fbpx

March 1, 2015

Leonard Nimoy’s good mother

“Oh, by the way, Leonard,” I say into the phone, as breezily as I can feign, “what did you think about Diane’s belt?”

Leonard Nimoy is on location in Cambridge, Mass., preparing to direct “The Good Mother” for Disney, starring Diane Keaton. I’m the executive on the movie, on the lot, where a studio chieftain and I have just watched the makeup, hair and wardrobe test Leonard had shot. (I won’t identify the mogul, but it’s unlikely you’d know his name.)

“What about Diane’s belt?” Leonard replies, not remotely breezy, more like, Do not go there.  

“Didn’t you think it was kind of wide?  So wide it pulls your eyes from her face?” I am trying my best to translate the order the studio honcho had barked in the screening room – “Tell him to lose that goddam belt” – into a casual afterthought. 

Silence.  Then:  “Where did you say you went to college?”

He knows where, it’s located in the city where he’s shooting, but I answer.

“And after that?  Your next degree – where did you get that?”

I tell him.  This call is not going to a good place.  

“And then a Ph.D, if I’m not mistaken.  Where’s that from?”

I have now named three of the world’s most storied universities.

After another excruciating silence: “Tell me.  Is this what you thought you’d be doing with that education?” 

“Excuse me?”

“Yes,” he muses, “I can see how having to tell me what some imbecile suit doesn’t have the balls to tell me himself – that must be fairly difficult for someone as bright as yourself.”  The words are brutal, but the tone is Vulcan.

“I’ll give him your regards,” I lie.

It’s a miracle that a near 30-year friendship could rise from ashes like that, but it did.  I loved hanging out with him.  At birthdays and seders, in the classroom and on the radio, talking politics or parenting, Leonard and his wife Susan generously opened their hearts and home to me. And after all those years, having been reamed by Leonard Nimoy remains pretty much the coolest thing about me.

“The Good Mother” was the second picture that Leonard directed for Disney, after the hit comedy “Three Men and a Baby.”  But “The Good Mother” was no comedy. Disney chairman Michael Eisner was slipped the unpublished manuscript of what the New York Times would call “Sue Miller’s phenomenally assured, morally troubling and meticulously precise first novel,” and it struck him as a descendant of classics like “The Scarlet Letter” and “Ethan Frome.”  When it was assigned as an overnight read for the production executives, including me, we already knew he wanted to option it, so it surprised me how much I hated the story.  

It tells of a divorced mother who finds herself in a custody battle for her young daughter, whom she loses after her new boyfriend, an artist, helps her discover her long-repressed sexuality, an erotic awakening depicted (in my reading, anyway) as the gateway to parental negligence. At the meeting to discuss how much to pay for the book, who should write the screenplay and what actresses could get an Academy nomination for playing the lead, I – a lone voice at the table – said I thought the book’s message was reactionary: The cost of feminism is sin, and its price is tragedy. For half an hour, Eisner and I sparred over what “The Good Mother” was about and who would want to see it.  Afterward, I wondered how much I actually believed what I’d been saying, and whether my big mouth had just lost me my job.  Instead, I learned the next day that Eisner had decided I should be the executive on the film’s development, under the tutelage of the aforementioned suit.

A beautiful screenplay by Michael Bortman landed Leonard as director, who cast Keaton as the mother, and as the boyfriend he persuaded the studio to let him hire an Irish actor whom no one at Disney except the casting director had heard of: Liam Neeson.  Keaton kept her belt; I kept further imbecilities from the director, and my objections to the allegory to myself; and within a year, Leonard delivered a cut of the movie.  

Like most studios, Disney’s custom was to test directors’ cuts of movies in front of audiences, so it would be possible to make changes, and develop a marketing campaign, based on their reactions.  A test screening of “The Good Mother” was held at a multiplex deep in the San Fernando Valley.  Afterward, we sat glumly at the back of the theater, empty except for the focus group, as we heard them say the movie was a downer. In their words and in the comment cards, there was no whiff of my problem with the story. No one thought it was anti-feminist, anti-sexual, anti-anything; they just wanted to be entertained.

Leonard was unconvinced.  He pointed out that this audience, recruited in a suburban mall, was a complete mismatch for the picture, whose sweet spot was cosmopolitan adults who would find its moral complexity rich and uplifting.  The studio agreed to test it again, in San Francisco.  The response was better, but not much.

Back in Burbank, we met with Leonard.  This meeting was run by someone higher up the food chain than me – not the suit, but someone Leonard seemed to trust when he made his last picture.  The first words out of the executive’s mouth:  “This movie has cancer.”

