fbpx

September 1, 2016

Esther Jungreis, Orthodox Jewish Outreach Pioneer, 80

Esther Jungreis, a pioneer in the Jewish outreach movement and founder of the organization Hineni, died Aug. 23. She was 80, according to the Vos Iz Neias blog.

A post published in October on the site Only Simchas indicated Jungreis was “in serious condition” in a hospital and fighting an infection, but did not specify her ailment.

Jungreis was born in 1936 in Szeged, Hungary, where her father was chief rabbi. A child survivor of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, she and her family resettled in 1947 in Brooklyn, where she married her distant cousin Rabbi Meshulem HaLevi Jungreis, according to the Yeshiva World. She and her husband, who died in 1996, founded the North Woodmere Jewish Center/Congregation Ohr Torah on Long Island in 1964.

Jungreis, known universally by the honorific rebbetzin, founded Hineni in 1973 in order to bring young Jews closer to Orthodox Judaism by offering Torah classes, singles events and Shabbat and holiday services. She spoke to audiences across the United States, including at Madison Square Garden in 1973.

She was known for her work in outreach to young Jews, as well as for self-help books about a variety of topics, including marriage and relationship advice, and how to deal with challenges in life.

Jungreis drew inspiration from her experience as a Holocaust survivor to fight for Jewish continuity and against intermarriage. But her statements comparing assimilation to the Holocaust sometimes sparked controversy.

“To be a Jew is the greatest privilege,” she said at a speech in Johannesburg in 1999. “To be unaware of it is the greatest catastrophe — spiritual genocide.”

Jungreis was part of a delegation of Jewish-American leaders who accompanied President George W. Bush on a trip to Israel in 2008 in honor of the Jewish state’s 60th birthday. Among the group were Elie Wiesel, Ronald Lauder, Henry Kissinger and Sheldon Adelson.

She is survived by four children — Yisroel and Osher, both rabbis; Chaya Sora Gertzulin and Slovi Wolff — as well as many grandchildren and great-grandchildren, according to the Yeshiva World.

— JTA

Esther Jungreis, Orthodox Jewish Outreach Pioneer, 80 Read More »

From matzo balls to footballs, two Jewish brothers recall their journey to the NFL

At 6-foot-6 and 340 pounds, veteran NFL offensive lineman Geoff Schwartz isn’t just a force of nature, but a product of good ol’ Jewish nurture.

“My size comes from a childhood that included an excess of matzo ball soup, latkes, and tons of white rice,” the 30-year-old jokes. “But of course my brother’s similar physique suggests that genetics had plenty to do with it.”

That would be his (only relatively) little brother, Mitch, 27, the Kansas City Chiefs’ newest starting right tackle, who stands 6-foot-5 and weighs in at 320 pounds.

As it happens, Geoff and Mitch Schwartz aren’t the first pair of Jewish brothers to play in the National Football League — they’re just the first to do so since 1923.

“Once we heard the stat, we realized just how rare this really is,” said Mitch, standing at the edge of the Chief’s indoor practice field after morning drills. “So we both thought it was important to share our story — for Jewish kids, and in general, about how we both wound up where we are.”

Indeed, the story of how two nice Jewish boys grew up to be a couple of “hogs” (an endearing and decidedly non-kosher nickname for offensive linemen) could fill a book.

Now it does.

Eat My Schwartz: Our Story of NFL Football, Food, Family, and Faith” lands in stores and online September 6. Co-written by the brothers, with novelist and humorist Seth Kaufman, it’s a lighthearted memoir about all the topics in the subtitle and how often they intersect. Sports fans will find plenty of insider info on the NFL and major-college football (Geoff and Mitch played for Pac-12 contenders Oregon and Cal, respectively). But from the opening pages — a scene of the brothers frying up latkes on the first night of Hanukkah, following their bubbe’s recipe — their Jewishness is front and center.

“The people who know us know that’s a big part of our identity, but I think it was important to share as much as possible in the book,” Geoff Schwartz told JTA from Detroit, where he spent the preseason as a member of the Lions. “I mean, my whole family — we’re proud to be Jewish and to be raised in the tradition and going to temple.”

Growing up in West Los Angeles — and attending Adat Shalom, a Conservative congregation — the brothers were always involved in sports. But neither started playing football until high school, in part because their parents didn’t want practices and games to interfere too much with Hebrew school.

In the book, the brothers quote their mother, attorney Olivia Goodkin, on her eventual acceptance of her sons’ football fate, given that each stood well over six feet tall at his bar mitzvah.“‘I started out worrying that they were going to get hurt — but then I realized it was the other players I should be worrying about,” she said. “‘They were like trucks hitting small cars. And I started to kind of feel like maybe this was their destiny.’”

As for their father, Lee Schwartz, a business consultant: “I just kvell,” he told Los Angeles’s Jewish Journal in 2012, on the eve of that year’s NFL Draft, in which Mitch would join his brother in the league when theCleveland Browns took him early in the second round. “It’s a surreal experience to see my kids on the field, on TV.”

Mitch credits his (slightly) bigger brother for paving his way on the field, in the kitchen and in life. Geoff was a seventh-round pick in 2008, and he’s a study of resilience: He’s endured multiple injuries and various ups and downs, from getting relegated to a practice squad, to getting cut, to getting signed to a big contract, to getting released again just before this season starts.

