fbpx

November 24, 2021

Indigenous Berserk

An Odd Thanksgiving Ode to Bret Stephens

To use a term that first was quoth
by Jewish Jerseyman, Phil Roth,
“American indigenous berserk”
doesn’t seem for me to work;
so unbemused by what’s occurring,
kosher carnivore, I’m not deferring
consumption of the annual turkey
that on Thanksgiving, unberserk,
I’ve been for years accustomed to
consume, an OU-faithful Jew,
and won’t be eating kosher bacon
frum Jews are eating now, such fakon
not—to use a British metaphor,
which blokes in Blighty still adore—
this Yiddish kopfer’s cuppa tea,
towards it as unsuppity
as towards supping with the devil,
behaving like, unfiddled, Tevyil,
not dancing on a roof or asking
a Rov’s who’s torah-multitasking,
vaccinated during covid,
giving multimaskers koved,
believing that since God said: “Don’t
eat pig,” Jews shouldn’t, so I won’t
eat food that many frummies fancy,
not even when its meat is plantsy,
puzzled by this paradox
which has, as Modern Orthodox,
intrigued me just as in Penzance
some pirates were, not by pork plants
but by a lad born on a leap
year day, and won’t berserkly sweep
away a law that high-tech tikkun
makes obsolete with pork that’s vegan.

What’s made from plants I won’t consume,
nor in my stomach find some room
for food that sounds to me berserk.
Unjustly jesting, this Jew jerk
is literally, litigiously,
though modern most religiously,
opposed to eating what the Torah
despises, this devout deplorer,
preferring to what sounds unkosher:
smoked salmon that’s from Nova Scotia,
if not on bagels then on rye,
or cholent that is for-to-die
on Shabbos at a fleishig kiddush
served by good Jews whose taste is Yiddish,
like taste for snow once on St. Stephen’s
no crisper, deeper, than Bret Stephens.

 

Bret Stephens writes in the 11/15/21 NYT (“When the Next Thing You Know Is That You Have Covid”):

We’ve long lived in the land of what Philip Roth called “the indigenous American berserk,” so I guess there’s nothing too surprising here. In “Is That Kosher? Rabbis Debate Plant-Based ‘Pork’¨ WSJ, 11/15/21, Dov Lieber writes from Tel Aviv:

It might look like pork, smell like pork, even taste like pork—just don’t call it pork.

The arrival of fake, plant-based meat expanded the culinary horizon for many observant Jews in recent years. Faux cheeseburgers were suddenly on the menu at kosher restaurants without breaking the ban on mixing dairy with meat. Chili cheese fries became an option.

Could Impossible Foods Inc.’s fake pork also get a kosher seal of approval?


Gershon Hepner is a poet who has written over 25,000 poems on subjects ranging from music to literature, politics to Torah. He grew up in England and moved to Los Angeles in 1976. Using his varied interests and experiences, he has authored dozens of papers in medical and academic journals, and authored “Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel.” He can be reached at gershonhepner@gmail.com.

Indigenous Berserk Read More »

NYU Denounces Student-Run Publication’s Endorsement of BDS

New York University (NYU) condemned the NYU Review of Law & Social Change’s (RLSC) endorsement of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement in a November 23 statement.

On November 18, the RLSC, an NYU School of Law student-run quarterly publication, said in a statement that they are expressing their “firm commitment” to BDS. “RLSC will not purchase products made by or that utilize services rendered by Israeli and/or international companies implicated in the violation of Palestinian rights. These companies include, among others, Hewlett-Packard, Sodastream, Sabra, and Pillsbury.” They added that they would also boycott “events, activities, agreements, or projects involving Israeli academic institutions or that otherwise promote the normalization of Israel in the global academy, whitewash Israel’s violations of international law and Palestinian rights, or violate the BDS guidelines.”

The RLSC statement went on to accuse NYU of being complicit in “Israeli apartheid” and called on the university to divest from Israeli institutions and companies that conduct business with Israel and shut down it study abroad program in Tel Aviv. “RLSC is proud to support the BDS movement and to stand in solidarity with Palestinians resisting their oppression.”

The university rebuked the RLSC in its November 23 statement. “NYU and the NYU School of Law are troubled and disappointed by the student-led [RLSC’s] call for an academic boycott of Israeli universities and academics,” the statement read. “Academic boycotts, such as the one proclaimed by the RLSC, are antithetical to the precepts of academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. For this reason, as a matter of policy, NYU rejects, as it has for many years, calls for academic boycotts of Israel, and the University likewise rejects calls to close its NYU Tel Aviv program, to which it remains fully committed.”

NYU Distinguished Alumnus Judea Pearl, who is also a Chancellor Professor of Computer Science at UCLA, National Academy of Sciences member and Daniel Pearl Foundation President, said in a statement to the Journal, “The academic standing of NYU now hinges on
how quickly the university can prevent a Zionophobic group of juvenile ‘editors’ from using the good name of NYU on their publication and promoting a morally repulsive ideology against the core values of other NYU students.”

