fbpx

October 20, 2021

Table for Five: Vayera

One verse, five voices. Edited by Salvador Litvak, the Accidental Talmudist

And Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I have become worn out, will I have smooth flesh? And also, my master is old.”

-Gen. 18:12


Rabbi Lori Shapiro
Open Temple

Periods. Menopause. Aging Bodies. In just two verses we know that Sarah used to have her period, but she is currently post-menopausal. Living in 2021, where #MeToo and neo-Victorianism confuse and confound, Torah sheds light on Sarah’s sex-positive declaration. It is NOT a declaration about motherhood; rather, it is a personal titillation or delight that Sarah will have “some sexy-time” again.

Ibn Ezra elucidates: “the word ednah means pleasure and enjoyment.” There is no chastening Sarah’s words here. Her laughter “to herself” is a release of the sensual pleasure which she has formerly self-contained; her reflection “am I to have enjoyment?” is Dr. Ruth worthy – yes, you are, Sarah; yes, Yes, YES!  

But one ambiguity remains: who is Sarah’s sexual consort? We are not given a front row seat to the act itself that creates Yitzak. And a thought arises – might Sarah, a relic of the ancient near-Eastern Goddess traditions, herself be God’s lover? Love-making is a transcendent gift that brings two humans into yichud (oneness), an experience of the presence of something that we call Godly. When Sarah “was to have a son,” as equally important as securing God’s covenant with Abraham, “was to experience sexual pleasure” all of the days of her life. And so she laughed. And so he was laughter. And so shall we laugh (I’ll have what she’s having).


Rabbi Pinchas Winston
Thirtysix.org

Even though we know that it is the right thing to tell the truth, we also know that there are times when lying can be more “truthful.” The trouble is knowing when. 

So often, people fool themselves into believing they are lying for the “right” reason when they are really lying to protect themselves from an undesirable consequence. And we’re not talking about people who have no problem lying, but about people who really prefer to tell the truth. The bottom line is that if a person is going to lie, they better be sure it is really the better truth for the moment. Like God in this week’s parsha, Who changed the truth about what Sarah said regarding her husband. 

Sarah laughed at the prophecy of having children because she couldn’t believe that her body could manage it after having aged so much. But she went even further by saying that her husband was simply too old to father children, which could have been offensive to Avraham, had he later found out. So, when God reported what she said to Avraham, He focused on what Sarah said about herself, leaving out the part about Avraham’s old age. This was such a blatant change of facts that the Talmud learns from this that it is permissible to lie for the sake of peace in the home…if you can be as altruistic about a “lie” as God was. If you can’t be, then sticking with the facts is probably best.


Rabbi Chaim Singer-Frankes
Interfaith Chaplain, Kaiser Medical Center Panorama City

I empathize with Sarah Imeinu’s dubiety regarding the hope of motherhood.  Countless parents of ripe childbearing years struggle to conceive, let alone those as advanced in years as Sarah and Avraham.  Even with phenomenal technologies available to us, we still rely upon ardent prayer to fulfill all sorts of dreams, including parenthood.  Even in this era of mass disruption, of uncertainty, of delayed dreams and deferred promise—when it may well be laughable to believe we will see a shining and normal tomorrow — a woman would find herself bewildered at the prospect of becoming a mother in the twilight of life. How much more so Sarah in the ancient world. 

Indeed, only a chapter prior to this in Genesis 17:17, Avraham Avinu foreshadows his wife’s reaction to the selfsame news.  Straightforwardly, in the verse following ours, the Divine messenger echoes God’s initial befuddlement to Avraham, as if to say, ‘don’t you guys believe in God? Whatsa mattah witcha?!’  

Paradoxically when odds are absurd, we persist with freakish glee. Thirteen years ago, at age 42, I announced my desire to attend rabbinical school.  Predictably my wife’s jaw dropped to the floor, and rightfully so.  I had no prior training, our daughter was attending private day-school, we had a mortgage to pay, and neither of us was getting any younger.  In addition to creativity with schedules and budgeting, it took a whole lot of laughter for our family to traverse that stretch.  Time and again, it is the most unfathomable of sacred goals which comes to fruition.


Salvador Litvak
Writer, Director, Accidental Talmudist 

Great is the power of speech, which not only separates us from the animals but even elevates us toward the heavenly realm. It might seem naive to ascribe a mystical dimension to the words of humans in general, especially in light of how poorly the faculty of speech is being used these days, but I stand by the observation. Words matter, even if no one hears them but you.

Immediately after our verse, God’s angel says, “Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Is it really true that I will give birth, even though I am old? Is anything too wondrous for The Lord?’” Sarah denies laughing because she’s afraid, but the angel calls her out, saying “You did laugh.”

