fbpx

November 20, 2015

Amid identity crisis, Conservative Jews pay for rebranding

Conservative Judaism is at a crossroads.

The movement is committed to Jewish tradition, but it’s seeing a growing number of its young people walk out the door — most often to Reform Judaism.

American Jews who self-identify as Conservative increasingly are leading lives at odds with the core values and rules of Conservative Judaism, especially when it comes to intermarriage. And the number of Conservative Jews has shrunk by one-third over the last 25 years.

In this movement meant to occupy the center ground between Orthodox and Reform, Conservative leaders are struggling to figure out how to appeal to a new generation of Jews without abandoning their core values or becoming a near-facsimile of Reform Judaism.

“Tradition and change has long been considered a tagline of Conservative Judaism, a concise statement of what we are about,” said Margo Gold, international president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, the movement’s congregational arm. “But in the 21st century, the vision of Conservative Judaism requires that we rethink this as a community and see what we really want our core message to be.”

Gold’s remarks came at the United Synagogue’s biennial conference, held this week in the Chicago suburb of Schaumburg. As part of the effort to reposition Conservative Judaism, United Synagogue has launched a $350,000 rebranding effort and hired a branding firm, Good Omen.

“We’ve bought into the narrative of decline of our own movement,” United Synagogue’s CEO, Rabbi Steven Wernick, said in his address. “We need to stop shraying our kups [ Yiddish for ‘screaming our heads off’] about everything that is bad and get to work.”

The focal point for the dilemma over how much to stick to tradition versus how much to change has been intermarriage. Though the movement forbids it and does not count as Jews those whose fathers are the sole Jewish parent, four out of every 10 Conservative Jews is marrying out of the faith, and community leaders want to reach out to intermarried Jews.

“We’re in an awkward situation where the sociology is pushing us in one direction, but our organizational structure is hindering us moving in the direction we need to be moving,” said Rabbi Charles Simon, executive director of the Federation of Jewish Men’s Clubs and an outspoken Conservative proponent of embracing interfaith families.

There was perhaps no better illustration at the conference of the movement’s identity crisis than at its penultimate session. Led by Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, some 200-300 participants tried to brainstorm a new tagline for the movement – something that could convey its essence, appeal to young Jews and fit on a bumper sticker.

“Tradition and change is actually not a slogan; it is a paradox,” Wolpe said. “It says: We stand for two exactly opposite things. We are the oxymoronic movement.”

Wolpe said he also dislikes the movement’s name, not least because of its unwanted association with a political ideology.

“I don’t know of anyone who thinks Conservative Judaism is a great name,” said Wolpe, who 15 years ago led an unsuccessful proposal to rebrand it Covenantal Judaism. “As long as Conservative Judaism is in the tagline, we start off with a deficit.”

Among the audience’s suggestions for a new tagline:

“Our grandparents would be proud. Our grandchildren will be Jewish.”

“The Judaism of dynamic relationships.”

“Honoring our past, embracing the future.”

“Traditional Judaism, comfortable in modernity.”

“Where heritage meets what’s happening.”

Between 1990 and 2013, the number of American Jewish adults who self-identify as Conservative dropped from about 1,460,000 to 962,000, according to an analysis by sociologist Steven M. Cohen, a professor at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, based on the 1990 National Jewish Population Study and the 2013 Pew Research Center survey of U.S. Jews.

The Pew survey also showed that the number of Conservative Jews aged 55-64 who say they are synagogue members is almost triple the number among those aged 35-44, and that only 13 percent of Conservative Jews attend religious services at least once a week.

That’s bad news for United Synagogue, which has seen the number of its member synagogues fall to 580 today from 630 in 2013 and 675 in 2009.

United Synagogue has acknowledged the problem. The opening session of the conference, held Sunday to Tuesday, was called “Moving Beyond the Crisis.”

The movement’s own restrictions compound the debate about how to chart the way forward for Conservative Judaism. Conservative rabbis are not permitted to officiate at — and aren’t even supposed to attend — interfaith weddings, putting them at a disadvantage when congregants or their children in interfaith relationships seek a rabbi to wed them. (By contrast, the Reform movement encourages its rabbis to perform interfaith unions.)

Likewise, the Conservative movement does not recognize so-called patrilineal Jews, while the Reform movement does. Some Conservative institutions nevertheless allow patrilineal children into their schools and educational programs, but they may draw a line when it comes to allowing the child to be bar-mitzvahed.

“We need to address patrilineality. It’s the elephant in the room,” Rabbi Jeffrey Lipschultz of the Tri-City Jewish Center in Rock Island, Ill., said during a conference session. “The reality of what’s happening in the movement is not reflective of the reality of what is happening on the ground. As a movement and as leaders of congregations, we have to figure out how to do better.”

On the plus side, many participants at the conference, which drew several hundred people, said United Synagogue has gotten better at servicing its constituent congregations, about 170 of which sent representatives to the conference.

“I have been a USCJ skeptic. The USCJ, to me, felt like an organization that did a lot of talking, and very little listening,” Rabbi Eric Woodward wrote in a report on the conference on his Times of Israel blog.

“But this week, at the USCJ ‘Shape the Center’ conference, I heard a different USCJ,” he wrote. “I saw the USCJ listening, without responding in any insecure top-down Jewsplaining sense, to a world that is quickly sprouting up around it.”

In recent years, United Synagogue has struggled with yawning deficits, a rebellion against fees by a group of member congregations, and criticism of cutbacks that included staff layoffs and the elimination of the organization’s college program, Koach.

But the deficit has been narrowing. In 2011 and 2012, the cumulative budget deficit was $6 million. In 2013-2014, it was $2.8 million, and this year’s projected deficit is $600,000. United Synagogue’s total budget is about $25 million.

Earlier this year, United Synagogue sold its two-floor condo in midtown Manhattan for $15.9 million. Half of that money is being used to create an $8 million sustaining foundation that will support programming but will be controlled by a separate board of directors. The balance will go to operations. The organization just moved into rental space in lower Manhattan.

“United Synagogue did not have a good track record of prudent financial management, and my job has been bringing that into line,” Wernick told JTA in an interview. “We are closing the budget gap. That’s our No. 1 priority.”

United Synagogue is one of the Conservative movement’s three main arms; the others are the Rabbinical Assembly and its flagship New York rabbinical school, the Jewish Theological Seminary.

Rabbi Ed Feinstein of Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, Calif., said that for the Conservative movement to survive and thrive, it must make adaptive changes for the 21st-century, not just technical changes.

