fbpx

January 19, 2017

Sundance Film Festival

Arguably one of the most influential film festivals ever, the Sundance Film Festival starts today  in Park City, Utah.  In case you can’t get there, visit www.sundance.org for lots of info., videos, and background.  And you can stay nice and warm and cozy at home! 

Also, season two of a terrific TV show on FX starts tonight at 10 pm:  Baskets.  It is Zach Galifianakis at his finest, playing a down on his luck professional clown, and it’s amazing.  Sad, funny, unusual — just perfect.

Sundance Film Festival Read More »

Planting ideas to display a supermarket bouquet

Flowers at the supermarket are hard to resist. Displayed at the front of the store so you see them when you enter and leave, they’re conveniently arranged in bunches for you to just grab and go.

I frequently buy flowers at the supermarket, and I’m hardly alone. According to the 2016 Generations of Flowers Study by the American Floral Endowment and the Society of American Florists, 70 percent of consumers now purchase flowers for themselves at supermarkets. 

But once people take their store-bought bouquets home, they are often unsure how to arrange them. If you’ve faced this quandary, I did a little experiment to help you.

Visiting my local Trader Joe’s, I picked up a mixed bouquet for $9.99. (Such a deal!) To show you there’s more you can do with the flowers than just plop them in a vase, here are three ways you can arrange them. Hopefully, you’ll be inspired to give yourselves flowers more often. You deserve them!

1. Market-arranged

The simplest way to display a store-bought bouquet is to keep the arrangement created by the supermarket. Most people opt to use this method, but they skip the most important step — cutting the stems. Hold the bouquet with one hand to keep the arrangement in place and, with the other, snip the stems using floral shears. Fresh cuts that are at an angle will help the blooms drink up more water. And be sure to remove any greenery that will be submerged in the water to help prevent bacteria growth. Place the bouquet in a vase and you’ve added instant beauty to a room. 

2. Florist-style dome arrangement

Turn your standard supermarket bouquet into an expensive-looking arrangement that looks as if it came from a florist. Select a vase that is shorter so there will be less visual emphasis on the stems. Then cut the stems short so they sit just above the rim of the vase, with the stems in the middle of the vase a little bit taller, resulting in a dome shape. I also recommend clustering together similar flowers — for example, placing all the Gerber daisies together and all the mums together — instead of mixing them up as the supermarket originally arranged them. This results in a cleaner, more modern arrangement.

3. Deconstructed arrangement

One of my favorite ways to display a supermarket bouquet is to deconstruct it. Take apart the bouquet, and separate it into groupings of the same flowers. Then take out all the mismatched vases you have (or even drinking glasses), and place one grouping of flowers in each vase. Depending on the bouquet you bought, some vases will contain large bunches while others will hold just a single stem. This type of arrangement reminds me of a display you’d see in a flower shop window. I particularly love using deconstructed arrangements as a centerpiece because several smaller vases across a dinner table can make a bigger impact than one larger arrangement. Plus it requires absolutely no artistic ability.


Jonathan Fong is the author of “Walls That Wow,” “Flowers That Wow” and “Parties That Wow,” and host of “Style With a Smile” on YouTube. You can see more of his do-it-yourself projects at jonathanfongstyle.com.

Planting ideas to display a supermarket bouquet Read More »

Letters to the Editor: Do Women Need Men?; Rabbi Hier; Divorce

Women and Marriage

Dennis Prager makes the case that women are diminishing their chances for happiness by education and professional aspirations (“Do Women Need Men?” Jan. 13). As the father of two successful and happily married daughters, I counseled them from an early age that they could pursue a career and marriage at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

When one of my daughters decided to go to medical school, my mother counseled her, as Dennis would suggest, to seek a husband instead. My mother cited the case of her friend’s daughter who was a doctor but not married. Would she have been happier if she was not a doctor and still not married? Fortunately, today’s women can have it all.  

Michael Telerant, Los Angeles

Dennis Prager personifies the textbook definition of patronizing in his Jan. 13 column. He claims that the women who lead protests are angry about not having a husband, when actually they are pursuing justice, a core Jewish value. Prager loves to pick Torah portions that fit his narrow views, ignoring the Torah requirement to not judge unfairly. Fortunately for us, millions of women — be they unmarried or married to men or women — embody this Torah passage: “Justice, justice you shall pursue.”

Sharyn Obsatz, Encino

Divorce and the Orthodox

It’s time to drag this archaic diversion of the spirit of the law into the light and address the inequality of agunot (“Rabbi Krauss’ Crusade,” Dec. 23). Torah is explicit in that compassion is paramount. It is a presumption in the law that one must rule with leniency in saving the life of the agunah. As long as this issue of inequality remains without remedy, the very future of Judaism is in jeopardy. We cannot afford to punish our wives, mothers and children with this cruel form of isolation. The chronic patriarchal adherence to this abuse and misuse of the law does not serve to secure a future for the Jewish nation. It’s difficult enough to be a Jew in the 21st century as it is. Deal with it. End the abuse.

Kathlean Gahagan, Santa Monica

The Kapo Conundrum

The problem with the entire discussion about whether J Street is a kapo is that J Street members do not know what a kapo is — a prisoner foreman (“Chanukah, Trump and David Friedman,” Dec. 23). There were kapos who saved many lives, as well as kapos who had Stockholm syndrome and therefore mimicked the behavior of their oppressors. Some kapos were from the criminal class — deliberately chosen because they were criminals and given power — and chosen for that role; others used every conceivable opportunity, without endangering those whom they were in charge of, to make life as least difficult as possible under difficult if not impossible situations. 

As I read the entire discussion, including that of U.S. Ambassador Designate to Israel David Friedman, I am convinced “forgive them all for they know not of what they speak.” But this name calling is pure ignorance masquerading as wisdom and insight.

Michael Berenbaum via email

When I read the Letters to the Editor in the Jan. 6 issue, the first two caught my eye.

These letters criticized J Street supporters (they are not Zionists, they wrote). They also feel the possibility of a two-state solution is now history, and they are happy about this.

