fbpx

August 26, 2015

Suspect in Virginia TV shooting had history of workplace issues

The suspected gunman in the shooting deaths of two television journalists in Virginia on Wednesday was a veteran anchorman with a history of workplace grievances who had previously sued a Florida station alleging discrimination because he was black.

While authorities said they had not determined a motive, perceived racism appeared to be a factor in the shootings, according to recent postings the suspect is believed to have made on social media and a fax that ABC News said the suspect sent.

Vester Flanagan, 41, who went on the air under the name Bryce Williams, was a former employee of WDBJ7 in Virginia, where both of the slain journalists worked. The journalists, who were both white, were killed during a live television broadcast earlier this morning.

Posts on a Twitter feed by a man identifying himself as Bryce Williams, Flanagan's on-air name, accused one of the victims of “racist comments,” and noted that a complaint had been filed with a government agency that enforces discrimination claims.

In a 23-page fax ABC News said was sent two hours after the shooting, he cited as his tipping point the racially motivated shooting that killed nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, earlier this summer.

Saying he had suffered racial discrimination, sexual harassment and bullying at work, Flanagan described himself as “a human powder keg,” the network said.

Flanagan aired similar grievances in a 2000 lawsuit filed in U.S. federal court against a Florida station, WTWC-TV in Tallahassee. In that suit, he said a producer had called him a “monkey,” and he accused a supervisor of calling black people lazy for not taking advantage of college scholarship opportunities.

The Florida case was settled and dismissed the next year, court records show.

One of his former Florida colleagues remembered Flanagan as “quirky,” but said he never displayed behavior suggesting he would be capable of such a violent crime.

“He had his idiosyncrasies, a little quirky sometimes,” said Michael Walker, the weekend producer at the Tallahassee station when Flanagan was working as a weekend anchor. “It probably wasn't any different than any other on-air personality.”

Walker, who is also black, noted that he had not experienced discrimination at the station.

Flanagan, who accused the station of terminating his contract because he had filed a report of racism with a state agency, said in the lawsuit he suffered emotional distress and financial losses as a result of his treatment at the station.

The NBC affiliate, which stopped broadcasting newscasts in late 2000, said at the time of the lawsuit that his contract was not renewed due to “corporate belt-tightening,” according to an article in the Tallahassee Democrat at that time.

Representatives from the station could not immediately be reached for comment.

Flanagan's 20-year career in journalism included stints at local news stations in San Francisco; Savannah, Georgia; and Midland, Texas, according to his LinkedIn profile. It said he also worked briefly outside of journalism as a customer service representative.

He graduated from San Francisco State University in 1995 with a degree in radio and television, the school confirmed.

According to a Facebook page believed to belong to the suspect, he was originally from Oakland, California, but most recently living in Roanoke, Virginia, where WDBJ7 broadcasts.

There, he gained a reputation as someone who was difficult to work with because of his anger, station manager Jeff Marks said during a live broadcast.

“Vester was an unhappy man,” Marks said, adding that he had to be escorted out of the building by police after he was terminated from the station in 2013.

“He did not take that well,” he added.

Suspect in Virginia TV shooting had history of workplace issues Read More »

Torah portion: ‘I am walking because our babies are dying’

On Aug. 19, I sat down with an African-American grandmother from Detroit to share breakfast. We sat at a plastic table under a tent in the parking lot of Ebenezer Baptist Church West in Athens, Ga. I was there to take part in America’s Journey for Justice, an 860-mile march from Selma, Ala., to Washington, D.C., which is working to raise awareness and effect change around issues of economic inequality, education reform, criminal justice reform and voting rights. I felt honored to have joined a contingency of almost 200 rabbis and members of the Jewish community, who pledged to carry a sefer Torah, a Torah scroll, for the entire length of the journey.

As we ate, I asked my breakfast companion why she had decided to leave her home and family to spend the summer marching in the South, marching for justice. Looking me straight in the eye, she answered matter-of-factly, “I am walking because our babies are dying.”

In this week’s Torah portion, Ki Teitzei, we are taught, “If you see your brother’s ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it; you must take it back to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1). We find a similar commandment in Exodus: “When you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass wandering, you must take it back to him” (Exodus 23:4). Torah is clear: Enemy or brother, sheep, ass or ox — we are required to care for those in our community.