Meanwhile, after the Browns selected him with the 37th overall pick, Mitch started every game over four seasons in Cleveland. This spring, free agency landed him a five-year, $33-million deal with the Chiefs, making him one of the highest-paid right tackles in the league.

Whether tackling football, their faith or food, the Schwartzes write with the interested but uninitiated in mind — readers will learn the finer points of proper blocking in one chapter, find a primer on the lunar Hebrew calendar in the next. And if you’re hungry, just refer to the appendix of family recipes for step-by-step instructions on applying the perfect schmear (“Don’t overdo it; too much cream cheese will melt and run on a just-toasted bagel”).

The conversational memoir flows from one milestone to the next — personal, professional or often both. There’s October 27, 2013: “The Schwartz Bowl,” the brothers’ first and so far only on-field meeting when Geoff, then with the Chiefs, faced Mitch and the Browns in Kansas City. Then there is the weekend in 2014 when two life-changing moments coincided: Geoff’s wedding — a traditional Jewish affair on the beach at Santa Monica — happened at the height of NFL free agency frenzy.

Only hours after signing his ketubah, Geoff would sign the largest contract of his career.

The brothers also grapple with some of the compromises they’ve had to make in pursuit of their careers. “I’m very clear that when I have to, I choose football over the [high] holidays,” Geoff said. “Some people have a hard time with that concept. I don’t.”

But he does fast on Yom Kippur whenever possible, an act of atonement to which he devotes several paragraphs in the book. “Toward the end of a fast I usually feel great, like I’ve achieved something,” he writes. “I feel lighter, not physically, but mentally. I’ve endured, and I feel energized and clear.”

In the book, Mitch recalls a visit he made in the first weeks of his rookie year to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio. He encountered a group of Orthodox teens who, upon learning he was a Jewish football player, started peppering him with questions and begging for autographs. “I think it takes experiences like that to make you realize just how much bigger it is than you think it is,” he said of being one of a handful of Jewish players in the NFL.

Of course, the brothers understand the special appeal they have to Jewish fans — after all, they’re Jewish fans themselves. The book traces their own family’s fascination with Jews in sports, from Hank Greenberg andSandy Koufax to Mark Spitz and Dolph Schayes.

Mitch delves into the lesser-known history of brothers Ralph and Arnold Horween, the Harvard All-Americans and stars of the Chicago Cardinals backfield, in whose NFL footsteps the Schwartzes eventually followed. He learned that the Horweens actually played under an assumed name — McMahon — which raises questions as to whether they were guarding against anti-Semitism in football, or perhaps feared disapproval from other Jews for playing football.

Though Geoff recounts a few blatantly anti-Semitic comments, many players they meet simply don’t understand, or misunderstand, what it means to be Jewish, he said. “People think it’s more complicated than it really is,” Geoff explained. “So we let them know how not-complicated it is.”

When trying to explain their traditions to teammates who might have “never been around a Jew before,” they find that food — like latkes and matzo balls — can be a good access point, Mitch said, “especially for linemen.”

Part of the motivation for the writing the book, according to Geoff, is  for the brothers to, well, start writing their own next chapters. “You don’t know how long you’re going to play — certainly not forever,” he said shortly before the latest cut. “And there’s a lot we want to do after football.”

For Geoff, that could be a career in media or writing —  this book is only his latest foray in communications. He co-hosts his own podcast, “Block ’Em Up,” and this summer guest-wrote the popular Monday Morning Quarterback” column on SI.com that’s usually penned by National Sportswriter of the Year Peter King.

Yet, the ultimate ambition is for the Schwartz brothers is to finally team up — as co-hosts of their own cooking show.

“Cooking has become a creative outlet for both of us, something we enjoy exploring and experimenting with. We love the improvisational element of cooking, and the social element, too,” Geoff writes. “Food, which is so important to us as athletes — it fuels our work — provides the forum for us to create meals that look good and taste fantastic.”

The brothers already prepped a “sizzle reel” of them interviewing a Beverly Hills chef  and then whipping up some saffron seafood risotto at home. The book details early talks with TV execs — it’s unclear whether the Food Network or the NFL Network were more interested — but “we’re definitely still working on it,” Geoff confirmed.

Two Jewish brothers in the NFL makes for a great story. But two Jewish brothers in the NFL with their own cooking show? That’s never happened before.

From matzo balls to footballs, two Jewish brothers recall their journey to the NFL Read More »

Israeli police: Opposition head Isaac Herzog wasn’t aware of suspicious 2013 donation

Israeli police cleared opposition leader Isaac Herzog of suspicions of fraud, after questions arose about a contribution made to his successful campaign in the 2013 Labor Party primaries.

The Zionist Union head was not aware of the illicit donation, which was not reported by the party, the police found. The contribution helped fund a smear campaign against Herzog’s opponent in the race, Labor MK Shelly Yachimovich.

While the donation is still under investigation, the National Fraud Unit will not suggest an indictment against Herzog, according to a statement by police spokesperson.

Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, who requested the investigation, and Tel Aviv’s prosecutor’s office are expected to make a formal declaration of the decision, according to The Times of Israel.

The investigation was announced in March, but started months earlier, the Jerusalem Post reported.

In April, Herzog said that he asked to come in and give his statement to the police “in order to put the matter behind me as soon as possible.”

The Zionist Union is made up of Labor and the Hatnua party led by Tzipi Livni, a former foreign minister.

