fbpx

December 22, 2020

Texting is Not Enough. Let’s Pick Up the Phone and Use Our Voices.

For thousands of years, humans have kept in touch by meeting up. Whether in an ancient cave or at a hipster café, humans have always craved company. We crave the real thing — hearing, seeing and hugging our fellow humans. Even in pandemic times, when we’re forced to quarantine, that need hasn’t gone away.

But there’s another human impulse at work — the craving for ease and convenience.

So, unable to meet up and forced to quarantine, many of us have settled for the extreme convenience of texting. Texting is the modern workhorse of staying in touch. It’s easy and instant. You text and move on. If hanging out with a friend at a café is at one end of the spectrum, the instant text is at the other end. You can’t see me, hear me or hug me — but at least you can see the few words I have chosen for you.

I’d like to suggest greater use of the middle ground — the good old phone call. I don’t mean Zoom or Skype or Facetime, where you can see the other person. I mean the simple call where you can hear a person’s voice.

I’ve noticed that during the quarantine, my phone calls have been longer and deeper. Knowing that we can’t meet in person, I will put in more effort at conversation. I’m learning how to stay quiet and not interrupt (I’m on a learning curve).

I still text way too much because it’s so much easier. But I never regret taking the time for phone calls. Maybe that’s because I like to hear human voices. The phone call is the instrument that best honors the human voice. Each voice is different — a singular expression of one’s humanity.

It’s true that there’s a modern discomfort with the phone call; it’s more of a commitment. When we’re so used to the speed and ease of digital, phone calls can be socially awkward.

But let’s not lose sight of the power of a human voice. This power can work both ways — causing anguish or bringing comfort. With the epidemic of loneliness in 2020, we can put the comforting power of our voices to work. There must be thousands of elderly people right now stuck in quarantine, isolated and lonely. A simple phone call from a friend or relative must warm their hearts. Many of us already do it.

With the epidemic of loneliness in 2020, we can put the comforting power of our voices to work.

When we talk about repairing the world, we often talk about big and important things like climate change, social justice and so on. But there are also the little things that can help repair someone’s day. The phone call is one of them.

Through the sound of our voice, we can keep in touch by touching people’s hearts.

Texting is Not Enough. Let’s Pick Up the Phone and Use Our Voices. Read More »

Are Coronavirus Hotels Effective?

The Media Line — Three days after deciding to compel all travelers disembarking flights from Britain, Denmark and South Africa to go directly to “corona hotels” for quarantine, due to fear of the highly infectious COVID-19 variant spreading in the UK and other places, Israel will from 10 pm on Wednesday begin doing the same for everyone arriving from abroad.

Previously, arrivals from aboard who were required to quarantine were allowed to self-isolate, usually at home, if they had the right setup to do so.

The big question: Are the corona hotels effective in halting transmission of the novel coronavirus?

Israel has been experiencing an increase in coronavirus cases for the past month. For almost a week now, the country has been averaging close to 3,000 new infections per day and on Monday reached over 3,500.

No one, The Media Line found, seems to have data demonstrating the efficacy of corona hotels in stopping the disease from spreading. The Health Ministry, Defense Ministry and the Israel Defense Forces Home Front Command, which operates the corona hotels, all failed to provide statistics.

“In general, the best way to isolate is to stay at home,” Prof. Nadav Davidovitch, director of the School of Public Health at Ben-Gurion University’s Faculty of Health Sciences in Beersheba, told The Media Line.

“But, the fact is, some groups cannot always quarantine at home due to the density of their household. Someone with the coronavirus in a three-room apartment and a 10-member family cannot be expected to properly isolate. Thus was born the corona hotel concept,” according to Davidovitch, who is among the experts called upon to advise the government on how to combat the virus.

There are two categories of corona hotels: hotels meant to isolate those who may have been exposed to the virus, and recovery hotels, for those diagnosed with the coronavirus but who do not require hospitalization.

Early on, the experts examined the needs of populations that because of general larger household sizes, notably the Jewish ultra-Orthodox and the Arab sectors, would have more difficulty properly self-isolating, he noted.

During the first and second national lockdowns, the recovery hotels were a success according to one person who served some 60 days as a reserve soldier for the Home Front Command in various hotels, who was not authorized to speak with the media.