Now “Three Men and a Baby” had been a huge cash cow for Disney.  Any other director, especially someone the studio wanted to stay in business with, would have been enraged by this provocation.  But Leonard instantly found his Spock.  

“I see,” he said, without a flicker of emotion. “And what course do you propose?” I was surprised he didn’t add “Captain” to the end of his question. 

“We would never take final cut from you, Leonard.  But if you want to shoot a different ending, we’ll step up to the cost, and you can compare the scores and decide which way to go.  It’ll be your decision.”

Silence – the kind I knew well.  Then: “What do you mean, ‘a different ending’?”

“A happy ending. Joint custody. She keeps the kid.”

I haven’t seen any mention of “The Good Mother” in Leonard’s obituaries, perhaps because so few people saw or heard of it.  Would it have done better box office if Leonard had caved?  Even “King Lear” was a bomb until Nahum Tate’s happy-ending version of 1681, in which Lear lives and Cordelia marries Edgar.  “The Good Mother” wasn’t Shakespeare, but Leonard stuck to his guns.  He also razzed me about that belt for the next 30 years.


Marty Kaplan holds the Norman Lear chair at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.  Reach him at martyk@jewishjournal.com.

Leonard Nimoy’s good mother Read More »

About

Craig Taubman is a successful musician, composer, social activist, family man, dog-owner and all around life of the party.

Craig's eclectic (read “madly creative,” not “dirty hippie”) musical styling has made his recordings an integral part of the Jewish community. Craig’s top-selling releases include Friday Night Live, composed for a special Shabbat service held once a month at Sinai Temple with Rabbi David Wolpe in Los Angeles. His extensive musical catalog consists of over 50 recordings, featuring everything from the new Celebrate Jewish Lullabies, to Rock n Toontown, featuring backup vocals with Minnie and Mickey!

Following Craig's commitment to the Jewish tradition of loving ones neighbor as oneself, he founded the Pico Union Project in 2013 in the Pico Union neighborhood of Los Angeles. Housed in a historic red brick synagogue built in 1909, the PUP is a community and meeting space for religious congregations, musical events, local organizations and people who just want to hang out.

About Read More »

Day 1 at AIPAC: Trusting Congress, expecting little from White House and anxious about Bibigate

The marching orders to the reported 16,000 attendees were clear on the first day of this year’s AIPAC policy conference: push legislators to pass a proposed bill that would give Congress the right to approve or reject any nuclear agreement signed between the Obama administration and the Iranian regime.

And the implications, too, were clear: AIPAC, an organization built on fostering bipartisan support for Israel in Congress and the White House, all but expects the president to sign a “bad” deal with Iran, one that the group believes would make Iran a threshold nuclear power and would endanger Israel’s existence.

This dynamic—relying on Congress to counterbalance the White House—along with the anticipation and anxiety over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Tuesday address to Congress, characterized the first day of AIPAC’s three-day conference in Washington, D.C.

While AIPAC’s top brass and politicians addressing the conference did not ignore the drama surrounding the circumstances of the speech—which has further frayed an already troubled relationship between Obama and Netanyahu—the focus was on the two bills AIPAC and its army of citizen lobbyists will push when they pack Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

First, the “Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015”, a bill introduced on Jan. 27 that would automatically introduce new sanctions on Iran if nuclear talks collapse. Second, the “Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015”, introduced last Friday, which would require Obama to obtain Congressional approval over any nuclear deal with Iran.

As Howard Kohr, AIPAC’s CEO, said, “Thank goodness for Congress.”

Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.), appearing together on stage Sunday morning in symbolic bipartisan fashion, praised the AIPAC members for what the two said is their influence on lawmakers.

“To my AIPAC friends, you’re going to make more difference than any speech any politician could deliver,” said Graham, a crowd favorite. “AIPAC is the glue that holds this relationship together.”

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) (R), interviewed by Director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University Frank Sesno in Washington on March 1. Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

The South Carolina senator said that he will be in the “front row” of Netanyahu’s Tuesday speech to a joint session of Congress, which news reports have suggested he will use as an opportunity to inform lawmakers of particularly risky and dangerous elements of the deal.

“Let us commit ourselves to get as many eyes as possible on this deal before it becomes binding,” Graham said.

Cardin, stating that Israel must never become a “political wedge issue”, also helped pump up the crowd in preparation for their Tuesday lobbying mission. “We need you on Capitol Hill. We have to keep strong sanctions against Iran,” Cardin said. “We could use your help.”