They like the politics of Donald Trump and U.S. Ambassador Designate to Israel David Friedman, and feel those who are on the other side are “self-hating apostate” Jews.

I don’t know the writers but I will bet they are older than 50. They had better start talking to younger Jews — millennials, college-age, etc. The future is not with their views, and if more mature voters do not see this, I worry about the future of Israel and Jews in the United States.

Younger Jews, for the most part, are not in favor of the settlements. They supported Bernie Sanders’ left-of-center views on Israel. This is the future. And organizations such as J Street and others are working hard to bridge the gap. We want to keep these young Jews engaged, not turn them off to the ideals of Zionism.

Judith Alban, Los Angeles

Rabbi Hier’s Bad Decision

May we include Rabbi Marvin Hier’s decision to deliver a benediction at Donald Trump’s inauguration as one of the top acts of anti-Semitism and intolerance of 2016? (“Local Rabbi to Deliver Prayer at Inauguration,” Jan. 6) After all, he’d be blessing a man who spoke of Jews as negotiators, retweeted from neo-Nazi websites, and helped to normalize the unleashing of some of the most anti-Semitic, disgusting, evil communications in recent history. And that’s beside all the horrendous stereotypes and awful insults Trump spewed about others. 

William Kaplan, Los Angeles

Letters to the Editor: Do Women Need Men?; Rabbi Hier; Divorce Read More »

Obituaries: Week of January 19, 2017

Shirley Abrams died Jan. 1 at 82. Survived by son Hal; daughter Gale Frankel; 5 grandchildren; brother Joe Friedman. Mount Sinai

Arnold Bail died Dec. 30 at 90. Survived by wife Linda; daughters Nancy (Marshall) Rubin, Liz (Tim) Ilif; 5 grandchildren; 3 great-grandchildren. Hillside

Darrin Allen Carr died Dec. 30 at 54. Survived by brother Scott (Selene). Mount Sinai

Sylvia E. Crasnick died Jan. 1 at 87. Survived by husband Gerald; daughter Laurie; sons Richard, Michael; 2 grandchildren. Mount Sinai

Leah Fogel died Jan. 2 at 98. Survived by sons Steven, Paul; 4 grandchildren. Hillside

Bette Frankel died Dec. 23 at 89. Survived by husband Arthur; daughters Jan (Michael) Schau, Ronni (Charles) Blakeney; son Richard (Susan); 9 grandchildren; 8 great-grandchildren; sister Marilyn Wildstein; brother Richard Miller. Hillside

Paul Hegyesi died Dec. 28 at 92. Survived by wife Josephine; daughter Bea (Sid) Richman; son Scott Paul; 4 grandchildren; 9 great-grandchildren. Hillside

Lawrence Heineman died Dec. 17 at 65. Survived by wife Hannah; sons Justin (Dawn), Scott; mother Anne; sister Carol (Ralph) Clayman. Hillside

Darrelle Hirsch died Dec. 21 at 76. Survived by husband Donald; daughters Dana (Nathaniel) Lipman, Dina (Marc Shenkman); sister Arline (Henry) Gluck; brother Leslie Mayers; 5 grandchildren. Hillside

Grace Hutt died Dec. 16 at 94. Survived by daughter Susan (Sumner) Starrfield; 3 grandchildren; 4 great-grandchildren. Hillside

Myer Jacobs died Dec. 27 at 92. Survived by wife Marjorie; sons Marc (Jan), Neil; 2 grandchildren. Hillside

Joy Kisliuk died Dec. 31 at 89. Survived by daughters Laurel, Amy; sons William, Thomas (Elisabeth); 3 grandchildren; 1 great-grandchild. Hillside

Dennis Lazar died Dec. 26 at 79. Survived by wife Nancy; stepdaughter Kelly Brickman; sons Mason, Paxton, Colton; 5 grandchildren; brother Leslie. Hillside

Harold Lazner died Dec. 28 at 90. Survived by wife Doris; daughters Leslie, Jolette Jai; son-in-law Alan Michael; 4 grandchildren. Hillside

Jeffrey Levy died Jan. 1 at 64. Survived by daughters Megan, Jessica; son Max; sister Barbara (Bruce) Albert. Mount Sinai

Barbara Lovell died Dec. 22 at 82. Survived by son Alan (Barbara) Gardner; 1 grandchild. Hillside

Edward A. Massey died Nov. 19 at 52. Survived by wife Davina Kohanzadeh Massey; daughters Madeleine, Charlotte; sons Jacob, Josh; mother Cherie; father Robert; sister Danielle; brothers David, Ralph (Gila), Daniel. Chevra Kadisha

Carolyn Mintz died Dec. 23 at 79. Survived by husband Gary; daughters Mindy Klein, Karen Todd, Julie Jenkins; sons Max (Eniko) Gold, Gary (Andrea) Gold, Rich Gold, Jon (Elaine) Boscoe; 11 grandchildren; brothers Steve Marpet, Richard Marpet. Hillside

Eva Priel died Dec. 25 at 57. Survived by husband Ron; daughters Jackie, Jennie, Natalie (David) Shaye; 1 grandchild. Hillside

Pauline Rosenblatt died Dec. 23 at 94. Survived by sons Martin (Jane), Sidney; 3 grandchildren; 6 great-grandchildren. Hillside

Joan Saunders died Dec. 31 at 81. Survived by husband Norman; sons Mike, Gary. Hillside

Lilly Seltzer died Dec. 30 at 79. Survived by husband Dale, daughters Lisa (Barry Kay), Glenna (Richard Baron); 4 grandchildren. Hillside

Tova Shachory died Dec. 26 at 79. Survived by daughter Sarah (Claudio) Wolff. Hillside

Adda Smilove died Dec. 19 at 87. Survived by sons Jonathan, Michael. Hillside

Pearl Stahl died Jan. 1 at 92. Survived by daughter Rochelle; son Martin; 3 grandchildren; sister Mae (Maurice) White. Mount Sinai

Milton Stroll died Dec. 16 at 98. Survived by daughter Cheryl Penny (Steve) Weiner; 2 grandchildren; 2 great-grandchildren. Hillside