“I can tell you we received personal thank-you notes and phone calls from many of those who stayed in the corona hotels. I especially find this interesting because many of the thanks came from those from ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities who do not serve in the IDF and do not really understand its workings,” he told The Media Line.

Davidovitch, when asked why there were corona hotels in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem but none currently in the Arab sector, responded, “There is no real solution for the Arab population.”

Bearing this out, currently, nine of the top 10 Israeli communities with the highest rates of COVID-19 infection are in the Arab sector.

Prof. Faisal Azaiza, dean of the Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences at the University of Haifa, commented, “The government and its various committees are insensitive and show a lack of seriousness to the needs of the country’s ‘other’ populations like the Arabs. It is an old story.”

“If the government had set up corona hotels in and near the Arab sector, say in Nazareth, for all of those who had traveled abroad to Turkey, where they most likely picked up coronavirus and brought it back to their communities, we would have probably stopped the infection chain,” he told The Media Line.

Azaiza said it was his sense that during the first national lockdown last spring, the Arab sector was successful in halting the infection chain by taking those who fell ill from the virus out of their communities. But he was cautious, saying he had no numbers and had not seen research to substantiate this.

“The Arab community is filled with doctors and nurses who are really on the front-lines fighting the pandemic. We know what do to. Unfortunately, the government is not taking a holistic approach to fighting the pandemic in our communities,” he offered.

Rabbi Sid Slivko, spiritual leader of the Bay Terrace Garden Jewish Center in Queens, New York, saw large differences between his two quarantines in the hotels in June and again in October, following trips outside of Israel.

“In June, I could leave my room for common areas, whereas in October I was very much quarantined in my room,” he told The Media Line.

“The only person I saw during my second quarantine period was the maintenance man who made me stay inside the bathroom when he came to fix the window,” said Slivko.

Are Coronavirus Hotels Effective? Read More »

david suissa podcast curious times

Pandemic Times Episode 114: Bone Marrow Donor Gives Man a New Life

New David Suissa Podcast Every Tuesday and Friday.

Leukemia patient Michael Silberstein tells the story of the miracle that saved his life.

How do we manage our lives during the coronavirus crisis? How do we keep our sanity? How do we use this quarantine to bring out the best in ourselves? Tune in and share your stories with podcast@jewishjournal.com.

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Stitcher

Follow David Suissa on FacebookTwitter and Instagram

Pandemic Times Episode 114: Bone Marrow Donor Gives Man a New Life Read More »

Congressional Spending Package Includes Double the Security Funding for Nonprofits

(JTA) — Congress is set to double security funding for nonprofits to $180 million next year as part of the $2.3 trillion spending package Congress is ready to pass.

The office of Rep. Grace Meng, the New York Democrat who led the bid to increase funding, announced the new figure for 2021 in a news release Monday. The funding goes to hardening targets with “barriers, gates, safety gear, surveillance equipment,” the release said.

Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives have agreed on the outline of spending package. The $2.3 trillion includes the $900 billion stimulus to shepherd Americans through the pandemic. They are set to finalize the package by Tuesday.

“We can never take a backseat to safety,” Meng said in a statement. “It must remain our top priority, especially following recent acts of violence and hate that have occurred across our nation. I urge houses of worship and nonprofits in New York and across the country to apply for these important grants, and I will continue to champion funding for this crucial initiative.”

The grants, launched in 2005, have dramatically increased in recent years in part because of a spate of deadly attacks on Jewish targets since 2018. For years, Jewish groups received more than 90% of the money, but that has substantially dropped in recent years as other communities have come under attack.

Jewish groups lobbied for the grants to be made available in nonurban areas, where they are likelier to be used by non-Jewish institutions, and have advised and trained other communities applying for the grants.

The Orthodox Union, which has lobbied for the grants with the Jewish Federations of North America and Agudath Israel of America, thanked lawmakers for including the money in the spending package, particularly Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who chairs the Homeland Security subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

“We look forward to a time when government funding for security at synagogues and other houses of worship won’t be needed, when people will be able to pray and go about their activities without fear of attacks,” O.U. President Mark “Moishe” Baine said in a statement.

Congressional Spending Package Includes Double the Security Funding for Nonprofits Read More »

Can There Be a New Year’s Resolution for Unity in our Future?