For all the talk, though, about how support for Israel cannot become a Republican or Democratic issue, by putting its weight and resources behind Congress as a sort of nuclear negotiations watchdog, AIPAC's message is clear—the White House is headed toward a dangerous deal, and only Congress can stop it.

“There are some real strains in the relationships,” Kohr admitted. “There is a serious policy difference, particularly over Iran.”

About 30 Democrats reportedly plan to skip Netanyahu's Tuesday speech to Congress, which has further worsened an already toxic relationship between the current governments in Washington and Jerusalem. Netanyahu critics have argued that he’s using the speech as a political tool for upcoming elections in Israel, that he disrespected the Obama administration by not informing it beforehand of the address, and that he’s turning Israel into a partisan issue in Washington.

Netanyahu’s office has repeatedly said that he has an obligation to speak up for Israel because it stands the most to lose from a bad deal with Iran, and that it was not the responsibility of Netanyahu’s office to inform the White House, but of Speaker of the House John Boehner’s office, which officially invited Netanyahu. Boehner’s office reportedly informed the White House of Netanyahu’s acceptance two hours before it was publicly announced.

Sunday at AIPAC, although Kohr and politicians in attendance stressed the importance of attending Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, there were few, if any, public endorsements of his decision to address lawmakers.

“There’s no question that the way this speech has come about has created a great deal of upset among Democrats in Congress—House and Senate,” Kohr said. “It’s created some upset, frankly, outside the Capitol and, frankly, it may have upset some people in this room.”

On Feb. 26, Al-Monitor columnist Ben Caspit reported that AIPAC’s top officials “were in shock” after they learned of Netanyahu’s decision to address Congress, and that the group warned Netanyahu that some Democrats would “boycott” the speech.

And even though Kohr did not endorse Netanyahu’s decision, he stressed that AIPAC believes “it’s an important speech.”

“We have spent active hours lobbying for members of the House and Senate to attend this speech,” Kohr said. “When the leader of our greatest ally in the region comes to Washington to speak about the greatest challenge of our time, we hope and urge members of Congress to be there to hear what he has to say.”

Cardin, striking a similar tone, said that the “circumstances surrounding the invitation are not how it should’ve been.”

“But don’t lose focus,” he continued. “The bad guy is Iran.”

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Ca.), who represents a district in Los Angeles and sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in an afternoon panel session about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, that the “personal and partisan” nature of the hostility between Obama and Netanyahu makes it harder for Democrats to go against Obama and vote on sanctions while negotiations with Iran are ongoing.

“Back home they view this as a personality contest between two people, Bibi Netanyahu and President Barack Obama,” Sherman said. “It's hard for people in districts where the president got 60, 70, 80 percent of the vote to vote against Obama's position on sanctions now that it's such a personal, high profile issue.”

“It is much more difficult for me to go to Democrats,” he said.

Day 1 at AIPAC: Trusting Congress, expecting little from White House and anxious about Bibigate Read More »

Never Forget: Iran is the Problem, not Boteach

In a Jewish world desperate for unity, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach succeeded in uniting a broad array of Jewish groups, including Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, secular and religious, right leaning, and left leaning, centrist and apolitical — to condemn his full-page ad attack against National Security Advisor Susan Rice in the New York Times.

If only that unity could be channeled into publicizing the existential threat a nuclear Iran poses to America and the world, perhaps the US Administration would truly recognize the danger that a nuclear armed Iran would be, and reject any deal that would leave Iran within reach of the bomb.

Boteach’s tactics are reminiscent of Peter Bergson (aka Hillel Kook) and his supporters who tried to move the United States to protect the Jews of Europe being slaughtered by Germany during WWII by allowing increased immigration of European Jews into America. Bergson’s group ran shocking full page ads in the Times and other newspapers as part of their campaign to tell the world of the destruction of European Jewry.

Boteach knew that his attack on Rice would be controversial. The establishment’s denunciation only proves to Boteach and his supporters — and he counts the outspoken Sheldon Adelson among them — that American Jewish leadership is incapable of articulating a unified position on Iran.

Details of the Iran deal, currently being worked on in secret by America and Iran, have been leaked across the media for days. By all accounts it allows for Iran to maintain a serious nuclear program.

Yet news that Iran will be on the path from being a pariah state, to a legitimized nuclear power, has not galvanized major American Jewish organizations to protests, mass petition campaigns or to even to take out ads in the Times.

Rather, American Jewish groups are distracted, busy fighting a very public battle over whether Bibi’s speech to congress this week is good or bad for Israel and the Jews.