Steve Wachsner died Dec. 31 at 92.  Survived by wife Mary Ann; daughter Robin; son Gary Stuart; 2 grandchildren. Mount Sinai

Doris Weber died Jan. 2 at 99. Survived by son David (Marie Eason). Hillside

Roger Weinstock died Nov. 21 at 80. Survived by wife Brenda; son Jason; 3 grandchildren; sister-in-law Gloria (Ken) Sobel. Mount Sinai

Allan S. Wirtzer died Nov. 6 at 70. Survived by wife Nancy Omeara-Wirtzer; daughter Lauren; son Alex (Natalie); 5 grandchildren; father Louis; sisters Laraine (Gerry) Whitcomb, Andrea (Michael) Cassidy. Chevra Kadisha

Judy Wolf died Dec. 31 at 87. Survived by daughters Madeline (Larry Goldberg), Phyllis (Ezra); son Arthur (Nancy); 7 grandchildren. Hillside

Stephen Zaitsoff died Dec. 28 at 73. Survived by brother Lawrence. Hillside

Obituaries: Week of January 19, 2017 Read More »

(((As Dreamers)))

‘President Trump.’ It’s still, for many, an incredulous combination of words.

The specter of a transition from President Obama to President Trump is scarcely imaginable, even now, nearly two months after Trump’s victory. It is inconceivable that a person who rendered truth an irrelevant yardstick by which to measure personal character or qualification for office will soon assume the office of President. His inflammatory rhetoric toward or about Muslims, Mexicans, women, and those with disabilities, will now be the preamble to a refashioning of the United States’ highest office. During this liminal period between the election and the inauguration, President-elect Trump’s tweets and cabinet appointments have only reinforced the sense of disbelief and anxiety regarding the next four years.

This period of limbo has been especially trying for Jews, the vast majority of whom did not support him. Even more, mainstream Jewish organizations have had to ask themselves how to position themselves toward the person who will, after all, soon be President of their country. The very need to enter this complicated morass of balancing between moral commitments and political necessity in dealing with such basic questions as to whether or not to invite the President-elect’s senior advisor Stephen Bannon to a ZOA event, or whether or not to hold the Conference of Presidents Hanukkah party at the new Trump Hotel within sight of the White House – offers an alarmingly clear indication that United States Jews find themselves in a moment of profound, and I would assert, unprecedented significance.

But part of the reckoning of the morning of November 9 involves the shocking realization – or perhaps, admission – that nothing “happened” the night before. The outcome of the elections was profoundly unsettling, because it reflected, not effectuated (though it may well do that, too). That is, Trump’s victory offers a surface indicator of the movement of tectonic plates below. Although sensitive pundits knew enough on the morning after to identify what Peter Beinart called “political vertigo,” the time has come to begin an accounting of the significance of Trump’s victory from a Jewish perspective.

I offer these reflections as a Jew who was blessed to grow up in the United States but who decided, as a young adult, to make my home in Israel. Since moving to Jerusalem in 1992, Israel has so much been my center of gravity that I have deemed it inappropriate to vote in the United States elections. Since I do not live there, I reasoned, my political proclivities should not hold sway, even if the law grants me the right to vote. This year’s presidential election, however, was different, as I considered the issue at stake not one of policy but of the danger that Trump presented – as a candidate, as a social phenomenon, and as potential President. But long before November 9, I was keenly aware that United States Jewry was finding itself in a watershed moment. I hope that perhaps my love for and appreciation of the American Jewry, combined with my distance from it, will allow my words to penetrate the heart and the mind of the reader.

Never Better

At the heart of the American Jewish ethos and consciousness is the conviction that Jews have never had it so good – anywhere, at any time, in our very long history of wandering. Never have the Jews been afforded such amazing opportunities to thrive societally and financially as individuals, while contributing vitally to the well-being and fashioning of their host society. Never before have Jews arrived at the highest echelons of society and inhabited the most powerful positions of influence: Presidents of Ivy League schools and prominent academics in nearly every discipline, key players in major industries such as finance and film, justices on the Supreme Court, Chair of the Federal Reserve, Vice Presidential candidate, fashioners of culture and art – in music, literature, and the visual arts, key cabinet positions, prominent journalists in the printed and electronic media. The list is astounding.

But the measure of the sui generis nature of the American Jewish experience is not merely a function of the integration of Jews, qua individuals, into society. Jewish life itself has, according to this narrative, thrived in a way never experienced before. Never has the organized Jewish community achieved such political influence; never have there been Jewish initiatives and experimentations of such diverse and bold nature. Never have so many non-Jews found interest in, and express the desire to participate in, Jewish ritual and Jewish life. Never have Jews been as sought-after as life partners by non-Jews. Never has it been so easy for Jews to integrate their sense of Jewish self and their sense of civic self.

The ease of this integration, I would argue, is a function of the confluence among Jewish and American aspirational ideals, to the extent that many American Jews view them not just as confluent, but as coterminous. The American aspiration for social justice parallels the Jewish pursuit of tikkun olam; human dignity, on one hand, and b’tselem, being created in the Divine image, on the other. One culture places the central text of the Constitution at its legal and moral core, while Jewish tradition does the same with the Torah. And both societies build upon that central text a rich, rigorous, interpretive tradition that develops and extends its reach.

U.S. currency is imprinted with the ideal e pluribus unum, while the literature of the High Holidays is punctuated time and again with the vision that, “my house will be a house of prayer for all peoples” (Isaiah 56 7). What in American culture is cast as a deep belief in the possibility of moral progress is, in Jewish parlance, the central category of redemption – a deep-seated commitment that good can eclipse evil in this world.

A Brave, New World of Hybridity

These last two points have emerged as forged together at their deepest levels in an important way for many American Jews. For them, the greatest and deepest aspirational truth of the United States is that it is constantly progressing toward the formation of an unprecedented model society that expresses the great oneness which undergirds all of humanity. Precisely here, the United States and the Jews combine efforts to form a joint City-on-the-Hill and Light-unto-the-Nations.