We are witnessing record levels of partisanship. Most Trump voters believe there was election fraud, counting was stopped at crucial moments, judges were intimidated, regulations changed last-minute and the media biased — in short, that the election was stolen from them. Their anger, bitterness and disconnect will not be assuaged by rhetoric, even from the Democrats that are calling for unity.

Extending a call for unity is not enough for these millions. And their qualms are deeply emotional — ranging from outrage about the outcome to incensed at their vilification by others.

But in the New Year, there will be a new president. And the major question will be how people on opposite sides of the political spectrum can engage with each other and avoid another four years of intense polarization and acrimony. Fortunately, we each can take steps to build unity with partisans — even those who disagree about the election’s outcome — by changing our rhetoric. And the New Year is the perfect time to start.

The Right Communication Is Vital 

We are more likely to communicate successfully and unite if we understand the impact of our words on people, be they our loved ones or our opponents. We must know whether we are calm and centered and whether our words will trigger more anger and opposition or encourage calm and cooperation in the other. Words that cast blame and accusations (calling people “Nazis and racists”), words that mock (“You are just ignorant, uneducated and limited”) and words that want to intimidate (“We are keeping lists of who did…”) will stoke negative emotions. But friendliness or even an apology can go a long way to reopen a space for dialogue.

One way to know if you are approaching a tense conversation is to understand past experiences and communications. When too much bitterness has built up between opponents due to past unresolved conflicts, communication is compromised, and on-going arguments will only deepen inflexible positions. The possibility to resolve the conflict and reach some unity seems unreachable.

When people are already upset, it takes little to alienate them. Any criticism puts them on the defensive, convincing them that their critics are malevolent and ill-intended. Tone matters, too, and an arrogant, patronizing tone can be received as an intolerable show of superiority.

The Power of Words

How do we achieve the right communication? We must first recognize the impact of words, then match our intentions of unity to our rhetoric, thus creating a space for free discussion.

The purpose of dialogue is to turn opponents into friends, not to win a zero-sum game. The first step to communicating without vitriol is to exchange thoughts — not criticisms — and elucidate questions to understand the other’s needs and feelings better. These questions must be done without irony or a “got you” attitude; trying to prove the other wrong does not create trust or unity.

Try sentences such as, “We want to repair these past four years and hear what you have to say,” to open a conversation and go a long way towards unity. Then, to make the other person feel free to express themselves, try saying, “I would like to hear what you have to say, although I suspect we do not see things from the same place.”

If you want to communicate and convey your worldview to people who do not share it and may even oppose it, you can respectfully listen and broaden your perspective. When there is a clear disagreement, genuinely ask, “I am truly puzzled by your comment. It is so different from the way I see the situation. Would you mind elaborating on this issue and explain why you said that?” Go even more specific and inquire, “how would you resolve the problem of homelessness, poverty, etc.?”

To make the situation even more comfortable, you may want to talk about how you want the dialogue to take place, such as establishing, “I am interested in being able to understand each other’s points, without having to convince each other.” Or set one point of agreement as the starting point for the dialogue, such as “It seems to me what we want the same overall results, the wellbeing of people and the country, but we have different ways to get to it. I wonder if we can find common ground.” You can end the conversation on that same common ground by saying, “We want to work together. We want to accomplish the changes the country needs, but with your participation.”

You will be surprised by how far a simple change in rhetoric can go in creating a freer, more honest and healing discussionwhen you have the courage to take the first step. Open, respectful dialogue will help us modify the narrative we hold about “the other” and let go of all negative labels. Pejorative words and accusations of conspiracy theories for different opinions will stop all cooperation.  

You will be surprised by how far a simple change in rhetoric can go in creating a freer, more honest and healing discussion.

It may sound daunting, but it is possible to make this change of talking about political issues without blocking, unfriending, disrespecting or calling the other liars. Anyone who prizes themselves for being open-minded and caring about justice, truth and a compassionate society can and should be able to listen to opinions they disagree with.

Clearly, both halves of the country care tremendously for different sides of the American reality. But it’s time for the escalation to stop. The end of 2020 brings us an opportunity for a peaceful 2021. It falls on each of us to make an effort to restore free expression and respectful, albeit contentious, dialogue. Use 2021 to communicate, heal and respectfully share your opinions in a validating way. The future of the country depends on it.