 
 

Israeli police: Opposition head Isaac Herzog wasn’t aware of suspicious 2013 donation Read More »

Bernie Sanders’ new movement endorses candidates with a range of Israel views

A Florida state senator caught up in a boycott-Israel controversy. A Wisconsin state representative who combated anti-Israel bias on his campus.

The diversity of Israel-related outlooks among the 63 candidates endorsed by Our Revolution underscores the eclecticism of the left-leaning movement launched last week by Bernie Sanders.

The endorsed candidates represent an opening salvo by Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont. to build on the progressive following he earned in his unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Sanders, the first Jewish candidate to win major nominating contests, has said that he wants to transform the party from the bottom up. Of the endorsed candidates, just 13 are running for Congress. Most are running for state legislatures, and some are running for local office.

That, coupled with Sanders’ longtime focus on economic reform, means that the group’s organic emphasis is on domestic issues.

Still, Our Revolution’s issues pages list foreign policy postures close to those Sanders touted during the campaign, including a call on Israel to end settlement activity and end its blockade of the Gaza Strip, and on the Palestinians to “unequivocally” recognize Israel’s right to exist. The group also calls for the United States to remain alert to the threat Iran poses to Israel and backs the two-state solution.

When it comes to Israel issues, Our Revolution’s endorsees run the gamut.

In a fundraising appeal on Wednesday, the group counted as one of its successes Dwight Bullard’s victory the day before in the Democratic primary for a Miami-Dade area state senate seat.

Bullard was the target of a pro-Israel protest over the weekend because of his participation in a tour of the West Bank earlier this year sponsored by a group that backs the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement targeting Israel. Bullard has said he is “agnostic” about BDS, but one of his opponents, Andrew Korge, said the trip was “disturbing.”

By contrast, Jonathan Brostoff, a Wisconsin state representative running for reelection, has been to Israel on the Birthright-Taglit program and led a pro-Israel group at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

“I was exposed to knee-jerk leftist anti-Israel stuff,” Brostoff told the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle in 2008, describing how the trip converted him to pro-Israel activism. “I had a narrow range of false information regarding Israel before I went.” Jewish officials in Milwaukee said Brostoff remains strongly pro-Israel.

Another Our Revolution endorsee, Ilhan Omar, is a onetime refugee from Somalia running for Minnesota state representative. She reportedly told the Twin Cities Daily Planet earlier this year that she favored divesting the University of Minnesota of its Israel bonds. (The newspaper did not directly quote her, and JTA has asked Omar’s campaign to clarify her stance.) In the Aug. 9 primary, Omar defeated Phyllis Kahn, who is Jewish and who has held the Minneapolis-area seat for 44 years. Omar, running unopposed, will become the first Somali-born representative in the legislature.

In its appeal to donors, Our Revolution said Bullard’s victory in Florida alleviated the disappointment of its most prominent loss in backing Tim Canova, a law professor who sought to unseat Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.

Canova, who is not Jewish but who lived in Israel for a period, attacked her for backing last year’s Iran nuclear deal, which was opposed by much of the pro-Israel community. Ironically, his campaign pitted a pro-Sanders gentile against one of the most prominent Jews in the party, premised on the accusation that she was insufficiently pro-Israel — even though Sanders also backed the Iran deal.

Sanders opposed Wasserman Schultz because he believed she thwarted him in her capacity as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.

Wasserman Schultz  insisted she was neutral in the race, but on the eve of last month’s Democratic National Convention, a release of hacked emails showed her speaking of Sanders and the campaign in harsh terms, and she quit the party chairmanship.

Another one of Our Revolution’s losses on Tuesday was Aaron Baumann, the scion of a Jewish Arizona family, the Capins, with roots in the Tucson and Nogales area that date back more than a century.

Baumann failed to oust the incumbent state representative, Rosanna Gabaldon. (Also losing to Gabaldon was Daniel Hernandez, the congressional intern whose quick first aid helped save the life of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., the Jewish congresswoman who was shot in a 2011 spree that left six people dead.)

Other Jewish candidates endorsed by the group include Russell Feingold, attempting to wrest back Wisconsin’s U.S. Senate seat from Ron Johnson, who defeated him in the 2010 Tea Party sweep of Congress; David Zuckerman, a Vermont state senator and farmer who belongs to the state’s Progressive Party and who is running for lieutenant governor; and Jamie Raskin, a state lawmaker running for Congress in Maryland’s Washington suburbs. Altogether, at least five of the 63 endorsees are Jewish.

Our Revolution’s 11-member board, announced this week, is chaired by Larry Cohen, until recently the president of the Communications Workers of America, and Huck Gutman, a University of Vermont literature professor who is one of Sanders’ oldest friends.

Also on the board is James Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute and a Sanders appointee to this year’s DNC platform-drafting committee who led an unsuccessful effort to include language critical of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.

Bernie Sanders’ new movement endorses candidates with a range of Israel views Read More »

Two Election Surprises: Many Jews support Trump, more Israelis support Clinton

On Jews and the GOP

Jonathan Chait highlights the fact that Jewish neoconservatives were quick to jump off the Trump wagon. “Trump has struck at the heart of Jewish neoconservatism at a level deeper than mere doctrine,” he writes. But as the latest Gallup poll shows, the percentage of Jews who still have a positive outlook on Trump is not insignificant: 23% (compared to 52% for Clinton). According to Gallup, “Jewish views are by no means monolithic. A little more than half have a favorable view of Clinton, and nearly a fourth have a favorable view of Trump.” Last week, a survey in Florida showed Clinton leading Trump among Jews in the Sunshine State 66% to 23%.