Though its early history may be marked by cruel treatment of Native Americans and slaves from Africa, post-Civil War United States freed its slaves and eventually granted suffrage to women and civil rights to all of its citizens. By this account, the United States was still a white, Christian society, but one that tolerated minorities of diverse persuasions.

The melting pot ideal that would emerge entailed the absorption of diverse communities and ethnicities which would blend together, losing a bit of their distinctiveness but – as a part of the process – transforming hegemonic society. At some point, however, the United States progressed toward a more robust model of a pluralism, rejecting the ideal of a melting pot, instead fashioning itself a multicultural society committed to preserving pockets of diversity.

Most recently, it has taken the next step of post-ethnic hybridity, where each of these cultural-ethnic pockets opens its borders, spawning new fusions and iterations of existent cultural, ethnic, and religious life. Each particularity – exposed, as it is, to other cultures and ethnicities – undergoes numerous transformations, evolving constantly into new forms, while society as a whole achieves new heights of oneness.

The aspiration and the promise of the United States allow for a peculiarly American iteration of Jewish life that accentuates a quasi-messianic ideal, according to which the loftiest aspirations of the United States join with those of the Jewish tradition – of human dignity, of shared humanity, and of the deep-rooted belief that these ideals can receive expression and realization in our reality.

The United States has thus offered a double promise of Jewish fulfillment: as individuals, to be sure, but also as Jews, as carriers and fulfillers of the deepest ideals of their country.

The Cracks

“There’s a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in,” Leonard Cohen famously wrote. With these words, Cohen, for many a kind of post-modern priest, captures a Jewish – and a specifically American Jewish – sensibility of redemptive possibility. The fissures of brokenness in this world are nothing less than openings through which light – the tender, ambient glow of the potential goodness in this world that inheres just below its rough, fractured surface – can pour in. For Jews in the pre-Trump United States, I would assert, the cracks in the veneer of American society were the cracks of which Cohen sings.

Cohen the poet is right. But poetry and politics all too often ignore each other, each disparaging each other’s blindness, and there is a political truth that Cohen neglects to mention.

There’s a different kind of crack in everything – one that opens to an unfathomable depth of darkness.

From our everyday experience, we learn that staring too intently at light prevents our eyes from adjusting to darkness and being able to see in it. The anxiety of post-November 9 results from extreme vulnerability during those critical moments when our eyes must readjust to the muted light of the room into which we are thrust.

Obviously, the United States of 2016 is not Weimar Germany of 1932, and Trump is no Hitler. But it is undeniably the case that German Jews spoke of their place in Germany in glowing terms that echo, nearly precisely, the sensibility of Jews of the United States. Herman Cohen’s “Germanness and Jewishness” argued, in philosophical terms, for the shared pursuit of those two great cultures. German Jewish intellectuals, tycoons, and artists were no less sanguine: never had there been a place better for the Jews, and never had there been such a deep harmony between Jews and their host country. They were right: Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Herman Cohen, Heinrich Heine, Moses Mendelssohn, Albert Einstein, Martin Buber, Hannah Arendt…the list goes on. “The pity of it all,” as Amos Elon termed it, entailed not only the full-scale liquidation of the Jews of Germany, but also the annihilation of the German-Jewish symbiosis.

Even more pitiful than this “pity of it all,” was the inability of German Jews to look clearly and honestly at the cracks through which the darkness poured in. As Thomas Kuhn describes so cogently in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, what characterizes the period leading up to a paradigm shift is the amassing of enough “anomalous” data that does not fit neatly into our current understanding of reality. Time and again, Jews have learned that it is not merely political folly or bad science to ignore such anomalies: it is supremely dangerous.

I cannot imagine that, even with all of Trump’s incendiary rhetoric, we will find the United States engaging in full-scale deportation of all illegal immigrants, blocking entry of Muslims, or forcing Muslims to register. Nor will the scattered swastikas or the virulent anti-Semitic trolling lead to death camps.

But it is an undeniable truth that approximately 50 percent of the electorate in the United States was able to ignore Trump’s vile suggestions and his rhetoric of hatred, dismissing the waves of racism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism that it released – and deciding, despite it all, to cast a ballot for Donald J. Trump to be the President of the United States of America.

And so the Jews of the United States must, after November 9, give an honest accounting, peering actively into the cracks in the thick veneer of the United States, and its own communal institutions and self-conceptions.

What if the United States as a society contains in its depths silos of incorrigible hatred, not just toward African Americans, which continues to be painfully present and visible, but also toward others qua others? What if those others, exposed to hatred, could include us, as Jewish individuals and as a Jewish community? What if they have repeated what Jews did in the Golden Age of Spain and in Weimar Germany in convincing themselves that it was a host country in which Jews could truly – for the first time in Jewish history – achieve full and total acceptance? What if the effort to limit and sometimes deny Jewish distinctiveness was motivated by a desire to lower any barriers that would divide between them and a post-ethnic, post-tribal host society?

What if they ignored anti-Semitism on the left, often joining in its acerbic critique of Zionism, viewing it as an unseemly outpost of tribal, ethnic Judaism? What if they ignored anti-Semitism on the right, forging partnerships with Christian fundamentalists and other “friends” of the Jews and of Israel, either out of political opportunism or, perhaps worse, out of a deep-seated relief that someone is able to accept and even admire otherness, daring to call Jews what they refuse to call themselves, chosen?

What if, at this very moment, as backward and reactionary as it makes them feel to even entertain the thought, they find ourselves, once again, alone, eclipsed by hatred of Jews both from the left and the right?

What if everything Jews have accomplished in the United States, as committed members of a host society, as individual Jews, and as a Jewish community, were to be bracketed – placed in parentheses within the context of the history of the United States and, as such, marked as other?

(((Mark Rothko. Leon Wieselthier. Janet Yellen. Bob Dylan. Peter Beinart. Ira Glass. Roger Cohen. Jack Lew. Jon Stewart. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Jeffrey Goldberg. Phillip Roth. Natalie Portman. George Soros. Steve Mnuchin. Paul Auster. Lawrence Summers, Amy Guttman, Neil Rudenstine, Harold Shapiro, Peter Salovey. Steven Spielberg.)))