I discussed a similar concept with another marcher as we walked in the Georgia heat, single file, along the side of a road on a rural stretch of highway. She told me about how she had worked on issues of immigration reform, even though her family had no immigration story — they came to the United States as slaves.  

I shared my reasons for marching with her. I told her that Jewish tradition compelled me to see “my story” and “my interests” as much broader than my own narrow experiences or those of my family. “If you see your brother’s ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it,” Torah teaches. I cannot ignore issues like voting rights and racial profiling. I take action because Torah teaches me to do so.

On the very day I marched, news broke that Mansur Ball-Bey, an 18-year-old African-American youth from my home state of Missouri, had been fatally shot by St. Louis police during a home search. As I heard the news that night, that morning’s message from my breakfast companion, delivered to me so earnestly, echoed in my ears: “I am walking because our babies are dying.”

As I marched alongside young activists, Jewish community members, grandparents, concerned citizens and Cornell William Brooks, president and CEO of the NAACP, I felt the weight of the sefer Torah in my arms, and I felt the weight of its message in my heart. I watched as Brooks held the sefer Torah, marching with the same respect and sense of purpose as I did.

The rabbinic sage Rabbeinu Bechaya ben Asher sees a connection between the verse in Exodus about returning your enemy’s livestock and the verse in this week’s Torah portion about doing the same for your brother. He teaches that the very act of helping another person can cause an entrenched relationship to shift, effectively turning an enemy into a brother. He is clear: It is the act of doing for another — the act of performing a mitzvah for the sole benefit of our fellow — that has the power to make change.

Our tradition teaches that when we break out of our own bubbles, learn to see others’ stories as our own, and act alongside and on behalf of the welfare of our neighbors, we begin to enter truly transformative relations. Enemies can turn to brothers, strangers can turn to friends, and loose alliances can turn to deep ties. Sociologist Richard Sennett argues that it is such “togetherness” that creates the encounters and rituals necessary to bring about empathy and cooperation.

We face a critical juncture in our nation’s history. There are millions of people in our country who are either barred from voting or who face insurmountable hurdles that keep them from doing so. There are people who are being pulled over or stopped and searched for no other reason than the color of their skin. There is a generation of youth who are not receiving a basic education because their schools are failing.  

We are failing each other and failing to live up to Torah’s message of justice if we do not respond. I encourage you to look into America’s Journey for Justice, which concludes this year Sept. 16, and learn more about the fundamental rights the marchers are championing.  

In the end, I spent one day on the road and walked 15 miles. My steps were more significant than a single person marching on a single day, though. They represented my belief in Torah’s relevance to our lives and its values’ significance in our world.  

As the days of Elul float by and the Yamim Noraim, the High Holy Days, approach, I invite us all to reflect on that which our brothers and sisters have lost, that which needs returning and restoring, and the concrete actions we might take to help right these wrongs. 

Rabbi Jocee Hudson is rabbi educator at Temple Israel of Hollywood, a Reform congregation.

Torah portion: ‘I am walking because our babies are dying’ Read More »

Don’t make me shlep my heart: Breaking down the Jewish dating scene

Dating. It’s like going out for ice cream. That’s right, ice cream, the official food of heaven (idk probably). Sometimes you’re craving a certain flavor, sometimes it makes you sick, other times it’s too much like “Whoa these are the size of your scoops, how does anyone ever finish that?” That last one wasn’t even a metaphor, it’s just something that is said every time my family gets ice cream.

Similar to dating, you, naturally, want to try the flavors before you commit, you want to know that the “ice cream” is right for you, but instead of the end result being mint-chocolate chip, it’s a human being spending the rest of your life with you – same thing though, right?

As a twenty-something, “going out for ice cream” has been something that has crept into my mind more than once. Maybe it’s all the rom-coms (that I don’t watch), perhaps it’s all the engagement pictures flooding my timeline (congrats, btw, entire world) or, at the end of the day, maybe it’s hearing my grandma’s voice at every family gathering, “Jon, excuse me, Jon, how are the women? When are you going to bring a girlfriend home? Can you pass the potato salad?” And then I start messing with her out of frustration, “What do you mean grandma? This is my girlfriend, do you not like her? Is something wrong with her?!” (Pointing to a plate of cheese and crackers). IK I’m embarrassed for me, too.