Are you impressed by this number? The Forward used words such as “sweeping” and “landslide” in its story about the survey. Tablet Magazine used the word “whopping” in its headline. The Times of Israel wrote “crushing.” But I think that the NY Jewish Week's more measured headline – Change Vote? Not for Jews in Sunshine State – is the better one. In fact, I might go even further and put a headline such as: Trump hasn’t lost the Jewish vote.

In other words: the fact that Clinton leads over Trump is hardly a surprise. When Jewish party identification tilts so heavily toward the Democratic Party, you would not expect it to be any other way. If there is a surprise in the two latest Jewish poll numbers, it is that Trump, with all of his problems, still has a chance to collect as many Jewish votes as Mitt Romney collected four years ago, and more votes than John McCain received eight years ago. That is to say: Many “neocons” are GOP Jews – but many GOP Jews are not neocons. 

On Trump’s Chances

But does he still have a chance – can there be a surprise? I keep getting this question from readers and acquaintances, so I will answer it briefly. The answer is, obviously, yes. There can be a surprise. There can also be heavy rain in Tel Aviv in August. But as I was going out yesterday – the last day of August – for a walk in the street, I did not take my umbrella with me. Rain – a surprise – is possible. But it is called a surprise because it rarely happens, and hence it is fair to assume that an umbrella is not necessary and that Trump will not suddenly spring to a victory (but we might still get wet).

On Israel’s Preference

Poll numbers that were sent to me by pollster Menachem Lazar (Panels Politics) prove that this election cycle is unique. For the first time since 2000 it seems as if Israelis tend to prefer the Democratic candidate – Hillary Clinton – over the Republican candidate – Donald Trump. That is to say: after supporting Bush over John Kerry in 2004, John McCain over Barack Obama in 2008, Mitt Romney over Obama in 2012 – they have tilted leftward and support Clinton, at least for now.

Is that surprising? It is, in some way. The majority of Israelis (comprised of Israeli Jews) are more comfortable with the position of mainstream Republicans concerning Israel. They do not care about American domestic policies, they care about American foreign policy – and especially its policy on Israel and the Middle East. During the 2000s, Israelis changed their positions on the Middle East (to make it simple, they moved to the right). Thus, their views are more compatible with those of, say, Marco Rubio than with those of the two-state-solution-agreement-with-Iran Clinton school.

Nevertheless, Trump seems to be a notch above (or below) what Israelis were hoping for. They realize that he is not the typical mainstream GOP candidate that they learned to trust. They also have great measure of appreciation for Clinton because of the Clinton White House years. So – with reluctance, and the understanding that life is not perfect, they settled on the familiar, predictable Clinton, rather than opt for the Trump wild ride. Not that it matters much: Israelis do not vote in American elections. But it does give one a sense that as the world watches America it reacts to this crazy election cycle, to a large degree, the same way Americans do.

Here’s what Israelis thought in previous rounds, and the last poll on Trump and Clinton. You can see all polls on Trump and Clinton in Israel here.

 

GOP candidate

Dem candidate

2004 Bush-Kerry

50%

24%

2008 McCain-Obama

49%

31%

2012 Romney-Obama

50%

26%

2016 Trump-Clinton

35%

43%

Two Election Surprises: Many Jews support Trump, more Israelis support Clinton Read More »

UCLA: No place for Jews?

UCLA Chancellor Block’s assertion that BDS ‘isn’t going to be sustained' on this campus’ has never appeared to be anything but lip service as UCLA succumbs to a virulent form of anti-Semitism that has a Hindu in its cross-hairs.

UCLA Graduate Law Student Milan Chatterjee was betrayed by UCLA, and that betrayal is moving like the Zika virus through UCLA’s active Jewish student population. Unlike Zika, this virus is selective and based solely on religious and social affiliation.  Although UCLA holds the antidote, they seem hesitant to use it.

At this point you may be scratching your head, and trying to figure out if ‘Chatterjee’ is a Jewish name.  It’s not.  Milan is Indian.  Milan is a Hindu.  Milan is as Jewish as the Maharishi is Irish – yet he is suffering the same fate as Jewish students who find themselves up against Students for Justice in Palestine and a cause that SJP champions called ‘BDS’.  This ‘movement’ urges foundations, corporations, educational institutions and individuals to ‘Boycott, Divest and Sanction’ Israel in retribution for the Palestinian conflict in that country.

[RELATED: UCLA as a place of thriving Jewish life]

Milan’s betrayal is a lesson in the adage that ‘no good deed goes unpunished’, and ironically, his betrayal is the harbinger for what is happening to Jewish students on campus, and has ultimately resulted in his being driven from UCLA – pilloried for his accidental involvement with a scurrilous, anti-Semitic movement that not only criticizes policy, but attacks opponents viciously.

At the time of his betrayal, Milan was President of UCLA’s Graduate Student’s Association (GSA), an organization that although part of the Associated Students of UCLA, works independently when it comes to its own rules and procedures.  In October of 2015, Milan received a direct funding request for a Town Hall event by a member of the UCLA student organization, Diversity Caucus (DC) – what appears to be, among other things, a front for the BDS Movement.  