Boteach, many American Jewish leaders, and the Christian Zionist lobby, believe Bibi’s speech to the US Congress can help to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons and make the case for strengthening America’s resolve against Tehran’s nuclear aspirations.

He is not alone. Even the Obama Administration, wrote Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic, is afraid that Bibi’s speech to congress could scuttle a deal with Iran.

We can look into the historical record to see who stood against Peter Bergson’s tactics to bring the plight of European Jewry to the pages of the NY Times and in public demonstrations in Washington. We can see their publicly stated positions aimed at defusing any hint the American Jews might be accused of disloyalty to America in favor of foreign Jews.

According to recent scholarship, prominent Jewish organizations tried to have Bergson deported and had the IRS audit his group to try to find irregularities. Likewise nearly every mainstream Jewish organization, including the greatest Zionist leaders tried to discredit Bergson.

In addition to Bergson’s ad campaign, and renting Madison Square Garden, the Hollywood Bowl and other massive venues for a show he produced called “We Will Not Die”, he organized a March of Rabbis on Washington.

Bergson and the March of 500 Orthodox rabbis on October 6, 1943 did not succeed in meeting President Roosevelt, or in being heard in congress. Instead, the Jewish establishment blocked them any way possible worried that these Jews would increase American anti-Semitism.

When asked about his tactics, Bergson said in 1973, “Why did we respond the way we did? The question should be, why didn’t the others? We responded as a human and as a Jew should.”

Bergson’s March, which included Jewish War Veterans, met the Vice President and a few members of congress. Their pressure helped rescue of some 200,000 mostly Hungarian Jews through changes in the policies of the War Refugee Board.

We see today that those who condemn Boteach’s NY Times advertisement and demand he publically apologize, seem to be echoing the concern Jews have always felt when we have achieved a high level of acceptance within any nation – we are worried that to press for protecting World Jewry, and Israel in particular, makes us vulnerable to the anti-Semites’ claim that Jews are a fifth-column or have dual loyalties.

This fear is burned into our collective memory as a foundational fact of our national story. From the time recorded in the Bible when Pharaoh’s advisors feared that the Israelites would join with some potential invading force and overthrow Egypt, to today’s Zionist conspiracies, our enemies have accused us of treachery. This fear of being accused of disloyalty runs deep in our national psyche.

While Boteach’s tactics — a personal attack on a prominent politician — are very controversial and offensive to most, it’s because Boteach believes the stakes are very high.

The Jewish Establishment has proven the point that Boteach has set out to prove — that there is no unified voice on how to combat a mortal enemy of the Jewish people, but only on trying to make the Jewish community not seem ungrateful for everything that Susan Rice and the US Administration have done for Israel.

As in Bergson’s day, it appears to some Jews in America who have taken to Boteach’s defense, that the Jewish Establishment is more concerned about losing its good access to the White House than the threat of Iran with the Bomb.

If history can be any kind of teacher, then the lesson must be: If Iran is allowed to build a nuclear weapon, to regain its standing it the world and lose its pariah status, it doesn’t matter how many good deeds Susan Rice and the President have done for Israel. They will have given Israel’s mortal enemy the ability to slaughter Jews by the millions.

One cannot help but take note of the state of affairs in American Jewish life when the Jewish Establishment agrees to roundly condemn a fellow Jew. The unified criticism aimed at one well-known Jewish American is unprecedented in recent times. Public and strident Jewish critics of Israel, whose names are respected, and whose current criticisms are simple reiterations of poisonous anti-Zionist rhetoric, have never received such treatment. The danger of their Jewish attack on Israel’s right to exist does not seem to galvanize anyone, let alone the diverse groups now condemning Boteach.

Boteach has been aiming to be a player in politics since he started at Oxford. Kosher Sex was never his end game. He won’t leave the issue of bilateral Israeli American relations to others, because he and his backers believe their voices need to be heard at the table. While Boteach had a following before, thanks to this avalanche of derision, Boteach now has a bigger platform. He can summon a NY Times ad with a few phone calls. He has a larger social media imprint than all the major Jewish organizations that condemned him — combined.

Boteach is the son of an Iranian Jew. He knows what happened to his family and the other Jews of Iran when the Islamists came to power in 1979, and he as well as every other Iranian Jew, distrust Iran more thoroughly than any other segment of our community.

Boteach is not a unifying figure. That is not his operating guideline. Neither was Bergson. Boteach is out to stop Iran from getting the bomb, and he’ll use all his political capital, connections, as well as the negative attention he can get to bring the issue into the public sphere.

