fbpx

GET HOME DELIVERY! CLICK HERE »

ADVERTISE
pick up locations
HOME DELIVERY
donate

Jewish Journal

Connect. Inform. Inspire.

March 2, 2015

Haimish and tasty Savannah, Georgia

Leave a Comment / United States /

The absolute funniest thing I ever heard as a kid was comedian Steve Landesburg’s imitation of his Southern in-laws: “Esther, you goin’ to Hadassah, or wha’?” In my mind, Jews could be from New York or the Midwest, have New York or Midwestern accents, with New York or Midwestern history and values. Southern Jews? Why, that was just meshugie!

Savannah was established as Georgia’s first city – a working port – in 1733.  Just a few months later, 42 Jews on the William and Sarah disembarked with little other than a Torah. These Sephardim founded Congregation Mickve Israel, the 3rd oldest in the US; that original Torah is still used during their anniversary Shabbat services. They offer guided tours where you can see letters written to the congregation by Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison, as well as other priceless treasures. They also have a gift shop with luxurious must-haves for the holidays, as well as delightful “Shalom Y’all” t-shirts and a congregation cookbook. The synagogue is located at the tree-lined end of one of the city’s 22 planned squares. While all are inviting places, each has its own personality; this one seems particularly well-manicured.

With Savannah welcoming people and trade for over 280 years, it’s added a global, cosmopolitan flavor to its Deep South traditions. Really, it was the melting pot aspects of the city that intrigued me more than the “Southern” establishments trotted out for tourists. The family-style dining at Mrs. Wilkes Dining Room where people wait outside for an hour in the heat, only to have to bus their own tables as well as The Olde Pink House with special occasion prices – in spite of men wearing Adidas shorts and gym towels in the main dining room – both seem to count on a “one and done” clientele.

What to do: Your first stop should be the main Savannah Visitor’s Center in the old red-brick passenger terminal of the Central of Georgia Railroad complex. They give out free maps, coupons and samples of locally made candies. In the same complex is The Savannah History Museum.

Walking around the historic district, you can carry one open plastic container of an alcoholic beverage not exceeding 16 ounces. This works great for Savannah Slow Ride, a kind of group surrey powered by bicycle; it definitely seems to make for a party on wheels! I wish I had been able to catch up and snap a pic of a bunch of ladies drinking/bicycling, but they got too motivated by the booze.

Old Savannah Tours is an excellent jump-on, jump-off trolley tour throughout the historic district. The drivers dress in period costumes from the Colonial era through the early 20th century, inviting more period characters on over the course of the circuit. Each of the drivers has different strengths, from encyclopedic history knowledge to a gift for making the passengers roar with laughter. I got more out of their tour than the Savannah River Boat Cruises.

Where to stay: One of the most fun, funky accommodations I’ve ever stayed in is the Thunderbird Inn. This motel has been renovated to feel like one from the 1960’s with ‘50’s and ‘60’s music playing in the parking lot, bright ‘60’s décor, RC Cola and Moon Pies in the rooms, lemonade at the front desk. It’s modestly priced and within walking distance of all the cool things you want to see and do. Roller Derby Girls stay here for bouts.

What to eat: Right next to the Savannah College of Art and Design’s store where you can buy student-made everything from perfume to paintings to leather mini-skirts is the school’s official café: Gryphon. It’s elegant with an old men’s club ambiance, serving Southern-inspired fusion cuisine with hints of Latin, Asian and even Yankee (!) flavors. They have generous portions – not “ladies’ who lunch” size, though plenty of ladies eat here for lunch.

Leoci’s Trattoria is a locals’ secret on a quiet residential street. Chef-owner Roberto Leoci started studying the art of Italian cuisine during family summers in Sicily, with later formal training in Florence. He's cooked for jet-setters at the Ritz Carlton and such tony spots as Fisher Island. I would describe his style as Italian slow-cooking/home-cooking made with gourmet, luscious ingredients. NY strips, filet tips and chuck cooked with al dente Cavatelli absolutely redefine meat sauce and pasta.

With so many touristy bars and snack spots around, it’s good to know of a place with delicious food in an authentic setting. River House Seafood is in an 18th century restored cotton warehouse along the Savannah River. River House Stone Oven Baked Oysters Rockefeller are excellent! They do their own Southern take on the dish: it's made with local oysters, bacon, collard greens and Parmesan. The collard greens really work! They're done up crispy and the dish is not too salty at all.

Leopold’s Ice Cream has been a family-owned business since 1919. Songwriter Johnny Mercer lived a block away and wrote “Tutti Frutti” about their signature flavor, which has a very rich custard-like base, with bits of nuts and candied fruit.