Gina Ross, MFCT, is Founder/President of the International Trauma-Healing Institute USA and (ITI-Israel. Her latest book is “Breaking News! The Media and the Trauma Vortex: Understanding News Reporting, Journalists and Audiences.” You can reach her at Gina@GinaRoss.com

Can There Be a New Year’s Resolution for Unity in our Future? Read More »

Play it Again, Sam

This month, there was talk in the local Jewish community after Sam Yebri stepped down as president of 30 Years After, the nation’s only civic action organization that promotes the participation and leadership of Iranian-American Jews in American civic, political and Jewish life.

I’ve known Yebri for 14 years, and the story of how he and a few dozen young Iranian-American Jews (including myself) co-founded 30 Years After is a testament to the redemptive blessings of America itself.

In January 2006, I was a 23-year-old recent college graduate serving as the director of academic affairs at the Consulate General of Israel in Los Angeles. During a visit to USC Hillel, in which I accompanied then-Consul General Ehud Danoch, I met a young Iranian Jewish man in his final year of law school. That wasn’t exactly news. If you’re familiar with Persian Jews, the bigger shock would have been if he hadn’t been studying to become a lawyer.

Yebri introduced himself as president of the National Jewish Law Students Association. Now this was interesting. Back then, young Iranian American Jews had only recently assumed leadership roles in campus Jewish and pro-Israel life, and most of the ones I knew, like Candice Daneshvar, the former president of Bruins for Israel at UCLA, were female. But here was a young man — a Jew who’d been born in Iran but who now served as national president of a Jewish student organization.

And there I was, the first Iranian Jew to have served in the public diplomacy sector of the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles (to the best of my knowledge). Back then, few people identified Persian Jews with leadership roles in Jewish organizations or with working for pro-Israel endeavors like the Consulate (the latter was rich in meaning but not exactly lucrative in earnings). Yebri and I looked at each other with a sense of wonder (for me, anyways). It was almost as if we saw each other and thought, “You exist?”

In the months to come, I experienced this reaction nearly every time Yebri introduced me to other young Iranian American Jews who cared deeply about civic, political, Jewish and pro-Israel issues. These were people who read The Jerusalem Post on their laptops before getting dressed in the morning (it would be another year before iPhones were released), who had voluntarily enrolled in college courses about Iran and the Middle East despite being economics or biology majors and some of whom were so thirsty for Jewish learning that they dedicated their lunch hour at a law firm or hospital to learning Torah with a local Chabad rabbi. Some of them were born in Iran, others in the United States. Like me, almost all of them were in their early or mid-twenties.

We recognized that Iranian American Jews were extraordinarily well-equipped to have a real impact in civic affairs; for the most part, we’re a highly educated and passionate immigrant community. But back then, rather than helping make real decisions as impassioned lay leaders, some of us simply wrote generous checks and stood on the sidelines as Ashkenazim mostly took the reins of organizational leadership. And that only described our level of involvement within the Jewish community. In terms of local, state and national politics, we’d yet to even make a dent (a notable exception is Jimmy Delshad, who became the first Iranian American to hold public office in Beverly Hills, serving as mayor in 2007 and again in 2010).

We’d ask family members if they could identify their state senators. After all, there were only two of them. The responses were sometimes dismal. In some parts of town, our numbers were large, but we simply didn’t vote. In Beverly Hills, for example, we constituted nearly 25% of the population but seldom showed up at polling places.

The problem with Iranian Jews in America was twofold: Political participation wasn’t exactly in our blood. In Iran, we’d either known a monarchy (including that of the Shah and his father) or a tyrannical theocracy (after the 1979 Islamic Revolution). Jews didn’t have a say in political matters under either system.

Some of us thought it best to leave the voting to “the real Americans,” as my mother used to say. Others thought their vote and, by extension, their voice didn’t really matter; still others worried their party loyalties would be documented and used against them. You could take the Jews out of Iran, but it was harder to take Iran out of the Jews.

There was a second problem: the greater, non-Persian Jewish community didn’t quite know what to do with us. We were traditionally Jewish and fervently pro-Israel, but we didn’t support such organizations by offering to serve on boards or by giving the same big fiduciary amounts as many Ashkenazim. We were refugees and immigrants with amazing stories to tell, but we mostly kept these stories to ourselves. We were famously exclusive, partly because it was comforting to be with our own kin and partly because we worried we’d never be accepted by the greater Jewish community.

