fbpx

GET HOME DELIVERY! CLICK HERE »

ADVERTISE
pick up locations
HOME DELIVERY
donate

Jewish Journal

Connect. Inform. Inspire.

November 11, 2015

Israel as a wedge issue and other notes on the Republican debate

Leave a Comment / Israel, Israel, Middle East, Rosner's Domain, Rosners Domain-mobile, United States /

1.

It has been a while – almost ten years – since I wrote an article for Slate that argued as follows:

Here's one lesson Americans can definitely draw from the Israeli experience of building a fence to separate them from the Palestinians: High fences don't always make good neighbors. It didn't happen in the West Bank, and it probably won't happen in Texas. The country that builds the fence buys a sense of security, but the people prevented from getting to work, or shopping, or marrying someone on the other side will not be thankful for it. And the reason is pretty obvious: Fences work.

It was last night when I heard Republican candidate Donald Trump use the same argument – and not for the first time, this had become somewhat of a theme – in the GOP Presidential debate:

We need borders. We will have a wall. The wall will be built. The wall will be successful. And if you think walls don't work, all you have to do is ask Israel. The wall works, believe me. Properly done. Believe me.

Should Israel be satisfied with such a message? On the one hand, it is good to be able to share one’s wisdom and experience with one’s ally. On the other hand, right when the Prime Minister of Israel is in Washington, trying to charm the Democratic politicians and voters that became annoyed with Israel during the debate over the agreement on Iran – maybe inserting Israel in such a way into a highly partisan American debate about immigration is not healthy for bipartisan support.

2.

It was impossible not to think about the Netanyahu visit as I was watching the debate. Is this the right time to say – as Senator Marco Rubio said – that “we have a president that treats the prime minister of Israel with less respect than what he gives the ayatollah in Iran?”

To some degree, and until further notice, the Netanyahu visit stole the thunder from Israel as a wedge issue for the 2016 campaign.

3.

Governor Kasich said in the debate that he wants to give the audience “a little trip around the world.” And so he did: he knows what to do in the Ukraine, in Syria, with the clerics in Saudi Arabia, with Egypt. He knows what to do with Israel: less public criticism. That is good advice. The decision by President Obama to put visible “daylight” between the US and Israel early on in his first term as President contributed a lot to raising suspicions in Israel and making it less cooperative with Obama's initiatives.

The Obama administration, in recent days, has been using the Netanyahu visit to essentially declare the end of its ambitious involvement in Israeli-Palestinian peace processing. It is a timely and wise decision: Obama can do little in the time he still has in office to promote an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, and, in fact, lowering expectations is probably one of the best contributions he could still make at this point in time. It would be wise for his successor – a Republican or a Democrat – to learn from Obama's interesting experience trying to get to peace without first gaining the confidence of the Israeli government and public.

Of course, the President's peace initiative failed for many reasons, chief among which is the very wide gaps between the parties to the conflict. But it is safe to say that the “daylight” strategy contributed to the failure. It had its logic, it had its appeal, it had many advocates – but it failed to take into account that peace cannot be made by Americans. It can only be made by Israelis and Palestinians, who both need to feel secure in taking momentous decisions about their future. Israel – if it is publically criticized by its one great ally – does not feel secure. When it does not feel secure, it is less likely to risk momentous decisions.

4.

The deal with Iran did not receive much praise from the Republican candidates. “One of the worst deals ever made,” said Trump. Iran is “on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon,” said Senator Cruz. And yet, it is worth paying attention to the fact that the candidates were not as adamant as in previous debates about the desirable next move in Iran. They did not say that the deal with Iran should be canceled, as some have in the past. They did not advocate any specific measures. Some of it is probably because there was no real pressure from the moderator to do such a thing. A part of it is just random – I assume that Cruz, had he been asked, would probably still promise to cancel the agreement. However, the lack of specifics can also suggest that as the race moves forward the candidates begin the long and painful process of having to adjust to certain realities with which they'd have to deal if and when they become president.

One such reality is political: the American public would not necessarily see a cancelation of the agreement positively. Another such reality is geopolitical: a country like the US doesn't just cancel agreements with no apparent reason. That is to say: for the next President to change course on Iran, the Iranians – with words and/or deeds – will be the ones providing the rationale.     

5.

Ben Carson, like many of the other candidates, talked about Russia, Putin, and their new adventures in the Middle East. “We have to recognize is that Putin is trying to really spread his influence throughout the Middle East,” he said. “And we have to oppose him there in an effective way.” Trump does not to oppose him: “if Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, 100%, and I can't understand how anybody would be against it,” he said.

A Presidential debate is not the time for serious discussion about foreign policy and its nuances, and Russia's involvement in Syria is surely too serious to be covered effectively with a soundbite. For Netanyahu, this was a main topic on the agenda for his discussion with the President. The Prime Minister – as Dennis Ross framed it three days ago – needed to know “whether Israel can count on America to back it.”

A Russian involvement in Syria threatens to impose new limitations on Israel's ability to operate in the area – obviously, Israel is not in the business of picking a fight with the Russian military. The traditional arrangement between Israel and the US was always quite simple under such circumstances: Israel takes care of its security when it comes to dealing with its neighbors, the US makes sure to prevent the intervention of other world powers (namely, the Soviet Union) against Israel.