Anti-Defamation League New York / New Jersey Regional Director Scott Richman tweeted, “While calls by an NYU journal to boycott Israel & divest NYU assets is disturbing, it allows for the NYU leadership to unequivocally state their opposition to BDS, finding it ‘antithetical to the precepts of academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas.’ Thank you NYU!”

StandWithUs CEO and Co-Founder Roz Rothstein said in a statement, “It is disappointing that leaders of a student-run publication would use their positions to espouse hate and bias by endorsing the [BDS] movement against Israel. It is especially ironic considering they chose to publish their views in a journal ostensibly committed to promoting freedom and diversity of thought. Their endorsement of BDS marginalizes a sizable portion of NYU’s law school population, shuts down opposing viewpoints, and perpetuates antisemitic lies. We are grateful to the NYU leadership for categorically rejecting the BDS campaign.”

AMCHA Initiative Director Tammi Rossman-Benjamin lauded NYU’s “strong and unequivocal rejection” of BDS in a statement to the Journal. “Endorsing an academic boycott of Israel means the endorser will directly subvert the educational opportunities and academic freedom of students and faculty at their own American institutions,” she said. “While in this case the endorsers were a student-led law review publication, every time an academic boycott attempts to rear its ugly head, universities must immediately and unequivocally condemn them. NYU’s strong leadership should serve as a model for other universities, and NYU should also consider a review of existing policies to ensure faculty and graduate students are not able to misuse their classrooms for political advocacy, including the promotion of academic BDS.  No student should be impeded from studying about or in Israel or be subject to unfair discrimination or harassment because of the implementation of academic BDS.”

NYU alumnus Adela Cojab, whose 2019 complaint against the university’s handling of antisemitism resulted in a settlement the following year, said in a statement to the Journal, “It is disheartening to see this time and time again. It seems like nothing has changed since my time on campus––this is yet another effort to single out Israel while remaining silent on every other issue, including NYU Abu Dhabi and Shanghai, which unlike Tel Aviv are four-year, degree-granting schools as opposed to satellite campuses.” She added that it’s “somewhat comforting” that the university remains opposed to BDS and their statement against the RLSC is “a step in the right direction but there is much more that should be done.”

“According to NYU’s settlement agreement … NYU will take steps to prevent discrimination against the Jewish community,” Cojab said. “An academic boycott of NYU Tel Aviv stands starkly against the school’s commitment to ensure a safe learning environment where Jewish students can feel existing as their full selves on campus.”

The RLSC did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment.

NYU Denounces Student-Run Publication’s Endorsement of BDS Read More »

david suissa shanni suissa podcast

Thanksgiving, Curb, Hanukkah and the Madness of Life

In this new episode of “Conversations with Shanni,” Boomer Dad and Millennial daughter weigh in on corny Thanksgiving, the value of drama, the light of Hanukkah, fake integrity, and why they don’t see Curb the same way.
Follow David Suissa on FacebookTwitter and Instagram & Shanni Suissa on InstagramTwitter and TikTok

 

example one
example two
example two

Thanksgiving, Curb, Hanukkah and the Madness of Life Read More »

Overcoming Sibling Rivalry

Parents didn’t always worry about sibling rivalry. Peter Stearns of Carnegie Mellon University, in an article entitled “The Rise of Sibling Jealousy in the 20th Century,” argues that in the 19th century, adults showed little awareness of jealousy among their children. Stearns reviewed multiple books, articles and materials about child rearing written from the 1800s onward; and the topic of sibling rivalry only began to appear in the 1920s, when it suddenly became a significant focus of parenting experts. But this interest was short-lived. By the 1960s, the pendulum had swung back in the other direction, with sibling rivalry being relegated to a few paragraphs in parenting manuals. (Now, there is almost as much space devoted to getting pets ready for the new child).

Stearns sees several factors behind the explosion of concern about sibling rivalry in the mid-20th century. One factor was the shift in family structure from larger, multigenerational households to the nuclear family; and that nuclear family was having fewer children as well. Parental affection was now narrowly focused on fewer children, and those children vied with each other for the spotlight. More significant is that jealousy, the driving emotion of sibling rivalry, became a greater societal concern; the rise of larger bureaucratic organizations, corporate, social and governmental, required employees to work well together. Jealousy was seen as a character defect that prevents someone from being a functioning adult; if left unchecked, the jealous sibling might end up a failure, unable to work well with others. But prior to the 1920s, sibling rivalry was often overlooked; and Sigmund Freud, the father of modern psychology, focused primarily on the parent-child relationship as the crucible of personal development. Freud almost completely ignored sibling rivalry, seeing it as a trivial issue.