Waking from Slumber

“When God returned the captives to Zion, we were as dreamers,” writes the Psalmist (Psalms 126:1). Though the modern State of Israel adopted Hatikva (literally, “The Hope”) as its national anthem, these words captured the spirit of modern Zionism: there was a sense, throughout the years leading up to the founding of the State, and in fact, well beyond it, that the Jews were living out a dream and in a certain sense, living in a dream.

At the same time, the Jews of the United States – the Goldene Medina – were no less than those of Israel, living as dreamers.

The past 20 years, however, have seen a shift, as the Zionist enterprise seems to have lost its moral luster, with Israel increasingly seen not only as political aggressor, but at a deeper level, as the expression of and contributor to an outdated, bigoted, tribal Jewish self-understanding. At the same time, the Jews of the United States have more than ever, felt themselves to be living as dreamers.

Dreams are an integral activity during our sleep, and our waking “dreams” are acts of imagination vital to our spiritual and moral well-being. But sometimes when we slumber we are overcome by nightmares, moments when what receives expression are our fears, an immersion in a world of fantasy not necessarily any more delusional than that of our dreams. Our daytime “nightmares” are acts of imagination equally vital to our political well-being and our physical survival.

Trump’s ascendance to power does not alter the supreme importance of simultaneously engaging in the acts of fostering our dreams and of allowing our nightmares to surface. We must continue to let the light in through the cracks, while being mindful of those cracks that open up to reveal a threatening darkness.

A loud alarm clock rang on November 9, waking us from a long slumber, requiring that we engage in each of these modes with heightened awareness.


Leon Wiener Dow is a research fellow and a faculty member of the Shalom Hartman Institute and teaches at Bina's Secular Yeshiva. He lives in Jerusalem with his wife and their five children.

(((As Dreamers))) Read More »

Jon Lerner to serve as deputy UN ambassador

Nikki Haley, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for UN Ambassador, has selected Jon Lerner to be her deputy, according to FITSNews, a South Carolina political website. The selection was first reported by New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, citing several sources.

A veteran advisor to the South Carolina Governor, Lerner, who is Jewish, has worked with numerous GOP clients including Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Tim Scott (R-SC). Lerner is considered a staunch conservative. Former First Lady Jenny Sanford told McClatchy Newspapers in 2010, “He works for clients who he believes in and who reflect his own ideological principles. That provides him a sense of purpose and integrity and focus that is lacking in other consultants.”

Throughout the 2016 Presidential race, Lerner played a key role in the NeverTrump campaign, Politico reported in March. Working as a senior strategist for the Washington-based Club for Growth, the group started airing ads against Trump during the fall of 2014 in Iowa. Club for Growth intensified its efforts against the New York businessman spending millions on ads in key states of Florida and Illinois.

Married with three children, Lerner grew up in Minnesota before moving to Maryland and the Washington DC area. He received his J.D. from the University of Chicago while also working as a staffer on Capitol Hill for Senators Rudy Boschwitz (MN) and Al D’Amato (NY). In 2013, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg tapped Lerner to help run a political advocacy group that lobbied for legislative reform on immigration and education.  

“Jon is one of the most brilliant minds in politics, having guided candidates such as Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, and Marco Rubio,” Nick Muzin, a former senior advisor to Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) told Jewish Insider. “He is also a tremendous mentsch, and a Kiddush Hashem. I can’t wait to see what he and Nikki will do at the UN.”

The Minnesota native considers longtime political consultant Arthur Finkelstein a mentor. Finkelstein is well known for playing a critical role in the merger of Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman before the 2013 elections and also helped Netanyahu oust Shimon Peres as Prime Minister in 1996. Speaking with Haaretz in 2012, Lerner said, “I’ve worked with Arthur Finkelstein since the mid-1990s off and on and he’s terrific to work with. He’s very good. Very smart.”

Serving on multiple campaigns for former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, Lerner built a close relationship with the politician, which was reportedly ruptured after Sanford’s public extra-marital affair with Argentinian journalist Maria Belen Chapu. Katon Dawson, who headed the state’s Republican party from 2002 to 2009, told McClathy Newspapers, “I would say the relationship will be strained forever. Jon Lerner worked very hard for Sanford, and it was a betrayal. I am sure he relayed that to the governor.”

When asked about the appointment, Sean Spicer, the incoming White House Press Secretary, told Jewish Insider, “There have been no announcements.”

Generally avoiding the media spotlight, Lerner’s view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other foreign policy issues are not widely known. While he will assume a senior role at the United Nations, Lerner does not appear to have any prior formal diplomatic experience. A political acquaintance of his told us that Lerner was often heavily involved in crafting foreign policy position papers for clients running for Congress.

Last week, Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) introduced legislation that would cut off funding to the UN in protest of a recent resolution condemning Israel for settlement construction.

Jon Lerner to serve as deputy UN ambassador Read More »

Senate Muslim Brotherhood bill provokes controversy

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) introduced the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2017 last week in a bid to “fight against radical Islamic terrorism.” The bill notes that “it is the sense of Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist designation.” Nonetheless, since the legislative branch does not have the authority to make such a determination, the measure would require the Secretary of State to submit such an evaluation and report back to Congress within 60 days.

Cruz notes in a press statement, “A grand détente with the Muslim Brotherhood and a blind eye to the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) are not pathways to peace in this struggle; they guarantee the ultimate success of our enemy.”

Jillian Schwedler, a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of a book on Jordanian Islamists called the Senate bill “deeply problematic.” She told Jewish Insider, “The terrorist designation really is only appropriate for groups that have been actively engaged in the use of violence towards civilian populations and the Muslim Brotherhood in no way fits that category.” Since the different branches of the organization operate independently and at times in a contradictory manner, such a terrorist designation for all of the Brotherhood across the Middle East lacks “nuance,” Schwedler emphasized.

In addition to the Senate measure, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) have introduced a similar bill in the House. The resolution cites the multiple countries that have labeled the Brotherhood a terrorist organization including the 1979 decision by the regime of Hafez al-Assad in Syria, in addition to Russia banning the organization from operating in the country in 2003. Offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood include the AKP, Turkey’s Development and Justice Party– the ruling group in Ankara— which is considered to have ties with the incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The bill also claims that a chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood operates in the United States but does not offer any additional details.