The students of Talmudic sage Rabbi Yishmael taught that great is peace, for even the Holy One departs from truth in order to preserve it: His angel changed her statement from “my husband is old” to “I am old” in order to spare Abraham’s feelings, thus preserving the peace between husband and wife. On the other hand, the angel did not spare Sarah’s feelings when she tried to deny that she’d laughed.

I would like to suggest that God and the angel were teaching lessons in positive thinking and positive speech. The little jokes we toss off when someone thinks aloud about making a journey, starting a project, etc. often have devastating effect on that nascent idea. As my teenage son once quipped, “It only takes one person to say ‘This plan is falling apart’ to make that plan fall apart.” Since we usually don’t have an angel or prophet around to birth new ideas for us, any new ideas that flash into our brains may well be coming straight from the Almighty. So let’s not be too quick to dismiss them with a chuckle. Not every new idea is holy to be sure, but you never know…


Rabbi Ari Schwarzberg
Dean of Students, Shalhevet High School

Perhaps the key to understanding this verse is its third word: בקרבה, “within herself.” Rashi, the classical biblical commentator, interprets the phrase physically — “within herself” refers to Sarah’s actual insides, her womb. Sarah laughs because her “insides” are no longer biologically capable of carrying a child. 

But the more literal translation of the verse suggests that “within herself” describes not the subject, but the place of her laughter. Don’t think of Sarah laughing out loud, instead her incredulous response to the promise of bearing a child takes place in her thoughts alone. No one hears her and no explicit expression is made, her doubt is an internal conversation located strictly within the confines of her consciousness. 

This subtle layer of the story may illustrate an important difference in Abraham and Sarah’s character, and perhaps more significantly in their respective relationships with Hashem. Whereas Abraham is depicted throughout his life with strong language and decisive behavior (think of the stories of Sodom and the Akeidah), Sarah, at least in this episode, models the space that doubt occupies in our relationship with God. While Abraham’s relationship with God is one that’s firm and resolute, Sarah’s belief is never completely rid of her uncertainties.

We may often look like Abraham on the outside – confident and in control, but inside we all have this piece of our matriarch, Sarah, lurking. Taken together, Avraham & Sarah set up a dynamic paradigm of faith, one that will be useful and meaningful for all of their descendants. 

Table for Five: Vayera Read More »

One-Sided Narratives Promote the Harmful Israeli-Palestinian Status Quo

For the original article from Kevin Rachlin of JStreet, click here.

The irony of the article, “The Two-State Solution Act Takes on the Harmful Israeli-Palestinian Status Quo,” is that it in practice, it only further promotes the status quo.

As a non-partisan education organization, StandWithUs is not engaged in advocacy around the Two-State Solution Act. However, we are concerned that this article in support of the bill misleads the public about why there is no peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

An official FAQ about the Two-State Solution Act implies that it is unlikely to be signed into law. However, it is being introduced anyway in order to send a message to, “ordinary Israelis, Palestinians and Americans who want to see a two-state solution achieved…” So what is the message to readers of the Jewish Journal from prominent supporters of the bill?

In a nutshell, the article portrays Israel as the main problem, and one-sided U.S. pressure as the solution. “The occupation is the mother of all evils” – responsible for everything from Hamas firing rockets at Israeli homes and families to the failure of diplomacy with the Palestinians. If you’re wondering what Palestinian leaders and terrorist groups are responsible for, the article won’t tell you. It offers one vague throw away line about how they, “must shoulder a significant portion of the blame,” before going back to blaming Israel.

What’s missing from this picture?

Let’s start with the fact that Palestinian leaders have turned down every significant peace plan since 1937, refusing to accept the existence of a Jewish state in any territory. In 2000 and 2008, the Israeli government offered to withdraw from Gaza and nearly all of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, to help create a Palestinian state. Palestinian leaders said no and made no counter-offer. Some might argue, “well, that’s old history.” But this pattern continued in 2014, when Israel reportedly said yes to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s framework for peace negotiations, while the Palestinian leadership said no. Instead, they launched a brutal wave of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians from 2000-2005, and continue to institutionally promote and reward hatred and violence to this day. This includes paying generous salaries to terrorists convicted of bombing, stabbing, shooting, and using vehicles to run over Israelis.

When Israel relinquished control of Gaza and removed every settlement, civilian, and soldier from the territory, the result was the opposite of peace and security. The racist terrorist group Hamas took over and has brought nothing but more suffering to Israelis and Palestinians alike. “Ending the occupation” is neither their ultimate goal, nor what motivated them to start a destructive war with Israel in May, 2021. On September 30th, Hamas held a conference where they made clear that “the full liberation of Palestine from the sea to the river” is “the heart of Hamas’s strategic vision.” And what does that vision entail for Jews? Eliminating Israel, killing all IDF soldiers, detaining and prosecuting some who try to flee for their “crimes”, and forcing “educated Jews and experts” to stay and serve their new masters.