“We will not find our way if we say: ‘Let’s have better board meetings and more strategic plans and better fundraising and different dues structures.’ Those are all very important technical changes; none of them are going to save us,” Feinstein said. “We’re only going to get saved if we start by saying: What is the truth of this movement and how can we best convey it to a new generation?”

Amid identity crisis, Conservative Jews pay for rebranding Read More »

Mao’s Jews

On Oct. 1, 1967, China’s National Day, Sidney Rittenberg had reached the pinnacle of his revolutionary career. It was the 18th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, and Rittenberg was seated on a reviewing stand less than fifty feet from Mao Zedong, overlooking a sea of thousands who had crowded into Tiananmen Square to mark the occasion.

For a Chinese language version of this story, click here.
请点击这里阅读此文章的中文版。

Rittenberg was one of the very few foreign nationals who had remained in China after the communists came to power in 1949 and one of an even smaller number who had managed to work their way into Mao’s inner circle, serving the communist leadership as valued advisers, trusted emissaries and even revolutionary leaders.

In addition to Rittenberg, there was Austrian, Jakob Rosenfeld, commanding officer of the Communist 4th Army’s medical unit; Israel Epstein from Poland, a journalist who served as the Chinese government’s head of international public relations; and London-born David Crook, dean of the Beijing Foreign Languages University.

Although their backgrounds were varied and their motivations for coming to China diverse, these doctors, writers and educators had one thing in common — all of them were Jewish.

The story of how thousands of Jews fled Europe, took refuge in Shanghai, and eventually built schools, synagogues and businesses there is one that is well known. This often-told story eventually ends with the departure of all the Jews from China when the communists take over in 1949, a clean and satisfying end to a moving chronicle that leaves no ends loose or questions unanswered.

But in fact, not all those Jews left. Many stayed, and of those who did, a handful lived out dramatic lives that provide a rare glimpse into the early years of Communist China

A backbreaking job treating skunk skins in a windowless building at the heart of Manhattan’s Garment District was certainly not the most obvious or auspicious first step on a path that would eventually lead David Crook to China and into the highest echelons of China’s Foreign Service. His mother, matron of a middle-class Jewish family living in the outskirts of London, originally had much greater aspirations for him. After all, he had shown early promise as a student and had done well enough on his exams to get accepted to Oxford. But before he could even set foot in a classroom, the family business collapsed, a traumatic event that brought his budding academic career to a premature end and dashed his mother’s dreams. Faced with limited prospects and a shortage of funds, Crook eventually accepted an offer of employment, undoubtedly an opportunity of last resort, from a distant relative who was a furrier in New York.

To be sure, tanning skunk pelts for Garment District furriers was a far cry from rubbing shoulders with Oxford dons, but, as harsh an experience as this may have been, it did afford the young Crook a keen insight into the conditions of the working class and an appreciation for its plight. It was a transformative experience that would redefine his view of the world  and determine the course his future would take.

Like Crook, Rittenberg early in life developed an appreciation for the challenges and conditions faced by the American worker, although there was nothing in his background to suggest that he would have any affiliation with miners, bricklayers and pipefitters, much less end up playing a central role in the Chinese Revolution.

Scion of a wealthy family that was a pillar of the close-knit Jewish community of Charleston, S.C., Rittenberg grew up in privileged circumstances worlds away from the factory workers and day laborers whose cause he would come to champion. Like Crook, Rittenberg excelled as a student and, although he did well enough to secure admission to Princeton, he too would never set foot on campus. However, Rittenberg’s failure to take advantage of higher education at one of the world’s most prestigious academic institutions was not the consequence of a reversal in family fortune, but the result of a conscious decision to reject an institution whose values, Rittenberg reasoned, were not aligned with his own. Rittenberg concluded that the academic environment provided by an elitist university whose students represented a privileged social class would not suit someone who was an active participant in labor strikes, had joined the Communist Party, and had even spent time behind bars as a consequence of his actions.

Given Rittenberg’s age and circumstances, one might be tempted to dismiss such an unorthodox decision as an act of youthful rebellion, but as Rittenberg’s life unfolded, this inclination toward contrarian positions and strict adherence to principle emerged as a consistent character trait that surfaced at critical junctures and guided his most important decisions.

This admixture of unabashed idealism and commitment to the socially disenfranchised informed a worldview that Crook and Rittenberg shared and that would ultimately bring them to China and sustain them in their darkest days.

Rittenberg’s initial engagement with China was purely coincidental. Shortly after his conscription into the U.S. Army at the outset World War II, Rittenberg learned that his first tour of duty would, ironically, be in a classroom learning Chinese, a language he knew nothing about. Teaching new recruits Chinese was a tactical element of the Army’s broader efforts to build up the resources that would help strengthen its position in a country whose political landscape was shifting and whose strategic value was increasing. Much to his surprise, Rittenberg found that he enjoyed learning the language and soon reached a level of proficiency that qualified him for posting to China and assignment to a unit that was operating on the ground in Shanghai .

 The China Rittenberg encountered on arrival in 1943 was in turmoil after years of economic instability, occupation by foreign powers and the looming threat of civil war. He was particularly struck by the abject poverty and dire circumstances that the average Chinese lived. His involvement in relief organizations brought him to the attention of the Communist underground. They sent an agent to approach him with an offer: Join the Communist revolutionaries and serve as a liaison to the representatives of foreign  countries, especially the U.S. Rittenberg accepted the offer on the spot, but with one condition — that he be allowed to join the Chinese Communist Party.

The path that Crook followed to China was equally coincidental, but much more circuitous. Recuperating in a Madrid hospital from injuries he had sustained while fighting in the Spanish Civil War, Crook came across a copy of the newly published, “Red Star Over China,” American journalist Edgar Snow’s classic account of the Communist movement in China

Crook, who had become an avowed Marxist, came to Spain to fight in support of those on the left. While there, he was recruited by the Comintern, ostensibly to spy on suspected Trotskyites. Inspired by his reading of Snow’s book, Crook decided that his destiny lay in China. To get there, he proposed to his Comintern handlers that a they send him to Shanghai, a vantage point from which, he suggested, he would be able to keep an eye on a number of prominent Trotskyists who had gravitated to the city and report on their activities. It didn’t take long for Crook to succumb to Shanghai’s various diversions and, much to the KGB’s dismay, was soon paying more attention to handicaps at the race tracks than to the task of spying and intelligence gathering. When Trotsky was assassinated in 1940, the KGB finally decided it no longer had need of Crook’s services and terminated its relationship with him. After some time casting around for other opportunities of employment, Crook eventually drifted into teaching English and was introduced to a member of the Communist movement through an acquaintance.