The terrorist designation is a “worthwhile issue to address,” Jonathan Schanzer, Vice President of Research at the Foundations for Defense of Democracies, explained to Jewish Insider. “It is clear that there is an appetite to address the Brotherhood and whatever potential threats it may pose,” Schanzer added.

Given the escalating tensions between Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and the Muslim Brotherhood, the timing of the measure is noteworthy.  “It would be taken by the Egyptian regime to vindicate one of the most widespread campaigns of repression in Egyptian history,” Nathan Brown, Professor of Political Science at George Washington University and Non-Resident Fellow at Carnegie, told Jewish Insider. According to the BBC, approximately 40,000 people have been jailed and 1,000 killed since Sisi came to power in 2013.

In 2014, former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) introduced a similar measure to label the group as a terrorist organization. However, her legislation failed to win enough votes to pass Congress. Bachmann had described senior aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Huma Abedin as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a move Senator John McCain called “sinister.”

Yet, Rep. Balart emphasizes that the timing of the Trump’s upcoming administration is exactly the reason why he proposed the bill now. “We have an incoming president who appreciates the threat of terrorism and has vowed to defeat it,” he said.

Experts also questioned how the new bill will impact American ties with allied nations across the Middle East. Citing Jordan, a longstanding US partner who has tried to contain extremism in the country by not placing all Islamists under the umbrella term of terrorists, Schwedler asked, “So, then does Congress hypothetically say we are cutting aid to Jordan until Jordan outlaws the Muslim Brotherhood in its own country?”

In addition to the bill’s affect abroad, Schanzer also noted that the Cruz measure may have an impact in America. “My sense is domestic charities are likely to come under scrutiny again,” he stated. “Some of these US-based charities could have ties with the Muslim Brotherhood,” Schanzer added.

The GOP backed bill appears to fit with the priorities of the upcoming Trump presidency. At the nominee’s confirmation hearing for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson singled out the Islamist organization as a threat. “The demise of ISIS will also allow us to increase our attention on other agents of radical Islam like al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and certain elements within Iran.”

Senate Muslim Brotherhood bill provokes controversy Read More »

Senate bill to protect states countering BDS

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) will introduce a bill today to combat the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement by strengthening protection for state and local governments who divest from companies participating in investment-related BDS actions against Israel.

“This legislation supports efforts by state governments and local communities to use the power of the purse to counter the BDS movement’s economic warfare targeting Israel,” Rubio said in a press statement.

The Combatting BDS Act, Sen. Resolution 170, is a bi-partisan effort that updates a similar bill introduced in the previous Congressional session by former Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Manchin, but failed to pass. The original measure was co-sponsored by 19 lawmakers including Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Tom Cotton (R-AK).

“This legislation is an important step forward in reassuring Israel that we are protecting our shared national security interests, while also protecting our joint economic interests,” Manchin explained.

The bill clarifies that local and state governments have the legal right to prohibit investment with companies engaging in BDS activity based on “credible information available to the public” and provides offensive measures against commercial organizations aiming to financially attack Israel.

Senate bill to protect states countering BDS Read More »

Obama won the Jewish vote without winning over the pro-Israel mainstream

Fraught record on issues of race and anti-Semitism? Check.

Much-hyped meeting to get Benjamin Netanyahu’s hechsher? Check.

Stirring speech at AIPAC to quiet the naysayers? Check.

Jewish validators galore? Check. Administration top-loaded with Jewish staffers? Check.

Welcome to Inauguration Day 2009.

President-elect Barack Obama walked into the White House eight years ago with a Jewish profile that bears similarities to the one tucked away in Donald Trump’s baggage.

There are key differences, of course, and how Obama handled his relationship with the Jewish community could provide a blueprint for Trump as he goes forward – both in emulating Obama’s successes and avoiding his failures.

Obama’s presidency was one that thrilled majorities of Jewish voters with its portent of an American reconciliation that would set aside once and for all the intimations of alienation that have haunted non-Christians and non-whites since before the republic’s dawn.

It was also a presidency that often left the Israeli government and much of the U.S. Jewish establishment feeling shunned and shunted aside.

Obama could work a crowd: His galvanizing speech on “one America” at the 2004 Democratic convention in Boston, thick with hope, threw into relief the one-note, warrior-turned-peacemaker candidacy John Kerry was peddling.

The confident and youthful state senator from Illinois who walked onto the Fleet Center stage that July evening did not have to prove himself, as the actual party nominee, nearly two decades his senior, always seemed to be doing.

The America Obama described was not mired in the 1960s angst embedded in Kerry’s past both as war hero and then as war protester. It signaled a 21st century – one that now seems fanciful — where blacks and whites, Jews, Muslims and Christians, conservatives and liberals lived in mutually supportive harmony.

“We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America,” he said.

Obama, like Kerry, like every politician, started out talking about himself – but unlike Kerry, this Hawaii-born constitutional lawyer could handily pivot, almost imperceptibly, to talking about you, about everyone.

Obama could also work a Jewish room similarly, making his interlocutors feel as if he had lived among them forever. It was a skill he had cultivated as a community worker, and he worked it in the Jewish retirement homes north of Chicago as he ran for the U.S. Senate that year.

In those settings he said that his first name had the same meaning as “Baruch,” a knowing wink signaling that he knew his name was weird, just like his listeners’ grandparents and great-grandparents knew their names were weird. Not only that, Jan Schakowsky, a Chicago-area congresswoman who was already very much smitten with him, said then, “He pronounced Baruch impeccably.”

Obama was in similar form seven years later with his “Hineni” speech in 2011 to the Union for Reform Judaism’s biennial. It wasn’t just his repeated (and again, correctly pronounced) invocation of Joseph’s declaration to Jacob, or in how he again made the speech about his listeners, reciting with emotion the contributions that Reform Jews had made to the civil rights movement.