Instead of turning on Boteach, the Jewish establishment needs to turn on Iran, publically, verbally, unashamedly, without fear of an anti-Semitic backlash.

Remember, never forget, it is Iran that has been supplying weapons, money, and training to Hamas and Hezbollah to wage a proxy war on Israel for decades.

Remember, never forget, it is Iran that is responsible for the deaths of more Americans that ISIS by many fold.

Remember, never forget, it is Iran that blew-up the Jewish community building in Argentina.

Remember, never forget, it is Iran who has consistently lied to the world about its nuclear ambitions and hidden major parts of its nuclear program deep underground.

Remember, never forget, that it is Iran that has called for the repeated destruction of Israel.

As we approach Purim, a Jewish holiday which commemorates our salvation from a Persian plan to destroy our people which was already set into motion, the world’s superpowers sit across the negotiating table from a murderous Iranian regime sworn to destroy Israel, and who have killed hundreds of Jews and Americans around the world.

Our sages created Purim to remember – and to never forget – that to ensure our survival as a people, it will take a unified community and holy chutzpah. Esther risked everything for her people.

Boteach has unwittingly unleashed some Jewish unity using some serious chutzpah. Can the American Jewish establishment use that to launch a major campaign against Iran reminiscent of the Soviet Jewry Movement or the Bergson group’s Emergency Committee?

I pray so.

Remember, never forget, Iran is the problem, not Bibi Netanyahu’s speech to congress and not Shmuley Boteach’s ad in the New York Times.

Never Forget: Iran is the Problem, not Boteach Read More »

David Blatt getting a handle on life as NBA coach

With the clock winding down on a recent game here, Cleveland Cavaliers coach David Blatt was still barking out instructions to his players despite enjoying a late 40-point lead over the Washington Wizards.

Things didn’t come quite as easy early this season for the rookie NBA coach and his team, which had great expectations with the return of four-time MVP LeBron James via free agency from the Miami Heat.

Cleveland stumbled to a 19-20 record, leading some pundits to question Blatt’s qualifications for the world’s premier basketball league and minimizing his success with Maccabi Tel Aviv, as well as Russia’s national team. Some also charged that James, who missed a few weeks with a knee injury, was running the team, anyway.

But 18 wins in the past 21 games have shushed the critics and vaulted the Cavaliers to a 37-23 record heading into Sunday, a half-game behind Chicago in the Central Division.

All of which leaves Blatt, James and Co. feeling far better about their season.

“I’ve gone through my own learning curve that I’ve obviously worked through,” Blatt, 55, told JTA in an interview. “Two-thirds through the regular season I’ve become a lot more comfortable, and a lot more cognizant of the things that are necessary to make a winning situation on an NBA team.

“We’ve gone through the normal maturation process of a new team,” he added, referring to a roster with just three holdovers from last season.

The club has actually dealt with two makeovers: the off-season changes that landed James, fellow All-Star forward Kevin Love and several accomplished role players joining Kyrie Irving, a star guard; and the trades since January delivering two new starters in center Timofey Mozgov and guard J.R. Smith, along with valuable reserves Iman Shumpert and Kendrick Perkins.

James’ return from injury and the additions of Mozgov, Smith and Shumpert “were the turning points” this season, Blatt said.

Mozgov, in fact, was a familiar face, having played for Blatt on Russia’s national team and winning a bronze medal together at the 2012 Olympics.

The 7-foot-1 center has adapted well from European basketball to the NBA, Mozgov said.

“The NBA is so different than overseas [basketball], and he’s doing a good job,” Mozgov said. “The coach knows me, he knows how to use players the right way.”

Another Cavalier qualified to compare domestic and overseas hoops is Smith, who played one season in China. The cultural richness experienced by Blatt – the Boston native played professional basketball in Israel and has coached for six countries’ teams, leading Tel Aviv to five national titles and last year’s Euroleague championship – has to be an advantage, Smith said.

“He’s a player’s coach. He’s very into the guys, he cares about his team, he cares about the players off the court just as well as on the court. That’s what you need,” Smith said. “I noticed that right away. My first conversation, he asked how I was doing – not so much as a basketball player but as a person. That’s a great quality.”

James said of his relationship with Blatt, “Every single day it grows. I respect him as a coach, he respects me as a leader of this team and we have some good chemistry right now. We’re going to continue to grow for the betterment of the team.”

The adjustment period Blatt required is understandable, and James said he’s seen steady improvement.

“It’s just like for a rookie NBA player. Guys get better, they know the game, they start to learn it more and more, they know how to approach it every day,” James said. “This is not an easy situation for him. He wasn’t hired with this roster, but I don’t think he’s shied away from it. He knows the game, and I’m happy to have him at the helm.”