Can Israel still feel confident that the US will be there to keep Russian involvement under check? Something for the candidates – Clinton and Rubio, Sanders and Trump – to consider and talk about.

Israel as a wedge issue and other notes on the Republican debate Read More »

Taking Stock of the GOP Presidential Debate on Fox Business Network

Leave a Comment / Blogs /

Ran Paul reverted to filial form as Ron Paul Lite, which may be why the New York Times seems to want to refloat his candidacy as “the soul” of the Republican Party.

Jeb Bush would definitely win hands down if he were running for president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

John Kasich appears to be kin to Arthur Miller’s Willy Loman whose tragedy was wanting to be, not just liked, but well liked. Kasich’s tragedy is that there is no longer a market for his wares in his political party.

Carly Fiorina is intellectually formidable, but difficult to like. There is a parallel here with Ted Cruz, also intellectually formidable, but impossible to like.

Donald Trump, the inverse of Will Rogers, has never met an illegal immigrant he didn’t dislike.

Ben Carson would have been a great West Point cadet.

Marco Rubio is JFK-ish, translated from Irish Boston to Cuban Miami.

Almost all are bullish on Israel.

Taking Stock of the GOP Presidential Debate on Fox Business Network Read More »

Picking up the dead

Leave a Comment / Blogs, Culture, First Person, Funerals, Green Living, Judaism, Living Well, Mensches, Mitzvahs and More, More Culture, Other Voices, Personal Voice /

I work in the community Chevrah Kadisha of Vancouver BC, and besides sitting Shmirah, performing Taharah, and filling in for burial and unveiling Minyan, one of my responsibilities involves picking up the deceased from their place of death. This can involve care homes, hospitals, the Coroner, hospice/palliative care facilities and, of course, the deceased’s home. The role is far from predictable and often very difficult.

Besides our van — an aging GMC Sierra — my primary tool is a stretcher better known as a mortuary cot. Its primary design feature is to roll in and out of the van with legs and wheels either deploying or retracting –  depending on whether you’re removing or returning it to the van. Unlike ambulance stretchers, these cots are designed to “just” work and nothing more. As such, our old cot sometimes collapses at one end with someone on it or the legs don’t fully deploy so it sits lower than normal. Fed up with our old cot I donated a new one to the Chevrah but the old has its fans and I’ve not yet been able to substitute the new for the old. 

Our arrival with the cot is often a very emotional and difficult time for the grieving family, let alone facility staff and other care home residents who may be unaware of someone’s passing. It certainly brings the reality of loss home to all who see us; families who have been with their deceased loved ones must now face the fact that they will not see them again and this can be a very painful time. It often becomes a protracted affair as there is paperwork to fill out, trying not to be in the way with the cart as hospital staff perform their duties, and family members sometimes just won’t let go. 

In nursing homes we often have to dodge groups of people who will naturally become upset or agitated knowing one of their friends may have died. I’m sure it also reminds them of their own situation, and their own mortality. One of us will often act as a lookout while we take circuitous routes in and out to avoid being seen. Other times this is impossible and rolling down a long hallway filled with residents is like running a gauntlet full of questions.

Once things are clear and we have the go ahead to remove the deceased, one finds a mortuary cot is a large, clumsy object in a hospital or care home room full of furniture, equipment and personal possessions. Things need to be moved or removed so we can come alongside the bed. Pillows, extra blankets, towels, etc. all are moved so that we work with just a top sheet covering the deceased and the fitted sheet removed from the mattress to help form a sort of cocoon. Every type of hospital bed is different and we need to figure out how to lower the side rails and bring the mattress height to the level of the cot. Once this is done, it is usually a “One, two, three . . .” and slide onto the cot. Sometimes it’s a smooth slide, other times it’s a literal drag depending on the size and shape of the body.

Mortuary cots are equipped with a pair of seat belts to prevent the deceased from moving about during transport and while you seek snugness of fit, one always worries about the frailty, and the risk of breaking bones. Once they are strapped in, the cot has a zip close cover to conceal the identity of who we are transporting. Sometimes families who have said their goodbyes return at this point for one last look at their loved ones, only to be taken aback to find them removed from their hospital bed and on the cot. There is nothing more mortifying than to open the cot cover and see their family member in the bareness of death. These are especially emotional moments which we try and dissuade but it seems their presence on the cot only strengthens people’s resolve to see them one more time.

Should certain Rabbis arrive beforehand, we often find the deceased on the floor though this is more often the case should the death occur in a home or care facility. The religious imperative notwithstanding, there is often no smooth or graceful way of moving the body onto the mortuary cot except through a plain dead lift (no pun intended). If you’re lucky, the Rabbi will help but sometimes you have to call on nursing staff or even a grieving family member to assist. I definitely find these situations challenging. 

While there is a growing movement to die at home, what comes with it is the increased difficulty of removing someone who has died from their home. Houses simply aren’t designed to accommodate mortuary cots, and in these cases we use a portable, legless cot, very much akin to a body board. Navigating narrow hallways, staircases and small elevators often make these situations inelegant and a test of brute strength. The risk of personal injury can be high and to sometimes clumsily navigate a home with a deceased in the presence of their loved ones cannot be seen as comforting.