His empathy, his facility for making everyone in a vast room feel like his best friend, was evident most of all in an impromptu aside when he shuddered remembering the short dress his daughter Malia wore to the first bat mitzvah she attended. Laughter, at first a low rumble and then in full force, rolled through the auditorium. Every Jewish parent got it.

And just as quickly as Obama could turn a Jewish room on, he could turn it off, chilling the air with an insensitive aside. The cutting putdowns seemed to come from the same place as the moments of elation, from his unerring belief that he understood what his listener wanted, that he somehow knew you better than you knew yourself.

It was there in 2008, when he met with Jewish leaders in Cleveland – a community known to be more conservative than coastal Jewish communities. He defended himself from charges that he was distant on Israel and too cozy with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor, whose expressions of sympathy for anti-Israel militants were transitioning then into blatant hostility toward Jews.

The meeting went well, and then, during a Q&A, Obama said, “This is where I get to be honest and I hope I’m not out of school here. I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have a honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress.”

Some folks in the room said later that their jaws dropped (to be fair, others said the meeting went over well). The Likud was not then in power, but it was a major party in Israel, and as president he would likely have to deal with it. Indeed, his eight years in office almost wholly coincided with Likud-led governments.

More sensitively, saying the dialogue was not “honest” seemed to some derived from the toxic narrative prevalent in the post-Iraq War period that pro-Israel groups forced an unnatural foreign policy on the United States.

Remarkably, the contents of what was supposed to be an off-the-record meeting were leaked – by Obama’s camp. They thought the meeting was a success and they couldn’t wait to put out the word.

Similar charges of tone-deafness were leveled less than six months into his presidency when he met with Jewish leaders unsettled by burgeoning tensions with Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.

In July 2009, at another closed meeting between Obama and Jewish leaders, Obama asserted that the policy of “no daylight” between the United States and Israel, which had prevailed under his two predecessors, had done no favors to either country.

The statement has haunted Obama’s relationship with pro-Israel activists — at least groups on the center and right, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which tend to defer to Israel’s sitting government and dominate the American Jewish discourse on Israel. J Street and other groups on the left, it should be said, found his statement to be a bracing bit of truth-telling from a good friend.

More telling, however – and shocking to some of those present — was another, smaller moment: Discussing settlements, Obama grabbed the arm of his then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who is Jewish and has an Israeli father.

“Don’t think that we don’t understand the nuances of the settlement issues,” Obama said. “We do. We understand there is a profound political edge to Israeli politics. But Rahm understands the politics there and he explains them to me.”

Obama may have thought he was reassuring the room, telling them that one of their own was his right-hand man. Instead he was alienating many of them; what these folks heard was “I don’t need you.”

That perceived “I don’t need you” played out again and again for Obama throughout his relationship with the Jewish establishment, and with Israel, whose diplomats tensed every time Obama or one of his top aides reassured them that the Iran deal exchanging sanctions for a nuclear rollback was in Israel’s best interests.

In Obama’s speech at American University pitching the Iran deal in the summer of 2015, Israelis and many pro-Israel activists heard buzzwords that they felt were designed to marginalize them. Critics of the deal were “alarmists,” he said. “They’re just not being straight with the American people,” they “accept the choice of war.” He didn’t name AIPAC, but it was leading the lobbying against the deal.

It didn’t help that Netanyahu – and the pro-Israel establishment – at times seemed to go out of their way to reciprocate the dismissive posture. Netanyahu especially seemed to delight in marking Obama’s territory, in the Oval Office in 2011, lecturing a visibly furious Obama on the realities of the Middle East, and then in 2015 in a speech to Congress on the Iran deal that the Israeli leader had secretly planned with Republicans.

Then there was AIPAC’s sullen reluctance, in the run-up to the congressional vote on the deal in 2015, to meet with his top officials despite Obama’s invitation.

Yet Obama has often needed Jews — for advice, for support, for friendship and for inspiration — and has said as much. His first mentors politically were Abner Mikva, the judge and Democratic activist; Robert Schrayer, the Chicago philanthropist; Penny Pritzker, the hotel heiress who is now his commerce secretary, and Alan Solow, the lawyer and former Presidents Conference chairman who has fundraised for Obama from the start of his political career. Among the staffers closest to him and the first lady were David Axelrod, his top political adviser in his first term, and Susan Sher, Michelle Obama’s first chief of staff.

Obama throughout his political career has sought to close the circle of Jewish and black solidarity forged in the civil rights era and torn asunder as the communities drifted apart in the aftermath of the era’s successes. It takes a lot to bring an AIPAC crowd to its feet invoking anything other than Israel, and yet he did it in 2008 in his speech to the lobby’s annual conference.

“I would not be standing here today,” he said, if it were not for “the great social movements in our country’s history. Jewish- and African-Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together. And Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man – James Chaney – on behalf of freedom and equality.”

It was that bond, between Jews and blacks, Obama invoked in an interview last week with Israel’s Channel 2, seeking to explain why he allowed – for the first time in his presidency – the United Nations Security Council to vote for a resolution opposed by Israel, in this case condemning settlement in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. Asked about bigotry and its reemergence this U.S. election season, he said: “As an African-American, when I see those kinds of attitudes harden, I remember my history and I remember the history of the Jewish people.”

Obama’s voice was hoarse; he seemed at times during the interview to crumple. The night it was broadcast in Israel, he delivered his farewell in Chicago and wept. The promise Obama made in 2004 and 2008 of reconciliation seemed to dissipate in the wake of a profoundly divisive election, one in which the many Americas that he once described as coming together were retreating into silos.

How a president relates to a Jewish community has always been a function of how a president relates, period. Obama’s successes and failures with Jews are of a piece with autopsies of his presidency: He was an inspiration. He was aloof.

So what can the incoming president learn, writ large and small, from how Obama related to the Jews?

The answer may lie studded throughout Obama’s two terms, not in the dramas of the disagreements but in how he sought to overcome them. Jeremiah Wright? He stood by him, and then he did not, and when he abandoned him, Obama said candidly, he could no longer abide his pastor’s hostility to Israel.

The Likud? In Cleveland in February 2008, he cast the party as an obstacle to peace. That summer, visiting Israel, he sought out the party’s leader, Netanyahu, and pleased the Israeli opposition leader by soliciting his views on the dangers posed by Iran.