Blatt is reveling in the experience. Coaching James is “obviously a great opportunity,” since he’s “a great player and has a fabulously high basketball IQ and a strong, strong desire to win and to help his team,” Blatt said.

“He’s also coming back in a very special kind of situation, coming back home and taking the responsibility of trying to lead a new group to heights that they have not known for quite some time.”

Blatt, who is Jewish, recently went home, too, flying back to Tel Aviv during the All-Star break to see his wife and four children, including twin girls who are college students at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. The family has not yet visited Blatt this season.

“It was great to be back, but it was also great to come back to Cleveland,” he said.

If they maintain their improved play, the Cavaliers are well positioned to challenge for the Eastern Conference’s second seed. Come April, the drama in their opening-round playoff series could be exquisite, with Cleveland possibly facing James’ former Miami squad.

“I think we’ve put ourselves in a good situation for the last part of the season and for the playoffs,” Blatt said. “We’re in pretty good shape.”

David Blatt getting a handle on life as NBA coach Read More »

Machatzit HaShekel – Remembering the other half

Purim is a celebration with something for everyone – an exciting story with  the reading of the Megilla , mishloach manot , or the exchanging of delicacies to friends and neighbors, the festive Purim seudah (meal) with plenty of food and wine, costumes and laughter.  But there’s another very important mitzvah on Purim that can sometimes get lost in the shuffle.  That mitzvah is the giving of the machatzit hashekel, or the half of a shekel, a coin used in the time of the Temple. The mitzvah of the giving of the machatzit hashekel on Purim is in remembrance of the yearly requirement in the times of the Temple to give a half shekel for the purpose of the upkeep of the Temple. 

On Purim, the mitzvah requires one to give three coins representing a half denomination of one’s country’s currency.  The best coin to use for this mitzvah in the U.S. is the half dollar. This exact amount must be used for the mitzvah.  According to Machatzit HaShekel – Remembering the other half Read More »

Life and death at the heart of Boston bombing trial

From the moment U.S. prosecutors stand up on Wednesday and begin their case against accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, their minds and those of their defense counterparts will be focused on just one thing: The death penalty.

Tsarnaev, 21, is accused of killing three people and injuring 264 with a pair of homemade pressure-cooker bombs left at the race's crowded finish line on April 15, 2013, in the largest mass-casualty attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11, 2001.

The ethnic Chechen, who moved to the United States from Russia with his family a decade before the attack, could be sentenced to death if he is convicted of charges that also include the fatal shooting of a police officer three days later as he tried to flee the city.

“The bottom line is you're not going to get a not guilty in this case,” said Jules Epstein, a Widener University School of Law professor who has represented defendants in federal and Pennsylvania death penalty cases. “I don't think the defense is arguing that. So every move is with an eye on the end game and that is avoiding death.”

Tsarnaev has pleaded not guilty to all charges and his attorneys have offered little detail on their case, with the bulk of both prosecution and defense filings under seal in Boston federal court. But legal experts said the defense will likely try to show that his 26-year-old brother, Tamerlan, an amateur boxer, who died following a gun battle with police as the pair tried to flee Boston, was the driving force behind the attack.

SEEKING EMPATHY

Showing that he was heavily influenced by his brother could be a mitigating factor that would persuade a jury to sentence Tsarnaev to life in prison rather than death, legal experts said. For prosecutors, the challenge is to show that he was fully responsible for actions while not making any errors that could result in a guilty verdict or death sentence being overturned on appeal.

“With someone who is so young, the strategy would be to try to humanize him in front of the jury,” said Deborah Denno, a Fordham University School of Law professor who specializes in the capital punishment.

“In a death penalty case…you try to humanize him as much as possible to make it so the jury empathizes with him.”

Finding the jury has been an arduous process, as eligible jurors needed to be willing to consider imposing the death penalty, and not have too personal a connection to the event.

The faces of Tsarnaev and his older brother as seen on a surveillance video walking towards the site of the blasts carrying backpacks that prosecutors contend held the bombs are burned into the memory of Boston-area residents.

Thousands of people were crowded around the finish line when the bombs went off and hundreds of thousands ordered to remain in their homes for four days as police mounted a massive manhunt.

Tsarnaev was found hiding in a drydocked boat, where he had written a note suggesting the attack was an act of retribution for U.S. military involvement in Muslim-dominated countries.

When the trial opens, prosecutors will be seeking to show evidence that Tsarnaev understood his actions and played an active role in planning and building the pressure-cooker bombs that ripped through the crowd, tearing the legs off 16 people and killing spectators as young as 10.