Sefer Bereishit takes a very different view on sibling rivalry, which is one of its primary themes. Puzzled by a verse in Shir HaShirim that describes the beauty of brotherly love, the Midrash asks: “when have we seen brothers love each other? Cain murders Abel … Yishmael hates Yitzchak … Esav hates Yaakov … and the brothers hate Yoseph.” The Midrash is correct; in Sefer Bereishit, brothers always hate each other. (And the one pair of sisters, Leah and Rachel, stand as hostile rivals to each other as well.) Failed sibling relationships stand at the center of Sefer Bereishit.

One of Freud’s critics, Alfred Adler, emphasized the influence of siblings, and in particular, saw birth order as critical to personality development. Frank Sulloway, in his book “Born to Rebel,” utilizes birth order to explain the attitude of various intellectuals to scientific revolutions. Like Adler, Sulloway sees birth order as having a dramatic impact on personality, forcing each child to diversify their interests in order to find their own niche. Sulloway offers a portrait of firstborns as being conservatives and protectors of tradition, latter-borns as rebels and innovators, and middle-borns as being compromisers who bring people together.

Our Torah reading offers a very different depiction of the latter-born. Yoseph is the protector of tradition. He is the representative of his father, the one who informs his father of his brothers’ misdeeds, and the one sent to check on his brothers while they are away from home. To signify his unique status, Yoseph is given a special coat by his father. In some ways, the brothers’ attempt to murder Yoseph is actually a rebellion against their father Yaakov; it is Yaakov’s favorite Yoseph who stands ready to protect his father’s interests.

Most fascinating is the Torah’s depiction of sibling rivalry; it is only present in certain families, and is seen as the product of family and cultural dynamics. There is a difficult textual anomaly in the narrative about the sale of Yoseph; it is not at all clear to whom Yoseph was sold. In the text, the nationality of the buyers constantly changes; in different verses, they are called Ishmaelites, Midianites and Medanites. There are multiple theories to explain this discrepancy, but one of the more straightforward ones is offered by the Radak, Rabbi David Kimchi. He writes that Ishmaelites, Midianites and Medanites are interchangeable, because their ancestors Ishamel, Midian and Medan are all children of Avraham’s concubines; afterward, the families of these half-brothers intermarried, and their clans became indistinguishable from each other. One can choose to call this group of people either Ishmaelite, Midianite or Medanite, because they had become one united clan.

Most fascinating is the Torah’s depiction of sibling rivalry; it is only present in certain families, and is seen as the product of family and cultural dynamics.

To a serious reader of the Tanakh, the Radak’s comment is unsatisfying. Why would the text be so sloppy, constantly switching the terminology it uses for the same group? Indeed, the constant switching appears to be intentional, as if the text is flagging this point for particular attention.

I believe that the switching signals a comparison. The Radak is correct that the clans of these half-brothers united as one; and that is precisely the point. Three clans, descendants of half-brothers have such a close relationship that you could use any name for them interchangeably! This offers an invidious comparison with Yaakov’s family; here, these brothers are ready to murder Yoseph. (It should be noted that the other time in the Tanakh where Ishmaelite and Midianite is used interchangeably, regarding Gideon, is also related to fratricide.) The Ishmaelites, Midianites and Medanites are examples of what brothers could be, and highlight exactly what Yoseph and his brothers are not.

But why is it that Yoseph and his brothers suffer from such terrible sibling rivalry while other brothers get along so well? Certainly, Yaakov does play a role. The Talmud says that “due to two sela of fine wool that Yaakov gave to Yoseph [i.e., the striped coat], his brothers became jealous of him and ultimately it ended up with our forefathers going in exile to Egypt.” But this dynamic goes beyond parental favoritism. The striped coat is more than just a coat; it is a symbol of a birthright. And Yoseph and his brothers have a birthright worth fighting over. While Ishmael, Midian and Medan are sent away from their father’s home, Yoseph and his brothers know that their family has a unique destiny, a divine birthright, that each brother wants for himself. The blessing God gave Avraham’s family has a dark side because it comes with the curse of jealousy and envy. This is why from the days of Cain and Abel, brothers have fought over being God’s chosen one.

Another possibility is that Ishmael and his half-brothers were all rejected. They had felt the sting of crisis and loss, and learned how critical it is to band together. When you expect something to be given to you by your parents, you are your brother’s competitor; when you start from nothing and need to find your own way in the world, your brother is your close companion. The Ishmaelites, Midianites and Medanites need each other; otherwise they will never succeed. But Yaakov’s sons are the chosen ones, and discord immediately follows. The sons of different mothers, they each adopt their mother’s grievances; they further divide by who is the son of a full wife and who is the son of a concubine. The situation is so tense, that if one immature son mentions his dreams of taking everything over, his brothers think seriously about murdering him. In our Parsha, sibling rivalry is the product of privilege.