In Obama’s 2009 speech to the Muslim world, critics charged that his depiction of Israel relied too much on its role as a refuge for the Jews after the Holocaust and too little on the Jewish people’s ancient and historical relationship to the land. In 2013, he toured the country and sought out markers celebrating its ancient Jewish heritage and the redemptive promise of Zionism.

Was the Iran deal debate corrosive? Obama invited Netanyahu to the White House in its immediate aftermath and launched the process that would deliver to Israel its biggest-ever defense assistance package.

Not every attempt by Obama at reconciliation was successful. In the wake of the Security Council vote, Obama’s relationship with Netanyahu and standing among the most influential Jewish organizations is ending on a markedly sour note, probably unprecedented in U.S.-Israel relations.

For all their pronounced differences, Trump has endured a fraught courtship with the Jewish community that has echoes of Obama’s 2008 run: Trump has wondered aloud whether the U.S.-Israel relationship could use more “neutrality” when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians, and has weathered accusations that he is too cozy with actors who embrace ideas hostile to Jews.

Trump has retreated from some of the postures that unsettled the pro-Israel community. The incoming president has met with Netanyahu, delivered a rousing AIPAC speech and left neutrality on Israel so far behind, he appears set to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. He has put forth an ambassador to Israel who is a gung-ho supporter of the settlements and an antagonist of the Jewish left.

But Trump is also adamant in his refusal to renounce counselors who, like Wright, have extolled racial and cultural divisions.

What was Obama’s relationship with the Jewish community? For the majority who voted for him twice, and for whom Israel ranks fairly low in their considerations as voters compared to issues like the economy and health care, he was an exemplar of their political views, their values and their hopes for the country.

As for Jews who prioritize Israel as voters and activists, he ranged from a good if sometimes standoffish friend to bitter antagonist, who at least according to Alan Dershowitz, “repeatedly stabbed Israel in the back.”

Of course, the degree to which any of those assessments stick depends on how Jews endure – or rejoice in – President Donald Trump.

The story of Obama and the Jews is not over yet. Ask again a hundred days into the Trump administration — and then again a thousand days in.

Obama won the Jewish vote without winning over the pro-Israel mainstream Read More »

Why we are doing the Women’s March

I need to get a few things off my chest (I know it’s long but please take a couple minutes to read it anyway), based on comments and statements I have seen in relation to the women’s march this coming Saturday. This is not simply an anti-Trump protest. This is a MARCH, of people who feel passionate about promoting human rights for all. People feel that those human rights are under attack, and this is ONE way we can have our voices heard. My parents took me to pro-choice rallies when I was a child, and people have been engaging in peaceful “protest” for many generations.

Some are saying that this is not productive. So should we just do nothing to fight for what we believe? Do I think that by me showing up to a march, that some specific attack on human rights will be avoided? No, not really. But speaking out against injustice is a part of what makes America ALREADY GREAT, and it gives us a voice. It shows leaders that there are people who care and who will not be quiet, and over time it may have a small impact. Also, it makes us feel good.

Some are saying that we should just support our new president/administration and hope for the best, or hope for him to succeed. With all due respect, that’s bullshit. He or others in his administration are proven to be racist, sexist, anti-gay, pro-sexual assault, anti-choice, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-refugee, etc. He has promoted rhetoric for all of the above. So forgive me for having trouble hoping he succeeds, especially when it comes to policies or ideas like building a wall, requiring Muslims to register, punishing women for having an abortion, banning certain media outlets, banning refugees from Muslim countries, requiring funerals for a fetus (VP), supporting shock therapy for gay people (VP), disqualifying a judge based on his ethnic background, calling Mexicans rapists and drug dealers, and I could go on all day. Nope, I can’t hope he succeeds with any of that.

Some are saying that he won’t be able to actually achieve the policies or ideas he promotes. So we should just refrain from believing things he actually said that he wants to do? Also, ok fine so maybe he won’t be able to achieve everything… thank goodness. But what about the danger of the rhetoric itself? What about the fact that he normalizes talking about women that way (grab them by the pussy), normalizes being anti-gay (VP), normalizes being anti-Muslim or anti-Mexican or anti-Black, etc. He creates a culture in which people feel more comfortable spreading these beliefs and even acting on them. That is a big reason why we are marching.

Some are saying that it might be dangerous to go to the march, and there may be rioting and it disrupts traffic, etc. Well, there is a constitutional right to peaceful protest, and if people want to suggest otherwise, that is a very dangerous line of thinking. There are disruptive people everywhere who look for an excuse to throw rocks and break windows, but does that mean we should just never plan these types of events? The vast majority of participants in all events like these are peaceful, so don’t let the actions of a few change your opinion of the message and the importance of peaceful protest. Also this march has been heavily organized and coordinated with the city and police department. It is not a spontaneous protest (though I fully support people’s right to do that too). And…. if you want to stay 100% safe all the time, then you better not ever drive on the freeway or go to a party with alcohol or walk down the street or be admitted to the hospital or ride a bike, or do a whole bunch of other things that are statistically more likely to harm/kill you than attending a freaking march. The safety bubble does not exist for any of us, so let’s not allow fear to keep us from speaking out, or use fear-mongering to convince others that the march is a bad idea.

Some are saying that we should stop complaining that we lost. Again, peaceful protest is an important right we have as Americans. But this is not complaining. this is not merely a loss of an election. If someone like Kasich or Romney or McCain or Rubio had become our president at any point, I would have definitely been disappointed, and maybe I would have joined a march, but people would not be this desperate to speak out for human rights. People would not be this terrified.

You are entitled to disagree with me politically, but please do not criticize the passion of those who are marching on Saturday. If you felt strongly enough about an issue that was under attack, maybe you’d want the rest of us to support YOU in speaking out. I am not afraid to attend a march. I am deeply terrified of what the next administration will attempt to do to our human rights, either thru policies or more dangerously through the rhetoric and normalizing of hate. Thanks for listening, and thank you for respecting me enough to understand why we are marching.

Why we are doing the Women’s March Read More »