“If they indeed show that he ordered someone to do something or actively participated in the discussion about where to place the backpacks, made anti-American statements, that would hurt” the defense, said Dean Weinstein, an attorney now in private practice who previously brought death-penalty cases as a state and federal prosecutor.

Prosecutors will also need to tread carefully since if the jury finds Tsarnaev guilty and sentences him to death at the trial's end, expected in June, both decisions likely would be immediately appealed.

Particularly when questioning victims of the attack, prosecutors will need to take care not to elicit testimony so emotional that it would be found inflammatory by an appeals court, experts said.

“You can reach a tipping point where the appellate court will say you've gone too far,” said Epstein, of Widener University. “The prosecution has to tell the terror and the violence of this case without making it impossible for jurors to react in a rational way when they reach sentencing.”

Life and death at the heart of Boston bombing trial Read More »

Israeli official sees U.S. Congress as ‘last brake’ to stop Iran deal

The U.S. Congress could be “the last brake” for stopping a nuclear deal with Iran, a senior Israeli official said on Sunday as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in the United States for a speech this week that has strained U.S.-Israeli relations.

The official, who declined to be identified, told reporters on Netanyahu's plane that the prime minister in his address to Congress on Tuesday would give a detailed explanation of his objections to a deal with Iran.

“In my opinion, Congress could be the last brake for stopping the deal – including if it is to happen on March 24,” the official said, adding it was Israel's impression that members of Congress “do not necessarily know the details of the deal coming together, which we do not see as a good deal.”

Israel fears that President Barack Obama's Iran diplomacy, with an end-of-March deadline for a framework accord with six countries including the United States, will allow its archfoe to develop atomic weapons, something Tehran denies seeking.

“It should be remembered that we would be in favor of a good deal,” the official said. “We favor a deal that consensually strips Iran of its ability to attain a nuclear bomb.”

By accepting an invitation from the Republican Party to speak to Congress, Netanyahu infuriated the Obama administration, which said it was not told of the speech before plans were made public in an apparent breach of protocol.

The Israeli prime minister, who is running for re-election in a March 17 ballot, has framed his visit as being above politics and he portrayed himself as being a guardian for all Jews.

Netanyahu described his trip to Washington as “a fateful, even historic, mission,” as he boarded his plane in Tel Aviv.

He is expected to use his speech to urge Congress to approve new sanctions against Iran despite Obama's pledge to veto such legislation because it would jeopardize nuclear talks.

U.S. senators introduced legislation on Friday requiring congressional review of any deal with Iran over its nuclear program. It would require Obama to submit to Congress the text of any agreement within five days of concluding a final deal with Iran. The bill would also prohibit Obama from suspending or waiving sanctions on Iran passed by Congress for 60 days after a deal.

Israeli official sees U.S. Congress as ‘last brake’ to stop Iran deal Read More »

Kerry to defend Israel as Netanyahu readies critique of Iran talks

Secretary of State John Kerry will defend Israel at a U.N. human rights body on Monday as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepares to criticize nuclear negotiations with Iran that the top diplomat is leading.

Kerry landed in Geneva late on Sunday for up to three days of talks with Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on a deal to restrain the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for easing sanctions on Tehran. The talks will be held in Montreux.

In addition, Kerry will meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Monday to discuss Iran, Syria and Ukraine and speak at the U.N. Human Rights Council in part to defend Israel against what U.S. officials regard as its bias against the Jewish state.

“Our position is always very much in defense of Israel and protection of Israel’s interests at the Human Rights Council,” a U.S. official aboard Kerry's plane told reporters, saying any investigations of Israel should be “objective and neutral and not … one-sided and biased.”

The official said that one of Washington's main concerns was a U.N. inquiry into last summer's conflict in Gaza in which more than more than 2,100 Palestinians, most of them civilians, 67 Israeli soldiers and six civilians in Israel were killed.

The U.N. investigation, due to issue its report by March 23, is looking in to violations by both sides. The U.S. official said the United States wanted “to try to protect against any follow-on” steps or inquiries after the report is released.

In traveling this week to Switzerland, Saudi Arabia and Britain, Kerry will avoid being in Washington when Netanyahu is expected to deliver a scathing criticism of U.S. negotiations to curb Iran's nuclear program.

The United States and many of its allies, including Israel, suspect that Iran is using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop atomic weapons. Iran denies this, saying the program is for peaceful uses such as generating electricity.