If you go:             http://www.visit-historic-savannah.com/savannah-visitor-center.html

                              http://www.savannahslowride.com

                              http://www.oldsavannahtours.com

                              http://www.mickveisrael.org

                              http://www.thethunderbirdinn.com

                              http://www.leocis.com

Haimish and tasty Savannah, Georgia Read More »

Remembering Leonard Nimoy – eulogy

Leave a Comment / Blogs, Culture, Is Featured?, Mobile-Homepage, News /

The following is an edited version of the eulogy for actor-director-artist Leonard Nimoy given by Rabbi John L. Rosove of Temple Israel of Hollywood at the family’s private funeral on March 1. Rosove was not only Nimoy’s longtime friend and rabbi, but also is a cousin to Nimoy’s wife, Susan Bay Nimoy. Leonard Nimoy died on Friday, Feb. 27, at his home in Los Angeles. He was 83.

Leonard shared with me after he and Susan married 26 years ago that he had never met a woman like her, never had he loved anyone so dearly and passionately, that she’d saved his life and lifted him from darkness and unhappiness in ways he never thought possible. His love, appreciation, respect, and gratitude for her transformed him and enabled him to begin his life anew. 

At the moment Leonard’s soul left him on Friday morning, his family had gathered around him in a ring of love. Leonard smiled, and then he was gone. It was gentle passing, as easy as a “hair being lifted from a cup of milk,” as the Talmud describes the moment of death.

What did Leonard see? We can’t know, but Susan imagines that he beheld his beloved cocker spaniel Molly, an angelic presence in life and now in death. 

My wife Barbara and I shared much with Susan and Leonard over the years, in L.A. and in so many spectacular places around the world – so many joys and not a few challenges, and through it all we grew to love Leonard as a dear member of our family and were honored that he felt towards us as members of his own family.  

At his 80th birthday celebration three years ago, I publicly thanked him for all he’d meant to my family and me, for being the love of Susan’s life, and for bringing her so much happiness.

Kind-hearted, gentle, patient, refined, and keenly intelligent was he.

As I listened to NPR’s story of his passing on Friday, I was struck by how uniquely recognizable to the world was his voice, not only because of its innate resonance and gentle tone, but because it emanated who he was as a man and as a mensch.

He was unflappably honest and warm-hearted. He embodied integrity and decency. He was humble and a gentleman. His keen sensitivity and intuition connected him with the world and offered him keen insight into the human condition. Whatever he said and did was compelling, inspiring and provocative. He strove always for excellence.

Leonard’s Hebrew name was Yehudah Lev, meaning “a Jew with a heart.” His interests and concerns were founded upon his faith and belief in the inherent dignity of every human being, and he treated everyone regardless of station, friend or stranger, with kindness and respect. His world view was enriched by his Jewish spirit and experience.

Leonard was nurtured in the Yiddish-speaking culture of his childhood on the West End of Boston, yet he transcended the particular categories with which he was raised. He cared about the Jews of the former Soviet Union, about Jews everywhere, and he was concerned for all people as well.

Because he grew up as a minority in his neighborhood, even sensing at times that he was an outcast living on the margins (which is what his Spock character was all about), Leonard ventured out from the conservative home and culture of his youth — courageously and at a very young age — into the world where he sought greater truth and understanding. He was curious about everything and was a lifelong learner. 

Leonard appreciated his success, never taking his fame and good fortune for granted. He was generous with family, friends and so many good causes — often contributing without being asked, quietly and under the radar, to individuals and causes selflessly, without need of acknowledgment or credit. In his later years, he learned that by fixing his name to some gifts, he could inspire others to give, as well.

Over the years, from the time he performed in the Yiddish theater as a young actor, Leonard was particularly drawn to Jewish roles in film, television, stage, and radio. Most enduringly he brought the gesture of the Biblical High Priest to the world’s attention as an iconic symbol of blessing. He was amused that his “Star Trek” fans unsuspectingly blessed each other as they held up their hands and said, “Live long and prosper!”

Most recently, Leonard, the art photographer, created magnificent mystical images of feminine Godliness in his “Shechinah” photographs, one of which he gave to me as a gift graces my synagogue study and adds a spiritual dimension for me of everything I do in my life as a rabbi.

One year Leonard asked me what I thought of his accepting an invitation from Germany to speak before thousands of “Star Trek” fans. He told me that he’d been asked before, but always turned the invitation down due to his own discomfort about setting in a country that had murdered six-million Jews.

I told him that I thought it was time that he went, and that he could take the opportunity to inform a new generation of Germans about who he was as a Jew and about the Jewish dimension of Spock’s personality and outlook. He liked the idea, and so on that basis accepted the invitation.

When he returned, he told me that he had shared with the audience his own Jewish story and that Spock’s hand gesture was that of the Jewish High Priest blessing the Jewish community, an image he remembered from his early childhood attending shul with his grandfather in West Boston on Shabbes morning and peeking out from under his grandfather’s tallis at the Kohanim-priests as they raised their hands in blessing over the congregation.

He told me that when he finished his talk, he received a sustained standing ovation, an experience that was among the most moving in his public life.

There’s another incident worth recalling.