In plain terms, we didn’t have a seat at the proverbial table.

We had wonderful Iranian Jewish organizations and a good infrastructure system, ranging from social services to large synagogues, which helped our community of tens of thousands resettle in Los Angeles. The previous generation of Iranian Jews who’d settled here in the late 1970s and early 1980s had all but broken their backs to lay the foundations for our success in this city.

But we didn’t have much of a political voice.

Back in 2007, Yebri wasn’t thinking of starting a non-profit organization; he had a vision for an event — the first-of-its-kind conference that would address the major issues affecting the Iranian American Jewish community “at a crossroads” (as per the conference flyer): namely Israel, Jewish identity, local and national politics and the genocidal threat of Iran.

In the backyard of a house in the valley, two dozen of us sat around a table for three hours and debated a name and vision for the conference. It was Eman Esmailzadeh, a young entrepreneur, who suggested “30 Years After” as a way to recognize a moment in time. After all, nearly 30 years had passed since the revolution that had disrupted 2,700 years of Iranian Jewish history, dispersing the community across the world to places like Israel, Canada and the United States.

That first conference, which took place on the precipice of a presidential election in September 2008, attracted 1,200 people, half of them Ashkenazi leaders. The speakers were high-level. The venue was stellar (The Beverly Hilton). Nearly every Jewish organization in town was a co-sponsor. And it was all put together by a group of 20-something volunteers with demanding day jobs of their own.

When one of our co-founders, Nicole Farnoush (a gifted singer), took to the stage to sing the American national anthem and then, to everyone’s surprise, belted out the national anthem of pre-revolutionary Iran (in perfect Persian), there wasn’t a dry eye among a single Iranian in the room, especially our parents. So this, they realized, is why they had sacrificed everything to escape Iran.

We’d pulled it off. And in the process, we found in one another best friends, empathetic confidants and yes, seat fillers. After that conference, most of the co-founders joined the boards of local Jewish and pro-Israel organizations. Others sat down for regular lobbying sessions with elected officials. We had the ears of heavyweights all over town, and we, a new generation, took our seat at the table.

At the end of the conference, I was left with a sense of euphoria and meaning, which I’ve yet to replicate since. There’s nothing in the world like knowing you’ve found your place. Of all the doors that job at the Consulate opened for me, meeting Yebri and other soon-to-be leaders was inarguably among the biggest and best.

Thanks to him and other dedicated board members, 30 Years After evolved from a singular event to a non-partisan, non-profit organization. The Jewish community took notice and supported us from the beginning. In 2008, we received a $200,000 Cutting Edge Grant from the Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles.

In the thirteen years that passed, the organization hosted three more biennial civic action conferences as well as hundreds of other events, almost always partnering with other Jewish organizations; registered thousands of Iranian-American Jews to vote; lobbied elected officials about Iran at the state and national level; launched the world’s only young leadership training program for Iranian Jews — The Maher Fellowship, which has over 100 graduates; and painstakingly created a video testimonial project to capture the extraordinary stories of Iranian American Jews, called The BenEvri Project. A Los Angeles Times profile of the organization in a 2014 print edition was headlined, “A Generation Later, Activism.”

In 2020, 30 Years After launched the Moradi Berkowitz Fellowship, a three-month public service training program that brings together young Persian and non-Persian Jewish leaders to learn about local, state and federal politics. It may have taken 41 years, but non-Persian Jews now are finding a seat at our tables.

It may have taken 41 years, but non-Persian Jews now are finding a seat at our tables.

As the former first executive director of the organization (and current board member), my favorite memories are rooted in accompanying young, burgeoning Iranian American Jewish leaders — those who still were in high school when 30 Years After was founded, but who now were pursuing civic action in their 20s — on visits to the nation’s capital for the annual AIPAC Policy Conference. There’s something about standing in the U.S. Capitol Building with first-generation Americans — the children of Jewish refugees and immigrants — that makes you feel happy to be alive.

As for the name, 30 Years After, it’ll remain unchanged, a nod to proactive remembrance and a time when we realized that after three decades in the United States it was time to thank those Iranian Jews who’d established us in this country and to move forward with intention and pride.

