fbpx

August 16, 2016

Russia uses Iran as base to bomb Syrian militants for first time

Russia used Iran as a base from which to launch air strikes against Syrian militants for the first time on Tuesday, widening its air campaign in Syria and deepening its involvement in the Middle East.

In a move underscoring Moscow's increasingly close ties with Tehran, long-range Russian Tupolev-22M3 bombers and Sukhoi-34 fighter bombers used Iran's Hamadan air base to strike a range of targets in Syria.

It was the first time Russia has used the territory of another nation, apart from Syria itself, to launch such strikes since the Kremlin launched a bombing campaign to support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in September last year.

It was also thought to be the first time that Iran has allowed a foreign power to use its territory for military operations since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

The Iranian deployment will boost Russia's image as a central player in the Middle East and allow the Russian air force to cut flight times and increase bombing payloads.

The head of Iran's National Security Council was quoted by state news agency IRNA as saying Tehran and Moscow were now sharing facilities to fight against terrorism, calling their cooperation strategic.

Both countries back Assad, and Russia, after a delay, has supplied Iran with its S-300 missile air defense system, evidence of a growing partnership between the pair that has helped turn the tide in Syria's civil war and is testing U.S. influence in the Middle East.

Relations between Tehran and Moscow have grown warmer since Iran reached agreement last year with global powers to curb its nuclear program in return for the lifting of U.N., EU and U.S. financial sanctions.

President Vladimir Putin visited in November and the two countries regularly discuss military planning for Syria, where Iran has provided ground forces that work with local allies while Russia provides air power.

TARGET: ALEPPO

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said on Tuesday Iraq, which lies between Iran and Syria, had granted Russia permission to use its air space, on the condition the planes use corridors along Iraq’s borders and not fly over Iraqi cities.

Abadi told a press conference the same permission has been given to air forces of a separate U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State flying to Syria from Kuwait.

Russia also gave advanced notice to the U.S.-led coalition battling Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, complying with the terms of a safety agreement meant to avoid an accidental clash in the skies, the U.S. military said.

“They informed us they were coming through and we ensured safety of flight as those bombers passed through the area and toward their target and then when they passed out again,” said U.S. Army Colonel Christopher Garver, a Baghdad-based spokesman for the U.S-led coalition.

“They did not impact coalition operations in either Iraq or Syria.”

The Russian Defence Ministry said its bombers had taken off on Tuesday from the Hamadan air base in north-west Iran.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Russian bombers were believed to have returned to Russia.

The ministry said Tuesday's strikes had targeted Islamic State as well as militants previously known as the Nusra Front in the Aleppo, Idlib and Deir al Zour provinces. It said its Iranian-based bombers had been escorted by fighter jets based at Russia's Hmeymim air base in Syria's Latakia Province.

“As a result of the strikes five large arms depots were destroyed … a militant training camp … three command and control points … and a significant number of militants,” the ministry said in a statement.

The destroyed facilities had all been used to support militants in the Aleppo area, it said, where battle for control of the divided city, which had some 2 million people before the war, has intensified in recent weeks.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based war monitor, said heavy air strikes on Tuesday had hit many targets in and around Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria, killing dozens.

Strikes in the Tariq al-Bab and al-Sakhour districts of northeast Aleppo had killed around 20 people, while air raids in a corridor rebels opened this month into opposition-held eastern parts of the city had killed another nine, the observatory said.

The Russian Defence Ministry says it takes great care to avoid civilian casualties in its air strikes.

Zakaria Malahifi, political officer of an Aleppo-based rebel group, Fastaqim, said he could not confirm if the newly deployed Russian bombers were in use, but said air strikes on Aleppo had intensified in recent days.

“It is much heavier,” he told Reuters. “There is no weapon they have not dropped on Aleppo – cluster bombs, phosphorus bombs, and so on.”

Aleppo, Syria's largest city before the war, is divided into rebel and government-held zones. The government aims to capture full control of it, which would be its biggest victory of the five year conflict.

Hundreds of thousands of civilians are believed to be trapped in rebel areas, facing potential siege if the government closes off the corridor linking it with the outside.