In picking up someone who has died, we are often the first face of the Chevrah Kadisha. It is a difficult time for the family and can be a difficult time for us as well. We are not visiting the sick, we are encountering the grieving for the first time, and in most cases at their worst time. It is often not easy emotionally or physically, and requires a certain kind of sensitivity that often falls outside the literature of Chevrah Kadisha writings.

Kerry Swartz is a member of the Community Chevrah Kadisha in Vancouver and Victoria BC. He is a professional photographer holding an MFA from Concordia University in Montreal. He is a graduate of the “>avod v’Nichum. Kerry is happily married with two teenagers who think his library is gross.  He has had several prior entries in the  

  

 

UPCOMING GAMLIEL INSTITUTE COURSES

Winter 2016:   

During the coming Winter semester, the Gamliel Insitute will be offering the course. Chevrah Kadisha: Taharah & Shmirah (T&S). This course will run at two times: from January 5th to March 22nd, 8-9:30 pm EST/5-6:30 pm PST, and from January 11th to March 28th, Noon to 1:30 pm EST/9-10:30 am PST (12 sessions at each time). There will be an online orientation session Monday January 4th at 12-1:30 pm EST, and a second orientation session on Monday, January 4th at 8-9:30 pm EST (Students may attend either one). For more information, visit the “>Kavod v’Nichum website.

This course is an in-depth study of the work of the Chevrah Kadisha in the activities and mitzvot of guarding the body of the deceased (shmirah) and of ritually preparing the body for burial (taharah). This is very much a “how-to” course as well as an examination of the liturgy, and of the unusual situations that can arise. The course also looks at the impact of the work on the community and on the members of the Chevrah Kadisha, and provides an ongoing review of best practices. Studies include: spiritual transformative power; personal testimony; meaning and purpose; face of God; Tahor and Tamei; Tachrichim; History; manuals, tefillah, training, impediments; safety; and complications.

TUITION:

NOTE: Tuition for Gamliel Institute classes is $500 per person per course. Groups of 3 or more from the same organization can receive a 20% discount. There are clergy and student discounts available, and we work to find Scholarships and help students seek sources of funding. Contact us to inquire about any of these matters.

REGISTRATION:

You can “>jewish-funerals.org/gamreg.

INFORMATION:

Please contact us for information or assistance. info@jewish-funerals.org or j.blair@jewish-funerals.org, or call 410-733-3700, or 925-272-8563.

DONATIONS:

Donations are always needed and most welcome – online at    

RECEIVE NOTICES WHEN THIS BLOG IS UPDATED!

Sign up on our Facebook Group page: just search for and LIKE “>@chevra_kadisha. Email J.Blair@jewish-funerals.org to be receive an email with the link to the blog weekly.

 

To find a list of other blogs and resources we think you, our reader, may find to be of interest, click on “About” on the right side of the page.There is a link at the end of that section to read more about us.

 

 

 

Picking up the dead Read More »

How to set-up a guest room for out-of-town visitors

Leave a Comment / Culture, Home /

With the holidays just around the corner, some of us are getting ready to welcome out-of-town guests coming in to join the festivities. Having guests stay at your house can be fun, but it can also be stressful for both parties. Whether your guests will sleep in a spare bedroom or on a sofa in your living room, there are many easy ways to make their stay comfortable. You don’t have to follow all of these tips, but adopting even just a few of them will go a long way toward making your guests feel pampered. That way, they’ll be longing to return the favor one day. 

Let them know what to expect

It’s a good idea to manage guests’ expectations in advance, so let them know if they’ll be staying in their own room, taking over the home office or crashing in the living room. This could help them to know how much they should pack. It also gives them a chance to reconsider staying with you if they’d prefer the privacy afforded by hotel over a living-room sofa.

Make the bed comfortable

If your guests will be sleeping on a bed, maximize their comfort by adding a mattress topper. A memory-foam topper, or even a featherbed, can make even an old mattress feel new. Toppers also vastly improve the comfort of a sofa bed and, yes, even sofas. Instead of asking extra guests — or their kids — to sleep on the floor, consider purchasing an air mattress, which is not at all expensive and easy to store for future visits. 

Upgrade the bedding

Think of your guest room more like a boutique hotel and less like a roadside flophouse. Invest in soft, high thread-count cotton sheets and pillowcases. Try to offer two pillows per guest, one firm and one soft, as well as a couple of throw pillows for back support while reading. And iron the pillowcases for a fresh, clean appearance. In addition to a cushy comforter, make sure to have an extra blanket available, and leave it on the bed from the start — guests often feel bad about asking for things, so it’s better to anticipate their needs.

Have storage options

Although most guests expect to primarily live out of a suitcase, it can help them feel more civilized if they get a closet or other space to hang or store clothes. If you don’t have extra closet space, find creative options, like storage ottomans, over-the-door organizers or even clearing a shelf on a small bookcase that can double as a dresser. You can also insert a tension rod or pull-up bar in a doorway where guests can hang clothes — and remember to supply the hangers.

Get rid of clutter

Clear the area where your guests will be staying. Having your personal items around — be they clothes, tax statements or your collection of baseball cards — gives them the impression that they are imposing on your personal space. Let them know they’re welcome by offering a clean, minimally decorated haven.