The point is, I’m not worried about dating or relationships or eventually getting married, and you shouldn’t be either. The way I look at it is if I find the right person, great, and if not, I’ll be able to catch up on A LOT of TV shows. Win/win I’d say.

No, the thing that is more frightening to me is something I came across the other day. 

A statistic that read, “There’s an 84% chance that if you’re 21 & older, you’ve already met the person you’ll marry.”

Now, I saw this on Twitter, which in all fairness is the same place where you can find endorsements for Donald Trump, so keep that in mind. But naturally I started freaking out.

I started recounting all of the people I’ve met up to this point in my life. There was that girl from the grocery store…my prom dates…Robin Roberts from Good Morning America. Wow am I going to marry Robin Roberts? Should I tell my parents? I mean there’s an age difference but idk. Could I handle the spotlight? I already have enough stress in my life between watching people’s Snapchat stories and finding what songs to listen to on the way to work, and that’s when it hit me.

I have to date Jewish.

I just have to. You have to. We all have to.

And it has nothing to do with religion. I like to consider myself a pretty open and tolerant person. In fact, I’ve dated Non-Jews in the past, and it was great. I went hunting, I introduced someone to bagels & lox (changing their life forever), I was on time for things, and I didn’t have to constantly Wiki what Larry David was up to. No, it’s not a religious thing. It’s a laziness thing.

Falling in love takes a lot of work – and who has time for that these days with Netflix and those electronic soda machines at restaurants (they’re tricky). These days we have to be careful as far as what we use our cognitive resources for.

Meeting new people, no offense new people, sucks sometimes. You have to do things like introduce yourself, and say where you went to college, and pretend to laugh at bad jokes. No thanks. It’s like the longest, worst icebreaker ever…and you know what they say about icebreakers. They should be illegal and whoever initiates them should go to jail for longer-than-eternity without access to the new Full House spinoff if it happens. 

So, how does this all tie back to dating Jewish? Great question, the three people who are still reading. It’s quite simple, actually. It’s just easier, and isn’t that what life is about? Isn’t that the reason why Google exists? 

Now, I’m not a scientist or God so I’m not sure why, but this is the way it is.

If you’re Jewish…chances are you already know 85% of the other Jews in your community (but as high as 100% if you leave the house. ever). You probably have a similar sense of humor and an understanding of the various Judaic holidays  – or you at least know that Yom Kippur means, “I better eat a lot the night before.” Regardless of who you go on a date with, you most likely awkwardly danced with them during the bar/bat mitzvah circuit days, and you probably remember, yet never talk about it. You’ll know all the same lingo, like, “Stop kvetching!” or “Oy vey!” or “Jon Savitt is so funny!” Your parents definitely somehow know each other. Literally, I don’t know how, but they will know each other – which is great because it will save a lot of stress in the future. And, finally, you either went to summer camp with one another or have mutual friends who did, so yeah, they’ll know your level of color war competitiveness. 

The Jewish dating scene can be both a blessing and a curse. But with increasingly busy lifestyles for college grads and beyond, you can’t deny the clear benefits: History, brisket, and a much less awkward intro to the family.

But I’ll never join JDate. 

Don’t make me shlep my heart: Breaking down the Jewish dating scene Read More »

Matisyahu, the Iran deal and the college campus

Do we need to have a definition of anti-Semitism?  Most people think they already know what it means.

And sometimes the answer is obvious. Think, for example, about the vandals who recently scrawled the words “Yids out” on the fence of a girls’ primary day school in London.

Or consider Matisyahu. What else can you call it when Spain’s annual reggae music festival, Rototom Sunsplash, cancelled a scheduled appearance by this Jewish American singer.  Organizers argued that the rapper is a “Zionist” and supports the practice of “apartheid and ethnic cleansing.”

You don’t need a Ph.D. in anti-Semitology to know what that was about.

Often, though, there is room for disagreement.  When Israel’s critics use double standards, are they just being advocates, or have they crossed a line? For that matter, when some who support President Obama’s proposed Iran deal speak of their opponents’ “money” and “lobbyists,” are they mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment or just being “realistic”?
            
Consider how some of the Iran deal’s supporters lambaste Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the president’s top Senate allies, for opposing the deal. The Daily Kos ran a cartoon showing Schumer with an Israeli flag, calling him a “traitor.” MoveOn.org lumped Schumer together with another famous Jewish Democrat, saying, “our country doesn’t need another Joe Lieberman in the Senate.” These organizations clearly crossed a line.