The Soviet Film Institute had invited Leonard in the mid 1980s to come to Moscow to speak about “Star Trek IV,” which he had directed. Leonard agreed to come on the condition that he be granted free passage to Zaslov, Ukraine, to visit Nimoy relatives he’d never met. The Soviet officials refused, so Leonard declined. Then they had a change of heart and caved, and he and Susan visited the Ukrainian Nimoys, thus reuniting two branches of his family tree divided 80 years earlier. Who else but Leonard Nimoy could stare down the former Soviet Union and win!?

Over time, Leonard became one of the most positive Jewish role models in the world. He cared about all the right things, about promoting the Jewish arts, about peace and reconciliation between people and nations, and about greater justice in our own society.

He and I talked frequently about our love for Israel and its need for peace. He understood that a democratic Jewish state could survive only alongside a peaceful Palestinian state. He was disgusted by terrorism and war, disheartened by Israeli and Palestinian inability and recalcitrance to find compromise and a way forward towards a two-state solution and peace, and he was infuriated by continuing Israeli West Bank settlement construction and by both Islamic and Jewish fundamentalist extremism.

Though keenly aware of, knowledgeable about and savvy when it came to national and world politics and history, Leonard was at his core a humanitarian and an artist, and that was the lens through which he viewed the world.

Among his favorite quotations was that spoken by the 19th century actor Edwin Booth who claimed to have heard the solemn whisper of the god of all arts:

“I shall give you hunger and pain and sleepless nights, also beauty and satisfaction known to few, and glimpses of the heavenly life. None of these shall you have continually, and of their coming and going you shall not be foretold.”

Leonard did indeed glimpse the heavenly life in his artistic pursuits and in his love for his family and friends.

I’ve never known anyone like Leonard – he was utterly unique. I loved him and will cherish his memory always.

Zicharon tzaddik livracha – May the memory of this righteous man be a blessing.

Remembering Leonard Nimoy – eulogy Read More »

Chasing Holocaust ghosts down Route 66

Leave a Comment / Culture /

When I was 9 my father, Jacob, uprooted me from my magical boyhood in Detroit to chase ghosts down historic Route 66. We were bound for L.A.

Like Dust Bowl Okies, the entire family—my parents, two sisters, and I—piled into a hapless 1960 American Motors Rambler crammed to the gills with our ragged possessions. The quest took us a month because the car kept breaking down. I spent a lot of time by the side of the road on Route 66, pouting about leaving my friends behind. I didn’t appreciate the journey at the time nor the heartstring that tugged my father across America. 

A German Holocaust survivor, he had only one immediate family member who’d survived World War II: a sister, Freda, who lived in Hollywood. His parents and brother died in Treblinka, the extermination camp in Poland.

In pre-Skype 1963, if you wanted to embrace family, you did it in person. So we drove.

My dad drove in near silence, oblivious to the cacophony generated by me and my squabbling sisters Fawn and Laurel, ages 4 and 12; my referee mother who tried to distract us with bologna sandwiches, games, and songs; and my dog, Beauty, who reluctantly gave birth en route to three whimpering newborn puppies who were tucked in a cardboard box in the backseat. 

“Hey! How come I didn’t see the Studebaker?” I challenged Laurel as we played car bingo.

“Cuz you have terrible eyesight—you’re as blind as the puppies,” my older sister smirked. She cheated with impunity only to be dealt retribution when the dog threw up on her just before we suffered another flat tire in Texas. 

Through all this, my father somehow found solace on the road. He could be alone with his thoughts and his grief while driving. Since arriving in America in 1937, he’d marveled at the country’s wide-open spaces. After joining the Army in 1943, he hopped on a bus out of boot camp in Arkansas whenever he got leave.

My father spoke rarely, mumbling softly in German in words I didn’t understand. But he wasn’t talking to me. The ghosts of his parents and younger brother had hitched a ride with us, and Dad played tour guide for 2,500 miles across America’s heartland, sharing his awe of his new home. They bunked with us in an endless series of family motels like the Cactus Motor Lodge in Tucumcari, New Mexico, distinguished from the rest because it had a pool.

My mother Arline, a schoolteacher, wanted me to jot down everything I saw and felt on the postcards I collected of the places we stayed. “You’ll look upon it years later and discover a snapshot in time better than any Brownie Fiesta camera could take,” she said. (I recently found the postcards again in a yellowing scrapbook that had hibernated in my parents’ garage for half a century.)

So I wrote about frolicking in Buckingham Fountain in Chicago, wading across the muddy Mississippi River in Missouri, whispering like the wind through Kansas wheat fields, inhaling the red dirt and oil-scented air in Oklahoma, and idling on the trunk of the panting Rambler drinking Dr. Pepper in Texas as my father let the overheated engine cool.                                                                                              

I also pressed into the recesses of my mind and soul indelible images of having a family picnic in a park in New Mexico on a hot, sweltering day; meeting a lonely girl my age who had no one to play with until our brood landed for an extended spell while the Rambler was fitted with a new muffler in the Land of Enchantment; my dad gingerly lighting off firecrackers in the Arizona desert while my sisters and I waved sparklers under a canopy of shimmering stars; and a smothering dust storm that greeted us at the border of California.