In contrast to Rittenberg and Crook, who came to China because they were attracted by the prospect of adventure and driven by a sense of mission, Rosenfeld and Epstein came to China to escape deteriorating conditions in their home countries and to avoid being engulfed by a wave of oppression that was sweeping across Eastern Europe and putting their lives at risk. 

Rosenfeld, who graduated from the University of Vienna’s prestigious medical school, had no sooner set himself up in practice and embarked on a promising career as an obstetrician than Nazi Germany annexed Austria and promptly set about ridding the country of its Jewish population. Like many other Jewish professionals in Vienna, Rosenfeld was forced to shutter his practice and was eventually sent to a labor camp outside the city, his fate irrevocably sealed. In less than a year, though, Rosenfeld would walk out of the camp with a visa in hand that granted him passage to China and asylum in Shanghai. As miraculous as this turn of events may be, and as vague the circumstances surrounding them, it is plausible to assume that Rosenfeld had the good fortune to come to the attention of Ho Feng Shan, the consul general of the Chinese Consulate in Vienna who single-handedly saved the lives of hundreds of Austrian Jews by exploiting poorly enforced regulations (in cities such as Shanghai, whose systems and infrastructures had been undermined by years of turmoil) to issue so-called “asylum” visas that gave them shelter in China. 

Like Shanghai, the city of Harbin at the heart of Manchuria China’s vast northeast region, was in in a state of upheaval. Extension of the Trans-Siberian Railway at the turn of the 20th century had fueled Harbin’s rapid evolution from a remote trading outpost to a full-fledged transport hub and commercial center of strategic value to the Chinese, Russians and Japanese, who by 1930s, were engaged in a tug-of-war over its control. The resulting unrest and dislocation that resulted distorted many of the usual legal rules, political conventions and social norms or dissolved them outright. This combination of factors — a transport hub with poorly enforced regulations — made Harbin an increasingly accessible and therefore attractive destination for revolutionaries, opportunists and refugees.  

 It was under these circumstances that Epstein’s family came to Harbin in the belief that it would serve them as a haven from the increasingly violent pogroms that were threatening Jewish communities across Poland. A brief encounter with  the city’s chaotic urban landscape and the denizens that inhabited it — the American consul who roamed the streets in broad daylight with a drawn pistol in hand, the Japanese film studio director who doubled as a spy with an impressive murder record, and Chinese warlords whose tendency was to shoot first and ask questions later — made it clear to Epstein’s parents that Harbin was a city of questionable safety and certainly no place to raise a young family. In short order, they moved to the city of Tianjin, a bustling port, that today lies just an hour’s train ride southeast of China’s capital, Beijing.

In Tianjin, Epstein received an education in British schools. At a young age, he became interested in journalism, an interest that deepened as he entered his teenage years. By the age of 15, he was freelancing for United Press. He eventually dropped out of school so that he could devote himself full time to reporting on the dramatic events that were unfolding across northern China. Perhaps because of his own firsthand experience with oppression and social upheaval, Epstein, like Crook and Rittenberg, was very sympathetic to the plight of the poor Chinese he encountered, a sympathy that had been cultivated and reinforced by his father, Herman, who admonished the young Israel not to forget the plight that the Jews had suffered.  

Epstein’s journalistic talent and the sympathy he expressed in his writing for the Chinese people, attracted the attention of Song Qingling, Sun Yat-Sen’s widow, who took him under her wing. Song Qingling was a visionary who recognized that China’s success in getting the support it needed would depend on the strength of its image overseas, and set about finding ways to enhance that image. Epstein was one of those ways. She enabled him to launch broad-based publicity campaigns targeted at audiences in the U.S. and Europe by leveraging her network of influential contacts and access to significant financial resources. Establishment of the monthly pictorial China Today with Epstein as editor-in-chief was an outgrowth of these efforts. As the country became more and more distant from the West, the publication effectively became (and remained) Communist China’s voice to the outside world. 

On the eve of the Communist takeover in 1949, Rosenfeld had achieved the rank of officer in the Communist military, a post he had secured largely by making himself indispensable as a leader and doctor who not only dressed the wounds and eased the suffering of the rank-and-file soldiers but, more importantly, attended personally to the needs of senior revolutionary officers who would later occupy prominent posts in the government of the new People’s Republic of China. Given his standing, Rosenfeld was well-positioned to enjoy the fruits of victory and the rewards for everything he and his Chinese comrades had struggled for. Yet, ironically, even before the revolution reached its victorious conclusion, the “Big-Nose Medical Saint,” as he was known by the troops, decided to return home to Vienna. Now that the war was over, Rosenfeld was convinced that Austria was on the road to recovery and that he would eventually be able to revive his livelihood. He also had learned that his sister was still alive and he was eager to be reunited with her.

On the eve of the Communist victory, Crook was also serving on the front lines in northeastern China, applying his teaching experience to the education of young leaders on the battlefield who would come to occupy senior posts in China’s Diplomatic Corps and laying the groundwork for the establishment that would become China’s Foreign Languages Institute. Crook distinguished himself and gained the trust of the Communist leadership  through the degree of his self-sacrifice and, as a party member, willingness to subject himself to self-criticism and abnegation that was as harsh if not harsher than what his Chinese colleagues endured.  

Known to the Chinese as “Li Dunbai,” Rittenberg proved his revolutionary mettle and demonstrated his zeal by struggling side-by-side with Mao, Zhou Enlai and other Communist revolutionaries on an arduous 500-mile journey to the refuge of caves in remote Yan’an that would become known as the “Long March.”

Like the other revolutionaries, Rittenberg lived a spartan life in Yan’an and followed a routine that was well-circumscribed: By day, he was an adviser to Mao, providing insights into American policy and drafting official correspondence to President Harry Truman and other American government officials on Mao’s behalf. By night, he was an active participant in the impromptu dances the revolutionaries organized, an activity that enabled him to forge bonds and deepen relationships with influential members of the communist movement that would play a consequential role in his life in China. One such acquaintance was Mao’s wife, Jiang Qing, an actress who, in Rittenberg’s estimation, was a lot better at dancing than she was at acting. Rittenberg also  served as an occasional translator for the Laurel and Hardy movies that Mao, Zhou Enlai and the other revolutionaries were so fond of watching on Friday evenings after dinner.

The next 30 years that Rittenberg  would spend in China had all the arc and sweep of a classic Greek tragedy: The hubris of the young revolutionary eager to make history who is catapulted into the very center of a movement that would change the lives of millions, the reversal of fortune that would lead to a fall from grace, and finally enlightenment, a change from ignorance to awareness.