Through it all, Yebri stood as the tireless leader and institutional memory-holder of the organization. I’d delight when he would post videos from past conferences and events, and I’d play those videos over and over. One day, when they’re old enough, I’ll show them to my kids.

On November 30, Sam Yebri stepped down as president of 30 Years After, joking that he’d taken a cue from Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, who’s serving 15 years of what was supposed to be a four-year term. Though I’ll miss the frequent exchanges with my friend and colleague, the baton has been passed into the best of possible hands.

The organization will be led by two brilliant young women, Jasmin Niku, a co-founder who’s tirelessly served on the board for 13 years (and who formerly served as president of Bruins for Israel), and Arielle Mokhtarzadeh, a 2019 graduate of the Maher Fellowship and former undergraduate student president at UCLA. Jason Youdeem, who, in 2013, had a vision to create The Maher Fellowship, will serve as board chair. They’re joined by associate director Natalie Talasazan, as dedicated and amiable a staff member as I’ve seen at any organization.

And Yebri? He’s stepping down to focus on taking a seat at another table. If he succeeds, he’ll give Los Angeles something never seen before: its first Iranian American councilmember at City Hall.


Tabby Refael is a Los Angeles-based writer, speaker and activist.

Play it Again, Sam Read More »

Europe to Jews: No Kosher Meat for You!

A recent decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to uphold a Belgian regulation requiring animals to be stunned before slaughter — in violation of kosher and halal slaughter — came as an unpleasant surprise to many observers. I’m not sure why. It’s long been clear that Jews are a headache that many European countries tolerate without much enthusiasm. A Jerusalem Post editorial called the court decision “a serious affront to both Jews and Muslims and must be reversed.” Again, I’m not sure why. Jewish and Muslim groups argued that the Belgian measure was an attack on their rituals. Maybe so. They argued that the decision “puts animal welfare above freedom of religion.” And what if it does?

Make no mistake: I have no sympathy for decisions such as the one reached by the ECJ. Still, I must acknowledge that making a strong case against them is not as easy as it might seem. Let’s say that for Europeans — or their legal institutions — it is more important to ease the suffering of slaughtered animals than it is to allow Jews or Muslims to keep with their traditions. Is that really so preposterous? Let’s say that the decision is indeed an “affront to both Jews and Muslims.” Does this really mean it has to be reversed?

The arguments against the court’s decision are many and are often confused. I suggest we look at them one by one.

There are factual arguments, such as “Kosher slaughter does not involve more suffering.” I am not an expert on animal consciousness, nor are most rabbis and activists who argue one way or the other. The court must listen to experts and decide if this is really the case. If there are enough honest experts who believe that a certain procedure is kindlier than the Jewish-Muslim practice, I see no reason not to accept the verdict. Not even if such a verdict is an inconvenient one.

There are “balancing act” arguments — as in “you should not prioritize this above that.” These are all ideological in nature. For one person, freedom of religion is more important than what animals feel; for another person, it is not. Ultimately, in almost all societies, there is a limit to religious freedom. Your religion demands human sacrifice? Sorry — your freedom ends here. This is also true for preventing bigamy, female mutilation or the use of certain hallucinogenic drugs. Societies have boundaries. Even those who value freedom of religion are not going to accept every argument in favor of every practice. And as much as I’d like to draw the boundaries for everybody, I must accept that it’s not for me to say what European boundaries ought to be.

There is the “this is all a ploy to kick us out” argument and its close relative, “this is anti-Semitic.” Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t (I believe it probably is). But this argument is not a valid legal one unless you have proof. And even then, the motivation of the perpetrators does not negate the validity of their arguments (Kosher slaughter should be banned for cruelty). They can always say: Stop consuming Kosher (or Halal) meat and see what happens; we will let you stay, no problem.

There is the “you can’t suddenly force us to change the rules” argument. Sorry — that’s not true. And as proof, let me remind you that no Jew or Muslim complained when the rules in Europe were changed in favor of more tolerance and against all forms of discrimination, even though the change suddenly came after many generations of a norm of intolerance.

There is the “Jews will not be able to live here anymore” argument. So what? Are we a rare species that Europeans must preserve at all cost? Do they have to protect us even if preservation means accepting a daily practice of barbaric slaughter? I don’t think such an argument is very convincing. Again, there is a balancing act here, and what determines the outcome is the weight each person or institution puts on different interests and values. You (and I) might think that letting Jews and Muslims live their lives undisturbed is more important than easing the suffering of cows, but I can see why other people might not feel the same. I see their point when they say, “if you can’t eat non-Kosher meat, be a vegetarian Jew or change your rules for religious slaughter.”