Hamas’ desire to destroy Israel and murder, expel, or subjugate Jews is one major barrier to a two-state solution. Another is its intractable conflict with the Palestinian Authority (PA)/Fatah in the West Bank, which prevents Israel from negotiating with a unified Palestinian leadership. Furthermore, even if Israel could ignore Hamas and solely engage with Fatah, Fatah leaders have been unwilling to make the most basic compromises for peace. For example, how did they react to a UN Security Council resolution condemning settlements and a subsequent speech by Secretary Kerry criticizing Israel in 2016? They once again rejected Kerry’s ideas and reaffirmed their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Why wouldn’t such international pressure on Israel encourage Palestinian leaders to negotiate in good faith? According to Palestinian negotiators Hussein Agha and Ahmad Samih Khalidi, “the Palestinians’ readiness to take the negotiating path to its logical conclusions was restrained by a perception that they were winning the moral and psychological high ground. The paradoxical effect was to make it harder to progress toward an agreement with Israel because it seemed that other influential parties might do the job.”

All of this helps explain why Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, who supports a two-state solution, does not believe it is a realistic possibility at this time. Instead, the government is focused on “shrinking the conflict” – finding ways Israel can help improve daily life and increase economic opportunities for Palestinians.

The harmful Israeli-Palestinian status quo cannot be changed without acknowledging and grappling with these realities. In fact, piling onto the one-sided condemnations Israel already faces around the world while doing nothing to hold Palestinian leaders accountable is a proven recipe for accomplishing nothing.

Criticism and debate over Israeli policy is necessary and healthy, particularly in Israel where even the governing coalition has deep differences of opinion about how to make peace with the Palestinians. However, distorting the reality on the ground from thousands of miles away is deeply counterproductive and disrespectful to the people who live this conflict every day.

Max Samarov, Director of Research and Strategy at StandWithUs
With contributions from Roz Rothstein, CEO and Co-Founder of StandWithUs

One-Sided Narratives Promote the Harmful Israeli-Palestinian Status Quo Read More »

The Two-State Solution Act Takes on the Harmful Israeli-Palestinian Status Quo

For a rebuttal from StandWithUs, click here.

For those of us who care deeply about Israel and its future as a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people, September was a month where we finally got some good news. After years of watching the prospects for a peaceful two-state solution dim without much meaningful reaction from the US government, we saw progressive Jewish Congressman Andy Levin introduce a new bill that gives our elected leaders an opportunity to forge a new path.

The Two-State Solution Act, which Rep. Levin introduced in the House alongside a number of influential cosponsors, is the most significant legislation in over a decade not only for promoting Palestinian rights but for Israel’s security and democratic future. Simply put, this is because the bill includes meaningful steps that reinvigorate diplomacy and push back on the harmful status quo of endless conflict, deepening occupation, and recurring cycles of violence.

There is a tendency in some parts of the Jewish community to reject even the possibility that Israeli policies and the settlement movement have played a role in exacerbating the conflict. While burying our heads in the sand to avoid confronting the daily realities in the region may be a more comfortable option, it does nothing to protect Israel from the dangers it faces as a result of deepening occupation and the absence of any diplomatic progress.

According to a number of former leaders of Israel’s internal security service, the Shin Bet, those dangers are significant. Ami Ayalon, who served as director of the service in the 1990s, has written that “continuing the occupation is the single greatest threat to Israel’s safety, and to our existence as a democracy.” His fellow former Shin Bet director Carmi Gilon has shared similar sentiments, warning that “The occupation should have been ended. The occupation is the mother of all evils…there’s existing damage as a result of the occupation, and it will only go on and get worse.”

This past May, we saw in real-time why these warnings are so urgent. Protests of the threatened forced displacement of dozens of Palestinians from their homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in East Jerusalem led to a crackdown by Israeli police, which sparked more protests and thus further crackdowns, ultimately leading to Hamas terrorists opportunistically firing rockets indiscriminately into Israeli territory, retaliatory airstrikes from the IDF into Gaza, and alarming inter-communal violence in Israeli cities.

At any given moment, any of the many policies used to entrench the occupation — the displacement and demolition of Palestinian communities; the arbitrary detentions and interrogations; the proliferation of settler violence — has the potential to spark conflagrations that imperil Israelis. Cumulatively, these actions continue to erode Israeli democracy, seriously damage its global support, and undermine Palestinian advocates for moderation, diplomacy and compromise.