“Don’t be afraid, Boychik, we’ll get through this,” my father reached over his seat and lovingly brushed my cheek. He promised me I’d appreciate the journey once we arrived at the doorstep of the Pacific Ocean in Santa Monica. “Not too many people get to do this,” he smiled ruefully. 

Indeed, Route 66—commonly known as the “Main Street of America” or the “Mother Road” —had a short-lived heyday from 1926 until 1985. Before its debut, trains were the preferred mode of travel cross-country. Then, the completion of the Interstate highway system eclipsed it. Today, the world jets across America. 

But my father took his time. He had no job prospects, nor did my mother. For six weeks, the five of us camped in a rundown motel in Culver City by the old Hal Roach Studios where they filmed the Our Gang Comedy series. My mother cooked meals on a hot plate. I made friends with Jorge, a Mexican-American boy, the first Latino I ever met. We shared my first cigarette. And one by one, we gave away the puppies and Beauty as our money ran thin.

My dad struggled to find decent paying work as a skilled optician in a non-union town. My mother took a job as a sales lady at the May Company before eventually getting a permanent position as an elementary school teacher. I actually made the family’s first money—a quarter—helping an elderly lady carry her grocery bags home. My folks trusted her and me in the City of Angels, innocence long since abandoned by the wayside along with many of the remnants of Route 66.

Still, in between the hustling, my family discovered the fun of Disneyland, Pacific Ocean Park right before it closed, the Hollywood Bowl, and oranges. 

Sometimes, Aunt Freda came with us on our adventures in the City of Angels. To me, she was formal. But she and my dad talked for hours in German and Yiddish, sharing laughter and fond memories of their pious Jewish upbringing in Berlin before Hitler came to power. She continued to call him “Boobie,” a childhood nickname. 

Likewise, my father affectionately called me Boychik. Once he mused: “I’m showing you the world near and far, Boychik. Someday you’ll thank me for this.”

I never did thank him while he lived, but beyond the pale of my boyhood, I now realize the journey was the seminal moment of my life. I left moribund Detroit for a new city that was just coming into its own in 1963. And that move afforded me education and career opportunities and love I never would have realized had we stayed.

In my scrapbook, I often described the Route 66 adventures and kitsch tourist sights as “fun.” But I know it wasn't fun for my father and mother. They rolled the dice with everything on the line.

A few months ago I took my teenage son William to the Route 66 exhibition at the Autry Museum, not too far from our home in Los Angeles. Just before the museum exit, my fellow travelers and I were beckoned to jot down on a Post-It our thoughts and place them on a commemorative board. 

“Thank you, Dad, for the experience,” I wrote simply. “Thank you for letting me follow your heart.”

Marc Littman is a publicist and author. His most recent novel is The Spirit Sherpa, a mystery story with a reincarnation twist. This post originally appeared on Zocalo Public Square.

Chasing Holocaust ghosts down Route 66 Read More »

Vegan Passover recipe: Chocolate matzo brittle

Leave a Comment / Culture, Food, Holidays, Recipes /

My favorite Passover treat is Matzo Brittle—a sweet and festive way to end the meal. Try out this recipe below from VegKitchen:

Chocolate Matzo Brittle

  • 1 cup dairy-free chocolate chips
  • 2 Tbsp. agave nectar or maple syrup
  • Pinch of cinnamon
  • 2 matzos, broken into pieces slightly larger than bite-size
  • 1/3 to 1/2 cup lightly toasted nuts (e.g., sliced or slivered almonds, chopped walnuts, pecans, or pistachios)
  • 1/2 cup dark or golden raisins, dried cranberries, or other chopped dried fruit, such as apricots, mangoes, or pineapple

 

Line two large plates with wax paper or parchment.

Combine the chocolate chips, agave nectar, and cinnamon in a medium saucepan. Cook over low heat until smoothly melted. Remove from the heat.

Add the broken matzo. Stir to coat evenly with the chocolate. Spread in a more or less single layer onto two parchment- or wax paper–lined plates. Sprinkle the nuts and raisins over the top. Refrigerate for at least an hour before serving.

Just before serving, break up into large chunks and transfer to a serving platter.

Vegan Passover recipe: Chocolate matzo brittle Read More »

Vegan Passover recipe: Chocolate chip cookies

Leave a Comment / Culture, Food, Holidays, Recipes /

Chocolate Chip Cookies

Adapted from http://www.theppk.com/2008/11/chocolate-chip-cookies/  

  • 1/2 cup brown sugar
  • 1/4 cup white sugar
  • 2/3 cup walnut or other neutral-tasting oil
  • 1/4 cup unsweetened almond milk
  • 1 Tbsp. potato starch
  • 2 tsp. vanilla
  • Scant cup matzo cake meal
  • 1/2 tsp. baking soda
  • 1/2 tsp. salt
  • 3/4 cups semisweet chocolate chips

 

Preheat the oven to 350°F. Lightly grease two baking sheets.