In our Parsha, sibling rivalry is the product of privilege.

The story of Yoseph and his brothers is not just about one family; it reflects concerns about the future of the Jewish people. How does a nation endowed with a unique destiny avoid killing each other over a divine birthright? One of the great lessons of Judaism is that without humility, without a sense of respect for those around you, family, community and nation will be torn apart. Ultimately the brothers will descend to Egypt, and learn that their enemies care little about their internal family squabbles. The Midrash explains that it is in Egypt where we first see a set of brothers who love each other: Moshe and Aharon. (And even they don’t always get along.) It is in the desperation of slavery that the family of Yaakov learns how to be the Bnei Yisrael, the children of Israel.

Our unique destiny can exacerbate sibling rivalry; but our shared fate reminds us never to pull apart. Yoseph and his brothers are a cautionary tale for the Jewish future, to remind us that family comes first, and we cannot allow our greatest blessing to become our biggest curse.

 

Overcoming Sibling Rivalry Read More »

Venice High Senior on Being a Volleyball Champ and Proud Jew

Avia Yosef, 17, originally joined the volleyball team during her freshman year at Venice High School because she thought it would be a fun extracurricular activity that would teach her teamwork and leadership. 

Now a senior, it’s turned out to be so much more. She’s part of a team that defeated Palisades Charter High School, which previously had a winning streak of 130 consecutive Western League victories. Additionally, the team was the first in the school’s history to win a City Section upper division volleyball championship against Granada Hills, a six-time champion, and they’re going to the state finals.

“I was fortunate to play with these girls,” said Yosef. “Our coach, Raul Aviles, was really amazing with teaching us everything we know to this day.” 

There are 17 girls on the team, some who had never played before they joined in ninth grade. Yosef is one of two Jews on the team. “Volleyball keeps me healthy and fit on a daily basis,” she said. “It also helps my mental health, because for two or three hours of practice, I get to forget about everything.”

During game season, Yosef and her teammates would practice every day of the week. This year, her position is opposite, and in her sophomore year, she was captain of the team, which fans can follow on Instagram through their @venicevolleyball account.  

The girls wouldn’t let anything stop them from continuing to improve – even COVID. During the worst times of the pandemic, they played in front of the school while wearing masks. They’d have to get regular COVID testing done as well. 

“It wasn’t the same until we got back into the gym and were able to get our groove back,” said Yosef. “We were fortunate enough to get back in July, which is when we started our summer training.”

Along with playing on the volleyball team, Yosef started a Jewish culture club at her school, where they have meetings and participate in activities like learning about the importance of Shabbat.

Along with playing on the volleyball team, Yosef started a Jewish culture club at her school, where they have meetings and participate in activities like learning about the importance of Shabbat, eating challah bread and hummus and bringing in guest speakers. So far, 12 members have joined. 

“I wanted to have a safe community for those who are Jewish to go to,” she said. “Going to a public school, there aren’t a lot of other Jewish kids, so it’s good to have a little community.” 

Yosef is also part of Jewish Big Brothers Big Sisters of Los Angeles, where she’s had a “big sister” for three years. Together, they roller skate, have picnics and go to the beach. “It’s a great support system and I have things in common with her,” she said. “It’s like having a big sibling. You can feel comfortable telling them anything. You know you have an older influence.” 

Since Yosef’s father is Israeli, she’s been to Israel five times to visit family and tour the country. “I absolutely love it there, aside from the crazy hot weather,” she said. “I don’t speak Hebrew, but I love to connect with a whole different culture and feel a part of it. I just feel very welcome there.” 

Next year, Yosef plans to go to college. Right now, she’s in the World Languages and Global Studies magnet at Venice, but she plans to major in psychology, nursing or STEM. No matter what she ends up doing, she can use the valuable lessons she’s learned from volleyball to guide her.

“Volleyball teaches you how to stay motivated and keep persevering,” she said. “Even if you hit the ball into the net a bunch of different times, you just learn how to make strategic decisions really fast and adjust quickly. You have to keep striving to do better.”

Venice High Senior on Being a Volleyball Champ and Proud Jew Read More »

Rabbis Meet to Discuss Mental Health Issues in the Community

Around 20 rabbis from across the religious spectrum convened on November 17 to make a commitment to learning more about mental health – for their own sake and the sake of their congregants. The event, “Briyut HaNefesh (Health of the Spirit): Mental Wellness Clergy Cohort,” was led by Rabbanit Alissa Thomas-Newborn of B’nai David-Judea Congregation 

“We are meeting to build a network of clergy who are invested in mental health, who have an investment in self-care for themselves and those they serve,”  Thomas-Newborn told the Journal. 

The 250-member Board of Rabbis of The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles and B’nai David-Judea are co-sponsoring the ongoing project. 