While it can certainly be painful for Israelis and pro-Israel Americans to acknowledge and confront this reality, it is deeply necessary. Ignoring the deteriorating status quo won’t make it any better. And while Palestinian leaders undoubtedly must shoulder a significant portion of the blame for the ongoing deadlock, there is nothing pro-Israel about denying the fact that for too long, right-wing Israeli leaders have done nearly everything in their power to obstruct and undermine the prospects for a peaceful two-state solution, and to cement the status quo.

The Two-State Solution Act is so welcome because it confronts this reality and proposes policies to help address it. It seeks to turn US support for a two-state solution from empty rhetoric into meaningful, productive action. It rolls back damaging measures from the Trump era that embraced the settlement movement and creeping annexation. It promotes the resumption of serious diplomatic engagement between the US and the Palestinian Authority, rather than treating the entire Palestinian people as if they can simply be ignored or bought off.

The bill reaffirms support for the ongoing annual provision of over 3.8 billion in aid to Israel, while making clear that this aid cannot be used to advance policies that deepen the occupation — and which thereby undercut Israeli security and trample Palestinian rights. It seeks to put the US-Israel relationship on a more open, honest and realistic footing, focused on helping our ally move towards peace, rather than looking on silently as it drifts dangerously in the wrong direction.

The Two-State Solution Act, and the outspoken leadership of the over two dozen Members of Congress who have already co-sponsored this legislation, answers the call of concerned, patriotic Israelis like Ayalon, who has written that “We need the United States to ensure that the relationship between our two countries is guiding us down a path toward peace, stability and the maintenance of democracy — not empowering or abetting a slide toward disaster.”

For those members of our community who believe that Israel should never accept the creation of a Palestinian state, never give up a single settlement, and never end its control over millions of people who lack basic civil rights or Israeli citizenship, the Two-State Solution Act is surely something to be opposed. But for the large majority of American Jews who would genuinely like to see both Israelis and Palestinians living alongside each other in peace, security and self-determination, this is legislation to welcome and champion.


Kevin Rachlin is the Vice President of Public Affairs at J Street.

The Two-State Solution Act Takes on the Harmful Israeli-Palestinian Status Quo Read More »

A Man of Peace (and Other Misdeeds)

In the garden of Israel’s President House, not far from the entrance to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the Avenue of the Presidents presents the busts of the first 10 to hold that office, from Chaim Weizmann to Reuven Rivlin, who was added just three months ago, when his term ended and Yitzhak Herzog replaced him. On a plaque beneath the bust is a quote from Rivlin: “Without the ability to listen, there is no ability to learn. Without the ability to learn, there is no ability to repair”.

The plaque has a story. Just a year ago, Rivlin made a decision to add a line to the plaque of one of his predecessors, Moshe   Katsav, reminding the visitors that the seventh president he had been convicted of rape and was incarcerated. Katsav was found guilty and jailed almost a decade earlier, in 2011. His successor was President Shimon Peres, who had to win a vote against two other candidates: Rivlin – and Colette Avital.

Avital is a long-time diplomat and politician. Last week, she made the biggest headline of her eventful career by revealing that Peres sexually harassed her, some would say attacked her, back in the 1980’s. Following her testimony, another woman came forward with similar testimonies. The woman gave a detailed account of the assault, and described how he touched her, pinning her to the wall. 

This story is filled with ironies, large and small. When Katsav was convicted of rape, Peres was asked to remove his predecessor’s bust from the garden. He refused to do this, or, for that matter, anything else. Only when Rivlin came along, and under more pressure, a decision to keep the bust yet add an incriminating reminder to the plaque was made. Now one has to wonder: was Peres worried about his own plaque? Was he more sensitive to the harasser than to the women who suffered because of him? Or maybe — and this would be my   guess — Peres was completely blind to the fact that his behavior is more evocative of Katsav’s than anyone suspects.

The irony doesn’t stop here. Avital wanted to be president and run against Peres. But their relations weren’t marked by animosity or alienation. She was politically loyal to him decades after the alleged sexual attack. “I appreciated him, so I chose to ignore his actions”, said Avital. She also weighed in on a more recent story: last week, the leading candidate to head the Jewish Agency, Minister of Intelligence Elazar Stern, withdrew from the race, following his admission that as a general he ignored anonymous complaints against other officers. Why could Peres be president and Stern cannot be the head of the Jewish Agency, Avital was asked. Her response is illuminating: Peres, she reminded her interviewer, was a great man. Apparently, what great men can do with impunity – the ordinary chap, such as Stern, cannot (and just to be clear: Stern admitted only to ignoring complaints, not to harassment of any kind). 