Hubris

In the early 1960s, on the eve of a decade of upheaval that would come to be known as the Great People’s Cultural Revolution, Rittenberg was working in the foreign affairs office of the Central Broadcasting Bureau, a powerful  organization whose strategic importance would place it on the leading edge of the revolution. Rittenberg, true to his nature, took an active role in the Cultural Revolution at its earliest stages. His engagement in mobilizing workers, organizing revolutionary study sessions and other related activities catapulted him into a position of revolutionary leader.

The following excerpt from a speech he delivered to audiences across the country — from peasants in small villages to students in auditoriums and workers in stadiums — brought him to national prominence and turned him into a celebrity:

 “When I was a young man growing up in America, I worked alongside steelworkers and miners. I joined the American Communist Party. So I have experienced at firsthand how capitalism exploits workers. The life of a worker in the U.S. is a tough and painful one. China should avoid going down the path of capitalism at all costs.”

His spectacular revolutionary career reached its apex with the bold takeover of Central Broadcasting Bureau that he engineered as the leader of a radical faction.

Emboldened by his power and success, he increasingly used his speaking platform and stature to bring the revolutionary commitment of others into question and point out contradictions in their behavior, a tactic that ended the careers of not a few innocent citizens and brought misery to their families.  

A Reversal of Fortune

One of the targets of Rittenberg’s defamatory speeches was Jiang Qing, who for Rittenberg would always be the B actress and dance companion he knew from Yan’an and, in any event,  hardly a threat to someone such as him, who wielded so much power and influence. This turned out to be a severe miscalculation that would ultimately lead to his downfall. Since Yan’an, Jiang Qing, perhaps proving that she was a worthy actress after all, had succeeded in transforming herself into the “White-Boned Demon,” ringleader of the notorious Gang of Four and the object of fear and loathing. In a matter of weeks after delivering his stinging criticism of the woman many had come to see as an object of fear and loathing — hence her nickname — Rittenberg found himself in solitary confinement behind the walls of Qincheng Prison, a correctional facility on the outskirts of Beijing that was less forbidding than Alcatraz, perhaps, but no less notorious.


 

Qincheng Prison Profile

·       Originally “Beiping Prison Number 2”

·       1960 remodeled by Soviet advisers

·       Average cell size 20 m2

·       Three meals a day:

o   Breakfast – steamed bread, cabbage

o   Lunch- rice, noodles, and other grains

·       Exercise regimen:  20 minutes a day (inconsistent)

·       Reading material: The People’s Daily

 


 

For most of the counter-revolutionaries, professors and artists who ended up there, being sent to Qincheng Prison was a fate worse than death. For Rittenberg, the time in Qincheng was a period for reflection and contemplation. The regimen of prison life, the long periods of inactivity and the pervasive silence was, Rittenberg reasoned, an existence that was not much different than that of “a monk in a monastery,” and he kept himself occupied with activities that would keep his mind active and his spirit engaged. “Comrade Li Dunbai,” noted the prison’s chief warden, “reads the[People’s Daily] from beginning to end every day without fail.”

Despite their status as party members, sacrifice on the front lines and impeccable record of service to the state and the party, Crook and Epstein also were imprisoned in Qincheng Prison at the height of the Cultural Revolution, victims of irrational fears of foreign influence, intrigue and spying. This was a fate that befell a good number of foreigners. However, like most of the other foreigners who were imprisoned, Crook and Epstein were released in 1973 and invited to an official state dinner, where they received an official apology from Zhou Enlai. Only Rittenberg was missing. Asked by one of those present at the dinner about Rittenberg’s absence, Zhou Enlai responded gravely: “Li Dunbai has committed severe crimes against the state and its citizens.  Because of this, he will remain in prison.”

Enlightenment and Awareness

Rittenberg’s term in prison would last nearly six more years, and upon his release in 1979, he emerged a much wiser and more humble person. After admissions of error and wrongdoing, he was finally pardoned. The official government statement exonerating him read:

“Comrade Li Dunbai has worked for the benefit of the Chinese people since 1945 and made great contributions to the Chinese revolution.”  

In 1980, Rittenberg, approaching his 60th birthday, decided that he was finished with China and returned to the place where his odyssey had started, Charleston, S.C. There he took a job as a teacher in a local community college, intending to lead a lead a quiet and unassuming life. Although he thought he was finished with China, China, it seemed, had not quite finished with him.

As China began to liberalize and institute economic reforms in the 1980s, large American firms began to take an interest in the potential market opportunities such a huge country offered. But since China had been closed for so many years, the Chinese lacked the insights and experience needed to be successful. Thanks to his extensive knowledge of China and, even more importantly, his familiarity with officials at the very highest levels of the Chinese government — many of whom he had been comrades-in-arms with in the caves of Yan’an — Rittenberg became the go-to adviser for any U.S. company seriously considering entry into the Chinese market. Intel, Levis and Microsoft, to name just a few, knocked on his door. The man who once rejected capitalism for the communist ideal would now grow wealthy serving capitalism in a communist country.

Rittenberg, Crook, Epstein and Rosenfeld each approached China in a unique way and each played a distinctly different role during the time he spent in the country, but in the end, it is what they have in common that provides the greatest insight into their personalities and their motivations. In addition to being Jewish, they all joined the Chinese Communist Party, became Chinese citizens, and, most intriguingly, all lived to be more than 90 years old. Whether there is any connection between their longevity and their engagement with China is open to speculation, but what is certain is that their experiences and contributions generated one of the more unique and interesting perspectives on the great transformation of China in the 20th century.


Paul Ross is a telecommunications executive who has been living in Shanghai for eight years and a member of Kehilat Shanghai, a liberal Jewish community in Shanghai. He first came to China in 1985.

Mao’s Jews Read More »

Facebook CEO Zuckerberg will take two months of paternity leave

Facebook Inc Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said he will take two months of paternity leave after his daughter's birth, though he did not say when she is due. 

Facebook allows its U.S. employees to take up to four months of paid maternity or paternity leave, which they can use all at once or throughout the year.

Facebook CEO Zuckerberg will take two months of paternity leave Read More »

This is not my America. Is it yours?

Two scary tweets fell into my feed yesterday. In the first, Linda Sarsour, a Brooklyn mom and activist shared, “When ur kids sends u a text w/ a link to a mayor invoking Japanese internment camps. ‘You think they would do that?’ OMG. My heart.”
 
In a reply, Suroor Raziuddin, a local mom (and self professed “Valley Girl” by way of Jersey) shared, “My kids ask me “Will they make us leave?” used 2 think telling them we were born here was enough. Now? I'm not so confident.”