Combine the brown and white sugar, oil, almond milk, and potato starch in a bowl and stir for about 2 minutes, or until the mixture resembles a smooth caramel. Add the vanilla and mix.

Add 3/4 cup of the matzo cake meal, the baking soda, and the salt and mix until well incorporated. Mix in the remaining matzo cake meal, then fold in the chocolate chips.

Roll the dough into small balls and flatten to approximately 2 inches. Bake until the edges are just slightly browned, about 8 minutes. Let cool on the baking sheet for about 5 minutes, then transfer to a cooling rack.

Makes approximately 24 cookies

Vegan Passover recipe: Chocolate chip cookies Read More »

Vegan Passover recipe: Chopped ‘liver’ spread

Leave a Comment / Culture, Food, Holidays, Recipes /

Adapted from No Cholesterol Passover Recipes by Debra Wasserman and Charles Stahler and provided by The Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG.org)

  • 1/2 lb. mushrooms, chopped
  • 1 small onion, chopped
  • 3 Tbsp. oil
  • 1 cup chopped walnuts
  • Salt and pepper, to taste
  • 1 Tbsp. water

 

Sauté the mushrooms and onion in the oil for 8 minutes. Pour into blender or food processor, adding the walnuts, salt, pepper, and water. Blend until smooth. Serve on matzo as a spread.

Makes 1 cup

Vegan Passover recipe: Chopped ‘liver’ spread Read More »

Obama says Iran must halt key nuclear work for at least a decade

Leave a Comment / Is Featured?, Lead Story, Mobile, Mobile-Homepage, News, United States /

Iran must commit to a verifiable freeze of at least 10 years on sensitive nuclear activity for a landmark atomic deal to be reached, but the odds are still against sealing a final agreement, U.S. President Barack Obama told Reuters on Monday.

Interviewed at the White House, Obama moved to dial back tensions over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned speech to Congress on Tuesday opposing the Iran deal, saying it was a distraction that would not be “permanently destructive” to U.S. Israeli ties.

But he strongly criticized Netanyahu's stance and stressed there was a “substantial disagreement” between them over how to achieve their shared goal of preventing Israel's arch foe from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Talks between major powers and Iran to restrict Tehran's nuclear capabilities in exchange for an easing of sanctions have reached a critical stage ahead of an end of March deadline for a framework deal and a June 30 date for a final agreement.

Obama's comment about the time frame for a freeze represents one of the U.S. government's strongest signals yet of its red line for a successful deal.

“If, in fact, Iran is willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their program where it is right now and, in fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist … if we’ve got that, and we’ve got a way of verifying that, there’s no other steps we can take that would give us such assurance that they don’t have a nuclear weapon,” he said.

The U.S. goal is to make sure “there’s at least a year between us seeing them try to get a nuclear weapon and them actually being able to obtain one,” Obama said in the interview, carefully timed by the White House a day ahead of Netanyahu's polarizing speech to Congress.

Obama's robust defense of a possible deal with Iran comes as his administration faces criticism from some quarters that it is being too eager to complete a deal, at the risk of allowing Iran to eventually become a nuclear state.

The White House last week denied a report that the United States and Iran were exploring a possible 10-year deal that would initially freeze Iran's nuclear program but gradually allow it to increase activities that could enable it to produce nuclear arms in the last years of the agreement.

OBAMA: ODDS STILL AGAINST IRAN DEAL

In the interview, Obama again criticized a plan by Republicans and some Democrats in the U.S. Senate to impose additional sanctions on Iran if no deal is reached by June 30, saying it could undermine the delicate talks.

“I'm less concerned, frankly, with Prime Minster Netanyahu’s commentary than I’m with Congress taking actions that might undermine the talks before they’re completed.”

Despite recent progress in the talks, Obama suggested there had been little change in his assessment that the negotiations have less than a 50 percent chance of success.

“I would say that it is probably still more likely than not that Iran doesn’t get to 'yes,' but I think that, in fairness to them, they have been serious negotiators and they’ve got their own politics inside of Iran. It is more likely that we could get a deal now than perhaps three or five months ago,” he said.

An Iran nuclear deal would be a potential signature achievement for Obama whose foreign policy legacy is mixed with just two years left in office.

Seemingly intractable challenges, from Russian separatists in Ukraine to Islamic State militants in Syria, have overshadowed successes such as the killing of Osama bin Laden and the tentative opening up of relations with Cuba.

Israel fears that Obama's Iran diplomacy will still allow Iran to develop an atom bomb. Tehran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu has spoken scathingly about a possible deal, saying negotiators appear to have given up on a pledge to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He says a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat to the Jewish state.

NETANYAHU MADE “ALL SORTS OF CLAIMS”

U.S. officials have said the “politicized” nature of Netanyahu's address, at the invitation of the Republican congressional leadership, threatens to undermine the close bilateral relationship.

In a speech on Monday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the largest U.S. pro-Israel lobby, Netanyahu again warned that a nuclear deal could threaten Israel's survival while insisting the U.S.-Israeli relationship was “stronger than ever.”