The request seemed to be more about sponsorship for what may seem a hidden agenda, as DC did not go through the proper channels for funding.  It went straight to Milan, and demanded a $2,000 bequest knowing full well that the limit on such grants was $800. The request was nonetheless granted, with the stipulation that the GSA would not be funding any event organized by or actively connected with “Divest from Israel or any related movement/organization.” Knowing that some of the more rabid BDS supporters are known to go for the jugular by confronting and challenging Jewish students, GSA did not want to sponsor ‘a position that will alienate a significant portion of students.”

Milan made it explicitly clear to the Diversity Caucus representative through a phone call, in-person meeting, and email that this stipulation equally applied to advocates both for and against the BDS movement.  What’s fair is fair, and there was a concerted effort to avoid a situation that pitted student against student, for whatever cause.

The Diversity Caucus representative accepted the stipulation—in writing—without any objection. The town hall event was successfully held on November 5, 2015, and throwing caution to the wind, both sides of the BDS issue attended.  That should have been the end of the story, with maybe a thank-you note the only punctuation needed to end the event.

This however is where Milan’s nightmare began.  Instead of a thank you note, Milan was reprimanded by UCLA.  Reprimanded?  Strike that.  He was sanctioned, and made a scapegoat for the failings of UCLA to take a stand against hate speak.  

The hypocrisy of UCLA’s position was elevated in a letter dated February 9, 2016, L. Amy Blum, Interim Vice Chancellor of Legal Affairs stated “University policy requires student governments to allocate mandatory student fee funds on a viewpoint neutral basis.”  If that was University policy, it should have ended there.

It didn’t.

Soon after the event, Milan began to be hassled, bullied and harassed by SJP and the BDS movement. They enlisted Palestine Legal and the ACLU to launch a vicious PR attack against Milan, where they falsely accused him of engaging in “viewpoint discrimination.” Erwin Chemerinsky, one of America’s leading constitutional law scholars, and the American Center for Law and Justice, thoroughly debunked this accusation.  

Logic and thoughtful jurisprudence had no effect.  The fuse was lit, and Milan was handed a device that UCLA alone could disarm.  The campus’ Jewish community waited.

In the ensuing days, both SJP and pro-BDS activists launched several attempts to get Milan removed as GSA President, though they were not successful. Moreover, they enlisted pro-BDS blogs and publications to publish defamatory articles about Milan. SJP and pro-BDS activists also circulated a petition around the UCLA campus, and visited all the graduate school councils, where they continued to make defamatory accusations about Milan.

There was no way that the GSA cabinet was going to get involved in this, and in taking a step back, Milan fell over the cowering form of UCLA Chancellor Block, who scurried away and hid while Milan was pilloried in what became a public shaming.  It looks like the DC and SJP got their BDS face-off after all, on the back of a person whose only crime was assisting in getting a so-called diversity event funded.

In what seems a huge misapplication of UCLA policy, that states that even ‘chancellors shall adopt campus implementing regulations consistent with these policies’ – there was nothing coming in way of support of Milan or the Jewish students being affected by SJP and pro-BDS activists.  Chancellor Block’s voice was conspicuously silent, and was taken as tacit approval of BDS and its goals.

Facing a vicious, nine-month long campaign of attacks, Milan rapidly became the poster boy for religious oppression.  The irony that he’s not even close to being Jewish only shows that the tentacles of hate tend to wrap around anyone that crosses BDS.  

UCLA has suffered a history of anti-Semitism that lately has reached a fever pitch of hate and hypocrisy.  Led by a movement that would rather see a child die than provide life saving treatments courtesy of Israeli technology, the BDS’ers have provided Chancellor Block with a poetic double standard.  Had this been a group that went after a visible minority, they would have been quickly and rightly dispatched. Not so with BDS who only seems to direct their ire almost exclusively at pro-Israel and most likely Jewish, mostly white students.   It is that double standard that threatens every Jewish student on campus.

It was just a year ago that UCLA’s Student Council challenged undergraduate Rachel Beyda a seat on its Judicial Board based solely on her religion.  Rachel was Jewish.  Citing concerns that Rachel’s religion might affect her decision making abilities, the active practice of anti-Semitism became transparent, and — though she was eventually seated– it was clear it was infecting the upper echelons of UCLA student government.

Chancellor Block claimed in an articlel in the Jewish Journal that BDS ‘isn’t going to be sustained on this campus’.  He was right.  BDS is not merely sustained.  BDS is nurtured and fertilized by the silence of Chancellor Block and the UCLA hierarchy that can sound the alarm.

UCLA isn’t the only campus in the UC system whose Jewish community is at Defcon 2.  During a screening of the Israeli Defense Forces documentary “Beneath the Helmet’ at UC Irvine, a Jewish student was corralled and 10 UCI students were threatened by Students for Justice in Palestine.  A statement issued by The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) recognized that what was happening at UC Irvine and at UCLA with Milan “suggests a pattern in which Jewish and non-Jewish students are under assault.”

Think back in history when Jews and those who spoke out in sympathy to their plight were publicly chastised.  This isn’t Weimar, Germany. This is Westwood, California.  

While Milan continued to be digitally drawn and quartered in leaked documents and furtive e-mails, UCLA again found themselves defending hate-speak to the detriment of Jewish students.