Russian media reported on Tuesday that Russia had also requested and received permission to use Iran and Iraq as a route to fire cruise missiles from its Caspian Sea fleet into Syria, as it has done in the past. Russia has built up its naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean and the Caspian as part of what it says are planned military exercises.

Russia's state-backed Rossiya 24 channel earlier on Tuesday broadcast uncaptioned images of at least three Russian Tupolev-22M3 bombers and a Russian military transport plane inside Iran.

The channel said the Iranian deployment would allow the Russian air force to cut flight times by 60 percent. The Tupolev-22M3 bombers, which before Tuesday had conducted strikes on Syria from their home bases in southern Russia, were too large to be accommodated at Russia's own air base inside Syria, Russian media reported.

Russia uses Iran as base to bomb Syrian militants for first time Read More »

Why Tim Kaine, Clinton’s VP pick, is good for Israel and Jewish values

American Jewish voters have naturally voted for Democratic candidates because it has meant voting to support strong social justice and a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. Hillary Clinton and her vice presidential choice, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, will continue Democratic action on economic and educational opportunities, retirement security and quality, affordable health care, and especially Israel’s security and Middle East peace.

The Clinton-Kaine ticket promises to build upon a strong tradition of Democratic leadership, while the Republicans’ ticket of Donald Trump and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence offers a reckless and dangerous blend of empty rhetoric and inconsistent positions that should alarm all Americans, particularly American Jews.

Clinton has deep knowledge of the history of the Middle East and a proven record of engaging with the leaders and peoples of this complex region. She also has a record advocating for U.S.-Israel ties in the Senate and hands-on experience managing the relationship as secretary of state.

In contrast, Trump’s shocking inexperience and wild pronouncements, including suggestions that he would abandon commitments to key U.S. allies, has earned unprecedented repudiation by foreign policy experts across the political spectrum.

The distinction between the two parties’ vice presidential nominees is just as stark.

Take social justice issues. Pence’s long-held positions on issues such as reproductive freedom, fair and balanced immigration reform, environmental protection, civil rights and LGBT rights place him far to the right of the American Jewish mainstream — and to Kaine, a lifelong progressive who has fought for equality and justice throughout his career in public service.

On Israel, Pence is quick to profess his support for the Jewish state. But stated support alone is not sufficient.

What matters in these dangerous times is a mature, deep understanding of the challenges facing Israel as it seeks avenues for peace with security. And what matters are ongoing, real-world ties to the Jewish community in this country and the leadership in Jerusalem. Kaine, who proudly identifies as a “strongly pro-Israel Democrat,” has demonstrated both throughout his career.

Kaine serves on the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, its subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian affairs, and the Armed Services Committee, positions that give him a leadership role and a comprehensive understanding of fast-changing conditions across the region.

As the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have a front row seat to Kaine’s thoughtfulness, inquisitiveness and mastery of the complex issues facing the United States, Israel and our allies and partners.

He has had meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, traveled to Israel and visited an Iron Dome battery on the border with Gaza. He has stood up time and again for Israel in Congress, from emergency funding for its successful anti-rocket system to the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2015.

Kaine was vocal in condemning the United Nations Human Rights Council for its decision to launch a one-sided investigation into Israel’s actions during the 2014 conflict in Gaza while ignoring the unprovoked rocket attacks against Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists that touched off the conflict.

Kaine knows that protecting Israel’s security also means ensuring that Israel has a healthy economy. As governor of Virginia, he worked closely with the Israeli Ambassador to the United States at the time, Sallai Meridor, resulting in a 2008 agreement to strengthen bilateral cooperation between Virginia and Israel on private sector industrial research and development. For Israel, the agreement was only the second it had ever entered into with a state government, and both parties have seen tangible benefits.

A nuclear-armed Iran would represent an existential threat to Israel, and Kaine has been a key leader in bipartisan efforts to ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. He negotiated the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that ensured Congress could review the nuclear accord and advocated for a resilient and fully resourced U.S. military so that “all options are on the table.”

Kaine knows that the threats emanating from Iran are about more than its nuclear program. Iran’s continued ballistic missile testing and state sponsorship of terrorism are equally troubling and threatening to Israel. He worked on a bill with Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., to extend sanctions on Iran until President Barack Obama and the IAEA can guarantee that Iran’s nuclear material is for peaceful purposes.