Pamper them in the bathroom

Maybe it’s because I grew up in a family of five kids, two parents and two grandparents sharing one bathroom, but one of my first questions when staying at a hotel or a friend’s house is always “What’s the bathroom situation?” Ideally, your guests will have access to their own bathroom, but if they will be sharing yours, make room so they can store their toiletries. Prepare a basket of essentials like a toothbrush, toothpaste and shampoo, and splurge on a few luxuries like scented soap or lotion. Provide a stack of plush towels, including washcloths. And if you’re sharing a bath, make sure the guest towels are a different color from yours so they’ll know which is which. 

Include the must-haves

” target=”_blank”>jonathanfongstyle.com.

How to set-up a guest room for out-of-town visitors Read More »

Racism’s Tower of Babel

Leave a Comment / Blogs, Culture /

The notion of the Tower of Babel comes from a story early in the Torah. In it, people are working on building a tower high enough to reach the sky, and God becomes concerned about the collective power of human beings. In order to thwart their efforts, God causes everyone to speak a different language, making it impossible for them to all cooperate on the same level as before, effectively ending their tower building scheme.

Last night I was in a class on criminal justice at the synagogue, when the topic of the definition of the word “racism” came up. We were presented with a definition from David Wellman defining racism as a “system of advantage based on race.” Another definition presented from a book by Beverly Tatum was, “prejudice plus power.”

I can certainly see how those definitions of “racism” are technically correct, but I felt it was important to point out to the class that they don’t represent how the word is commonly used. When a person says, “I’m not a racist,” they’re not thinking about advantages or power politics. All they’re saying is, “I don’t hate [insert name of group here] people.”

The folks in the class, rather than trying to hear my point, felt it necessary to try to explain to me the correct definition of the word, after which I tried again to make my point, saying, “What I’m trying to say is that word is commonly misunderstood,” to which the class, in chorus, responded, “Right!” as if that settled it.

And therein lies the problem. Like with the Tower of Babel story, the people who are supporting racial equality are not operating with the same definition of the words they are using as those who either don’t support racial equality, or those who believe (erroneously, I might add) that it has already been achieved.

I believe that when the Black Lives Matter movement says, “Black lives matter,” what they are saying is, “The system, more often than not, operates as if the lives of white people matter more than the lives of other people. We want the system to change so that it clearly acknowledges and operates in such a way as to demonstrate that it knows black lives matter as much as any other lives.” Or, for short, “Black lives also matter,” or “Black lives matter just as much as white lives.”

A significant number of people, however, are misinterpreting the slogan, “Black lives matter” to mean, “Black lives matter more than white lives,” or “Black lives matter more than the lives of police officers,” among other things. It’s as if we’re speaking a different language.

When the class responded with an emphatic, “Right!” to my statement that the word “racism” is often misinterpreted, what I heard them saying is, “The people who think that because they don’t hate a certain group it means they are not racist need to be educated about what the word racist means.”

Now, as a person who gets tweaked at how common it has become to add an incorrect “th” at the end of dates (for instance, “Thanksgiving is on November 26th” when it’s really on “November 26”), and the use of the word “less” when the correct word is “fewer,” and the use of the word “if” when the correct word is “whether,” I can tell you, trying to educate the public about the correct use of words is a large, unrewarding uphill battle.

So my question for those in pursuit of racial equality is, “Is this the hill you want to die on?” Is trying to get others to use the correct definition of the word “racism” really that important to you? Because, by the time you fight the battle to get others to buy into your definition of the word, no matter how spot-on you are in saying your definition is the correct one, you will have spent a large portion of your time and energy on semantics rather than on the actual problem of inequality.

As with the Tower of Babel, by engaging in the argument over the correct use of certain words we are playing into the hands of those who are afraid of our collective power, and who would prefer the discussion to be kept in the realm of semantics so that it never gets around to the substantive issues behind those words and definitions. It keeps us arguing rather than problem solving. We will never build a tower together that way.

—————-
“Like” the “>follow me on Twitter.

Racism’s Tower of Babel Read More »

Rubio and Paul clash over defense budget, Syria

Leave a Comment / Election 2016, United States /

Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul clashed over the necessity of increasing the defense budget while arguing for a smaller government during the 4th Republican presidential debate on Tuesday.

During a discussion over tax reform, Paul attacked Rubio over his childcare tax credit and an increase in the defense budget proposals, suggesting his policies disqualify him as a fiscal conservative.

“Is it fiscally conservative to have a trillion-dollar expenditure?” Paul asked. “[Rubio's] talking about giving people money they didn’t pay. It’s a welfare transfer payment. Add to that to Marco’s plan for a trillion dollars in new military spending and you can get something that looks to me, not very conservative.”

“Yes, I do want to rebuild the American military,” Rubio responded. “I know that Rand is a committed isolationist. I am not. I believe the world is a stronger and a better place when the U.S. is the strongest military power in the world.”

“Marco, how is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures?” the Kentucky Senator rebutted.

To which Rubio responded, “We can’t even have an economy if we’re not safe. There are radical jihadists that are beheading people and crucifying Christians, a radical Shia cleric in Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon, the Chinese taking over the South China sea. I know the world is a safer and better place when America is the strongest military power in the world.”

Ted Cruz agreed with Rubio, stating, “You think defending this nation is expensive, try not defending it. That’s a lot more expensive.