Lisa Marie Mendez is a UCLA Student who was employed at the UCLA Medical Center.  Lisa’s connection to Jews and cultural empathy was on full display in a Facebook rant.  In response to a pro-Israel post by Jewish actress Mayim Bialick, Lisa went off on a racial rant that focused on ‘fucking Zionist pigs’.  Not satisfied to leave it at that, Lisa left the following literary gem:  

Fucking Jews.  GTFOH with all your Zionist bullshit.  Crazy ass fucking troglodyte albino monsters of cultural destruction.  Fucking Jews.  GTFOH with your whiny bullshit.  Give the Palestinians back their land, go back to Poland or whatever freezer-state you’re from, and realize that faith does not constitute race.

In an effort to sound as lame as they could, UCLA issued a response as if this was a First Amendment issue.  It was more than that.

Mendez crossed a line that defined the level of care that a Jewish patient of UCLA Health could expect.  It doesn’t matter if Mendez was an anesthesiologist or if she sold fish sticks in the cafeteria – her white hot anti-Semitism was most certainly expressed at work, and probably to friends who shared her ignorance.  Regardless of her position, she created a hostile environment for Jewish patients and doctors.  

What was Chancellor Block’s response?  There was none.  

“He’s a wimp” complained a leading Jewish religious figure in Los Angeles.

The official response came from Josh Samuels, who was Mendez’s boss. In a mincing, apologetic attempt to support his employee, Samuels offered this:

“We must also keep in mind that the University cannot control the activities of individuals in their personal lives when not acting on behalf of the University, and that the First Amendment protects individual’s private speech, however reprehensible the University finds it.”

Dr. John Mazziotta, the Vice Chancellor of UCLA Health Sciences and CEO of UCLA Health System offered little more.

“The post absolutely does not represent the values of our health system or the believes of our campus community.  It displays insensitivity and ignorance of the history and racial diversity of the Jewish people and a lack of empathy.”

That’s it?  That’s his response to a racist rant that left no expletive unturned?  Would the response be the same had the author taken down African Americans, or Asians, or Muslims?

The double standard in practice at UCLA endangers every Jewish student.  

What do students think?  I asked a Jewish student if he ever felt ‘challenged’ by BDS:

“In one word, YES.”  The perception is that if you speak out against BDS, the backlash can threaten your education.  “They go after individuals to scare them from being vocal.”  Another student said ‘We feel attacked, constantly.”

And what of Milan Chatterjee?   Every day seems to bring more swipes at his personality and more attempts to destroy his reputation.

“I’m very disappointed that Chancellor Block and his administration did not provide me with any of the necessary support or guidance to overcome the harassment and bullying by BDS,” Milan said in a conversation that I had with him.

Milan has found support, and ironically it comes from one of the groups that he was neutral towards in the town hall event. The Jewish and Pro-Israel community has reached out to Milan.  As BDS attempts to destroy Milan, groups like the American Jewish Committee, Stand With Us, The American Center for Law and Justice, The Lawfare Project, the Zionist Organization of America, and the multi-cultural Israel Christian Nexus have embraced Milan and welcomed him with open arms into their communities.

As UCLA turns away from their responsibility to provide a safe environment for Jewish students, they continue to punish Milan.  Chancellor Block’s silence is deafening.  The potential for harm to Jewish students increases every day that this hate speech is not addressed.

Milan Chatterjee is a brave man who took a stand against taking a stand.  He will be paying for that decision for a long time.  If there is anything positive in this charade, it is the realization that anti-Semitism is a virulent form of hate that masquerades as social reform.  BDS is anti-Semitism.  Milan Chatterjee needn’t be Jewish to experience anti-Semitism.


Richard Stellar is the Co-Founder and COO of The Bestemming Project, Inc.

 

This opinion column was edited and updated September 3, 2016.

UCLA: No place for Jews? Read More »

Maturity in Remembering

Today marks the end of the eleven month period, in which my mother has said Kaddish (the prayer for mourners) for my Gramma Fay.  For eleven months my mother attended three prayer services daily and stood and publicly recited Kaddish in her mother’s memory.  I had the great honor of being present and reciting it with her at Adat Shalom.  Today to end the process, my parents returned to Chicago where we are all from and attended services at the synagogue in “the old neighborhood” where Gramma Fay’s plaque will be placed alongside my Papa Nathan, for whom I am named.

I thought about my mother’s accomplishment of rememberance this morning during the prayer service as I recited a line in the Tachanun section:
חוסה ה עלינו ברחמיך, ואל תתננו בידי אכזרים.
God, pity us in Your mercy and do not hand us over to foreigners.

My attention was caught by the Hebrew word for foreigners — אכזרים.  The root of the word is זר (pronounced “zar” in Hebrew), meaning foreign or strange – “un-Jewish.”  In the Torah, two of Aaron’s sons are killed by a strange foreign fire, pronounced “esh zarah” in Hebrew (Lev. 10:1).  The three letters together כזר means “like a foreigner.”  But, if I rearrange the letters it turns into זכר, the Hebrew root for remembrance, the single most Jewish act.

Jews read the complete Torah every year in order to remember the narrative of our people.  The Passover Seder features a scripted book to help us remember the story of Passover.  Jews remember what the world wants to forget.

The two letters that need to be switched are the kaph “כ” and zayin “ז” in order to move from כזר, or behaving like a foreigner, to זכר, behaving like a Jew.  And if you love Gematriya like I do (the belief that every Hebrew letter has a numerical value, meaning aleph is 1 and bet is 2… then zayin is 7 and kaph is 20), then you know that the difference between kaph and zayin is 13, which is the age when a Jewish adolescent reaches maturity and accepts the Mitzvot. 