Obama said the rift with Netanyahu, with whom he has already had frosty ties, was not personal and that he would meet the Israeli leader again if he wins Israel's March 17 election. In a nod to Israeli concerns, he acknowledged that Iran's government had a history of “anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements.”

But he reiterated the administration's criticism of Netanyahu's address and said the Israeli leader had been wrong before with his opposition to a 2013 interim deal with Iran.

“Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was going to be a terrible deal. This was going to result in Iran getting 50 billion dollars worth of relief. Iran would not abide by the agreement. None of that has come true.

“It has turned out that in fact, during this period we’ve seen Iran not advance its program. In many ways, it’s rolled back elements of its program.”

Israeli officials traveling with Netanyahu had no immediate comment.

Obama said that a key doubt was whether Iran would agree to rigorous inspection demands and the low levels of uranium enrichment capability they would have to maintain.

“But if they do agree to it, it would be far more effective in controlling their nuclear program than any military action we could take, any military action Israel could take and far more effective than sanctions will be,” Obama said.

Turning to ties with Asia's largest economy, Obama sharply criticized China's plans for new rules on U.S. tech companies, urging Beijing to change the policy if it wants to do business with the United States and saying he had raised it with President Xi Jinping.

“This is something that I’ve raised directly with President Xi,” Obama said. “We have made it very clear to them that this is something they are going to have to change if they are to do business with the United States.”

On what could be another landmark foreign policy achievement, Obama said he hoped the United States will open an embassy in Cuba by the time of a Western Hemisphere summit in Panama in mid-April.

Washington and Havana announced on Dec. 17 that they planned to restore diplomatic relations following 18 months of secret face-to-face talks. “There's a lot of work that still has to be done,” Obama added.

Obama says Iran must halt key nuclear work for at least a decade Read More »

Full text of Reuters interview with Obama

Leave a Comment / United States /

Reuters White House Correspondent Jeff Mason interviewed President Barack Obama on Monday on topics including U.S.-Israel relations, Iran, China and Russia. Here is a full transcript of the interview.

REUTERS – Mr. President, thanks very much for joining us.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA – Good to see you.

REUTERS – Let’s start right on Israel. Your administration has described Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plans to address Congress tomorrow on Iran as destructive. What damage has really been done?

OBAMA – Well, first of all, I think it’s important to realize the depth of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Under my administration, billions of dollars have gone to support Israel’s security, including the Iron Dome program that has protected them from missiles fired along their borders. The military intelligence cooperation is unprecedented and that’s not our estimation. That’s the estimation of the Netanyahu government. And that bond is unbreakable. So we need to make clear from the outset how strong our alliance with Israel is.

The second point is that we actually share a goal, which is making sure Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. That’s something that I committed to when I was still a senator. It is a solemn pledge I made before I was elected president and everything that I’ve done over the course of the last several years in relation to Iran has been in pursuit of that policy. There is a substantial disagreement in terms of how to achieve that. And what it boils down to is what’s the best way to ensure that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon.

Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks that the best way to do that is either through doubling down on more sanctions or through military action, ensuring that Iran has absolutely no enrichment capabilities whatsoever. And there’s no expert on Iran or nuclear proliferation around the world that seriously thinks that Iran is going to respond to additional sanctions by eliminating its nuclear program.

What we’ve said from the start is by organizing a strong sanctions regime, what we can do is bring Iran to the table. And by bringing Iran to the table, force them to have a serious negotiation in which a) we are able to see exactly what’s going on inside of Iran b) we’re able to create what we call a breakout period, a timeline where we know if they were to try to get a nuclear weapon it would take them a certain amount of time.

And the deal that we’re trying to negotiate is to make sure that there’s at least a year between us seeing them try to get a nuclear weapon and them actually being able to obtain one.

And as long as we’ve got that one-year breakout capacity, that ensures us that we can take military action to stop them if they were stop it.

Now, we’re still in the midst of negotiations. What I’ve said consistently is, we should let these negotiations play out. If, in fact, Iran is agree, willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their program where it is right now and, in fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist …

REUTERS – Double digit years?

OBAMA – Double digit years. If we’ve got that and we’ve got a way of verifying that, there’s no other steps we can take that would give us such assurance that they don’t have a nuclear weapon.

Now, Iran may not agree to the rigorous inspection demands that we’re insisting on. They may not agree to the low levels of enrichment capabilities they would have to maintain to ensure that their breakout is at least a year. But if they do agree to it, it would be far more effective in controlling their nuclear program than any military action we could take, any military action Israel could take and far more effective than sanctions will be.

And we know that because during the period in which we applied sanctions for over a decade, Iran went from about 300 or a couple of hundred centrifuges to tens of thousands of centrifuges in response to sanctions.

REUTERS – Let’s talk a little bit specifically about the prime minister. Susan Rice said that what he has done by accepting the invitation to speak was destructive to the fabric of the relationship. Would you agree that it’s destructive? And if so, will there be any consequences for him or for Israel?