Finally, Kaine understands that support for a safe, secure Jewish state goes far beyond easy slogans and reflexive criticism of its many foes. Farsighted U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping Israel reach its goal of a sustainable, secure peace. Like a strong majority of American Jews, Kaine remains committed to a two-state solution that has been the stated policy of Prime Minister Netanyahu and every recent Israeli government before his, and which is the critical prerequisite to the kind of peace that Israel’s citizens deserve and want.

Kaine understands that tough talk about Israel’s security is just that – talk – if not built on a foundation of active support for U.S. peacemaking efforts in the troubled region.

Close to home, it was Kaine who held the first Passover seder in the Virginia governor’s mansion. He has a long record of working closely with Virginia’s small but active Jewish community – unlike Pence, who as a member of Congress in 2009 told an American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, “I know of no synagogues in my district.”

For the record, there are two synagogues in Pence’s former congressional district. Surely he would have benefited from knowing them better.

U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, is the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Why Tim Kaine, Clinton’s VP pick, is good for Israel and Jewish values Read More »

Poland proposes to jail users of term ‘Polish death camps’

The Polish government proposed a bill that would make the use of terms like “Polish death camps” a crime punishable by jail time.

The bill, which the government put forward Tuesday, would prohibit assigning blame to Poland for the actions of Nazi Germany. Historians and artists would be exempt in their work.

Drafted by the Justice Ministry, the measure also would criminalize accusing Poland of international war crimes or crimes against peace or humanity. The punishment would be a fine or up to three years in jail.

“Diplomatic actions to counteract the falsification of our history and protect the good name of Poland and the Polish people have proved ineffective,” the government said in a statement Tuesday. “There are still comments, especially in the foreign media, suggesting the participation of Poland and Poles in the crimes of World War II.”

Anti-Russian sentiment is fueling a nationalist revival in Poland, where some historians, politicians and activists are engaged in a campaign to absolve their countrymen of any wrongdoing during World War II and the Holocaust, which at time shades into revisionist history. In March, the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum created software that lets journalists know when they have used the offending term “Polish death camp” and corrects it to read “Nazi death camp in Poland.”

Officials of the Law and Justice Party, which rose to power last year, have honored Poles who saved their Jewish neighbors during the Holocaust. But historians who have looked into Polish complicity have been branded traitors by far-right activists.

Jan Gross, a Polish-American historian who wrote about the slaying of Jews by Poles in Jedwabne in 1941, is the subject of a criminal investigation in Poland opened earlier this year for “insulting the Polish nation.” Gross wrote that Poles killed more Jews during the Holocaust than they did Germans.

Poland proposes to jail users of term ‘Polish death camps’ Read More »

Hezbollah created Palestinian terror cells on Facebook, Israel says after bust

Israeli security services in the past few months broke up two Palestinian terror cells formed on Facebook by Hezbollah, according to officials.

Nine suspected cell members were arrested earlier this summer, but information about the case was kept under court-ordered gag order until Tuesday.

Working out of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, operatives for the Lebanon-based terrorist group recruited residents of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Israel through Facebook and other social media sites, the Shin Bet security service said.

“The Hezbollah organization has recently made it a priority to try to spark terror acts, doing so from far away, while attempting to not clearly expressing its involvement,” the Shin Bet said in a statement.

The West Bank terror cells, which received Hezbollah funding, planned to conduct suicide bombings and ambush Israeli army patrols in the West Bank, according to the Shin Bet. They had begun preparing explosive devices for attacks, said the security service, which claimed credit for thwarting attacks against Israeli targets in the West Bank and Israel.

After recruiting ringleaders on Facebook, Hezbollah and the recruits switched to encrypted communications to avoid detection, and the ringleaders went on to recruit other members, according to the Shin Bet.

The Shin Bet said it also detected multiple attempts by Hezbollah to recruit Israeli Arabs through a Facebook profile that featured anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian posts.