Netanyahu's planned speech on Tuesday before a joint session of Congress has strained relations with the Democratic White House, which has made no secret of its anger that it was set up with congressional Republicans without it being in the loop.

Netanyahu has described the emerging agreement as a bad deal, even though U.S. officials stress that its details have yet to be nailed down. The White House has suggested that Netanyahu's speech, two weeks ahead of an Israeli election, has injected partisanship into the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Kerry to defend Israel as Netanyahu readies critique of Iran talks Read More »

Sunday Reads: Is Israel a bipartisan issue?, Nimoy’s Jewish roots, Egypt vs. Hamas

US

Jeff Ballabon makes an interesting case against the idea that support for Israel is a bipartisan issue:

In 2012, Pew analyzed 15 issues to determine where the largest partisan gaps lie. Only 3 – Social Safety Net (41%), Environment (39%) and Labor Unions (37%) – were greater than the 35% that exists on Israel. Scope and Effectiveness of Government (33%), Immigration (24%), Social Conservatism (17%) and National Security (15%) were among the many issues more bipartisan than Israel appears to be.

Matthew Continetti tries to explain why Netanyahu’s speech could be important for the US:

Netanyahu’s commitment to warning America about a nuclear Iran has given him the opportunity to explain just how devoid of merit the prospective deal is. His speech is proof that Congress is a co-equal branch of government where substantive argument can triumph over vicious personal attacks and executive overreach and utopian aspirations. Of course Barack Obama can’t stand it.

Israel

Jeffrey Goldberg believes that Netanyahu is seriously damaging US-Israel relations:

Even though AIPAC’s leadership leans right, the organization knows that support for Israel in America must be bipartisan in order for it to be stable. “Dermer and Netanyahu don’t believe that Democrats are capable of being pro-Israel, which is crazy for a lot of reasons, but one of the main reasons is that most Jews are Democrats,” one veteran AIPAC leader told me.

Aaron David Miller tries to dispel five myths about the upcoming speech:

My own view is that, tough patch or not, the U.S.-Israeli relationship is too big to fail. The U.S. needs friends in the Middle East as the region melts down; that’s why the administration spends time and effort cultivating ties with Arab states (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates) that share some of our interests, if not our values. Despite its occupation of the West Bank, Israel does share our values. If the Obama administration wants to get stuff done in the Middle East in the next 20 months, it needs friends; and Israel sits at the nexus of the Iran nuclear issue, the Palestinian problem, and the fight against radical Islam.

Middle East

Walter Russell Mead examines Egypt’s decision to label Hamas as a terrorist organization:

Egypt, its Gulf allies and Israel combined during the last Gaza war to frustrate John Kerry’s efforts at a ceasefire and left the Obama administration looking ineffective and irrelevant. Are the same countries now combining to resist the administration’s Iran policy? This ruling in Egypt suggests that they are.

Douad Kuttab writes about the recent shooting of a Fatah activist and how it might affect the security coordination between Israel and the PA:

Whether the Palestinians turn in the keys, as they are threatening, or whether their government will collapse, remains undecided, but what is clear is that a decision on Palestinian-Israeli security coordination will be the key indicator of where things stand. Given Israeli disregard for Palestinian demands or reciprocity in the coordination effort, and the recent killing of a Fatah activist in an area that both sides agree is under Palestinian security control, the future of security coordination is obviously in jeopardy.

Jewish World

Ben Dror Yemini discusses the tendency to revise the history of Jews in Muslim countries for political reasons:

Some academics have managed to turn the tables. They glorify the periods of coexistence. They hide the pogroms, the decrees, the abuse and the oppression. And they certainly hide the Jewish Nakba. The Jews didn't suffer from abuse and oppression because of Zionism. To the contrary. They became Zionists because of the abuse and oppression. But manipulating the facts will triumph once again – under the patronage of Gideon Levy and so-called academic freedom.

This excerpt from a book by Abigail Pogrebin examines Leonard Nimoy’s Jewish heritage:

Because his grandmother spoke only Yiddish, he became fluent. “I still use it whenever I can, and I get the mailings from the National Yiddish Book Center. Aaron Lansky runs it in Massachusetts. Are you familiar?” I’m not. “He started this thing some years ago of rescuing Jewish books. He’s done a remarkable job. And I’ve been somewhat supportive, just sent him a check. They send out a monthly brochure and there are stories in Yiddish, and English translations, and I try to sit down and spend some time reading the stuff in Yiddish and see how far I can get.”

Sunday Reads: Is Israel a bipartisan issue?, Nimoy’s Jewish roots, Egypt vs. Hamas Read More »