But that doesn’t mean that everyone who supports the Iran deal is an anti-Semite. Nor is it anti-Semitic merely to disagree with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s view of the world.

Definitions are like fences. They wall some things in and others out. It is not just that we need to be clearer about what should be condemned as anti-Semitic.  We also need to be clearer about what is not anti-Semitic and should not be unjustly maligned.

Unfortunately, our best definitions are now under attack. Earlier this year, Jewish Voice for Peace assailed the U.S. State Department’s authoritative definition of anti-Semitism.  The State Department definition is important because it embodies Natan Sharansky’s “3-D Test.” Many criticisms of Israel are not anti-Semitic. But they may enter that territory when they Demonize the Jewish state, Delegitimize Israel, or apply Double standards.

Anti-Israel activists are incensed that the State Department’s definition includes “demonizing,” “delegitimizing,” and “applying a double-standard” to Israel. They want to redefine anti-Semitism so that extreme anti-Israel activism will no longer be considered anti-Semitic.

Fortunately, the State Department rebuffed their efforts. In an important August letter, Special Envoy Ira Forman, the Obama administration’s point man on global anti-Semitism, explained that his department’s definition is important to his work and has not led to any encroachments on free speech.

Although Israel’s critics targeted the State Department, the real battle is over higher education. In response to a rash of anti-Semitic incidents, several student governments and advocacy groups, including the Louis D. Brandeis Center, have urged broader use of State Department standards in higher education.

Several months ago, a report jointly issued by the Louis D. Brandeis Center and Trinity College demonstrated that over 50% of Jewish college students reported experiencing or witnessing anti-Semitism during the 2013-2014 academic year. Earlier this summer, nearly three quarters of Jewish students responding to a Brandeis University study reported having been exposed to at least one of six anti-Semitic statements, such as claims that Jews have too much power and that Israelis behave “like Nazis.” Jewish students have reported being punched in the face, called derogatory epithets, and harassed in many ways.

Unfortunately, the federal government does not yet apply the State Department’s definition to American colleges.  If a French university were to tolerate a hostile environment for Jewish students, based on behavior that demonizes and delegitimizes the Jewish state, the State Department would understand when a line is crossed.  But if the same thing happens in California, New York, or Florida, the U.S. government would not be able to say whether the conduct was anti-Semitic, because domestic agencies are not coordinating with State.  Obviously this problem must be fixed.

At the same time, university leaders should educate their communities about the lines between legitimate political discourse and anti-Semitic intolerance.  This doesn’t mean censorship.  It does mean that universities should take their educative function seriously.  In September, the University of California Regents, the University’s governing board, is expected to discuss adopting a statement of principles on intolerance.  This would be an excellent opportunity for the Regents to assert leadership by taking a well-defined stand against prejudice.

Marcus is President of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (www.brandeiscenter.com) and former Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Oxford University Press will publish his new book on The Definition of Anti-Semitism in September.

Matisyahu, the Iran deal and the college campus Read More »

Response to Rabbi Fine

Less than half a century ago, the vast majority of Conservative congregations in the US were non-egalitarian. There were no rabbis who were women. Lots of synagogues refused to allow a woman even to step onto the bimah. Baby girls got a cursory naming at which they were rarely present, while boys were celebrated with the entire community. What a difference 40 years makes.

In a recent piece in the Jewish Journal, Rabbi Jeremy Fine laments the loss of the (non-egalitarian) Stein minyan at the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS). He claims that this is a sign that the Conservative movement has lost its way. That by getting rid of this prayer space the movement is saying to people who otherwise are philosophically aligned with Conservative Judaism that there is no place for them at JTS. That we will lose them to Modern Orthodoxy.

Our response is this. Change is hard. As feminists we are well aware of the massive changes for which we have worked and of which we are the beneficiaries. As religious feminists it is our nature to be skeptical before reacting to every shift in the wind. But the idea that women are the social and intellectual and LEGAL equals of men is here to stay. 

If you believe in the idea that Jewish law, halakhah, has developed over thousands of years and will continue to do so, then there is no single project more worthy of our religious attention than the full inclusion of women. Historically, within Jewish law, women were placed in the same legal category as children, and slaves. But our society is no longer constructed that way. Though our grandmothers were born before women had the right to vote, women in contemporary western culture would never tolerate being compared to chattel. Or children.