In response to the Shin Bet’s announcement, Israel’s United Nations ambassador, Danny Danon, called on the body to formally recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

Hezbollah created Palestinian terror cells on Facebook, Israel says after bust Read More »

3 roles that could define Hillary Clinton’s relations with the Jews

Hillary Clinton is a chameleon, her critics say, ready to adopt the colors of her environment: dove, hawk, social conservative, social justice warrior, friend, backstabber.

Hillary Clinton is a Rorschach test, her supporters say, a projection of her haters’ deepest fears and insecurities: the strong woman distorted into a witch, the progressive distorted into a radical, the pragmatist distorted into an empty vessel.

Hillary Clinton, in her first autobiography, “Living History,” embraces another label: “policy maker,” one she embraced after a particularly painful evolution in her political life. She describes her estrangement from her mentors Peter and Marian Wright Edelman, children’s rights advocates, in 1996, when she backed her husband President Bill Clinton’s enactment of welfare reforms.

“They genuinely believed the legislation was shameful, impractical and harmful to children,” Clinton wrote. “In the painful aftermath, I realized I had crossed the line from advocate to policy maker,” one who was “bound to compromise.” (Clinton has since reconciled with the Edelmans, who have also been deeply involved in liberal pro-Israel causes, including the New Israel Fund.)

Examining what Clinton says and does, and how she makes policy, helps make clear her relationship to Israel and to Jewish Americans.

The diplomat, twisting arms

Clinton’s campaign describes her role in eventually bringing about the Iran nuclear deal while serving as secretary of state during President Barack Obama’s first term as one of “arm twisting.”

“As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton twisted a lot of arms to build a global coalition to impose crippling sanctions and apply unprecedented pressure on Iran,” the campaign’s fact sheet says while quoting the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page as crediting her with persuading Russia and China to join the sanctions regime that brought Iran to the table.

Among the six major powers that negotiated the Iran deal, which trades sanctions relief for a nuclear rollback, Russia and China were the most recalcitrant. When Brazil and Turkey joined in 2010 to propose a more conciliatory deal than the Obama administration would have countenanced, Clinton scrambled to head them off, pressing China and Russia to endorse a much tougher U.N. Security Council resolution.

“Mrs. Clinton surely pulled out every stop to get Russia and particularly China — which initially welcomed the Turkish-Brazilian proposal — on board,” the Journal said at the time.

Of course, the deal was wildly unpopular with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and much of the pro-Israel establishment.

In a subtle bid to distinguish herself from her successor as secretary of state, John Kerry, and from Obama — and head off the deal’s critics — Democratic candidate Clinton has pledged to police the deal with increased vigilance.

“We can’t take our eye off the ball,” she said in January when the deal was formally implemented. “As president, my approach will be to distrust and verify. I will vigorously enforce the nuclear deal as part of a comprehensive strategy that confronts all of Iran’s negative actions in the region and stand side by side with our ally Israel and our Arab partners.”

Clinton extends that tough posture to defending Israel in a number of other arenas, saying she will stand up to the boycott Israel movement and will cut off any attempts at the United Nations to jump-start the process of recognizing a Palestinian state without Israel’s agreement.

Yet Clinton has also acknowledged that her facility for arm twisting can extend to Israel as well. In her second autobiography, “Hard Choices,” she recalls taking Netanyahu to the woodshed in 2010 after Israel embarrassed Vice President Joe Biden during a visit by announcing new building in a disputed part of Jerusalem.

“I told the prime minister that President Obama viewed the news about East Jerusalem as a ‘personal insult to him, the vice president and the United States,’” she recalls in the book, which was published in 2014. “Strong stuff for a diplomatic conversation, I didn’t enjoy playing the bad cop, but it was part of the job.”

It left its mark. Israel’s then-ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, in his 2015 account of the U.S.-Israel relationship, “Ally,” recounts how “Clinton had excoriated Netanyahu for 45 minutes over the phone, rebuking him for humiliating the president and undermining America’s ability to deal with pressing Middle East issues.” Oren went on to warn a Clinton underling, “Israelis, then, will see this as nothing but a pretext to arm-twist us and beat up on us.”