Israel was mentioned four times during the debate – by Rubio, Cruz, John Kasich, Donald Trump (“The wall will be built. The wall will be successful. If you don’t think walls work, ask Israel”). Rubio referred to Israel during a discussion on the U.S. military campaign against ISIS and Russia’s incursion in Syria. “For goodness sake, there is only one pro-American free enterprise democracy in the Middle East, it is the state of Israel, we have a president that treats Prime Minister of Israel with less respect than he gives the Ayatollah in Iran, so our allies in the region don’t trust us,” he said.

“There’s no finer ally than Israel – and no more criticizing them in public,” Kasich said at some point. Cruz, beating up on Hillary, remarked, “Under her leadership, we’ve abandoned the nation of Israel.”

The Bible was also mentioned during the debate. “There are more words in the IRS code than there are in the Bible and not a one of them is as good,” the Texas Senator quipped when asked about tax cuts.

While the emphasis was on the economy, the Republican presidential candidates debated U.S. policy in Syria as well. Jeb Bush, who had a better performance than at previous debates, as well as Carly Fiorina and Cruz argued in favor a no-fly-zone in Syria. “We’re not going to be the world’s policeman, but we sure as heck better be the world’s leader,” Bush stated. “We should have a no-fly zone in Syria. We should have a support for the remnants of the Syrian Free Army, and create safe zones.”

Trump and Paul, on the other hand, opposed a no-fly zone. “If Putin wants to go and knocked the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, 100%,” said Trump. “We can’t continue to be the policeman of the world. We are $19 trillion dollars; we have a country that’s going to hell. I don’t like Assad. Who’s going to like Assad? But, we have no idea who these people, and what they’re going to be, and what they’re going to represent. They may be far worse than Assad.”

Paul added, “The idea of a no-fly zone, realize that this is also something that Hillary Clinton agrees with several on our side with, you’re asking for a no-fly zone in an area in which Russia already flies. When you think it’s going to be a good idea to have a no-fly zone over Iraq, realize that means you are saying we are going to shoot down Russian planes. If you’re ready for that, be ready to send your sons and daughters to another war in Iraq.”

Once again, Rubio striked back at Paul’s position. “I’ve never met Vladimir Putin, but I know enough about him to know he is a gangster,” he asserted. “He understands only geopolitical strength. And every time he has acted anywhere in the world, whether it’s in Ukraine or Georgia before that, or now in the Middle East, it’s because he is trusting in weakness.”

Ben Carson, who recently has risen to the top of public opinion polls, failed to clarify, or at least articulate, his position on Syria. “Putting the special ops people in there is better than not having them there because that’s why they’re called special ops, they’re actually able to guide some of the other things that we’re doing there,” he said. “And what we have to recognize is that Putin is trying to really spread his influence throughout the Middle East. This is going to be his base. And we have to oppose him there in an effective way.”

Adding, “We also must recognize that it’s a very complex place. You know, the Chinese are there, as well as the Russians, and you have all kinds of factions there. What we’ve been doing so far is very ineffective, but we can’t give up ground right there. We’re talking about global jihadists. And their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life. So we have to be saying, how do we make them look like losers? Because that’s the way that they’re able to gather a lot of influence. And I think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate. And you look for the easiest place to do that? It would be in Iraq.”

Rubio and Paul clash over defense budget, Syria Read More »

Letters to the editor: UC’s dilemma, The Shabbos Project traffic jam, RCA and more

Leave a Comment / Letters to the Editor, Opinion /

First Step: Naming the Problem

Thank you for running the excellent column by professor Judea Pearl (“The UC’s New Dilemma: To Name or Not to Name,” Nov. 6). His comments are perfectly succinct. As a parent of four UC students, current and alumni, we have personally felt the ugly whiplash of Zionophobia. 

My own kids have been silenced by teachers for pointing out factual errors in classroom discussions and have been assaulted and spat upon at anti-Israel rallies. My kids have spent all-nighters speaking at student council meetings on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. I have personally written more than a dozen letters to administrators, teachers and department chairs at UC Santa Cruz and UC Santa Barbara. 

As Pearl states, let’s name names and be explicit about where the First Amendment and discrimination meet.

Thank you for a strong piece.

Anne M. Storm, via email

Rules Are Rules

As an Orthodox Jewish woman, one who is very pro-women and women’s rights, I could not disagree more with the concept of ordaining women as rabbis (“A Time to Stand for Female Spiritual Leadership,” Nov. 6). Female leadership has its rightful place among all streams of Judaism, however, the Orthodox model maintains that women cannot conduct certain religious actions, specifically in regards to men fulfilling their commanded mitzvot. She cannot lead a man in prayer or assist him in the majority of his spiritual work, and therefore cannot fulfill the traditional role of rabbi within Orthodoxy. 

As a therapist — not a rabbi or a rabbi’s wife — I get daily calls with questions about religious matters of all kinds. If a woman wants to lead in the Orthodox movement, then she can and she should. The work is the work by any name. 

The RCA, although by far not free from the influences of power, control and, dare I say, misogyny, has done the right thing. Women do not need the title of rabbi to perform the work of a female community leader and it is presumptuous to assume that all Orthodox women want Orthodox women rabbis. 