Jewish adulthood means acting like a Jew.  There is no more iconic Jewish behavior than standing in one’s community and remembering publicly, even when it’s personal and painful.  Remembering is Jewish.

Tradition tells us that Gramma Fay’s soul has completed her journey by now and I suspect (and hope) that she is now seated at the card table with the rest of our family, speaking Yiddish, and playing Kalooki for penny and nickel antes in the great Catskill Resort in the beyond.  May Gramma Fay’s memory always be a blessing for our family and for all who loved her.  And may my Mother’s fulfillment of the eleven months serve to inspire all of us to keep a beautiful tradition from the distant past into the infinite future.

Maturity in Remembering Read More »

Gawker and lawsuits: Press freedom faces a double threat

One of the most dangerous trends in American life is the increasingly successful attack on the already weakened news media, a trend heightened by Donald Trump’s threat to sue journalists and a billionaire’s in shutting down the scandal site Gawker. 

It’s a threat to media outlets large and small, particularly those with limited financial resources, including community newspapers and ethnic publications, such as this very publication, the Jewish Journal. 

Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, made his intentions clear in a speech to a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, in February: “One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading, I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”

What Trump is advocating is weakening the constitutional First Amendment protection of freedom of speech. Specifically, he’s against the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan. That momentous ruling greatly increased media freedom by demanding that public officials fighting a critical story must prove actual malice. Malice means a story was published with the knowledge that it was false and that the publication recklessly disregarded the truth. Later, the decision was expanded to include lawsuits by public figures. 

For more than half a century, Sullivan remains the great protector of freedom of the press. Trump’s threat to dismantle it, presumably with his new Supreme Court, is one of the great dangers of his presidential campaign.

Peter Thiel, the successful rich Silicon Valley investor, came at press freedom from another angle. Gawker was an uninhibited internet site that ran gossipy scandal stories on the famous and the little known, humiliating many of its subjects but sometimes striking its version of gold, as it did by pushing the Bill Cosby story. In one story, it wrote that Thiel was gay. His preferences were known in Silicon Valley, but Thiel, who happens to be a Trump supporter, said Gawker had “ruined people’s lives for no reason.” He began an all-out underground campaign against Gawker.

His chance came when Gawker ran a video of well-known wrestler Hulk Hogan having sex with a woman. Thiel hired an aggressive and talented lawyer for Hogan, whose real name is Terry G. Bollea. The wrestler sued Gawker for invasion of privacy. A Florida jury awarded Bollea $140 million, a judgment that put Gawker out of business.

What, you might ask, does a sensation-mad gossip-scandal site have in common with respectable journalism, including publications like this one? Quite a bit.

The Jewish publication The Forward provides a possible example. The Forward, founded in 1897 by socialists, including famed editor and novelist Abraham Cahan, has long focused attention on slumlords, dating back to the packed tenements of New York’s Lower East Side. In 2010, Rabbi Jill Jacobs wrote an opinion piece, “When The Slumlords Are Us,” in which she named three of them from a list first published by The Village Voice.

Let me play law professor for a moment and ask a hypothetical: What if the new Trump Supreme Court wiped out the Sullivan press doctrine and made it easy to win a libel suit? Or what if more deep-pockets Peter Thiels appeared, ready to finance lawsuits against publications they hated. 

In other words, what if one of those slumlords wanted revenge against The Forward, as Thiel did in the Gawker case?

Think of today’s media proprietors or the owners of the thousands of websites and small community papers around the country, which play watchdog in their towns and cities. Before they go after a rich big shot, they might very well ponder these words by Nick Denton, the Gawker founder:

“Peter Thiel has achieved his objectives. His proxy, Terry Bollea, also known as Hulk Hogan, has a claim on the company and my personal assets after winning a $140 million trial court judgment in his Florida privacy case. Even if that decision is reversed or reduced on appeal, it is too late for Gawker itself. Its former editor, who wrote the story about Hogan, has a $230 million hold on his checking account. The flagship site, a magnet for most of the lawsuits marshaled by Peter Thiel’s lawyer, has for most media companies become simply too dangerous to own.”

With Trump determined to overturn the Sullivan decision, and more rich people emboldened by Thiel’s success, the news media faces a dangerous threat. That is particularly true for outlets large and small that practice accountability investigative journalism — finding out who is to blame for misdeeds by government, businesses, charities, religious organizations and other powerful institutions.

With staff reductions due to plummeting circulation and advertising, media outlets are already pulling back from this kind of journalism, as comedian John Oliver pointed out recently on his TV show in his devastating satire on how newspapers are chasing stories about cute animals rather than scandals at city hall. 

An editor or owner, looking fearfully at the bottom line when a reporter races in with evidence of a scandal, is likely to say, “It’s not worth it.” That will be the new credo of journalism, replacing the still-stirring words that journalist-humorist Finley Peter Dunne wrote more than 100 years ago: “The job of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”


Bill Boyarsky is a columnist for The Jewish Journal, Truthdig and L.A. Observed, and the author of “Inventing L.A.: The Chandlers and Their Times” (Angel City Press).

Gawker and lawsuits: Press freedom faces a double threat Read More »

Mel Brooks shares his sweetest memories of Gene Wilder

Mel Brooks and the late Gene Wilder — who collaborated in films such as “Blazing Saddles” and “Young Frankenstein” — had a famously close, decades-long friendship.

When Wilder passed away on Monday, Brooks was one of the first celebrities to offer a Twitter eulogy, calling him “one of the truly great talents of our time.”