They should be confident. I'm confident.
 Her rights are my rights.
Her children's rights are my children's rights.
If you are an American, these rights are your rights too.

The language in response to an immigration “crisis” that is being run up the flagpoles of so many politicians is not merely the instigation and amplification of knee-jerk xenophobia. Worse, it is malicious fear mongering, a conscious attempt at stoking anti-immigrant and Islamophobic feelings into rage, inciting action of a specific voter base while raising support for isolationist policies. This is the politics of fear, plain and simple. I denounce the engendering of fear in the hearts and minds of the American people during this political cycle. This is not my America. Is it yours?

I want my leaders to inspire greatness in every American, and celebrate that our nation has always been a society of immigrants. My America is a welcoming social experiment. A success where all new Americans, born here or naturalized, are granted the same rights to freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and pursuit of happiness.

Thursday’s bill passed by the House of Representatives is a blustery piling on that does not address a real threat. “Not a single refugee has been convicted of an act of terror on U.S. soil… of the one million plus we’ve let in post 9/11,” Maya Berry of the Arab American Institute said on KCRW’s “To The Point” on Nov. 18.

Callbacks to the Japanese internment camps of the 1940s in reference to a current onslaught of xenophobia and bigotry facing Syrian refugees by Mayor David Bowers of Roanoke, Va. gives me great pause. The Jewish diaspora and anti-Semitism are not, in and of themselves, unique. Jews were turned away at borders in times of great need. Jews have been rounded up into ghettos, forced into labor and starvation, and marched along our own trail of tears.

Have you ever wondered what the biggest indicator of Islamophobic sentiment is? It is the holding of anti-Semitic beliefs. “In fact, contempt for Jews makes a person “about 32 times as likely to report the same level of prejudice toward Muslims,” James Carroll wrote in The Daily Beast in an article titled, “How to Spot an Islamophobe,” in 2010, quoting a 2010 Gallop World Religion Survey.

Publicly protecting the rights of all Americans, native born, naturalized, and the refugee that we welcome is our duty as Americans, and as Jews. By protecting everyone, we forcefully protect ourselves from once again falling victim to a society’s nationalist zeal. This is Tikkun Olam. This is a way to make our world a better place for all people, and set an example for all societies in our shared global community.

When we are triggered, it is our responsibility to acknowledge and move past our knee-jerk feelings of fear, and then repair the world with the gift of our love, acceptance and work towards a pluralistic society.

Linda, Suroor, you are my fellow Americans, and I welcome your contributions to our great nation. Your children and mine share the same liberté, égalité, and fraternité that all of us hold so dear. We will not allow fear to destroy the ongoing pursuit of social justice.

Dear reader, will you?


Howard Seth Cohen is a local actor, artist, and activist. He created “72 Virgins” a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that fights xenophobia one mocktail at a time. http://72bebidas.com @HSCactor

This is not my America. Is it yours? Read More »

#WeAreNext

The campaign to keep Syrian refugees out of the United States represents a complete lack of faith — not just in Syrian refugees, and not just in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, but in America itself.

I would like to be able to say such a campaign is un-American, but there has always been a fearful, xenophobic strain infecting the U.S. body politic. The anti-Chinese movement of the 19th century, the calls to keep Jewish refugees out on the eve of the Holocaust, the internment of Japanese-Americans, and now the move to block people suffering from the horrors of Bashar Assad and radical Islam in Syria.

Just before Thanksgiving — the holiday that celebrates our Pilgrim immigrant forebears — Donald Trump, grandson of immigrants, brought the debate to a new low calling for a registry of Muslim Americans.

“Singling out any ethnic or faith group to register with the government is morally repugnant, not to mention unconstitutional,” American Jewish Committee (AJC) Executive Director David Harris said in a statement. “What Mr. Trump proposes, in this case targeting all Muslims, is a horror movie that we Jews are quite familiar with.”

In response to the latest round of xenophobia, non-Muslims have adopted the Twitter hashtag #IAmMuslim. And why not? Once it becomes acceptable to single out people based on their ethnicity or religion, all of us are vulnerable, Jews more than others. Perhaps a more accurate protest would be #WeAreNext.

America was founded by, and to a great degree for, immigrants. Without immigrants, our great country would be just above average, an oversized Scotland. No offense to Scotland.

The fact that both these insights are cliché just makes them easier to ignore and take for granted. Immigration is an economic and cultural driver. Europe didn’t fling its doors open to Muslims solely out of the goodness of its heart. Old Europe needs young blood. Otherwise it can never compete with countries like, say, America.

It is no coincidence that the governors of the states thriving the least economically are the most steadfast against admitting the Syrian refugees. States that welcome immigrants, like California, do better.  

I get that the Republican and Democratic representatives who voted to support a bill putting a hold on the processing of 10,000 Syrian refugees don’t understand the nature of civil war, Islamic extremism or Islam.

But more disturbing is that they don’t seem to understand America.

America does immigration so well, because America does assimilation so well. America does integration like Jews do shivah. We just excel at it. The banlieues of Paris are festering sores of isolated Muslim youth who feel, justly, as French officials readily admit, that they don’t belong in France.

But America at its best and most commonplace accepts all comers and enables them to become proud hyphenates. That’s why the elevator in the Journal’s Koreatown office building is filled with Ethiopians, Koreans, Sri Lankans, Salvadorans — Muslim, Jewish, Christian — it makes the United Nations look homogeneous. 

America has a race problem, but it never has an immigration problem — until some people try to foment one.

And keep in mind, the facts do not support their arguments.

“If a potential terrorist is determined to enter America to do harm,” an Oct. 18 article in the Economist says, “there are easier and faster ways to get there than by going through the complex refugee resettlement process. Of the almost 750,000 refugees who have been admitted to America since 9/11, only two Iraqis have been arrested on terrorist charges; they had not planned an attack in America, but aided al-Qaeda at home.”

The threat to America’s wellbeing from 10,000 Syrian refugees pales in comparison to the threat of turning into a hateful, closed-door society where any of our families could be the next ones kept out, and any of us could be the next ones forced to register.

That fear is why the Anti-Defamation League, AJC and nine other Jewish organizations have joined with 81 other groups in sending a letter to Congressmembers urging them not to roll back plans to accept Syrian refugees into the United States.

“It would send a demoralizing and dangerous message to the world that the United States makes judgments about people based on the country they come from and their religion,” the letter states.