“COVID has pushed the need for mental health support to the forefront of our minds and hearts,” Thomas-Newborn and the Board’s Vice President of Community Engagement Rabbi Ilana Grinblat said in a joint declaration. “Addressing this need is a crucial part of cultivating healing and wholeness going forward.”

They described their goal as building an interdenominational network of rabbis in L.A. who are invested in this holy work and can refer to and support each other. The rabbis plan to build Jewish mental health programming like Shabbatons, Torah learning groups and support groups, with the goal of amplifying sensitivity and education while reducing stigma. 

“The cohort will also connect with interdisciplinary professionals and organizations in the field so that rabbis know where to turn when a congregant is in need,” they said. “They will feel supported as spiritual first-line responders.”

Grinblat told the Journal that Thomas-Newborn reached out to the Board of Rabbis about this project five months ago. “We were excited, because the goal of the Board of Rabbis is to support the rabbis,” Grinblat said. 

She recalled that when Vice President of American Jewish University Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson was working with the Board of Rabbis, he wrote a piece titled, “Who Heals the Healers?” 

“That is the most distinct description of what the Board of Rabbis is for: You are healers for the community, and we are here to bring healing and support to one another,” said Grinblat.

Thomas-Newborn and Grinblat said the nearly two dozen committed rabbis will meet at least three times and receive ongoing virtual resources to implement at their discretion. Members have committed to run one mental health and wellness event in their communities in the coming year.

Thomas-Newborn told the audience, who were on Zoom and at Temple Beth Am, that she connected to the concept of the wounded healer. 

Thomas-Newborn told the audience, who were on Zoom and at Temple Beth Am, that she connected to the concept of the wounded healer. 

“Part of the work that we are going to do happens within ourselves, to be honest about how we face it,” she said. “The truth is, our world is very broken. Our hearts are very broken in many ways. I was speaking earlier with someone who said to me, ‘As a public leader, you must feel you have to keep it together all the time, make everyone feel it’s always good. That has to be really hard for you.’ I [said], ‘That’s not how I function.’ That would not be a healthy model for me. People would think I was lying. And I would be if I acted like everything always was fine.”

Despite the challenges rabbis and their congregants face nowadays, the rabbis are hopeful that they can make a positive impact on their communities. 

“In good times, we build relationships with one another and give each other inspiration,” said Grinblat. “This is especially true in hard times when we need one another even more. During the 21 months of the pandemic, our support for one another has been more crucial.”

Rabbis Meet to Discuss Mental Health Issues in the Community Read More »

Rosner’s Domain: With Iran There’s Never Just One Crisis

What does one do when a strategy fails to achieve its goals? To put it simply, there are four options: admit failure and give up; persist in the hope that time will be on your side; up the ante if there’s a way to do such thing; use a different tactic to achieve the same strategic goal. 

As Iranian negotiators are slated to meet with their European and Chinese counterparts to talk about Iran’s nuclear program, Israel tends to see the third option as the right option, and the U.S. tends to support the fourth option. What’s option three? More pressure. What’s option four? Look for a negotiated solution. What’s Israel’s best argument in favor of its preferred way? Eyal Hulata, Israel’s NSC Chief, was in Bahrain earlier this week and explained: “Iran won’t make concessions only because we ask them nicely. They don’t work like that.” What’s the U.S.’s best argument in favor of its preferred way? President Biden’s senior Middle East adviser Brett McGurk was at the same session with Hulata. He explained that pressure failed to work, and consequently negotiation is the best available option.  

Israel is right: Iran “doesn’t work like that.” The U.S. is right: the pressure tactic did not achieve its goal. The debate between the two countries and clearly, there is a disagreement, even though the Bennett and Biden administrations handle it more politely than the Netanyahu and Obama administrations—is profound because it involves not just tactics but also the question of end goal. While Israel stresses the need to prevent Iran from having a “nuclear breakout” capability, the U.S. is much more modest and keeps using the phrase “preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

In fact, when we consider the strategies of the two countries on the issue of Iran, the way they handle each other is of no less consequence than the way they handle Iran. 

So, there are two different tactics and two different goals and two administrations who make an effort to handle these disagreements delicately. In fact, when we consider the strategies of the two countries on the issue of Iran, the way they handle each other is of no less consequence than the way they handle Iran. And here, we see a similar tactic to achieve a different goal: the tactic is to play it nice. The strategy of Israel is to gradually convince the U.S. that no pressure means a nuclear Middle East (Iran will not be the only country to go nuclear, other countries will follow), and in the meantime, get more of the equipment it needs to prepare for a military confrontation. The strategy of the U.S. is to keep Israel satisfied (among other things, by giving it ammunition) and thus less prone to play a disruptive role as negotiation attempts are being made.

This is where we are now. But in a few weeks, we will be in a different place. Either negotiations move forward in a fruitful way (unlikely), or in a way that’s not fruitful but still half satisfactory (unlikely), or in a way that’s satisfactory enough for the U.S. but not Israel (much more likely), or in a way that’s not satisfactory to either country (also likely). What happens then? That’s an interesting question—especially so if we consider the history of the confrontation with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

If you stop to think about it, the most consistent feature of the ongoing crisis with Iran over its nuclear ambitions is that there’s never a crisis. There’s never a moment of truth that demands action, or a dramatic decision, now. There is never a Berlin airlift moment, or a line-in-the-sand Iraq moment. And thus, no American or Israeli has ever been in a situation in which he/she had to take the leap of real gamble. Kennedy had to decide—or see Soviet missiles become operational in Cuba. Prime Minister Olmert had to decide—or see a Syrian nuclear facility turn “warm.” Iran is successful in being elusive and shadowy. It never presents its enemies with a make-or-break decision, never confront them in ways that could potentially result in a big gamble. And it is strong. 

It’s strong enough to make America consider a confrontation too much of a burden. Strong enough to sow doubt as to whether Israel can do it on its own. In this sense, it is winning. And as it takes its place at the negotiating table it will do it as someone who’s winning. And this brings us full cycle to where we started in this article: What does one do when a strategy fails to achieve its goals?

A week’s numbers

Once again, the Kotel compromise is on the public radar because of a court deadline to which the government must respond (by the time you read this, it probably already responded, or asked for extension). Do Jewish Israelis support the compromise? That depends on what you ask. Here is one way:

A reader’s response:

I’m not sure they did it because of readers. I’m not important enough, or megalomaniac enough to think that they did it to spite me. But two days after writing here why Israel shouldn’t limit the term of a Prime Minister to eight years, the cabinet approved the legislation whose aim is to do exactly that (the law still need to pass the Knesset).


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

Rosner’s Domain: With Iran There’s Never Just One Crisis Read More »

The Pinto Family Opens a New Chapter on Pico

Early on a typically noisy, traffic-heavy weekday afternoon along Pico Boulevard, one scene   was certain to go unnoticed, as intended. Up a steep set of stairs to the second floor of a large yellow building, around a corner and inside a small office sat a scion of an illustrious Moroccan dynasty, the Pinto family, dating back more than a thousand years.

The youthful Rabbi Moshe Pinto was at his desk learning Torah. He is soft-spoken and talks exclusively in the plural, never the self-referential “I.” He opened the Moroccan congregation Beit El at 8660 West Pico Blvd less than a year ago; it is four blocks west of the Pinto Center, founded by his revered father, Rabbi Yaacov Pinto, in 1984.

Around 2017, after six years of learning in Israeli yeshivas, the younger Pinto had a career decision to make.

“Our work really started in Eretz Israel,” he said. “We were about to sign a lease, and our father called us in Ashdod. He said, ‘Look, you are going to have to make a decision whether or not you stay in Eretz Israel.”

It seemed a difficult call for Pinto because “we had hundreds of people coming to our classes,” he said. “There is a different mentality in Israel. Almost every shul has one day of the week when it holds a big class. It is common, not something extra.

“Only in Los Angeles,” Pinto said, “did we find that it is not common for people to have this motivation to all come together in the middle of the week for a class. This exists almost all around the world, but especially in Eretz Israel.”

His father explained to him the need for learning in L.A.

“Our father said, ‘Where do you want to put your work? In Israel, people are coming to your classes… There is a lot of work here, a lot of potential.’”
— Rabbi Moshe Pinto

“Our father said, ‘Where do you want to put your work? In Israel, people are coming to your classes. If you leave, they will go to someone else’s classes.

“‘Here,’ our father said, ‘there are no classes. There is a lot of work here, a lot of potential, potential to make changes in people’s lives that doesn’t exist anywhere else.’ So that is why we came here in the first place.”

When the rabbi arrived in L.A. four years ago, he gave classes in homes and his father’s shul. “That was very successful,” he said. “We had this dream: to build a community, like a shul, a yeshiva, a school, where people would be able to live the way they live in Panama. In Panama, there is community. In Mexico, also, there is community, where they pray together, their kids go to school together, they have dinner together, they go to events together. Everything together. Here, this does not exist. School is separate from the shul, [and] the shul is separate from the kollel.”

The younger Pinto spent almost two years leading the Baba Sali community in the Fairfax district. 

“Then the corona came,” he said. That’s when Pinto started Beit El. It has already outgrown its quarters, a room with high ceilings and long tables. The shul has a daily kollel that’s in its beginning stages, and there are two to four daily classes. While some are mixed, most classes are for men only.

Shabbat services are the main attraction, and crowds have been hefty. “The number varies because we are a very young community,” Pinto said. 

There aren’t many older congregants because the synagogue is on an upper floor. Also, there isn’t a kids’ program, so families aren’t coming. 

“Our congregants generally are between 25 and 39, mostly couples,” he said. “A bad week would be 90 people here for Shabbat, a good week 180. But the size of the turnout depends. When we have an event, we could draw 300 people.  The reality is we outgrew this room.”

He continued, “That is why we also are looking to move. To move or to acquire.”

The Pinto Family Opens a New Chapter on Pico Read More »

CAMERA Webinar Explains How to Respond to Antisemites

Dr. Jonah Cohen, the Communications Director for Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Research and Analysis (CAMERA), explained how one should respond to an antisemite in a social situation in a November 18 webinar.

The webinar, the third in a three-part series on antisemitism, was hosted by the Massachusetts-based Congregation Or Atid. Cohen began the webinar by highlighting a September piece in Alma, a feminist Jewish culture publication; the author, Irish actress and writer Susan Getz, explained how she experienced antisemitism when she took her husband’s last name. Getz recounted how when she told a co-worker that her husband’s last name is Jewish, the co-worker ranted “about how all Jewish people were destroying the world through the conflict in the Middle East, that they used the Holocaust as their excuse for murder, and if he were me, he would be ‘very careful’ about having children with my new husband.” “I stood frozen in shock and anger,” Getz wrote.

Cohen said that Getz was in a “tricky situation” and that it’s “hard to know what to do when so many social and societal factors” are at play in situations like that. Cohen posited that antisemites use “rhetorical techniques” to make such conversations “unnerving” for Jews, calling it the “Antisemitic Three-Step.” These three steps involve taking the moral high ground, ascribing motivations to Jews for their viewpoints, and force the burden of proof on Jews, not themselves. As examples, Cohen pointed to how antisemites accuse Israel defenders of supporting “crimes against humanity” and provide stories about the power of the “Israel lobby” over Congress.

Cohen’s solution is his own three-step process, which he has dubbed “The Gadfly Method”: to simply ask questons. 

“When [the antisemite] applies the antisemitic three-step against you… you only have about a 10-second window to respond when he has seized the moral high ground,” Cohen said, adding that otherwise the response will be “awkward” and “forced.” Cohen’s solution is his own three-step process, which he has dubbed “The Gadfly Method”: to simply ask questons. He suggests starting off by gathering information through asking questions like, “What do you mean by that?” After the antisemite answers that question, you should then ask questions like “Why do you think that?” Finally, you should eventually start asking leading questions to expose flaws or inconsistencies in the antisemite’s argument. 

As examples, he pointed to PBS’ “Firing Line” host Margaret Hoover’s line of questioning to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) about her views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2018. Ocasio-Cortez had lamented the Israeli “occupation of Palestine,” prompting Hoover to ask what she meant by that. Ocasio-Cortez responded she was referring to the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank; when Hoover pressed her to expand further, Ocasio-Cortez admitted that she is “not the expert” on the matter. Cohen said that he felt like Ocasio-Cortez has been “unjustly” maligned over the interview since “admitting one’s own ignorance is a virtue” but the interview shows the “power about this seemingly simple question” of asking someone to elaborate on their claims.

Another example he pointed to was Axios reporter Alexi McCammond’s questioning of Ben & Jerry’s Co-Founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield in an October 10 interview. After Cohen and Greenfield defended the company’s decision to withdraw from the “Occupied Palestinian Territory” in July, McCammond asked them why they don’t boycott Texas or Georgia over their recent laws on abortion and voting rights. Ben Cohen responded by pausing, shrugging and then saying, “I don’t know. It’s an interesting question.” Dr. Cohen argued that the McCammond interview is an example of “exposing the moral inconsistencies in a person’s worldview.” “What you’re doing is recalling conflicting propositions in the conversation and making your partner pick one,” Dr. Cohen said.

“Whenever you want to inform or to persuade… you try to do all that by using questions,” he added. “That way you get your ideas into the conversation while keeping the burden of proof on the other fellow.”

CAMERA Webinar Explains How to Respond to Antisemites Read More »

“Squirrel Hill” Shows Violence Against Jews Can Happen Anywhere

Mass murder in America is such a commonplace that attack on a synagogue in Pittsburgh, which happened only three years ago, is not much talked about nowadays.  “Squirrel Hill: The Tree of Life Synagogue Shooting and the Soul of a Neighborhood” by Mark Oppenheimer (Knopf) is a rich and important effort to write that day into history by showing us in vivid detail what the Jewish community endured and survived on that day. 

Oppenheimer, the former religion columnist of the New York Times, directs the Journalism Initiative at Yale University and serves as a cohost of Tablet’s “Unorthodox” podcast. He brings the urgency and accuracy of superior journalism to his work, but he is also a gifted storyteller with open eyes and a big heart. What’s more, the author has family roots in Squirrel Hill, and he is able to affirm from personal experience that “[t]he gunman at the Tree of Life perpetrated the greatest anti-Semitic attack in American history surely did not know that he was attacking the oldest, most stable, most internally diverse Jewish neighborhood in the United States.”

Oppenheimer has an eye for the telling detail. He pauses to observe that a Dunkin’ Donuts shop — “famous for having kosher certification, so that observant Jews could eat its Munchkins and drink its Coolattas” — is located not far from the Tree of Life synagogue. Thus does he remind us that America has long been perceived as a safe and welcoming place for Jews.  On October 27, 2018, 2018, we were reminded we can become the targets of an active shooter.

He also shows us the diversity and harmony of the Jewish community in the Pittsburgh neighborhood called Squirrel Hill.  “[T]he Tree of Life synagogue building actually housed three congregations: its own…; Dor Hadash, a lay-led community that was part of the liberal Reconstructionist movement; and the small, aging New Light Congregation.” The gun-man who entered the building, he points out, “could have hit people from any of the three synagogues.”

Oppenheimer is careful to refer to Robert Bower as “the alleged shooter” because, more than three years after the shootings, he has not yet been put on trial. Bowers arrived with his assault rifle and handguns shortly before 10:00 a.m., and the first shot “sounded like a coatrack falling to the ground,” but eleven men and women inside the synagogue were killed and two were wounded.  Four police officers who responded to the 911 call were also injured. And the author knows enough about the comings and goings at a synagogue on a Shabbat morning to offer a shattering insight about the Jewish victims.

“[W]ho is in synagogue at ten to ten on a normal Saturday morning, when it’s not a holiday, when there’s no wedding or bat mitzvah or bris?” he muses. “It’s a mix of the most committed Jews and the Jews with no place else to go, the widowed or disabled or simply lonely, who wake up early and can’t wait to see other people.” And he declares: “That’s who came early. That’s who got shot.”

Then, too, Oppenheimer emphasizes that the Squirrel Hill community and the wider world, regardless of faith, rallied to remember the victims and support the survivors. Famously, a man named Greg Zanis, who put up wooden crosses at the scenes of shootings, affixed Stars of David to the crosses he planted in the ground outside the Tree of Life synagogue.  At the point where the stars and crosses were connected, mourners began to deposit stones in imitation of the Jewish tradition of leaving stones at gravesites.  Some two thousand stones were eventually left by visitors to the Tree of Life synagogue, Donald Trump among them.

The Trump visit, not surprisingly, turned out to be more of a provocation than a comfort. When he left the site, his fleet of official vehicles approached a large group of demonstrators who were protesting against gun violence by tearing small places of black paper in the tradition of kriah, the rendering of a mourner’s garment. “The intrusion of Trump’s black motorcade, snaking through Squirrel Hill, a phalanx of police and quasi-military and Secret Service with their black sunglasses, their weapons and their little earpieces — it didn’t look the way America should,” writes Oppenheimer. Jacob Bloom, one of the demonstrators, sat down in the path of the motorcade and ended up in a paddy wagon. “I didn’t feel like I could sit on the sidelines,” said Bloom.

We are left to ponder whether the dead and wounded at the Tree of Life were victims of gun violence who happened to be Jews, or Jews who were victimized by an anti-Semite because they were Jews.

Oppenheimer asks the hardest questions about the meaning of the Tree of Life shootings. “For the Orthodox, the Tree of Life attack, as horrible as it had been, was part of the river of Jewish history, which is periodically fed by Jewish blood,” he writes.  By contrast, he points out that “[f]or most Americans, Jews and Gentiles, the story of Jews in America is one of high incomes, higher learning, and liberation from oppression.”  So we are left to ponder whether the dead and wounded at the Tree of Life were victims of gun violence who happened to be Jews, or Jews who were victimized by an anti-Semite because they were Jews.

On the day of the shooting, as Oppenheimer tells us, a woman named Tammy Hepps walked with two friends to a corner outside the police barricades to read from a book of Psalms as a gesture of comfort and commemoration. “The table of contents were grouped by themes: the right Psalms for peace, for the Jewish people, for divine guidance, for help in troublesome times, and so forth,” he writes. “None of them seemed right – there was no category for this.”  And he quotes Hepps’s own musing: “What do you even call this thing? ‘Psalm on the Massacre of Your Community?’”

The irony, of course, is that Psalms have been recited across the millennia by Jews seeking solace for some atrocity that they have endured. And it defies both logic and experience to deny that the Squirrel Hill shootings are linked to the acts of violence that have afflicted the Jewish people throughout our history, both recent and ancient. The lesson of Oppenheimer’s book is that, contrary to our comfortable assumptions, it can happen here.


Jonathan Kirsch, author and publishing attorney, is the book editor of the Jewish Journal.

“Squirrel Hill” Shows Violence Against Jews Can Happen Anywhere Read More »