Brooks got more specific on “The Tonight Show” Tuesday night, dishing to Jimmy Fallon about everything from how he met the fellow Jewish comedy legend to how Wilder cried when he saw the script for “The Producers.”

Brooks, who is 90 but still oozes energy and a manic sense of humor — he interrupted the interview at one point to stand up and mock Hitler’s mustache using a hair comb — recalled how he told Wilder about the idea for “The Producers” before he had the financial backing to follow through with it.

“He said…‘You’re doing a play about two Jews who are producing a flop instead of a hit, knowing they can make more money with a flop, and the big number in it is “Springtime for Hitler.” Yeah, you’re going to get the money,’” Brooks said, noting Wilder’s sarcasm.

When Brooks finally did secure the money for the movie, he surprised Wilder in his dressing room, where he was preparing to act in a play, with a copy of the script. Instead of laughing this time, Wilder broke down in tears of joy.

Watch the full clip, which includes more touching Brooks and Wilder stories, above.

Mel Brooks shares his sweetest memories of Gene Wilder Read More »

Trump and a ‘thought criminal’

Much has been written about Hillary Clinton’s speech last week declaring that Donald Trump has built a campaign on “prejudice and paranoia.”

Her lengthy recitation of Trump comments included his statements regarding Blacks (“poverty, rejection, horrible education, no housing, no homes, no ownership”), Mexican immigrants (“rapists and criminals” that the Mexican government is sending across the border), a Federal District Court judge of Latino heritage (“he’s a Mexican”), and his delayed rejection of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. She could have added his bon mot about “little short guys that wear yarmulkes every day” who make good accountants.

Trump’s insults directed at various minority groups are offensive and reason enough to give one pause about a candidate who seems not to care about demeaning and stereotyping individuals and groups. His indifference runs counter to decades of political mores in our country that viewed stereotyping and bigotry as threshold disqualifiers for anyone running for higher elective office. An errant comment (no matter how dated) has usually been toxic to one’s career (political or otherwise)—ask Gen. Brown, Al Campanis, Donald Sterling, Mel Gibson or Michael Richards (Seinfeld’s “Cosmo”)—and makes one a pariah.

Trump managed to secure the Republican nomination for president despite repeated incendiary comments and manifest insensitivity—an issue that will likely challenge and test the party for a long time (see here as well).

But Trump isn’t only guilty of not quite “getting it” vis a vis what he says. What is equally disturbing (as Clinton pointed out in her speech) is that he has consorted with a political extremist who purveys the most absurd and dangerous messages of cynicism, hate and paranoia.

He has engaged with and expressed support for an extremist who tills the soil in which bigotry flourishes. An “internet” broadcaster named Alex Jones, who most mainstream Americans have never heard of, but who is known to millions of people who listen to his musings on the web. Jones promotes insidious, divisive, nutty conspiracy theories for which there is no evidence and which are the bread and butter of the worst extremists in our society. He describes himself as a “thought criminal against Big Brother.”

The New Yorker wrote of Jones’ rise to prominence,

Jones’s amazing reputation arises mainly from his high-volume insistence that national tragedies such as the September 11th terror attacks, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Sandy Hook elementary-school shooting, and the Boston Marathon bombing were all inside jobs, “false flag” ops secretly perpetrated by the government to increase its tyrannical power (and, in some cases, seize guns). Jones believes that no one was actually hurt at Sandy Hook-those were actors-and that the Apollo 11 moon-landing footage was faked. [Emphasis added]

That is a recitation of a small portion of the nonsense he spouts. He is the kind of extremist and demagogue that any self-respecting individual (let alone a politician) avoids. Jones fuels the uninformed, the discontented and the “victims” who seek simplistic conspiracy notions to “explain” why life hasn’t gone their way. He exists in large measure because the Internet has no editors or filters—the floodgates of nuttiness are wide open.

Trump appeared on Jones’ radio program the day of the San Bernardino shootings last year. Jones introduced him and, predictably, praised him, claiming that 90% of his audience were supporters. Trump responded in kind, “Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down.”

The encounter was an answer to Jones’ prayers. For the most part, folks like Jones exist on the fringes of society—speaking to a relatively small segment of the public. They are, fortunately, ostracized from the major media and the legitimacy that the media can confer. Folks like Jones hope that a few, or even one, of their wackadoodle theories catches on and that supporters and funds will flow from that—if only they can gain the wider audience.

For Jones to have a presidential candidate on his air, and offering praise to boot, is the validation that he craves. He can use that “cache” to extend his reach to quasi-normal folks who might otherwise never give him a second look (“Donald Trump came on my show, I’m a serious player”).

For Trump, that decision to appear with Jones may tell us all we need to know about his views, his outlook and the folks around him. Trump made a conscious decision to lend his name, and such stature as he has, to a certified extremist who has no claim to legitimacy or to a place at the table of rational discourse.

Either Trump didn’t know who Jones was—-in which case his staff is guilty of malpractice—or he knew and didn’t care. In the latter case, he would be indifferent, maybe even sympathetic, to the bottom dwellers of the political world—a warning light to anyone who cares about civility and our future.

Mr. Trump has a serious problem with bigotry and extremism. Three centuries ago Edmund Burke warned of the dangers of tolerating, or turning a blind eye, to wickedness, “all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Tacitly endorsing a vile conspiracy theorist is worse than doing nothing.

Trump and a ‘thought criminal’ Read More »