All this is salacious and scandalous. It ignites a discussion about current norms and previous norms, about our ability today to judge the actions of people yesterday, about the exact boundaries of what’s inappropriate and what’s criminal. All of it is testimony to the changing times, to the endless ability of people to surprise, to the way ideology colors everything we do. Would there even be a demand to add something to Peres’ plaque? It will not be a simple demand, as, unlike Katsav, Peres never stood trial, and never will. Why not? Because even the women he harassed and attacked, or at least one of them, thought he was a great man, and never complained. Their story, and the one of many Israelis, mostly on the left, is one of cognitive dissonance. Is Peres to be remembered as a peace maker or as a women’s harasser?

In Israel, this attempt to erase the past because of sensitivities of the present has not yet taken hold.

Around the world, statues and busts of great men are being taken down. In the US, a debate of what to do with statues and symbols is not new. Nearly 100 Confederate statues were removed in 2020. Last week, we witnessed another round of debate concerning Christopher Columbus. In Israel, this attempt to erase the past because of sensitivities of the present has not yet taken hold. Thus, it was relatively easy for President Peres to decide against removing Katsav from the President’s row. 

On second thought: Maybe too easy?

Something I wrote in Hebrew

Former Minister of Health and Speaker of the Knesset Yuli Edelstein announced his intention to challenge Netanyahu as head of Likud. Here is what I wrote about his chances of success:

Three polls published last week make it clear that the Likud is not losing seats, it is gaining seats. That is, the voters do not believe that the Likud is lost – the voters seem to be returning to the Likud. The average of polls put Likud at more than 34 seats if the election had been held today, compared with 30 the party has in the Knesset. No less important — Netanyahu himself does not lose support. Not among Likud voters and not among the rightwing bloc voters. He is not perceived as having failed in his new role as chairman of the opposition. He gained trust of the kind that would make it difficult for Edelstein, or any other candidate, to challenge the former prime minister effectively. 

A week’s numbers

Here are the numbers to prove what I wrote in the paragraph about Edelstein:

A reader’s response:

Prof. Avner Cohen responded (on Facebook) to what I wrote about Peres and Avital:

“Avital’s testimony is not surprising on the one hand, nor does it tarnish Peres with allegations of serious acts. These were things done by almost everyone who was in a position to do them… these were the norms of the time. Enough with the piousness.”


Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.

A Man of Peace (and Other Misdeeds) Read More »

Are Jews in Iran Safe? Don’t Ask a Rabbi in Tehran

Last week, I was informed that Rabbi Yehuda Gerami, who has been called the chief rabbi of Tehran (yes, Tehran, the capital city of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism) was visiting Los Angeles. Naturally, my knee-jerk reaction was to immediately secure an interview with Gerami. But soon enough, I talked myself out of it. Let me tell you why.

I’m not an American or European-born writer; I’m not Roger Cohen of The New York Times, who, over a decade ago, visited Iran and quoted Jewish residents who claimed they lived safely and happily (and lambasted Israel). I’m also not a travel blogger who acquiesces to wearing the mandatory headscarf (hijab) so she can visit the country and take selfies in a stunning mosque.  

I’m an Iranian Jew; I was born in the 1980s, after the Islamic Revolution that turned Iran into a fanatic theocracy, unrecognizable to its own citizens (and the greater Middle East). As much as I’m invested in whether the Jews of Iran are safe today, I don’t need to ask others about Jewish life in Iran. I was Jewish life in Iran. 

My mother handed me a mandatory headscarf and told me to do whatever my teachers instructed. So I did. I screamed “Death to Israel!” and “Death to America!” in school. And my passport had the word “Jew” written on it. 

When I contemplated interviewing Rabbi Gerami, I felt ambivalent. Here was a sphinx; a Jewish leader who lives in Tehran and is returning there soon. I had so many questions for him. The only problem? I knew that I couldn’t ask any of them.

You don’t ask a rabbi who is returning to Iran and to the regime to speak on-the-record about Iran and the regime. You don’t ask him about Israel.

You don’t ask a rabbi who is returning to Iran and to the regime to speak on-the-record about Iran and the regime. You don’t ask him about Israel. You don’t even ask him if the Jews of Iran are safe. That is, you don’t ask any of these questions if you want to know the whole truth.

To expect someone who could face arrest back home (and put the safety of his community at risk) to speak truthfully about such issues is fantastically naive. That’s why I’m always surprised when, every few months, another Western journalist visits Iran and writes about Jewish life there, citing Jews who swear they’re safe and content.  

Gerami’s visit also exposed a separation in our local community: some Iranian Jews invited him to speak at their synagogues and homes, affording him the respect he deserves as a holy, learned man and as a fellow Jew. Others were concerned by some of Gerami’s actions, such as paying a mourner’s visit to the home of Qasem Soleimani, the notorious head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), who was killed by a targeted American airstrike in Iraq in 2020. That same year, on Quds Day, Gerami appeared on Iranian television and slammed Israel, claiming, “Know that you Zionists do not represent Judaism and do not represent the Jewish people.” 