This is one appropriate response to the surge in one of America’s ugliest and most forgetful impulses. Another is to join with groups such as the Jewish Coalition for Disaster Relief and the Democracy Council, which is holding a fundraiser Dec. 13 in Los Angeles to help bring teachers and services to the Syrian refugees.

On the list of supporters for the fundraiser are Christians, Jews and Muslims. 

But what else would you expect? That’s America.

And for that we can all be very grateful.

Happy Thanksgiving

Rob Eshman is on Twitter and Instagram @foodaism.

For more information on the Democracy Council fundraiser for Syrian relief, click here.

#WeAreNext Read More »

He’s got a curfew, his computer is monitored, and he’s on GPS– but Pollard may surf the web

His every move tracked by GPS, his computers monitored 24/7, his outings subject to a curfew, Jonathan Pollard will nonetheless for the first time be able to enjoy a 21st century indulgence so many others take for granted: Surfing the Internet.

A filing by the former spy’s lawyers reveal that they won a single concession from the U.S. government in months of wrangling over his parole conditions: Pollard, who will be employed by an investment firm, may access the internet without prior permission.

The filing in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan Friday morning, just hours after Pollard’s release from a federal prison in North Carolina 30 years into his life sentence, was for habeas corpus; Pollard’s lawyers, Eliot Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, argue that the restrictions attached to Pollard amount to illegal detention, terming the conditions “statutorily and constitutionally impermissible.”

The revelations in the contentious filing, along with statements Friday from the White House, Pollard’s Jewish supporters and from Jewish groups and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, bury for now any hope Pollard’s release would end three decades of pronounced disagreements between the United States and Israel over what Pollard represents and whether his punishment was just.

Pollard wants to make aliya, or immigrate to Israel; every signal the U.S, government is sending suggests that is not going to happen in the near term. The Justice Department has said it will stand by the conditions of parole, which do not require a review for another two years. The White House has said, once again emphatically on Friday, that it will not intervene.

According to the filing by Pollard’s lawyers, the U.S. Parole Commission, after announcing his pending release in July, released parole conditions that would require Pollard to submit to GPS monitoring, obtain Commission approval to access the Internet, and agree to monitored computer use, with unannounced inspections of his equipment at any time.

The commission also said Pollard’s probation officer could subject him to curfew and “exclusion zones;” these would be in addition to the statutory requirement that Pollard request permission to travel outside the area of New York City, where he now will reside.

Pollard’s lawyers appealed the conditions to the commission’s appeals board, which removed just one — the need for the Commission’s approval to access the Internet. The GPS requirement was “reasonably related to the need to deter you from further criminal conduct,” the appeals board said, although, according to the filing by Lauer and Semmelman, the board did not explain how Pollard, 30 years in prison, would be able to spy now that he’s out.

The lawyers included statements from Robert “Bud” McFarlane, the national security adviser at the time of Pollard’s 1985 arrest, and former Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, that whatever classified information Pollard still knew is now useless.

The computer monitoring, the appeals board ruled, was warranted for home and business computers because “the boundaries between personal and business computer use are blurred.” That requirement, Pollard’s lawyers argue, will make it almost impossible for the Stanford University graduate to find work.

The Probation Office charged with monitoring Pollard’s release “exacerbated the conditions,” the filing said, and although it did not specify how, it appears as if Pollard is required to wear a tracking device. In a separate section, the lawyers say that “GPS monitoring does not require a monitor attached to the body” and claim that because of his diabetes, “any restraint place on his ankle or leg” would be dangerous.

A handful of Jewish organizations welcomed the release of Pollard, an American Jew and a former Navy intelligence analyst who pleaded guilty in 1987 to sharing classified information with Israel. A recurring theme was that the sentence was disproportionate.

“While we still believe his sentence was disproportionate, we hope that after having paid his debt to society, he should now be able to rebuild his life together with his wife,” the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations said in a statement.

“As the Conservative Movement has iterated many times in the past, including in Rabbinical Assembly resolutions in 1992, 1994, 1995 and 2011, Jonathan Pollard was handed a remarkably unfair sentence,” the Rabbinical Assembly’s president, Rabbi William Gershon, said, adding that Pollard had suffered “decades of injustice.” Also welcoming Pollard’s release was the National Council of Young Israel, which took the lead among groups in advocating for Pollard’s release.

Two groups, Agudath Israel of America and the Zionist Organization of America, called on the Obama administration to grant Pollard’s wish to move to Israel.

That’s unlikely. President Barack Obama does not have any plans to alter the terms of Jonathan Pollard’s parole now that the spy for Israel has been released, Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, said Friday when asked by reporters about whether Netanyahu had asked Obama to release Pollard from parole.

“This is something that Prime Minister Netanyahu has regularly raised,” Rhodes said. “The fact of the matter is, we have deferred to the Department of Justice and the process of justice with respect to the Jonathan Pollard issue,” he said. “The president has no plans to alter the forms of his parole.”

The Justice Department this week indicated it will abide by the conditions of parole. “The Department of Justice has always maintained that Jonathan Pollard should serve his full sentence for the serious crimes he committed,” a spokesman said.

The disagreement over whether Pollard had committed “serious crimes” or was a well-meaning ideologue fretting over Israel’s vulnerability has been the crux of one of the longest-lasting tensions between the United States and Israel.

Netanyahu’s statement on Pollard’s release included nary a reference to any crimes. “As someone who raised Jonathan’s case for years with successive American presidents, I had long hoped this day would come,” he said. “After three long and difficult decades, Jonathan has been reunited with his family.

The Parole Commission may end his parole at any time, but is not obliged to reconsider its terms for two years. After five years, Pollard must be released from his parole terms, unless the commission has a compelling reason to keep him on probation.”

Pollard appeared relaxed and pleased to be out of prison. Following his pre-dawn release from the prison in Butner, N.C., he traveled to New York City, where he checked in with his parole officer. The World Jewish Congress posted a photo of Pollard smiling serenely, seated in in front of his wife, Esther.

At 9:09 a.m., a  Twitter user posted a photo of the ex-spy with his wife and another man (whom Tablet Magazine speculated was National Council of Young Israel’s former executive, Rabbi Pesach Lerner) at the corner of Houston Street and Second Avenue, on the Lower East Side. He is looking, with apparent curiosity, at Esther’s smart phone.

He’s got a curfew, his computer is monitored, and he’s on GPS– but Pollard may surf the web Read More »

For Chanukah, breakfast latkes two ways

I first tasted latkes for brunch at a trendy eatery on the Lower East  Side about six years ago. Since then, I’ve seen them across the country on brunch menus everywhere from diners to Michelin Star restaurants.