No matter what happens, decency, respect and love for our fellow Jew must always be the tone of any discussion, regardless of the outcome. However, it is the responsibility of the established leadership, in this case, the RCA, to guard the gate of Orthodox Torah values. Those who wish for something different can, by all means, create something new under a different umbrella. 

Mia Adler Ozair, Beverly Hills

Project Gridlock

It’s hard “to be sane in an insane world” (as Rabbi Shlomo Yisraeli’s class was titled) when a Shabbat observance shuts down a major east-west thoroughfare — at rush hour on a Friday — with no advance publicity or advisory signage (“The Shabbat Heard ’Round the World,” Oct. 30). Affected businesses likewise were not notified and were forced to close early. From a public relations and traffic perspective, The Shabbos Project was a disaster. 

What was inspiring for Rabbi Yonah Bookstein was infuriating to thousands of commuters who didn’t know their already-rough commute was going to be made much worse by the closing of a critical section of Pico Boulevard during a peak traffic period. Traffic was a nightmare, with many drivers frantically turning north and south through residential neighborhoods to escape the gridlock. 

I hope the Jewish Unity Network can find a more appropriate location (e.g., a private venue or a public park) for its event next year, so Jews and non-Jews alike can get home — some of us for our own Shabbat dinners — without needless disruption and aggravation.

Susan Gans, president, Roxbury-Beverwil Homeowners Alliance

20/20 Hindsight? Continued

How could Rob Eshman yearn for Bill Clinton (“Bring Bill Clinton Back to the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Table,” Oct. 30)?  Is he not aware that the Clinton foundation has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the leaders of Qatar, the premier sponsor of Hamas terrorism? While Bill and Hillary are cashing those checks and adding to their $150 million influence-peddling treasure trove, Israelis have died from different checks written by Qatar’s leaders.

Shame on him for being so gullible and backing the Clintons, who put our country up for sale.

Jason Goodman, via email

corrections

A Business and Finance story about the ride service HopSkipDrive (“Kids Catch a Ride With HopSkipDrive,” Nov. 6) incorrectly identified Smart Capital as one of its investors instead of FirstMark Capital.

A Travel story about Goa, India (“Ready, Set, Goa,” Oct. 30), misspelled the first name of the owner of the Cozy Nook. The owner’s name is Agnelo “Aggy” D’Costa.

Letters to the editor: UC’s dilemma, The Shabbos Project traffic jam, RCA and more Read More »

NBC investigation reopens contamination question at SoCal Jewish camp

Leave a Comment / Is Featured?, Lead Story, Los Angeles, Mobile, Mobile-Homepage, News /

For years, Victoria Tashman didn’t think much of the sonic booms coming from the Santa Susana Field Lab, just uphill from a storied Jewish retreat and campus not far from her Woodland Hills home.

“It was just part of growing up,” she said.

But in 2004, when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, her father mentioned it might be related to the site in Simi Valley. And when she caught wind of a yearlong KNBC investigation into the potential contamination, which aired this week, she forwarded it to her whole family.

Now, she’s wondering if her mother’s and mother-in-law’s cancers were also related to the site.

[ESHMAN: Brandeis Bardin needs to be transparent about contamination]

The three-part investigation unearthed a trove of documents indicating that Brandeis-Bardin Institute (BBI), which includes Camp Alonim, was scarred by nuclear and other contamination from the neighboring facility, now owned by Boeing.

“People were exposed; there’s no doubt about that,” Yoram Cohen, a UCLA researcher who studied the site, said during the Nov. 9 broadcast.

The investigation found that rocket tests and “burn pits” for nuclear waste, among other potential contaminants, may have resulted in toxic exposure for the camp. American Jewish University (AJU), which since 2007 has owned and operated the campus, has denied to both KNBC and the Jewish Journal that the thousands of children who attended the camp have been in danger from contamination.

A Nov. 10 email message from AJU president Robert Wexler sent to families affiliated with the campus called the KNBC story “deeply flawed and entirely misleading.”

But an internal report initiated by Brandeis in 1997, obtained by KNBC, indicated that the “property is contaminated, at both the surface and subsurface, with radiological and chemical contaminants.”

“I was reassured over and over the land was safe and that there was no need for me to see any of the materials,” Rabbi Lee Bycel, who directed the Institute from 2000 to 2003, told the Journal. Bycel said in the KNBC report that he would not have taken the job at BBI if he had known the extent of the contamination.

Located just south of the 118 Freeway, the Brandeis-Bardin Campus encompasses nearly 3,000 acres of mess halls, bunks, prayer centers and recreation facilities, including horse stables, a swimming pool and tennis courts. Its website states that it is the “largest parcel of land owned by a Jewish institution outside the State of Israel.”

The site’s perils came to the fore in 1959 when a nuclear reactor experienced a partial meltdown. Workers told the network they were instructed to open the exhaust stacks, allowing radioactive gas to waft toward surrounding areas.

For years afterward, Rocketdyne, the company that operated the site at the time, conducted rocket tests that emitted known contaminants.

In 1997, Brandeis reached a confidential $3.2 million settlement with Boeing, obtained by KNBC, with the aerospace company agreeing to buy a portion of the adjacent land in exchange for Brandeis waiving its right to all future lawsuits over the contamination. AJU did not confirm whether the details of the settlement, as reported by KNBC, are accurate.  