OBAMA – You know, I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu is sincere about his concerns with respect to Iran. And given Iran’s record and given the extraordinarily disruptive and dangerous activities of this regime in the region, it’s understandable why Israel is very concerned about Iran. We are too. But what we’ve consistently said is we have to stay focused on our ultimate goal, which is preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Now, as a matter of policy, we think it’s a mistake for the prime minister of any country to come to speak before Congress a few weeks before they are about to have an election. It makes it look like we are taking sides.

REUTERS – But aside from that, what about that is destructive?

OBAMA – I’m answering your question, Jeff. And the concern is, not only does it look like it politicizes the relationship but what’s also a problem is when the topic of the prime minister’s speech is an area where the executive branch – the U.S. president and his team – have a disagreement with the other side.

I think those who offered the invitation and some of the commentators who have said this is the right thing to do, it’s worth asking them whether, when George W. Bush had initiated the war in Iraq and Democrats were controlling Congress, if they had invited let’s say the president of France to appear before Congress to criticize or to air those disagreements, I think most people would say, well, that wouldn’t be the right thing to do. I guarantee you that some of the same commentators who are cheerleading now would have suggested that it was the wrong thing to do.

I don’t think it’s permanently destructive. I think that it is a distraction from what should be our focus. And our focus should be,‘How do we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?’ Now keep in mind the prime minister, when we signed up for this interim deal that would essentially freeze Iran’s program, roll back its highly enriched uranium – its 20 percent highly enriched uranium – and so reduce the possibility that Iran might breakout while we were engaged in these negotiations, when we first announced this interim a deal, Prime Minister Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was going to be a terrible deal. This was going to result in Iran getting 50 billion dollars worth of relief. Iran would not abide by the agreement. None of that has come true.

It has turned out that, in fact, during this period we’ve seen Iran not advance its program. In many ways, it’s rolled back elements of its program. And we’ve got more insight into what they’re doing with more vigorous inspections than even the supporters of an interim deal suggested.

So the question is this: If in fact we are trying to finalize a deal, why not wait to see a) is there actually going to be a deal? Can Iran accept the terms that we’re laying out? If in fact Iran can accept terms that would ensure a one year breakout period for ten years or longer and during that period we know Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon – we have inspectors on the ground that give us assurances that they’re not creating a covert program – why would we not take that deal when we know the alternatives, whether through sanctions or military actions, will not result in as much assurance that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon?

There's no good reason for us not to let the negotiations play themselves out. Then we'll show, here – here's the deal that's been negotiated, does it make sense? And I am confident that if, in fact, a deal is arrived at, then it's going to be a deal that is most likely to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

REUTERS – You obviously disagree about that. If the prime minister wins reelection, would you be able to work with him?

OBAMA – Absolutely. We're working with him now on a whole range of issues.

REUTERS – Would you meet with him?

OBAMA – Of course. As I've said before, the only reason that we didn't meet with him this time is a general policy we don't meet with somebody two weeks before an election. I've met with Prime Minister Netanyahu more than any other world leader. And given the strong relationship between the United States and Israel, I would expect that to continue.

REUTERS – Is it fair to say you're angry with him?

OBAMA – This is not a personal issue. I think that it is important for every country in its relationship with the United States to recognize that the U.S. has a process of making policy. And although we have separation of powers, ultimately, the interaction with foreign governments runs through the executive branch. That's true whether it's a Democratic president or a Republican president. And that's true regardless of how close the ally is.

REUTERS – Have Israel's actions been disruptive to the ability to get this deal?

OBAMA – I think that it's been a distraction. I think that in the meantime negotiators are going full speed ahead. Ultimately, what's been remarkable is the international unity we've been able to maintain in saying to Iran, you have to show the world that you are not pursuing a nuclear weapon. You can have very modest enrichment capabilities for peaceful use, so long as there's a vigorous enough inspection process that we have assurances that you are not obtaining breakout capacity. And the biggest challenge right now to getting a deal is for Iran to recognize this is its path in order to ultimately re-enter into the community of nations.

REUTERS – Have your communications with the Supreme Leader helped in this?

OBAMA – You know, I would say that most of the work has been done directly between the negotiators and Secretary Kerry, Foreign Minister Zarif of Iran, the expert teams that have worked together along with our P5+1 partners. They've done the lion's share of the work.

REUTERS – But has that been useful?

OBAMA – I think it’s been important for us to send a clear signal to all parties inside of Iran that we are not the aggressors here. We are looking to resolve this diplomatically if we can. But given the history of Iran engaging in covert programs, given the history of Iranian sponsorship of terrorism in the region and around the world, given the rhetoric that's come out from the Iranian regime including anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements, it is important for them to understand that they have a high threshold that they have to meet in terms of proof and convincing the world that they're prepared to not pursue a nuclear program.

If they do that, and we have ways of measuring that, very concrete ways, if they do that, that's the best path for us to take. What we should not do is to try to jettison the talks, undermine the talks.