Don’t be surprised by such harsh words. For the past four decades, Jewish leaders in Iran have felt compelled to say such falsehoods (and worse) to maintain their safety. In the end, we don’t know the full story behind any of Gerami’s actions (and to what degree the regime forced him to do such things) and I, for one, don’t judge him for them. 

Clearly, the circumstances under which Gerami finds himself are messy and complicated. Are the Jews of Iran actually safe? Yes, and no. There haven’t been pogroms (thank God), such as those we saw in other Muslim countries like Iraq, Libya and elsewhere in the twentieth century. Jews are considered religious minorities in Iran; they’re free to attend synagogue; they have Jewish schools and cemeteries. Does that make them safe? It depends whom you ask.

For years, I believed that the regime wouldn’t dare harm its Jewish community.

For years, I believed that the regime wouldn’t dare harm its Jewish community. In fact, the only way Iran seemed to evade international condemnation for its genocidal hatred was to repeat that it was (and remains) enemies with Israel, rather than with Jews. And then, in 1999, over a dozen Jews from the southeastern city of Shiraz were arrested and accused of spying for Israel. The case of the “Shiraz 13” drew outrage worldwide and they were eventually released (in small groups). If you’re a Jew in Iran, God help you if you’re accused of being a Zionist. The first Jew to be executed after the revolution was a prominent businessman and community leader, Habib Elghanian, who was charged with “friendship with the enemies of God” (Israel) and shot by firing squad in May 1979. 

The case of the “Shiraz 13” was over 20 years ago, but last week, something deeply telling occurred: On October 12, an Iranian opposition group posted on its Telegram channel that a senior Iranian official had warned that if Israel “makes a mistake” (military action against Iran), the regime would take action against “the 10,000 Jews living in Iran.” 

Now this was unprecedented. That official, incidentally, was Mohsen Rezaee, Vice President for Economic Affairs, who previously commanded the powerful IRGC from 1980-1997. In a speech for like-minded fanatics of an ideological organization called Tharollah Tehran, Rezaee warned, “The Israeli government knows very well that if it makes a mistake, the regime will treat the 10,000 Jews living in Iran differently.” Some say it was a slip of the tongue. I’m just glad the truth finally came out. 

But here’s the most devastating part of the story: Immediately after Rezaee’s warning went public, the sole Jewish member of parliament (Majlis), Houmayoun Sameyah Najafabadi, took to Telegram to defend Rezaee, claiming the accusations were false. 

“The great founder of the revolution [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini] and likewise the Supreme Leader [Ali Khamenei] have always emphasized that the religion of the Prophet Moses and the Jewish community are distinct from Zionism. The publication of such false news is only in order to create division and tension among the Iranians,” the Jewish leader wrote. 

Now that tells you everything you need to know about Jewish life in Iran today.


Tabby Refael is a Los Angeles-based writer, speaker, and civic action activist. Follow her on Twitter @RefaelTabby

Are Jews in Iran Safe? Don’t Ask a Rabbi in Tehran Read More »

StandWithUs, IAC Urge Unilever to Overturn Ben & Jerry’s Israel Decision

StandWithUs and the Israeli-American Coalition (IAC) for Action urged Unilever in an October 15 letter to overturn Ben & Jerry’s decision in July to withdraw from the “Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

The letter, written by StandWithUs CEO and Co-Founder Roz Rothstein on behalf of both organizations, stated that they were “disappointed” that Unilever is claiming that they cannot overrule Ben & Jerry’s on the matter because their contractual agreement states that Ben & Jerry’s has full autonomy to engage in social justice activism. Rothstein argued that Ben & Jerry’s is actually in violation of their contract with Unilever over its Israel decision because the contract states that Ben & Jerry’s can only engage in such action when it is “commercially reasonable.”

“Neither Unilever nor Ben and Jerry’s has explained how it is commercially reasonable to effectively boycott Israel—because it is not. Boycotting an entire country is, in fact, commercially unreasonable, especially when it triggers counter-boycotts by states and consumer groups and divestment of state pension funds,” Rothstein wrote. “In fact, since the boycott announcement, Unilever has underperformed competitors, suggesting that the boycott decision has harmed your investors.”

Rothstein also noted that the contract between Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever states that the ice cream company is required to “use commercially reasonable efforts” to “conduct all facets of the Business in Israel.” “Ben and Jerry’s must explain—to you and to the investing public—how its social mission requires such a boycott when it signed a contract showing that doing business in Israel was consistent with its social mission,” Rothstein wrote. “Clearly, it is Ben and Jerry’s that is in breach, and it is within Unilever’s rights to reverse the Board.”