The bottom line to all of this is simple. My colleague at JPPI, Dr. Dov Maimon, who knows more about Europe and its Jews than most everybody else, keeps reminding me that our failure as Jews to convince Europeans of the need to let Jews be Jews is not about legal arguments. It is not about the court not getting the facts right. In Maimon’s words, it reflects “an ideological and cultural divide between two different worldviews and sources of authority that extends across millennia.” He identifies that “Europe’s human rights discourse is evolving from a primary emphasis on religious tolerance and identity accommodation to an emphasis on individualism with universal claims grounded in national or European culture.”

European attempts to ban Jewish and Muslim rituals, such as Kosher slaughter or male circumcision, rely on prioritizing certain rights over others. That’s why it is so difficult to beat them. We are not against Jews — we are for animals. We are not against Muslims — we are against pain. Europeans prioritize secular, modern interpretations of rights over those that safeguard traditional cultural and religious beliefs. In fact, the anti-slaughter movement is a small change compared to an anti-circumcision movement that is very active. Public opinion polls show support for a ban on circumcision throughout Europe. Legal attempts to ban circumcision are being pursued in Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium. As with Jewish slaughter, should one ban succeed, others will follow.

European attempts to ban Jewish and Muslim rituals rely on prioritizing certain rights over others.

In essence, a campaign against the legality of a core Jewish practice is a campaign of forced acculturation. It strives to end distinctive practices of a minority and thus drives it to assimilate into a majority. We, Jews, have been there before. We had to overcome similar challenges. Did anyone say Hanukkah?

Europe to Jews: No Kosher Meat for You! Read More »

Israel’s New Elections: Three Things to Consider

Yesterday, we said that Israel’s elections might be postponed. Today, Tuesday, after a long and dramatic night in the Knesset, it is clear that there is no delay. On March 23rd Israel will have its fourth election in two years. In fact, December 24th, two years ago almost to the day, was when Israel started its first of these four campaigns. Prime Minister Netanyahu decided to roll the dice. And even though it did not work out quite as he wanted – he was not a clear winner in the first, second and third election – he managed to keep his job.

How does he begin the coming election? There are three things to consider:

One: Netanyahu, the charismatic candidate, whose ascent to power was based, in large part, on his personality, is going to be the candidate of “it’s the issues, not the man.” As a leader, he is much less popular that in the past, and there is a sense of fatigue even among some of his voters. But Netanyahu will present to the voters a heavy plate of achievements that would not have happened (his version) without him. Israel is one of the first countries in the world to vaccinate its population. It enjoys normalization with some Arab countries. Its economy, while struggling during the pandemic, is in a relatively stable situation. Netanyahu’s campaign is going to urge the voters to forget whom they like or dislike and focus on “what’s good for Israel”.

Two: There is currently no party that threatens to become a real challenger to Likud when it comes to number of seats. In all polls, Likud leads by a large margin. Its main rival in the last three elections, Blue and White, is down. Do not be surprised if its leaders decide to quit and leave the political world behind them in the coming weeks. So, the danger for Likud is not from one strong rival, it is from a combination of midsize parties whose leaders want him gone. On many issues, they do not reject his policies, they reject him. He is divisive, he is invested in his own trial, he leads a party of people who feel entitled to always be on top. They think it is time for him to go, and for them to take it from here and do what he did – minus the personal deficiencies.

Three: It’s funny that we must remind ourselves of this, but there is a pandemic still going on, there is a significant share of the public who lost their jobs or businesses, there is anxiety and bitterness because of the pandemic and the way it is handled. True, Netanyahu can point to other countries– large, important and efficient– who do no better than Israel during these stressed times. But the public is still displeased with a government that hardly functions. Many Israelis, including rightwing voters who support Netanyahu’s ideology, blame him for this miserable state of affairs.

Does all this mean Netanyahu is in trouble? Yes. Does it mean he is probably gone? Not even close. The campaign merely begins, and the PM knows about campaigning and winning more than anyone in Israel.

Israel’s New Elections: Three Things to Consider Read More »