Rabbi Fine seems to insist that to be ‘traditional,’ is to change nothing. That no community can be deeply concerned with the complexities of Jewish law, read the full Torah reading each week, walk to shul, keep 25 hours of Shabbat and at the same time count women to the minyan. As moderators of Hagbah, a Facebook group for observant egalitarian feminists, we strongly disagree. In just a few months our group has nearly 500 members, many of whom live that challenging existence each day. 

Where we think Rabbi Fine has gone wrong is in confusing the subordinate clause with the main one, the tafel for the ikar. In the short term, just as in the battle over the Confederate flag, there will be those who claim that their heritage is being discounted, violated. And that may be true, to a point. But when your celebration of heritage comes at the expense of my right to be treated like a full human being, I don’t have an obligation to go out of my way to cater to your needs. The ikar of Torah is not misogyny. What we call Torah grew up in societies that failed to recognize the humanity of half of the human race. Now that we know better, should we still be deeply committed to these conceptions of women? 

Last year, to Rabbi Fine’s apparent regret, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, (CJLS) issued a significant tshuva (legal responsum)  entitled “Women and Mitzvot”. It concluded that: “Women and men are equally obligated to observe the mitzvot, with the exception of those mitzvot that are determined by sexual anatomy.”  The teshuvah was overwhelmingly approved.  So it seems, the most authoritative body of the Conservative movement has spoken, and has charted the path of religious equality mandated in today’s society, where in all respects, men and women should be equal. 

Rabbi Fine expresses the concern that  “[t]here are rabbis who would like this Tshuva to stand for the entire Movement. I suggest that we are at risk of losing what is so powerful about Conservative Judaism, the power of different interpretations of Jewish law. In fact, I would claim that we are not just alienating traditional men, but a whole segment of women who want to become rabbis or committed lay leaders but might not want to be fully obligated in ritual.” In fact, though the CJLS renders opinions on legal issues for Conservative rabbis, each rabbi retains the option to accept or reject those rulings. Rather, his apparent concern is that rabbis and lay people might be persuaded by the reasoning and sources of this tshuva, to agree with its conclusion. 

And we might ask, is the set of Conservative women pursuing the rabbinate but refusing to be fully obligated really so large? Does it even exist? 

Judaism has evolved over thousands of years alongside civilization. We no longer allow slavery, or polygamy. We established legal fictions to deal with interest in a modern economy and chametz which magically leaves our hands and returns at the end of Passover, lest the holiday cause too much financial hardship. We don’t kill adulterers, or rebellious children – lucky for some of ours – and we don’t take these legal fictions lightly. 

As religious people, we see the beauty in gently bending a religious tradition from the inside, keeping it from breaking. Only someone who loves Torah, and the entire halakhic system, can appreciate that these fictions, these reimaginings, contain beauty within.

As feminists, we say, “What about us? Why are we not worthy of a touch of loving reimagining as well? The Stein minyan at JTS was a relic of an earlier time and preserving it as such might be acceptable, if it didn’t impact the living breathing women and men who attend JTS right now.

Because even as we want to always be as inclusive as possible, inclusiveness can’t come at the expense of asserting who we are. If JTS had an exalted minyan which didn’t allow participation by redheads or bald men or people of color, we would be up in arms, protesting. Petitioning. Singing songs of solidarity. 

But when women are left out in the cold, it is so often met with silence. Maybe it’s time to make a little noise. Maybe it’s time, thirty years after the first Conservative woman was ordained, for the Conservative movement to decide what it stands for, and, when push comes to shove, what values it deems acceptable or unacceptable.

Aurora Mendelsohn blogs at rainbowtallitbaby.wordpress.com.

Iris Richman is a Conservative rabbi and founder of Jewish Voices Together, which advocates religious tolerance and pluralism in the U.S. and Israel.

Leah Bieler is a freelance writer and teacher. She has an M.A. in Talmud and Rabbinics from JTS.

Response to Rabbi Fine Read More »

Amy Schumer and Jennifer Lawrence: Feminist, fun ‘It’ couple

Brangelina, who?

There's a new Hollywood power couple on the block that is captivating the public and — thank goodness — for all the right reasons.

Anything but typical, this couple is not heterosexual, homosexual or even romantic: but rather, fun, friendship-based, feminist and creative.