The friend, sometimes loyal to a fault

Clinton’s closest relationships are with those who stood by her through hard times, particularly the scandals and political battles that plagued her husband’s presidency.

That extends not just to her Jewish friends but to her Jewish family. Rep. Marjorie Margolies, D-Pa., cast the deciding vote in 1994 passing President Clinton’s unpopular budget, even though she knew Republicans would use it against her in the midterm elections. They did and she lost after serving a single term.

Her sacrifice helped spur a fast friendship between Margolies and the Clintons, and their kids became close, too: Chelsea Clinton married Margolies’ son, Marc Mezvinsky, in 2010.

Sidney Blumenthal, the one-time journalist turned trusted political adviser during Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearings, is another close Jewish friend that Clinton has said she will never abandon – notable because of how polarizing he is.

The White House nixed Clinton’s bid in 2009 to hire Blumenthal when she was secretary of state, in part because he was believed to be behind some of the most toxic opposition research when Clinton and Obama squared off for the presidential nomination just months earlier.

Nevertheless, she continued to solicit advice from Blumenthal, particularly on the Middle East, where his consultancy had clients. His views on Israel jibed with those of J Street, the liberal Middle East policy group. According to emails released as part of a probe into her use of a private server, Blumenthal in 2010 advised her to favorably mention the group at the annual conference of its arch-nemesis, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, as a signal to AIPAC that it was no longer a monolith when it came to Israel policy.

She did not take his advice, nor did she in the same year when he urged her to heed a Financial Times op-ed that called for the United States to “demand” Israel end the occupation.

Clinton also praised articles by Blumenthal’s son, the anti-Israel journalist Max Blumenthal, according to the emails, and refused calls to repudiate the younger Blumenthal — until July, when Max Blumenthal derided Elie Wiesel upon the death of the Holocaust memoirist and Nobel Peace laureate.

That was a bridge too far for Clinton.

“Secretary Clinton emphatically rejects these offensive, hateful, and patently absurd statements about Elie Wiesel,” her senior policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, told JTA at the time.

Wiesel, as Clinton recalled in “Living History,” had offered her his support during her darkest hour, her husband’s impeachment for lying under oath about an affair he had with a one-time White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

“He greeted me with a long hug and asked, ‘What is wrong with America? Why are they doing this?’” she wrote.

Wiesel and his wife, Marion, offered their support.

“Their understanding was the greatest give they could give,” Clinton wrote.

The politician, forging available alliances

The first scandal to hit Hillary Clinton’s political career involved Hasidic Jews.

In 2001, prosecutors investigated commutations her husband gave to four residents of the Hasidic community in New Square, New York, who had been convicted of defrauding the government after the profoundly conservative community voted overwhelmingly for Clinton in her successful 2000 bid for the U.S. Senate. The U.S. attorney in Manhattan wanted to know if the pardons were a quid pro quo for community support, although the Justice Department, under George W. Bush, ultimately declined to file charges against Bill Clinton.

Those charges of horse trading, however, seemed an emblem of Clinton’s evolution from the purist whose bid as first lady to reform health care fell flat on its face to the senator with a reputation for reaching across all aisles to all comers — or doing and saying anything to win a vote or policy battle, as her critics charge.

It’s a posture that extends to donors to the charitable foundation that she, her husband and daughter head. Pro-Israel critics fret about major donations from the Saudi Arabian government and its billionaires. Other funders are well known in the pro-Israel community, including diet magnate Daniel Abraham and entertainment mogul Haim Saban.

Accusations of Clintonian cronyism were a hallmark of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., campaign against Clinton until he endorsed her last month as the nominee. Sanders singled out Clinton during the debates for her praise for Henry Kissinger, the secretary of state to the Nixon and Ford administrations seen as responsible in part for massive bombings in Southeast Asia and for backing Latin American fascists.

Clinton, in her defense, said Kissinger could not be defined only by his bad deeds, noting his work in defusing tensions with China.

“It’s a big complicated world out there,” she told Sanders.

3 roles that could define Hillary Clinton’s relations with the Jews Read More »

What’s a nice Jewish boy like Daniel Radcliffe doing playing a neo-Nazi?