The Jewish Journal attempted an investigation into the contamination three years ago, but according to Journal editor-in-chief  and publisher Rob Eshman, was unable to find enough evidence to produce a satisfactory story (see Eshman’s column, p. 6).  

“We simply lacked the resources and expertise to pursue the story,” Eshman said. “KNBC fielded a team of Emmy-winning reporters and scientific consultants over a period of one year, and Joel Grover and his team are to be commended.” 

AJU continues to assert that the facility is safe and that it has done regular testing of the property.  

Throughout the Journal’s 2012 investigation, AJU refused to release results of tests it said prove that fact. After repeated requests by KNBC, AJU released a number of test results, but not all. 

Both AJU and KNBC are posting numerous documents related to the Brandeis-Bardin property on their websites.

“Based on an exhaustive records review and the conclusion of scientific experts, we found no cause for concern about the health and safety of the campers, staff or other visitors — past or present,” the AJU wrote in a Nov. 5 letter to KNBC. “Current testing confirms the safety of our property.”

But some members of the Brandeis-Bardin community aren’t so sure.

“Everyone is just guessing at this point,” said Robert Cohen, who spent several summers on the campus in the late 1960s and sent his three sons to Camp Alonim. “The only way to know for sure is to do an epidemiological study of the health of all the campers.”

At the age of 21, Cohen’s son Daniel was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Robert Cohen believes the cancer was a result of his son’s romps around the Alonim campus, where the boys’ bunks are just downhill from the field lab.

“Whenever there were heavy rains, the creek became a river, and mud from the hillside would be washed down,” the elder Cohen told the Jewish Journal. “I’m not a scientist, but that always bothered me.”

Bycel, BBI’s former director, stressed that he has the campus’ best interests at heart when he asks for a full accounting of the contamination.

“That’s what Brandeis taught us to do; that’s being loyal to the Jewish community,” he said. “You only question when you care.”

——-

For the Record (11/10/2015): Victoria Tashman's childhood home was corrected to reflect that she lived in Woodland Hills, not Simi Valley.  And her mother-in-law had cancer, not her brother-in-law.

NBC investigation reopens contamination question at SoCal Jewish camp Read More »

Aging parents of disabled adult children are feeling the strain

Leave a Comment / Blogs /

Thanks to a combination of improved medical treatments and the trend toward living in the community instead of institutionalization, today’s adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities are living much longer than previous generations. But with that positive trend come many challenges, including unique health and service needs, framed by the reality of their aging parents, who are still the primary caregivers for more than 75 percent of adult Americans with these disabilities. 

What will happen to all those adults with disabilities after their parents are no longer alive? Are there any government agencies or nonprofits creating new affordable housing options for this population, most of which is completely dependent on low fixed incomes from government benefits? And can the direct-service workers in group homes and other residential settings, who are typically paid minimum wages, really provide the same level of compassionate care formerly provided by the parents?

The October/November issue of AARP’s national magazine, Real Possibilities, featured a 48-year-old mother from Kansas who always takes her 19-year-old son with Down syndrome on vacations with her. Since her husband died in 2012, she is guarding her own health very closely. “I need to be an extremely feisty 80-year-old,” she is quoted as saying. “I can’t get tired of caregiving. That is not an option.”

The Family Caregiver unit at Bet Tzedek Legal Services recognized this growing problem among its own clients a few years ago  and created the Transitions Initiative to bring together professionals from both the aging and developmental disabilities sectors, which haven’t yet intersected. I helped out as a consultant and learned much from my colleagues at nonprofits and government-funded agencies that were working hard to address this issue with very limited funding and other resources. 

One of the biggest takeaways is that adults with developmental disabilities have a higher risk of developing chronic health conditions at younger ages than other adults, most notably Alzheimer’s disease. This is even more so for adults with Down syndrome because of their underlying genetic condition. In 2014, the Southland office of the Alzheimer’s Association received a three-year grant from the California Dementia Caregiver Support Project, in part, to start support groups over the phone and in person for family caregivers of people with both intellectual disabilities and Alzheimer’s disease, as well as training local providers in the developmental disabilities sector about behavior management strategies when dealing with Alzheimer’s disease. 

Parents providing extended caregiving into their own old age is beautifully explored in a new documentary titled “Mimi and Dona” (mimianddonamovie.com), in which Los Angeles-based filmmaker Sophie Sartain captures her own family’s story, shot over many years in Dallas. (Full disclosure: I helped write the program guide that accompanies the movie.) 

The filming began after Sartain’s grandmother Mimi turned 92 and finally admitted that she could no longer care for Sartain’s aunt, Dona, who was then 64 years old with a lifelong intellectual disability. Sartain’s mother, sister to Dona, submitted an application to move Dona to a state-run institution in Denton, Texas. After 64 years of living together, Mimi would have an empty nest and Dona would suddenly be on her own. As is often the case in life, the journey moves forward, and then backward, sometimes circling in on itself.

Sartain has written and produced many other well-regarded documentaries, including the 2014 documentary “Above and Beyond,” about North American pilots who flew in Israel’s War of Independence, “Hava Nagila (The Movie)” and “Blessed Is the Match: The Life and Death of Hannah Senesh,” but this is her first film about her own family. 