I'm talking about Oscar-winning actress Jennifer Lawrence and her new bestie comedian Amy Schumer. The two started turning heads when, earlier this summer, they vacationed together in the Hamptons and posted instagram photos of their all-female crew yachting around together, making human pyramids.

During an interview about her upcoming film, “Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2” Lawrence turned the The New York Times’ attention to what she really wanted to talk about: Schumer.

According to the actress, Lawrence reached out to Schumer after seeing “Trainwreck.”

“I emailed her after I saw ‘Trainwreck’ and said, ‘I don’t know where to get started. I guess I should just say it: I’m in love with you,’”

And as they say, the rest is history. Schumer has since posted several photos and videos with or about Lawrence to her instagram account, including one of her reacting to Lawrence mentioning her name in an on-camera interview. According to Vanity Fair, Schumer made a video for her girlfriends announcing that Lawrence would be joining them on a boat ride in the Hamptons.

“[T]he gods have seemingly smiled down upon us and united these wonderfully talented and hilarious creatures for what appears to be the summer vacation of our dreams,” the magazine gushed.

The girl-crush fest between two extremely talented and successful women is compelling enough, but now, it appears Schumer and Lawrence are taking their relationship to the next level: a creative partnership.

Earlier today, Lawrence told the NYTimes that she and Schumer are writing a screenplay together, in which they play sisters, and that they have already completed 100 pages.

“We’re almost done writing. It just flowed out of us,” Lawrence told The Times, adding, “Amy and I were creatively made for each other. We have different flavors. It’s been the most fun experience of my life. We start the day off on the phone, laughing. And then we send each other pages. And we crack up. I’m flying out tomorrow to see her in Chicago…”

It's cool to see two huge female stars who, instead of competing, collaborate.

In a refreshingly real moment, Lawrence realized her casual confession to The Times would probably make big news and paused the interview to text Schumer that she had just “spilled the beans.”

“Ms. Lawrence glanced at the message, and threw her head back in laughter,” Times reporter Brooks Barnes wrote.

Lawrence then tells him, “I wrote, ‘I just spilled the beans to The New York Times. Is that O.K.?’ And Amy wrote back, ‘That you’re gay? Totally! It’s exciting!’”

J-Law and the grand Jewess of comedy writing a movie together? Yeah, that is exciting.

Amy Schumer and Jennifer Lawrence: Feminist, fun ‘It’ couple Read More »

#myLAcommute It’s all about confidence

VINCENT GORDON

I’m coming from my sister’s house. She was working so I went over to babysit my 12-year-old niece. We were just hanging out. We had movie night. We watched Scream and two other movies.

I’m a business accounting major at UCLA. I’m going to Vegas for the weekend to play in a college football tournament. I’m actually confident that we’ll win.

Atlantic Boulevard to Acacia Court

#myLAcommute is a project of Zócalo Public Square.

#myLAcommute It’s all about confidence Read More »

Why many American Jews support the Iran deal

The more one knows about the Iran nuclear deal, the more obvious it becomes that it is a deception that portrays itself as a deal. Virtually every claim made for it is either not true or is insignificant. The deal vastly strengthens Iran and its regime’s grip on power.

• There are no “anytime, anywhere” inspections, as Americans were promised during the negotiations.

• No American or Canadian inspectors will be allowed into Iran.

• The agreement obligates all the parties, including the United States, to help Iran protect its nuclear facilities against an attack, whether physical or cyber.

• Any area of Iran that the Iranian regime designates “military” cannot be inspected.

• Iran can object to any inspection and delay it 24 days, and, according to the Wall Street Journal, up to three months.

• The deal will free $100 billion, and eventually much more, for the Iranian regime to use to bolster Iran’s economy and to supply terror groups around the world.

In light of these weaknesses, any one of which renders the deal fraudulent, how could anyone who cares about America, not to mention Israel, support it?

And it gets worse: There are two secret side deals to the agreement made between Iran and the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). They are not just kept secret from you and me. They are kept secret from the president, the secretary of state (who admitted to Congress that he has not seen them) and the Congress of the United States. 

How then could any member of Congress vote to affirm an agreement with Iran, crucial parts of which they cannot even know about? Why do those secrets between Iran and the United Nations simply not invalidate this agreement? 