In his new film, “Imperium,” Daniel Radcliffe plays FBI agent Nate Foster, who goes undercover to take down skinheads planning to set off a dirty bomb.

The film, which opens Friday, is taut and exciting. It is also a movie the former “Harry Potter” star doesn’t want his 93-year-old Jewish grandmother to see. (More on that later.)

“Imperium” is loosely based on the experiences of FBI agent Mike German, who spent 16 years with the bureau, a dozen undercover. German co-wrote the screenplay with director Daniel Ragussis.

Both Daniels are on the phone to promote the enterprise, one definitely more tired than the other.

Radcliffe’s critically acclaimed, sold out off-Broadway play “Privacy” had closed the night before, followed by an apparently lengthy closing night party. But despite the joking promise that his exhaustion might lead him to reveal something juicy — “You never know what I might say” — Radcliffe stays on message, painting a self-portrait of an intelligent young actor who has survived fame without a semblance of pretense or affectation.

On the face of it, Radcliffe does not seem the obvious choice for the role. For one thing he’s a Brit, though you couldn’t tell by the mid-American accent he adopts for the film. And for another, he doesn’t fit the burly Jason Bourne tough guy image we’ve come to expect from our movie heroes. But that’s exactly what led Ragussis to cast Radcliffe.

“When I first met Michael German, he was so different from the prototype FBI agents,” Ragussis said. “He was very intelligent, a soft-spoken guy who studied philosophy in college. I spoke to him and said you’re not what I expected.

“He told me being an FBI undercover agent isn’t about physical powers but social skills, dealing with people, and once I realized that it enabled me to conceptualize the story and turned me on to an actor like Daniel.”

In fact, Radcliffe’s relatively small stature — he is listed as being 5-foot-5 — only ratchets up the tension as Nate Foster is forced to use intelligence to ingratiate himself within various extremist groups and maintain his cover.

Radcliffe’s nuanced performance as an agent with no field experience who has jumped into potentially volatile waters without a life vest almost certainly will win critical raves. His character must do battle not only with the Nazis and Klansmen, but his own superiors, who at a critical juncture want to pull him out, believing he is on the wrong track.

Radcliffe said he “was lucky to have Dan here with me.”

“He did an unbelievable amount of research, so I had him to go to as a source,” said the actor, who added that he prepared for the film “like any other role.” Radcliffe also consulted German, read books and went “online to look at terrifying message boards.

He also shaved his head on screen, wore Nazi regalia and of course offered the Nazi salute. That brings us back to grandma.

Radcliffe said his maternal grandmother — he never knew his granddad — “was an evacuee during the war,” taken to the country to stay with people away from Nazi bombers. He recalls her telling him stories “about how our family came to the UK and where we came from.”

“We originated in Russia and left because of the pogroms. I don’t know if the story is true, but supposedly my great-great-grandfather was on a ship from Russia bound for America. It stopped off in London, and he thought, ‘oh, that was quick’ and got off. He went to work in a textile factory and married the owner’s daughter.”

Radcliffe was raised in a very secular environment — “I’m going to be a real disappointment to you,” he told a reporter for a Jewish news service — but with a keen awareness of his Jewish background and “what it means to my mom and her mom.”

It is the reason he believes “Imperium” will not be appropriate for grandma.

“It may be a little too close to the bone,” Radcliffe said. In fact, he thought about her during the filming, “about how odd it is. The strangeness of it struck me a few times.”

Radcliffe finds it impossible to define how his Jewish heritage impacts his work.

“I don’t think I can separate the various parts of my life,” he said. “But the view that was always imparted to me by my mom and [Irish] dad is that the Jewish people and the Irish people were hard workers, that the Jews always punched above their weight class intellectually in terms of their numbers of people. I know that influenced me I suppose on some level, gave me a sense of responsibility to continue that. It’s something I thought about. I wouldn’t say it’s a driving force, but it is an influence.”

Considering the film’s topic, our conversation inevitably turned to America’s gun culture.

“The gun thing is alien to me,” Radcliffe said. “But I don’t think I was in Virginia” — the film was shot in Hopewell, a small city south of Richmond — “for more than a day before three separate people said, ‘hey, you’ve got to come shoot with us.’ I’m up for anything and I had a lovely day, but that’s never something I’m going to get used to.