Since she first started filming this documentary in 2009, Sartain flew from Los Angeles to Dallas 18 times to document Mimi and Dona’s story. As she was working on the film and telling friends and acquaintances about her work, she found that many people knew someone else in the same situation, with an aging parent taking care of a middle-aged adult with some type of serious special need, whether it was mental illness, an intellectual disability or autism. As she says, “This was an untold story happening all around us, with caregivers like my grandmother facing agonizing decisions, often with little support or guidance.”

Although this issue of aging parental caregivers has yet to enter the public consciousness and is not likely to surface during any presidential debate, the documentary’s national premiere on Nov. 23 on PBS stations across the country (as part of their “Independent Lens” series) may well be the pivotal event that could propel this issue onto our collective public policy agenda.

After the Nov. 23 premiere of “Mimi and Dona,” the film will be available for free streaming for 30 days at pbs.org.

Michelle K. Wolf writes the Jews and Special Needs blog for the Jewish Journal. 

Aging parents of disabled adult children are feeling the strain Read More »

Torah portion: Somebody else’s dream

Leave a Comment / Judaism, Torah /

I had the pleasure last week of a reunion with an old friend. Through a leisurely evening of reminiscing, we recalled the moments of profound influence each of us had made on the direction of the other’s life. 

My friend remembered that in a wary moment 28 years ago, I encouraged her to stop doubting and pursue a relationship with a woman she had recently met. The two of them are about to celebrate their 27th anniversary. 

Her part in my life is equally profound. About as many years ago, she took me out to breakfast one morning to tell me of a dream she’d had the night before: “You and I were studying in a yeshiva,” she said, “and you really loved it. Me, not so much.” (By the way, my friend isn’t Jewish.) Then she paused, looked at me, and asked, “What are you doing with your life, anyway?” Within a month, I was applying to rabbinical schools — something I had thought about off and on through the years, but had not taken seriously before her dream rekindled my own.

Perhaps it was the reveries with my friend that also set me noticing a phrase in this week’s Torah portion. It comes near the end of the troubling story of Rebekah and her son Jacob conspiring to “steal” for Jacob the blessing his father Isaac intended for Jacob’s twin brother, Esau. 

After the poignant scene in which Esau cries out, “Have you but one blessing, Father? Bless me too, Father!” (Genesis 27:38), Rebekah discovers that Esau is so angry with Jacob that he plans to kill him. She warns Jacob of Esau’s murderous anger, telling him to flee to her brother Laban in Haran, saying, “Stay with him awhile (yamim akhadim), until your brother’s rage cools down … then I’ll send for you” (Genesis 27:44-45).

Yamim akhadim is an idiom for “a little while” or “a few days.” But Jacob does not leave for a few days — he is gone for two decades. He apparently never sees his mother again (in fact, we hear of Rebekah again only in Genesis 49:31, when Jacob, near death and giving instructions to his sons for his own burial, lists her as being buried in the Cave of Machpelah, along with Sarah, Abraham, Isaac and Leah). And though Isaac remains alive during those two decades, we don’t hear of him again until his death in Parashat Vayishlach, when Jacob and Esau (like Isaac and Ishmael before them) come together to bury their father (Genesis 35:27-29).

From the moment Jacob leaves for yamim akhadim, his life takes extraordinary twists and turns that we read about in the coming portions, including his famous ladder-to-heaven dream; a 20-year sojourn with his uncle Laban; marriage to Leah and Rachel; 13 children with them and their concubines, Zilpah and Bilhah; his midnight “wrestling match” with the mysterious stranger; a name change to Israel and a moving reconciliation two decades hence with his brother, Esau. 

How did Rebekah’s scheme to get a blessing for her favorite son turn into sending that son away from her forever? How did yamim akhadim, a few days, turn into 20 years and counting? How did a family “fight” reroute everyone’s life so dramatically? Torah does not tell us if Rebekah’s behavior was part of God’s plan, although there are commentators and midrash writers who think so.

What’s true in Torah seems also true in real life, doesn’t it? My dreamy friend all those years ago didn’t really know she was about to turn my life upside down (or was it right-side up?); she was just responding to something she saw in me. When I insisted she get over herself and go forward in her new relationship, I certainly wasn’t thinking ahead 27 years; I was just responding to what I heard from her.

“It’s just the way life happens,” someone said to me when I asked what to make of the ramifications of this biblical story. “It’s full of choices and random events and you never know which ones will change everything.” 

But someone else remembered Anita Diamant’s observation in her book “Choosing a Jewish Life” that, for many people, at some point in their lives, events, relationships and coincidences “begin to seem more like signposts than accidents.” Diamant is writing specifically about people’s paths to Judaism, but perhaps her comment will ring true not only in thinking about what Torah comes to teach us through the stories it tells and the ways it tells them, but also what it might tell about our own lives.

Were there happenstances in your life that turned into signposts? Were there yamim akhadim — “little whiles” or dreams, advice or questions — that turned into life-altering journeys? If so, we might well ask ourselves, who posted those signs? What made me notice them? And perhaps more important, what have I come to understand about my own life, my own path, from the signs and wonders that came to me along the way?

Rabbi Lisa Edwards is senior rabbi of Beth Chayim Chadashim ( Torah portion: Somebody else’s dream Read More »