But I wish to focus on American Jews. How is it, in light of the above and in light of Iran’s stated aim of annihilating Israel, that so many American Jews — despite the opposition of so many national Jewish groups and even of the Jewish Federations of liberal cities such Boston and Los Angeles — support this deal?

The question is legitimate for four reasons:

First, and most obvious, Israel is the one Jewish state, and one would assume that American Jews have a moral and emotional commitment to Israel’s welfare, not to mention its survival.

Second, according to various polls, American Jews may be the ethnic or religious group most supportive of the deal. How is that possible?

Third, the vast majority of Israeli Jews oppose the deal. According to Haaretz, Israel’s major left-wing newspaper, only 1 in 10 Israelis support the deal. Yet, at least 50 percent of American Jews support it. Why the discrepancy?

Fourth, even most left-wing Israelis oppose the deal. As Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic reported: “The Iran deal represents one of those rare issues that has unified Israelis of most political parties. And that includes the opposition leader, the head of the Labor Party, Isaac Herzog: ‘Iran,’ Herzog told me, has Israelis — of the ‘left, center and right,’ he said — ‘frightened.’ ”

So, then, in light of the deal’s terrible defects, in light of the specific concerns of Jews, and in light of the nearly universal opposition to the deal among Israeli Jews, why do half of America’s Jews support it?

One answer, given by many American Jewish supporters of the deal, is that they back the deal precisely because they do care about Israel. 

Now, when American Jews with a record of strong support of Israel say this, I believe them.

But, I have two questions for these Jews: 

First, if the deal is good for Israel, why does only 1 in 10 Israelis support it? And how can Jews living in Los Angeles or New York tell 90 percent of Israelis that they know better than Israeli Jews what’s good for Israel? Isn’t that’s what we Jews call chutzpah?

Second, if a Republican president had negotiated this deal, wouldn’t many of these Jewish Democrats — the Jewish supporters of the deal are nearly all Democrats — be opposing it? 

This question is particularly fair in light of the near certainty that most Republicans would oppose it even if the president were a Republican. Of course, a Republican president would never have negotiated a deal that so weakens America’s position in the Middle East and puts Israel in such peril. Also, both Democrats and Republicans would have properly opposed a president of the United States negotiating what is, in fact, a treaty without the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate.

As for American Jews who don’t have a strong record of support of Israel, it’s hard to believe them now when they say that they believe the deal is good for Israel.

So, then, why do so many American Jews support the deal? 

Because:

• They are loyal to President Obama.

• They have an intense dislike of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

• They have an intense dislike of Republicans. 

• Liberal Jews — the overwhelming majority of American Jews — have come close to embracing pacifism. In theory, they acknowledge a need for war, but in reality, they have opposed virtually every major American military action since the Korean War and favor cutting the military budget. These are the Jews (and non-Jews) who believe the bumper sticker that reads, “War Is Not the Answer.”

There is one other reason for Jewish support for the nuclear agreement. Both Jews and non-Jews often forget that Israel is no longer important to an increasing number of American Jews. Jews are the most left-wing ethnic and religious group in America — in part because Jews are more secular than other American groups and because they attend college in greater numbers — and the more that people embrace a left-wing view of the world, the more hostile to Israel they are likely to become.

There are, therefore, quite a number of American Jews who support the Iran deal for reasons having nothing to do with Israel. They say that they care only about America, and the deal is good for America. But most of these people also believe that pulling all our troops out of Iraq was good for America — and it was a catastrophe for America, and a nightmare for Iraqis and others in the Middle East. In addition, these Jews and non-Jews believe that the answer to evil is negotiation, not confrontation. That there is no historical basis for that belief does not disturb them. They are still singing, “Give peace a chance.”

So, why do many American Jews — including some supporters of Israel — back the Iran deal? For the same reason the minority of American non-Jews support the deal: Their outlook on life has been shaped by the left. 

Dennis Prager’s nationally syndicated radio talk show is heard in Los Angeles from 9 a.m. to noon on KRLA (AM 870). His latest project is the Internet-based Prager University (prageru.com).

Why many American Jews support the Iran deal Read More »

Israelis aren’t unified on Iran deal

One of the strongest arguments the Jewish opponents of the Iran nuclear deal have wielded is that Israelis are unified in their opposition to it.