“But the thing that most surprised me is that there is a huge wave of people who are not the slightest bit racist, who are highly intelligent and who love guns. The image that is sometimes portrayed the world over is that the Second Amendment people are sort of crazy, and I haven’t found that to be the case.”

Another American subject — how we seem to allow young actors a moment of fame and then chew them up — also brought out Radcliffe’s positive side. He said he had people around him “who were never going to allow me to become arrogant or obnoxious. But I have to say it’s very human to focus on the negative.”

Radcliffe then mentions Jodie Foster, Elijah Wood and Toby Maguire as positive role models for American actors.

Like them, Radcliffe has literally grown up in front of us, although to a degree none of them could match: He starred in eight “Harry Potter” films in 11 years, starting at age 11 and finishing at 21. While one of the rules for this interview was no questions about the new “Harry Potter” play and book — Radcliffe had nothing to do with either — the old films were not out of bounds, And, no, there are no regrets.

“There has never been a moment where I wish it hadn’t happened, any mistakes I’ve learned from,” he said. “Nobody’s life is all rainbows and sunshine. There were moments, but mostly related to being a teenager.”

Still, Harry Potter will always be with him. Even today, five years after the last film was released, a writer who shall remain nameless will talk about his granddaughter Samantha, who is a big fan and celebrating a birthday and can Daniel send a photo? Of course, he can — a promise stars make all the time but seldom deliver.

Unless they’re Daniel Radcliffe.

What’s a nice Jewish boy like Daniel Radcliffe doing playing a neo-Nazi? Read More »

Baton Rouge flood: How you can help

A flood is devastating Baton Rouge, La., and the organized Jewish world is lining up support for the rescue and relief effort in the region.

Here are ways you can help:

The Jewish Federations of Noth America

To donate and learn more click here.

Red Cross

To donate and learn more click here.

Find open shelters

Contact your local Red Cross

Download the Red Cross Emergency App by texting “GETEMERGENCY” to 90999

United Way of Southeast Louisiana

To donate and learn more click here.

To donate by check, please make it payable to United Way of Southeast Louisiana. Write Flood Relief in the memo line and mail to:

United Way of Southeast Louisiana
ATTN: Flood Relief
2515 Canal Street
New Orleans, LA 70119

Items are being accepted at the following locations: Southshore – 2515 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM; Northshore – 411 W Coleman Ave, Hammond, LA 70403, 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Please note there is not a need for donations of clothing and furniture at this time.  Click here for a list of items they are accepting.

Baton Rouge flood: How you can help Read More »

Do we believe in sacred space?

When you think of a sanctuary, what do you think of? Your synagogue? Your kid’s day school? Your grandmother’s house?

Now what about tragedy? Do you think of a loss of a friend? Terrorism? The Shoah?

We’ve just finished the three-week mourning over two destroyed Temples. It’s the time when we come face to face with these questions more viscerally than we do any other time of year. We’re asked to deeply consider what a lost sacred space meant to us. And we’re asked to think deeply about the tragedy of losing it.

It’s also the time when most of us put up our hands and have no idea how to feel the way our religion asks us to.

Some of that frustration comes because, simply, we lost the Temple a very long ago. But perhaps some of that frustration comes because we’re thinking about sacred space in the wrong way. And we’re thinking about tragedy the wrong way. 

To see what I mean, consider the closing passage of Exodus.

The Israelites have nearly completed their first massive building project: the Mishkan—the proto-Temple which they will carry through the Desert and into Israel. They have donated golds, silks, wool, silver, and copper. They have given time and talent. They do this because God has said: You shall build me a Mishkan—a Dwellingthat I may dwell amongst you.

The people build God a dwelling; and then God comes down and dwells in it—in the form of a cloud:

When Moses had finished the work, the Cloud covered the Tent of Meeting and the Presence of HaShem filled the Mishkan.

This cloud, of course, should have ended the story. Then the narrative would flow directly into Leviticus, which describes the ceremonies that will take place in the Mishkan, where the Cloud is. The building is made; God settles in it; here is what you do in that building.