Latkes — or potato pancakes, as they’re known to non-Jews — are comfort food that provide the perfect base to any number of savory toppings, but especially a runny egg or salty, fatty smoked salmon. After all, a latke is very similar to hash browns, a quintessential breakfast food.

It’s traditional to eat fried foods like latkes during Hanukkah, celebrating the miracle of the oil lasting for eight nights. And who doesn’t love a holiday that encourages enjoyment of a little extra oil?

These breakfast latkes take the best of a classic and add a fun, American twist that screams brunch party.

Here I offer two options: one dairy and one meat. If you keep kosher but want to serve both at a single meal, you could leave out the corned beef from the second latke and just top classic latkes with some fried or poached eggs. If you want to be really indulgent, you could whip up some buttery Hollandaise sauce — you’ll have your guests raving for months.

EVERYTHING BAGEL LATKES WITH DILL CREAM CHEESE AND SMOKED SALMON

Yield: 12-15 latkes

These latkes are both creamy and savory. Making latkes bite-size makes the experience a little more fun – guests can easily eat the latkes with their fingers, and also feel like they can indulge a little more since the portions are small.

For the latkes:

  • 4 Idaho (Russet) potatoes
  • 1 small-medium onion
  • 3 large garlic cloves
  • 2 eggs
  • 2 to 3 tablespoons flour
  • 2 teaspoons salt
  • 2 ounces goat cheese, left at room temperature
  • vegetable oil for frying

 

For the cream cheese:

  • 6 ounces cream cheese, left at room temperature
  • 2 tablespoons chopped fresh dill
  • 1 teaspoon fresh lemon juice
  • Salt and pepper to taste

 

For the everything bagel topping:

  • 1 tablespoon sesame seeds
  • 1 tablespoon poppy seeds
  • 1 tablespoon dried minced garlic
  • 1 tablespoon dried onion
  • 2 teaspoons thick sea salt
  • Thinly sliced smoked salmon

 

Before getting started on the latkes, I advise making the everything bagel topping and the dill cream cheese.

Add softened cream cheese to a bowl and combine with fresh dill, lemon juice and salt and pepper to taste. Place back in the fridge until ready to serve.

To make the everything bagel topping, mix together the sesame seeds, poppy seeds, dried garlic, dried onion and thick sea salt. Set aside.

Peel and cut potatoes and onions in half. Peel garlic cloves. Place potatoes, onion and garlic through food processor for a coarse grate (you can also grate coarsely by hand).

Place potato mixture to a large bowl. Add eggs, flour, salt, goat cheese and 2 tablespoons everything bagel topping mix.

Heat vegetable oil in a large saute pan over medium heat. Form bite-sized mounds of latkes, taking care not to squeeze too much liquid out of the latkes. Fry until golden brown on each side, then place on a wire rack on top of a baking sheet to cool. Immediately sprinkle with a pinch of salt.

When ready to serve, spread thin layer of dill cream cheese on top of each latke. Add smoked salmon on each latke and top with sprinkle of everything bagel topping. Serve while still warm.

CORNED BEEF HASH LATKES WITH FRIED EGGS

Yield: 12-15 latkes

These corned beef hash-inspired latkes work best with thinly shredded corned beef. If you can purchase a hunk of corned beef, as opposed to sliced, that would be ideal. If not, make sure to heat up the corned beef before shredding it or dicing into very, very tiny cubes.

But don’t skimp on the salt in these latkes just because you think the meat will be salty – the potatoes still need salt to make these latkes most flavorful.

  • 4 Idaho (Russet) potatoes
  • 1 small-medium onion
  • 2 eggs
  • 2 to 3 tablespoons flour
  • 2 teaspoons salt
  • Shredded corned beef
  • Additional salt
  • Additional eggs
  • Fresh parsley
  • Vegetable oil for frying

 

Peel and cut potatoes and onions in half. Peel garlic cloves. Place potatoes, onion and garlic through food processor for a coarse grate (you can also grate coarsely by hand).

Place potato mixture to a large bowl. Add eggs, flour, salt and shredded (or diced) corned beef.

Heat vegetable oil in a large saute pan over medium heat. Form large, fist-sized mounds of latkes, taking care not to squeeze too much liquid out of the latkes. Fry until golden brown on each side, then place on a wire rack on top of a baking sheet to cool. Immediately sprinkle with a pinch of salt.

Fry or poach eggs to your liking. When ready to serve, place latkes on platter and top with fried or poached eggs. Top with chopped fresh parsley.

For Chanukah, breakfast latkes two ways Read More »

Reform movement will continue to push for transgender rights

On Nov. 5, delegates to the Union for Reform Judaism’s 73rd biennial convention unanimously adopted a resolution on the rights of transgender and gender nonconforming individuals. It was a moment of great pride and celebration, tempered by the knowledge that just two days earlier — and reflecting how much work remains to be done to ensure full inclusion and equality for the LGBT community nationwide — Houston voters overturned an ordinance that had established nondiscrimination protections for gay and transgender people.

The URJ resolution was crafted and sponsored by the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism and the vote came after the adoption of a similar resolution by the Reform movement’s Central Conference of American Rabbis. It not only affirms the work our movement is doing to make people of all sexual orientations and gender identities feel included, but also makes a clear and unequivocal statement of the values that are a hallmark of Reform Judaism.

In the spirit of the deeply held belief that all people are deserving of dignity and respect, our tradition teaches that every person is created “b’tzelem Elohim,” “in the image of the divine.” We are all God’s children, with special and unique gifts to share with each other and the world.

We are also informed by our own history and are acutely aware that our journey out of slavery from Egypt didn’t happen overnight. The implementation of this new policy will take time, though in many ways this resolution is a reflection of a reality we are already living in many of our congregations, at summer camps and among our clergy. That is why the resolution calls on Reform movement institutions “to begin or continue to work with local and national Jewish transgender, lesbian, gay and bisexual organizations to create inclusive and welcoming communities for people of all gender identities and expressions.”

The ordination of transgender rabbis, the cultural competency trainings for religious school staff, the education programs on gender identity and expression, the sermons on the topic of gender identity and gender expression, the act of ensuring to the extent feasible the availability of gender-neutral restrooms and other physical site needs that ensure dignity and safety for all and the use of language in prayers and in documents that ensures people of all gender identities and gender expressions are welcomed is already happening within many Reform movement institutions.

The resolution will be an added catalyst, supporting Reform movement communities in work that will make us stronger and more inclusive across North America.

We are intensely aware of the challenges ahead. As we mark Transgender Awareness Week, including the Transgender Day of Remembrance on Nov. 20, we memorialize lives lost due to violence and prejudice targeting transgender people. And we reflect with pain on the record number of murders of transgender people, the tragically, persistently high suicide rates among transgender people, the disproportionate likelihood of a transgender person to live in poverty and the setbacks in anti-discrimination laws such as that which we recently witnessed in Houston.

It is clear that our dedication to equality, inclusion and safety must extend beyond our synagogues or camps. The Federal Equality Act, a bill introduced by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations. It is the most comprehensive piece of civil rights legislation for LGBT individuals proposed to date and the Reform movement will continue to advocate forcefully for its passage as we continue to work and pray to ensure that the dignity of every person is protected and celebrated.


Barbara Weinstein is the associate director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the director of the movement’s Commission on Social Action.

Reform movement will continue to push for transgender rights Read More »

Famed Holocaust documentarian making pro-Palestinian film

Documentary filmmaker Marcel Ophuls is perhaps best known for his 1969 Academy Award-nominated film “The Sorrow and the Pity,” which raised questions of French collaboration during the Nazi occupation, along with his monumental 1988 biopic “Hôtel Terminus: The Life and Times of Klaus Barbie,” which explored the actions of the notorious Nazi as well as the human condition.

Given his track record, news of the award-winning director’s next film may come as a surprise.

Ophuls —whose father, Max, was a prominent Jewish director, and who fled Nazi Europe as a child — announced last month that he will title his forthcoming film “Let My People Go.” Although the iconic phrase resonates deeply with anyone who has attended a Passover seder, Ophuls said he will use the familiar imperative to support the Palestinians.

“The title is going to be ‘Let My People Go,’ which means that the Israelis should let the Palestinians go,” Ophuls, 88, said at the 38th annual Mill Valley Film Festival, an increasingly prominent awards platform.

The statement garnered applause from the audience.

When this reporter asked specifically where Israel should let the Palestinians go, Ophuls offered just one word: “Anywhere.”

At the festival — where Ophuls received a tribute for his contributions to cinema — the filmmaker announced plans to film in Syria and Israel in the near future, eyeing a possible debut at the Cannes Film Festival in May.

“There are only 10 days of shooting left and a few months of editing, of course,” he said. “And if we can make the film, finish the film, it will probably go to Cannes next spring.”

The project gained media attention from a report in The New York Times, which noted its original working title, “Unpleasant Truths.” Late last year, Ophuls sought to raise 50,000 euros, then about $62,000. The film is a joint project with Eyal Sivan, an Israeli documentarian who left Israel for Paris in 1985.

Sivan told the Times they seek to answer the questions such as “Is Israel provoking anti-Semitism?” and “whether Islamophobia is the new anti-Semitism.”

A 12-minute clip of the work in progress, which is available on YouTube under its former title, opens with Ophuls failing to persuade the famed French director Jean-Luc Godard — who previously released a book and film on Jewish identity — to join him on a collaborative scouting trip to Israel. (According to the Timesthe directors began discussing a collaboration on the topic more than 10 years ago. Whether Godard, a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights, is also an anti-Semite is a question that has garnered media attention.)

Ophuls also interviews Michel Warschawski, described as an “anti-colonial activist”; Abraham Burg, a former speaker of the Israeli Knesset, and Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, whom he describes as the spiritual leader of the settlers. The clip includes footage of a rally of Israelis against Jews marrying Arabs. And at one point, Sivan says that in the territories, the water ratio is “one liter of water for the Palestinians to 10 liters for the Jews.”

In another scene, Ophuls travels on the road between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. In a phone call, he describes the route with “barbed wires everywhere. A prison for Palestinians on one side. It’s apartheid, really.

“I’m going to tell you why Max Ophuls wasn’t a Zionist,” Ophuls says on camera of his famous father’s lack of support for the Jewish state. “Not really anti-Zionist but certainly not Zionist. Because he thought the Jews’ destiny in the 20th century was to be cosmopolites — against nationalism.”

Ophuls’ notable body of documentary work includes  “A Sense of Loss” (1972), about the conflict in Northern Ireland; an examination of the Nuremberg Trials titled “The Memory of Justice” (1973-76)an investigation into the fall of communism in East Germany and its repercussions called “November Days” (1992), and a look at war correspondents titled “The Trouble We’ve Seen” (1994).

His 2013 film, “Ain’t Misbehavin’: A Marcel Ophuls Journey,” is a rambling exploration of his life and career. The documentary details how his family fled Nazi Germany for France in 1933, then in 1941, following the German invasion of France, fled to Los Angeles. (Ophul’s mother is the non-Jewish actress Hildegard Wall.)

At the Mill Valley Film Festival event, an audience member asked Ophuls during a question-and-answer session how he develops concepts for his films.

“Ideas come when they come,” he said. “My father, because he spoke German, called it Einfallen.’ They start in heaven and then they may come down. … Some days you have no ideas at all, for weeks or more. They don’t want to come. And you’ve got to work for them. Some people are more creative than others. Talent is not given to everyone.”

Notably, Ophuls said he doesn’t write scripts.

“That, to me, is the essential difference between documentaries and movies and real movies,” he said. “I only script in the editing room when I have maybe 120 hours of rushes [raw footage]. And I work on those, and by and by, idea by idea, sometimes they’re good and sometimes they’re not so good, it all comes together.”

His “organic” style of filmmaking allows a “big story” to fill “a big space in time.” With no preconceived notions about how long a film should be, his run famously long. “The Sorrow and the Pity” is nearly 4 1/2 hours, as is “Hotel Terminus.”

Initially produced for television, “The Sorrow and the Pity” was notoriously banned from French TV, although it eventully aired in 1981. The film gained even more attention after director Woody Allen featured it twice in his Oscar-winning “Annie Hall.” In what became a classic scene, Allen’s character, Alvy Singer, invites Diane Keaton’s Annie to view the film. She responds, “I’m not in the mood to see a four-hour documentary on Nazis.”

At the film’s close, however, Alvy bumps into Annie as she takes a date to see the documentary. Alvy calls it “a personal triumph.”

Ophuls, in turn, briefly excerpts “Annie Hall” in “Ain’t Misbehavin‘,” and reads a laudatory letter from Allen that he shows in a close-up.

Still, some writers leveled criticism at the pic, saying the story of Ophuls’ life might have benefited from another director.

The same might be said for Ophuls’ upcoming film. Applying an ancient Exodus narrative to the Palestinian cause, and accusing Israel of apartheid, may cause Ophuls’ Jewish fans no choice but to let him go — at the box office.

Famed Holocaust documentarian making pro-Palestinian film Read More »