If the famously fractious Israelis all agree that the Iran deal is bad, they argue, it must really be awful. This line of reasoning can be especially persuasive to American Jews and Israel-sympathizing representatives in Congress. Who are we to disagree when the people who face the greatest threat from a nuclear Iran categorically oppose this deal?

Except for one thing: It’s not true.

If you look at the polling results, you’ll see that the numbers tell a far more nuanced story. So do the actual statements by many of Israel’s political opponents to the deal, which have evolved from outright rejection to more of a regretful embrace. And perhaps most strikingly, dozens of Israeli security experts have publicly weighed in, all in favor of the deal.

The first breach in the Israeli Unified Agreement Theory came shortly after the deal’s announcement, as Israeli officials were trumpeting the fact that the Iran nuclear deal was a rare case of “6 million Jews, one opinion,” against it.

That’s when Ami Ayalon, the former head of Israel’s navy and its internal security services, Shin Bet, told the Jewish Daily Forward’s J.J. Goldberg that the imperfect deal actually made Israel safer.

“Reaching the agreement wasn’t a mistake,” Ayalon said. “It is the best of the available options, even though it strengthens Iran as a troublemaker. We in Israel need to differentiate between, on one hand, the problems in the Middle East and the understanding that we will have to continue fighting terrorism for the next 30 to 40 years, and on the other hand, the need to prevent the entry of nuclear weapons. I’m sorry to say this, but this is the price we need to pay to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.”

Ayalon’s analysis was the first tear in a very flimsy façade of Israeli unanimity. By early August, dozens of former senior members of Israel’s defense establishment published an open letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urging him to accept the nuclear accord with Iran. They joined with numerous senior military and intelligence officials who had already come out in favor of the deal. These included Efraim Levy, former head of the Mossad; Eli Levite, deputy director general of Israel’s atomic energy commission; Shlomo Brom, a brigadier general, former director of the Israel Defense Forces strategic planning division and former deputy national security adviser; and Uzi Arad, national security adviser.

When I saw Arad’s name on the list, I thought: Wow. In 2009, Arad was appointed Israel’s national security adviser and head of the Israeli National Security Council — by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Why? Because he had established himself as a strong voice against Iran’s nuclear program.

“We shouldn’t see this as a bad deal,” Arad said recently. “For the security of Israel, the responsible and cautious way ahead is to understand that the agreement is what it is, and that’s it.”

Nothing makes the continued and, it looks like, pointless opposition to the Iran deal from many mainstream Jewish organizations look as ill-considered as these experts’ statements. Not one of these generals or intelligence officials needs to be reminded of the perfidy of the Iranian regime by a Jewish-American leader who knows more about Gulfstreams than about F-16s. Arad doesn’t need an education in Iranian terrorism, nor does a single one of his co-signers. And yet Arad and a long line of Israeli security experts have decided the deal is the best way, at least for the foreseeable future, to keep nukes out of the mullahs’ hands.

The Israeli public may not agree with that opinion, but that doesn’t mean opinion in Israel is unanimous behind Bibi’s approach to the deal. In the most commonly quoted poll, 69 percent of Israelis oppose the deal. But the same poll showed only a slight majority — like, 51 percent — thought Bibi should openly oppose the deal. The same poll showed a plurality of Israelis (37 percent) actually opposed the way Netanyahu handled the campaign against the deal, while only 34 percent believe he’s done a good job.

These sentiments were echoed in statements by opposition leaders Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni, who initially joined Netanyahu in condemning the deal, but then split with him in how to go about lobbying against it. Opponents would have done far better working with President Barack Obama and deal supporters to strengthen the deal’s provisions and win extra security guarantees for Israel.

“The Iran deal will pass,” Herzog posted this week on his Facebook page, “the world is running to Iran to do business and open embassies, and no one is listening to Israel.”

Some of the security experts think it’s a pretty good deal; some don’t. Most Israelis, to be sure, don’t like it. But what has become increasingly clear is that, although Israelis may not support the deal, they support supporting the deal.

Meanwhile, American-Jewish organizations, who have continued to oppose the deal, are about to lose a war that didn’t need to be fought. Instead of fighting the president of the United States and other Jews, they could have taken a page from those pragmatic Israelis, and focused on fighting Iran.


Rob Eshman is publisher and editor-in-chief of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal. E-mail him at robe@jewishjournal.com. You can follow him on Twitter and Instagram @foodaism.

Israelis aren’t unified on Iran deal Read More »