“Ben and Jerry’s must explain—to you and to the investing public—how its social mission requires such a boycott when it signed a contract showing that doing business in Israel was consistent with its social mission.” — Roz Rothstein

Additionally, Rothstein argued that it’s “false” for Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s to state that the ice cream company will remain in Israel. She noted that Anuradha Mittal, the Ben & Jerry’s Independent Board Chair, “has explicitly promoted boycotts targeting all of Israel and implied Israel’s existence is a ‘catastrophe.’” Mittal has also alleged that the Ben & Jerry’s board did not approve the segment of the July announcement stating that the ice cream company would remain in Israel.

More importantly, Rothstein pointed to the fact that Israeli law prohibits companies from boycotting Israelis “based on their location. This means that Ben and Jerry’s can stay and sell to all Israelis, or it can leave Israel, but it cannot boycott only some Israeli citizens or communities without violating Israeli domestic law.”

Rothstein concluded: “We expect Unilever to correct its error and use its clear authority under the merger agreement to reverse the Ben and Jerry’s Israel boycott. We look forward to your response and would appreciate hearing from you by close of business on Wednesday, October 20, 2021.”

Unilever’s media contact in their United States headquarters did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment.

On October 12, the Simon Wiesenthal Center announced that they are urging grocery stores to stop selling Ben & Jerry’s ice cream over their Israel decision. “It was never just about ice cream sold in East Jerusalem,” Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean and Global Social Action Director at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said in a statement. “It is all about Ben and Jerry’s ice cream company profits being leveraged by an activist anti-Semite who hates Israel and defends Hamas – and the corporate executives at Unilever letting it happen. This is about arrogance and irresponsibility, enabling the odious anti-Semitic BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions] movement to use money from a global brand to brand Jews as occupiers in their own land at a time when there is a spike of violent attacks against Jews from Germany to the UK to the U.S.”

StandWithUs, IAC Urge Unilever to Overturn Ben & Jerry’s Israel Decision Read More »

Fear and Scapegoating at CUNY Following Union’s Anti-Israel Resolution

Students at CUNY Brooklyn College have confided to faculty and other students at the college that they are afraid to return to campus this semester because of the atmosphere of antisemitic hate and violence that pervades the institution. Brodsky, an Associate Professor and Chair of Judaic Studies at CUNY Brooklyn, is concerned that recent anti-Israel talk of “resistance by any means necessary” at CUNY could lead to violence. As a result, for the first time, he found himself having to consider the possibility of violent activism when deciding whether to hold classes in person. Brodsky directly asked individuals and groups on campus who claim the right  of “resistance by any means necessary” if they believe there are any limits to that right—up to and including attacking students and faculty in departments like his. He received no answer.

On 10 June 2021, in the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel the previous month, CUNY’s faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC-CUNY), adopted a resolution that condemned “the massacre of Palestinians by the Israeli state’’ and denounced Israel’s “expansionism and violent incursions into occupied territories.” The resolution made no mention of Hamas, which the United States has designated a terrorist organization, or the more than 4000 rockets that it launched unprovoked into Israel, a third of which landed within the Gaza Strip. It also failed to mention Hamas’s use of women and children as human shields by firing rockets from or near schools, hospitals, mosques and heavily populated civilian areas.

On 10 June 2021, in the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel the previous month, CUNY’s faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC-CUNY), adopted a resolution that condemned “the massacre of Palestinians by the Israeli state’’ and denounced Israel’s “expansionism and violent incursions into occupied territories.”

In response to the resolution, more than 100 professors resigned from the union in protest. Critics of the resolution pointed to the bizarre timing and one-sided nature of the resolution, which came during contract negotiations between the union and CUNY as the system continued to struggle with providing classes for its students during the pandemic. Others have noted that the union has never mentioned the human rights violations in Syria or China (among other ongoing conflicts international conflicts), which dwarf the events in Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a whole.

The resolution came shortly after CUNY’s University Student Senate (USS) vetoed a motion endorsing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, an internationally accepted standard that has been adopted by hundreds of organizations and dozens of countries around the world. With the fall semester now underway, the repercussions of these actions are being felt by CUNY’s Jewish students and faculty.

A body calling itself the “Cross CUNY Working Group Against Racism and Colonialism” held four zoom conferences in September, all of which are available online, in response to the resolution’s mandate that “in fall 2021, the PSC-CUNY facilitate discussions at the chapter level of the content of this resolution and consider PSC support of the 2005 call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS).” Describing itself as “a collective of conscientious CUNY staff, faculty, students, PSC union members, and activists committed to anti-racism and ending settler colonialism,” the group echoes the resolution’s focus on linking “the Palestinian struggle for self-determination to the struggles of Indigenous people and people of color in the United States” without addressing racism or colonialism in any other context.