But that isn’t what happens. Instead, we hear one more detail:

When the cloud lifted from the Tabernacle, the Israelites would set out on their journeys. But if the cloud did not lift, they would not set out until it lifted up.

Once we hear about the Cloud, we hear that, later—after the entire book of Leviticus has passed—the Cloud will be used for navigation. And indeed, the narrative elaborates on this detail in the book of Numbers—where it makes sense, coming at the moment when the people prepare their journey from Sinai and across the Desert:

And whenever the cloud lifted from the Tent, the Israelites would set out accordingly; and at the spot where the cloud settled, there the Israelites would make camp.

But here at the conclusion to the construction of the Mishkan, the detail makes no sense.

So why is it here?

To answer that question, it’s useful to think about the trauma involved in this journey—this following of the Cloud. In every encampment, the people rest around the Mishkan. The Cloud is right there, so close the people can see it with their own eyes. And then, when it’s time to move, the Cloud rises up. And because the Mishkan is modular, the priests deconstruct the structure to carry it on its way.

One moment, God’s presence is within arm’s reach. The next, we’re alone and lost and exposed in the Desert. The people’s whole world comes apart, over and over throughout the course of forty years. This is the kind of trauma that could fill a people with despair.

But the people don’t fall into despair. They do something else. They watch to see where the Cloud will go next. And they follow it. Because they know that sometimes, when your world ends, it’s God’s sign to seek Him in a place you couldn’t have foreseen.

Here’s the point. Making room for God on earth is more complicated than building a space we can go to and sit back and receive Him. It’s building a framework for seeking Him out. And sometimes that means embracing the end of your world. And sometimes that means being willing to upend your life, over and over, as you radically change your perspective of where God might be—of where you need to be to find Him.

That’s not sacred space. It’s something much more difficult. It’s a sacred journey. And that is what the Mishkan stands for.

That’s useful to think about as we stand this week, at Shabbat Nachamu, in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple—the structure that evolved from that Mishkan in the Desert. Because maybe we’re standing at the end of our sacred space, at the end of our world. Or maybe sacred space is too simple of an idea. Maybe we’re just ending a chapter in the story—and the next leg of the journey has just begun. It’s up to us to find God in the next place. 

Abe Mezrich is the author of The House at the Center of the World,” a book of meditations on Biblical ideas of sacred space from Ben Yehuda Press.

Do we believe in sacred space? Read More »

When Breath Becomes Air: Making Your Life Matter More

I have been asked repeatedly, “What do you want to do?” I want to run ” target=”_blank”>videos. The problem is I am not sure it is a good enough answer. I am afraid that I am wasting my talents. As a medical school drop-out, I worry that I should do more with my life and my intellectual abilities. I am “should-ing” myself to distraction.

When I read Paul Kalanithi’s book, “ Kalanithi’s question “is not simply whether to live or die but what kind of life is worth living…What makes life meaningful enough to go on living? …Even if I’m dying, until I actually die, I am still living.” He continued to work when he could, to spend time with his family and to fight his cancer. If he knew he would have less days on this planet, would he have made other choices?

We are all going to die someday but most of us do not contemplate our mortality regularly. Kalanithi wrote: “You try to figure out what matters to you, and then you keep figuring it out. It felt like someone had taken away my credit card and I was having to learn how to budget.” With months left to live, he struggles with his daily choices. What is worth his time now that it is so precious. We cannot get back the hours of our day. How do you decide what to do?

I want to use my strengths and abilities wisely. What is the best way to have a meaningful purpose-filled life? Kalanithi tells us “The truth that you live one day at a time didn’t help: What was I supposed to do with that day?” He answers his own question and tells us, “You have to figure out what’s most important to you.”

What leads you on your path?

What is the role of a doctor? From “The physician’s duty is not to stave off death or return patients to their old lives, but to take into our arms a patient and family whose lives have disintegrated and work until they can stand back up and face, and make sense of, their own existence.”

We all need a team surrounding us to remind us that we can find our own way even when it seems overwhelming or too short. We never know which day will be our last. I hope you are making an effort to make your dreams come true today. Hug those you love and know that what you do is enough.

Video: