve a national debate? 

 

Answering readers’ comments on “Don’t speak to Congress, Mr. Netanyahu” Read More »

CBS News reporter Bob Simon killed in N.Y. car crash

Bob Simon, the Emmy Award-winning CBS News and “60 Minutes” correspondent, was killed in a car accident in New York City.

Simon, who covered nearly every major overseas conflict and news story since the late 1960s, reportedly was a passenger in a hired car on Wednesday evening that hit another car on Manhattan’s West Side. He was 73.

He was pronounced dead upon arrival at Saint Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital, Reuters reported, citing police.

Simon earned 27 Emmy Awards and was awarded the Alfred I. DuPont-Columbia University Award for a “60 Minutes II” report on genocide during the Bosnian War.

His career in war reporting began in Vietnam, according to The Associated Press. Simon was held captive in Iraq for 40 days in January 1991 after being captured with a CBS News team while reporting on the Gulf War. He wrote about the experience in his book “Forty Days” and returned to Iraq in 1993 to report on the American bombing of the country.

In April 2012, Simon faced the wrath of the pro-Israel community following his report on the plight of Christians in the West Bank and Jerusalem that focused on Israeli policies as a cause of the decline of the area’s Arab Christian population, as well as its reliance on an anti-Israel Palestinian Lutheran pastor as a key source.

He had worked in the CBS Tel Aviv bureau from 1977 to 1981.

CBS News reporter Bob Simon killed in N.Y. car crash Read More »

Obama asks Congress to authorize U.S. war on Islamic State

U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday sent Congress his long-awaited formal request to authorize military force against Islamic State, meeting swift resistance from Republicans as well as his fellow Democrats wary of another war in the Middle East.

Republicans, who control Congress and say Obama's foreign policy is too passive, want stronger measures against the militants than outlined in the plan, which bars any large-scale invasion by U.S. ground troops and covers the next three years.

Obama acknowledged that the military campaign is difficult and will remain so. “But our coalition is on the offensive. ISIL is on the defensive, and ISIL is going to lose,” he said in a televised statement from the White House.

With many of Obama's fellow Democrats insisting the plan is too broad because it includes no blanket ban on ground troops, it could be difficult for the authorization to pass, even though six months have passed since the campaign began.

Obama consulted with Republicans and Democrats in writing the resolution, and said he would continue to do so. He said the time frame was intended to let Congress revisit the issue when the next president takes office in 2017.

The proposal says Islamic State “has committed despicable acts of violence and mass execution.” Its militants have killed thousands of civilians while seizing territory in Iraq andSyria in an attempt to establish a hub of jihadism in the heart of the Arab world.

They have also generated international outrage by beheading western aid workers and journalists and burning to death a Jordanian pilot.

Obama sent his request to Congress a day after his administration confirmed the death of Kayla Mueller, a 26-year-old aid worker who was the last known American hostage held by the group.

Both the Senate and House of Representatives must approve Obama's plan. Lawmakers said they would begin hearings quickly as Republicans made clear they thought the plan fell short.

The Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, told reporters he was sure the plan would change as it moved though Congress. “I'm not sure the strategy that has been outlined will accomplish the mission the president says he wants to accomplish,” he added.

Obama has defended his authority to lead an international coalition against Islamic State since Aug. 8 when U.S. fighter jets began attacks in Iraq. The formal request eased criticism of Obama's failure to seek the backing of Congress, where some accused him of breaching his constitutional authority.

SEEKING A UNITED FRONT

With Republicans in control of Congress after routing Obama's Democrats in November elections, the president also wants lawmakers to share responsibility for the campaign against Islamic State and present a united front.

The plan does not authorize “long-term, large-scale ground combat operations” such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama said those operations would be left to local forces, but lawmakers worried they would not step up. “What is the role, really, that regional partners are playing in this battle against ISIL?” asked Democratic Senator Tim Kaine.

The draft allows for certain ground combat operations including hostage rescues and the use of special forces. It permits the use of U.S. forces for intelligence collection, targeting operations for drone strikes and planning and giving other assistance to local forces.

Many Democrats, especially liberals in the House, said Obama's proposal was too broad. They want any authorization to place stricter limits on the use of ground troops and expressed concerns Obama set no geographic limits on the campaign.

“The language … is very broad, very ambiguous,” said Democratic Representative Adam Schiff. “None of us really know what 'enduring offensive combat operations' means.”

It was the first formal request for authority to conduct a military operation of Obama's six years in office. If passed, it would be Congress' first war authorization since then-President George W. Bush's 2002 authority to wage the Iraq War.

Obama's objection as a U.S. senator to that authority helped fuel his successful 2008 campaign for the White House.

Obama's text includes a repeal of the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force. But it leaves in place an open-ended authorization, passed days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, for a campaign against al Qaeda and affiliates.

Rights groups and many lawmakers said they want the new AUMF to set an end date for the 2001 authorization, which the White House has invoked to carry out drone and missile strikes against suspected al Qaeda militants in Yemen and Somalia.

Obama said he remained committed to working with Congress to “refine, and ultimately repeal” it.

Obama asks Congress to authorize U.S. war on Islamic State Read More »

Israel tax authorities still trying to get leaked HSBC account list

Israel's tax authority said on Thursday it was working to obtain the details of thousands of Israelis with accounts at the Swiss arm of HSBC, after the bank admitted failings that may have allowed some customers to evade taxes.

According to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which this week coordinated the release of leaked data from HSBC in Switzerland, Israel ranked sixth among the 203 countries whose citizens were customers, with 6,554 Israelis holding accounts worth $10 billion.

“We have tried to receive the data from authorities. We tried in various ways, direct and indirect, but we didn't get it,” said Idit Lev-Zerahia, a spokeswoman for the Israel Tax Authority. “We are now renewing our efforts.”

Moshe Asher, the head of the authority, told the Globes financial newspaper he was rebuffed by French authorities when trying to get the details but that the tax authority was “determined to obtain this list.”

Having a Swiss bank account is not illegal in Israel, as long as it is reported to authorities.

Israeli newspapers have reported that among Israelis on the list were bank owners and directors, diamond and real estate moguls, retired military officers, public and private company heads, well-known lawyers, a “popular” TV presenter, artists, soccer players, sport agents, a retired judge and a former prosecutor.

The tax authority has many other lists of people with bank accounts in Switzerland, Lev-Zerahia said. In recent months, some 32 Israelis have been arrested over secret accounts worth tens of millions of dollars held at UBS in Switzerland.

Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said Israel had do more to prevent Israelis “avoiding tax by shifting the money to some banks elsewhere.”

“I am not surprised,” Steinitz, who was finance minister until 2013, said of the HSBC leak. “We always thought the illegal black economy in Israel is too big,” he told Reuters.

A spokesman for Israeli billionaire Beny Steinmetz, who was named in Israeli newspapers as having an account, said: “Steinmetz is a Swiss resident, pays taxes in strict accordance with his agreement with the Swiss tax authorities and has always managed his bank accounts in Switzerland in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.”

Former Bank Hapoalim chairman Shlomo Nehama said in an emailed statement to Reuters that at one point he had about $104 million in an HSBC account in Switzerland comprised only of funds derived from the sale of shares and options in a company he owned.

“The gains from such sale and the income arising in the account were legally and legitimately obtained and were duly reported to the Israeli tax authorities,” he said.

Asher, the head of the tax authority, noted that since the leaked HSBC accounts were held between 1998 and 2007, it was possible some had since been closed or transferred.

“Even if it takes time, and it will take time, we will reach every account holder and more than that, nobody can be certain their account won't immediately come up for investigation,” he told Globes.

The tax authority is offering immunity from criminal prosecution for anyone who comes forward to report an account abroad.

Israel tax authorities still trying to get leaked HSBC account list Read More »

Rachel Corrie’s family loses appeal in Israel’s Supreme Court seeking damages

Israel’s Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision on civil damages in the case of U.S. peace activist Rachel Corrie, who was killed in the West Bank in 2003 by a military bulldozer.

The high court on Thursday upheld a ruling by the Haifa District Court exempting Israel from paying civil damages for wrongful death to Corrie’s family since the incident occurred in a war zone.

Corrie, 23, a pro-Palestinian activist from Olympia, Wash., was wearing an orange vest and attempting to stop a bulldozer from demolishing a Palestinian home in Rafah in the West Bank when she was killed. The army said that the area where the incident occurred was named a closed military zone; the claim has been disputed.

An Israeli army investigation following Corrie’s death found that the driver of the bulldozer could not see Corrie and did not intentionally run over her. The report accused Corrie and the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement of “illegal, irresponsible and dangerous” behavior.

Witnesses say that Corrie was clearly visible and that activists shouted for the bulldozer to stop before it hit the college student.

The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed a separate lower court decision, however, on the possible mishandling of the autopsy on Corrie’s body, which will require further investigation by the court into the autopsy and the possible misplacement of some of Corrie’s remains.

The Corries lost a lawsuit against Caterpillar Inc., the U.S. company that manufactured the bulldozer that killed their daughter.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reported Wednesday that the one-woman play “My Name is Rachel Corrie,” based on the activist’s journal writings, will be staged Off-Broadway  in April at the Culture Project’s Lynn Redgrave Theater in the East Village. The play was last performed in New York a decade ago amid great controversy in the theater and Jewish communities.

Rachel Corrie’s family loses appeal in Israel’s Supreme Court seeking damages Read More »

‘Gett’ illustrates divorce inequality — a hot-button topic in Israel

You may not know the name yet, but if you follow Israeli movies, the face is unforgettable. The throaty Sephardic voice, the black hair, burning eyes and bone structure to die for: Ronit Elkabetz is built for melodrama before she opens her preternaturally mobile mouth. With her lush sensuality, the actress has played her share of sexpots and slatterns. But over the years, her range has grown wider and deeper: In “Late Marriage (2001) and “The Band’s Visit (2007), two of the finest movies to come out of Israel’s thriving national cinema, Elkabetz nimbly combines comic verve with a lyrical feel for grief and disappointment. And in France, where Elkabetz lives when she’s not in Israel with her husband of four years, she’s about to play the French prime minister in a futuristic sci-fi series on television. Now, with her film “Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem” having been Israel’s Oscar submission this year for best foreign film — though it did not make the final list — she’s a writer-director to reckon with, too.

Onscreen, Elkabetz carries herself with the stately, look-at-me pride of a 1940s Hollywood diva. Stepping up gamely for an interview in a Beverly Hills hotel last October, however, she wilted over mint tea. Elkabetz was exhausted from a whistle-stop tour of some of the 30 countries that have picked up the courtroom drama “Gett,” the latest in a trilogy that she wrote and directed with her younger brother, Shlomi. As Viviane, an Israeli woman trying to obtain a divorce from her Orthodox husband, Elkabetz is stubborn, majestic and seething with barely suppressed rage.

“Gett” is not the first film to take on the gender inequities of divorce in a country that is largely secular, yet without institutional arrangements for civil marriage or divorce. To the best of my knowledge, however, it is the first to set the cat among the rabbinical pigeons by addressing the breakdown of a union in which, for one partner, at least, all affection is gone. Viviane’s calmly recalcitrant husband (Simon Abkarian) doesn’t beat or sexually coerce her: She simply no longer loves him. To the panel of cranky rabbis who sit in judgment over her petition, that is insufficient grounds for annulment, and they keep sending the couple away to reconcile. 

Even without its incendiary topicality (the movie played to enthusiastic crowds at last year’s Jerusalem Film Festival, where it won best feature) “Gett” is a demanding movie whose minimalist form, unfolding in a sparsely furnished courtroom, forces our attention on the futile process that stymies Viviane’s efforts to gain her independence. “We didn’t want to show any exteriors,” Elkabetz said in halting but precise English, “because there is no home. The marriage is finished.”  

Instead we see Viviane and her lawyer returning to the courtroom again and again, with and without her stubbornly uncooperative spouse. Amid increasingly heated exchanges between the plaintiff, her frustrated attorney and the implacable (if sometimes flustered) judges, her husband looks on impassively, secure in the knowledge that he has time and a rigid interpretation of Jewish law on his side. The filmmakers want us to experience Viviane’s frustration and rising anger as she’s sent back again to create shalom bayit (domestic peace). Space is claustrophobically confined as befits a closed court; months pass with Bressonian slowness. “The judges want to gain time,” Elkabetz explained.

The director bristles at the suggestion that audiences may need to shift gears to adjust to the movie’s measured pace. “Maybe you had jetlag too when you saw it,” she counters slyly. And in its austere way, “Gett” is a wonderfully handsome movie with a palette of dramatically monochromatic browns and greys, with occasional bursts into significant color as the action approaches crisis. “We wanted very much to shoot in black-and-white,” Elkabetz said. “But everyone told us, forget it. No one will believe that this is happening today.” 

To highlight the lack of objectivity in the process, there’s no omniscient narrator; the point of view segues between characters as they slog through the archaic proceedings. “We never took a master shot from our point of view,” Elkabetz said. “It’s always from the point of view of the other.” But the movie’s tonal shifts belong to Viviane. She may be a victim, but she’s no shrinking violet. She’s a screamer with cause, and “Gett” speaks on her behalf. In a nod to Israel’s popular ethnic comedy, character witnesses bring hilarious relief from all the pent-up passion. “I’m a tragedienne,” Elkabetz said, “and I know very well that in the middle of tragedy, there is comedy. It’s a fine line.”

Taken together, the trilogy, which Elkabetz sums up as “a woman in search of her freedom,” is loosely based on the family experiences she shared with her brother growing up in a traditional North African family in Beersheba and Haifa. “The films were inspired by my mother’s life,” Elkabetz said. “They’re not autobiographical. We didn’t use specific detail. But they’re very personal, and very good therapy for both of us.” Of Shlomi, a slim, handsome film professor and filmmaker who’s eight years younger and her constant companion on the tour, she says, “We are so good together. We talk a lot, a lot before we start production. While shooting we don’t talk at all.” 

If the first two films in the trilogy opened in Israel to decent notices, “Gett” has been a sensation. When it opened there commercially last September, the movie played to packed houses and stepped up an already furious public debate in a country where the divide between religious and secular runs a close second to the conflict with the Palestinians in Israel’s noisy culture wars. Plaudits flowed, Elkabetz says, from the media and from government sources, among them former Justice Minister Tzipi Livni. “We heard from foundations advocating against sexual violence, for women in danger, as well as women who have been denied divorce. We even heard from women in high-tech. It was like bulimia, everyone wanted to vomit about it.” 

Elkabetz received supportive letters from men as well as women. As for the Orthodox: “They don’t go to the cinema,” Elkabetz said, shrugging. “But one of their male rabbis urged his community to see it, while a woman rabbi said, ‘Don’t go.’ ”

“Maybe,” she added, “ ‘Gett’ will be the first film in Israel to change reality.” At the end of the movie, having agreed to a shocking bargain driven by her implacable spouse, Viviane drifts over to a window and looks out onto a sunlit patch of a world busy with people going about their business.

Will there be a sequel? “Viviane bought her freedom,” Elkabetz said. “Maybe there will be a new life.” She smiles enigmatically. “Maybe.”

“Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem” opens in Los Angeles Feb. 13. 

‘Gett’ illustrates divorce inequality — a hot-button topic in Israel Read More »

A snapshot of France and her Jews at the crossroads

I was in Paris on the Shloshim (ceremony marking the 30th day of the passing of a loved one) of the murder of four Jewish shoppers at a kosher supermarket on a Sabbath eve last month.

President Obama and his spokesman Josh Reader can parse their phrases any way they choose, but there was nothing random about those killings that took place against the backdrop of the assassinations at Charlie Hebdo.

This is the situation that I found on the ground.

First:  Massive security. French President François Hollande, who thank God, recognizes that his Jewish citizens are targeted by Islamist terrorists, has put 10,000(!) soldiers on the streets of France, including a group of battle-ready troops at the entrance to the building hosting the gathering. In fact, the European office of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is located in the same building. Some nights, as many as five soldiers sleep there. 

Second: The question of the hour is – no longer whether to leave, but when and to where.

Even before the latest murders, thousands of French Jews had already left – many of them to Israel. They had had it with taunts, hate crimes, bullying on trains, shootings in Toulouse, kidnappings, home invasions, rape and murder. They had absorbed unending media bias against Israel, anti-Semitic taunts from Dieudonné, a judicial system that would not deal with anti-Semitism in a serious way. And they felt a wall of apathy from non-Jewish neighbors, over 30 percent of whom agree with the Le Pens of France who would be happy to see the Jews just leave and that hopefully the Muslims would follow suit.

It is difficult for us Americans to understand the sense of isolation many French Jews feel. Even in the sea of a millions of protesters at the Charlie Hebdo solidarity march on Jan. 11, there was only one balloon that included all these words in the “Charlie” slogans:

Nous sommes tous Charlie, flics, Juifs.

“We are all Charlie, Police, Jews”

The lone sign hovering above the millions who took to the streets that included the word Juif was written and held aloft by members of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Third: Not everyone is leaving. To be sure, not every Jew is going to leave France. The Chief Rabbi reminded my colleague Dr. Shimon Samuels and myself, that no country in the diaspora is free from Jew-hatred and that he and others will stay to fight back against the hate and rely on the government institutions to protect them from terrorists.

Fourth: Can France Protect Its Jews and Itself From Islamist Terrorists? President Hollande and colleagues are certainly trying. They understand it’s no longer just about the future of French Jews, but about France’s future as a secular republic. Our discussions with senior French officials were devoid of any delusional political correctness. There is a new awareness of the centrality of the Internet as a key weapon for ISIS and its supporters. The deft manipulation of social networking aids recruitment drives across Europe and mass-markets hatred against anyone – including Muslims – who oppose their vision of a worldwide Caliphate. Which brings me to the last point.

Fifth: Hate has put down roots. Last June, during a face-to-face meeting with President Hollande when he confirmed to us that 1,000 French citizens had trained with ISIS in Syria and now posed a new threat to France and the entire continent, Rabbi Marvin Hier, the Wiesenthal Center dean and founder told Mr. Hollande: Beyond dealing with this new terrorist threat, unless and until France’s 6,000-plus Imams and other Muslim leaders, weigh in on the right side of this epic struggle, this war may not be winnable. The hate preached by some Imams has put down roots. I got a small dose of it when Dr. Samuels and I were rushing to a meeting at a kosher restaurant near the Elysée Palace. Passing a pub with a lunchtime line spilling out onto the sidewalk, I briefly locked eyes with a young, attractive hijab-clad Muslim woman. Her indifferent glance transformed into utter contempt when she saw my yarmulke. 

Hate is learned, and ISIS is but one of its only teachers. That woman’s anti-Semitism will not be erased by government decrees. Such hatred can only be deconstructed by Muslims themselves. It is hard to blame any French Jew for not waiting around to find out how this all plays out. 

Just before the formal Shloshim memorial began, I had a private moment with members of the family of one of the four Jewish martyrs murdered at the Hyper Casher market. They spoke little English; the little French I know is an abomination. But in times of tragedy we Jews don’t need random words. Our collective destiny spans the millennia, renders borders and languages meaningless. Our tears were our bond; our message clear: Am Yisrael Chai!


Rabbi Abraham Cooper is the associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center

A snapshot of France and her Jews at the crossroads Read More »