It should come as no surprise that the group’s emails are sent under the auspices of “CUNY4Palestine,” a self-described body of “students, faculty, staff, and community members at CUNY that organize around the BDS movement and build solidarity for Palestine.” It would thus appear that the “Cross CUNY Working Group Against Racism and Colonialism” and “CUNY4Palestine” are one and the same. Throughout their “teach-ins” and symposia, presenters repeatedly employed timeworn antisemitic cliches disguised as critiques of Zionism. One presenter referred multiple times to the “tentacles” of Zionism and its influence on governments throughout the world, an appropriation of the old antisemitic image of “global” Judaism used by antisemites during the nineteenth century before being adopted by the Nazis. After World War II, the government of the USSR used the image in reference to “global” Zionism as part of its anti-Israel propaganda campaigns while denying civil rights to Soviet Jews on the basis of their Jewish ethnicity.

However, some at CUNY have fought back against this scapegoating of Israel and one-sided narrative about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In response to PSC-CUNY’s anti-Israel resolution, dissenting union and non-union faculty members founded the CUNY Alliance for Inclusion (CAFI) to “foster an environment of academic integrity, moral clarity, and open dialogue at CUNY by standing against antisemitic and anti-Zionist resolutions.” CAFI opposes “the woeful distortion of human rights advocacy in the classroom and within the PSC-CUNY union that abandons countless victims of abuse by autocratic regimes around the world in order to unfairly attack a single democratic state, Israel, while giving cover to terrorist Hamas, which swears to wipe it off the map.” CAFI has provided its own seminars on the situation in Israel and Palestine and offers resources for students and faculty to cope with the hostile climate they now find themselves in across the CUNY system.

However, some at CUNY have fought back against this scapegoating of Israel and one-sided narrative about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

We at CAFI are trying to push back,” said Brodsky, “bringing nuance back to the discussion.” He also notes that students and faculty concerned with antisemitism are getting more organized in response to this recent wave of anti-Israel activities. “But we’re behind the anti-Zionist groups. They did this on their timeline. They created this. They had everything in place to move forward with it and they were ready to go. It’s been eye-opening to see how blatant their antisemitic rhetoric has been.

Feb. 20, 2023: This article has been updated for accuracy

Fear and Scapegoating at CUNY Following Union’s Anti-Israel Resolution Read More »

An Awesome Alaskan Summer Cruise on the Marvelous Majestic Princess!

I absolutely loved being back onboard Princess Cruises!

I sailed on Majestic Princess from Seattle on August 29, 2021 to Alaska including Juneau, Skagway, Ketchikan and Glacier Bay. I had a balcony on this Medallion class ship with room enough to hula-hoop in my room. I loved the pools, hot tubs, sports court, the many restaurants and all the activities on board like fruit carving and ice carving. I walked around the deck and watched movies under the stars.

Welcome to the Majestic Princess Alaska Summer 2021

See my videos below of Sail Away, the dancing fountains and Where to EAT onboard!

Majestic Princess Seattle Sail Away August 29 2021–Princess Cruises for Alaska Summer 2021! #WeAreBack!

 

Enjoy the Majestic Princess Dancing Fountains!!

Where to EAT? on the Majestic Princess

I absolutely loved being back onboard Princess Cruises for Alaska Summer 2021 #WeAreBack!

I loved my dinner at Crown Grill with Tina, Loyalty Ambassador. Thank you to Jelena and Ionut the only Texan Romanian I have ever met!

The other specialty restaurants on this ship are Harmony which is gorgeous and I heard the food is excellent and La Mer, which is French and I heard delicious. There are noodles and burgers by the pool and many places to eat around the ship.

Enjoy my videos of the locations! I LOVED the VIP Concierge team on deck 14. Thank you to Darko, Matthew and Rosendo. I appreciated their attention every day! They asked about my cruise experience and were ready to assist in all things CRUISE!

Thank you to the team in World Marketplace/horizon court. I particularly loved Edi from Indonesia and Jason who helped me with breakfast, Rajesh brought me excellent drinks and Alex helped me with my salads with no lettuce! Thank you to Manoj for the parmesan cheese! Jorge Antonio from Honduras on desserts was great!

The person with the best and friendliest personality on the whole team is Pranitha from Kerala India. She always remembered me, said hello and asked about my experience on the ship! THANK YOU!

Skywalk!

Thank you to Captain Tony Draper and the entire crew onboard for an incredible week in Alaska on the Majestic Princess! Enjoy my videos of each of the ports and my two nights at Fairmont Olympic Hotel in Seattle before joining my Alaska sailing on Majestic Princess Summer 2021 https://bit.ly/AlaskaCruise21

More articles: What to DO in Seattle?

Where to STAY in Seattle?

An Awesome Alaskan Summer Cruise on the Marvelous Majestic Princess! Read More »