I'm less concerned, frankly, with Prime Minister Netanyahu's commentary than I am with Congress taking actions that might undermine the talks before they're complete. And what I've said to members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, is there will be plenty of time for us to reapply sanctions, strengthen sanctions, to take a whole range of other measures, if in fact we do not have a deal. But what we should not do is pre-judge the deal and initiate sanctions that might allow Iran to walk away and claim that the United States is the one that has eliminated the path to diplomacy.

REUTERS – How would you judge, what’s your assessment of the percentage likelihood now of this happening.

OBAMA – The likelihood of?

REUTERS – Of a deal coming through? You’ve said before less than 50 percent.

OBAMA – You know, I would say that it's probably still more likely than not that Iran doesn't get to yes. But I think in fairness to them, they have been serious negotiators. And they've got their own politics inside of Iran. It is more likely that we could get a deal now than perhaps three or five months ago. But there are still some big gaps that have to be filled.

REUTERS – We're running short of time. So I'm going to ask you about Russia. A top opponent of President Putin was gunned down last week. What does this say about Vladimir Putin's Russia and do you believe that the Kremlin was not involved?

OBAMA – What I've called for is a full investigation and, hopefully, an independent investigation of what happened. Whether that can occur inside today’s Russia is not clear. The individual involved is somebody that I actually met with back in 2009.

This is an indication of a climate at least inside of Russia in which civil society, independent journalists, people trying to communicate on the Internet, have felt increasingly threatened, constrained, and increasingly the only information that the Russian public is able to get is through state-controlled media outlets. That is a problem. It's part of what has allowed, I think, Russia to engage in the sort of aggression that it is has against Ukraine.

REUTERS – You don't want to say whether or not the Kremlin was involved?

OBAMA – I have no idea at this point exactly what happened. What I do know is more broadly the fact that free – freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of information, basic civil rights and civil liberties inside of Russia are in much worse shape now than they were four or five, ten years ago.

REUTERS – Let me ask you about another area of the world, China. Are you concerned about how hard China is making it for U.S. tech companies to do business there?

OBAMA – I am concerned. This is something that I've raised directly with President Xi, and my entire foreign policy team as well as people like Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew and Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker have raised with them. They've got a couple of laws that are working their way through the system that would essentially force all foreign companies, including U.S. companies, to turn over to the Chinese government mechanisms where they could snoop and keep track of all the users of those services. And as you might imagine, tech companies are not going to be willing to do that.

Those kinds of restrictive practices I think would, ironically, hurt the Chinese economy over the long term because I don't think there's any U.S. or European firm, any international firm, that could credibly get away with that wholesale turning over of data, personal data, over to a government. And so we've made very clear to them that this is something they're going to have to change if they expect to do business with the United States.

REUTERS – Let me close with a lightning round of yes or no questions. Keystone veto just happened. How soon do you think we'll have a decision from the State Department and ultimately the White House – weeks, months or not before the end of your administration?

OBAMA – I think it will happen before the end of my administration.

REUTERS – Weeks or months?

OBAMA – Weeks or months.

REUTERS – O.K. and on Cuba, do you expect to have relations, diplomatic relations restored between Cuba and the United States before the Panama summit?

OBAMA – My hope is that we will be able to open an embassy, and that some of the initial groundwork will have been laid. Keep in mind that our expectation has never been that we would achieve full normalization immediately. There is a lot of work that still has to be done. But we are going down a path in which we can open up our relations to Cuba in a way that ultimately will prompt more change in Cuba. And we're already seeing it.

The very fact that since our announcement, the Cuban government has begun to discuss ways in which they are going to reorganize their economy to accommodate for possible foreign investment, that's already forcing a series of changes that promises to open up more opportunities for entrepreneurs, more transparency in terms of what's happening in their economy, and that's always been the premise of this policy. That after 50 years of a policy that didn't work, we need to try something new that encourages and ultimately I think forces the Cuban government to engage in a modern economy. And that will create more space for freedom for the Cuban people.

REUTERS – Very last question on domestic policy. The Supreme Court is seeing arguments on the Burwell v. King this week. Your administration has said it does not have a Plan B. Isn't that a little risky?

OBAMA – This should be a pretty straightforward case of statutory interpretation. If you look at the law, if you look at the testimony of those who were involved in the law, including some of the opponents of the law, the understanding was that people who joined the federal exchange were going to be able to access tax credits. Just like if they went to a state exchange. And you know what? The thing's working, exactly as intended. Which is why we signed up 11 million people to go through these exchanges.

And we're seeing more competition, lower prices, more choice, more shopping among people than even I expected, even proponents of it expected. And it's costing less than anybody expected. So the thing's working. And there's in our view not a plausible legal basis for striking it down. But, you know, we'll have to wait and see what the Supreme Court decides.

REUTERS – They could rule against you. Then what?

OBAMA – Well if they rule against us, we'll have to take a look at what our options are. But I'm not going to anticipate that. I'm not going to anticipate bad law. All right?

REUTERS – Mr. President thanks very much for your time.

OBAMA – Thank you so much.

Full text of Reuters interview with Obama Read More »