| The Jewish Journal Archive | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| January 28 - February 100, 2005 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Local
Stories |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Local StoriesCooperation
Pledged Mark
Arnold Ten years ago, the Jewish Federation of the North Shore established a Jewish Continuity Committee as a way of combating assimilation and other threats to maintaining Jewish identity from one generation to the next. Financed by the Robert I. Lappin Foundation, the committee was modeled on the highly successful Youth to Israel program, under which philanthropist Lappin, from 1970 until today, provided subsidies through Federation to send area high school students for an expense-paid summer in Israel. The
model worked so well that the Committee hired staff and, under the leadership
of director Deborah Coltin, developed programs that Federation promoted
throughout the North Shore with the objective of “helping to keep
our children Jewish.” Among them are such popular family and kids’
programs as Rekindle Shabbat (sharing a traditional Friday night dinner
with another family), B’nai Tzedek (investing B’nai Mitzvah
money to help subsidize worthwhile community activities) and Sukkot Shalom
(do-it-yourself Sukkah-building kits). Last month those concerns came to a head, when Lappin served notice he was resigning as chairman of Continuity, effectively closing down the group as an arm of Federation. He reconstituted the committee January 1 as the Jewish Continuity Committee of the Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation, with the same board as before and the same mission: “Helping to keep our children Jewish.“ And
so Federation watchers began asking: Why did he do it? What does it mean?
What happens now? In recent years Federation leaders have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the committee’s unique organizational arrangement: Though listed as an arm of Federation, Continuity has been accountable not to the Federation board but to a separate Continuity Board, appointed by Lappin, whose foundation provided its funding. Moreover, staff of the two organizations was intermingled, muddying lines of authority. The arrangement, though bizarre, was a mixed blessing. Federation leaders became concerned — some say obsessed --— with “what will Bob think” of any contemplated move. But Federation was happy to project itself to the communtiy as doing more than just fundraise; it was provinging valuable services too. And the fact proved a boon to its fund-raising efforts. While Neil Cooper was executive director of Federation (1991-2001), the organizational arrangements were managed with relative ease; Cooper shared Lappin’s vision and helped negotiate the change in Federation focus to match it. His successors — Lois Giovacchini and, since July 2003, Merritt Mulman — found the divided authority of the two organizations more difficult to square. Lappin complained in a memo to Federation President Debbie Ponn, December 8: In recent years, “resentment grew toward me personally and toward the work” of the committee. The resulting tension, he said, “has diverted precious attention from our work.” In a subsequent letter, January 13, he said he has been treating the Committee’s withdrawal from Federation “as a separation, but I believe Federation is treating it more like a divorce.” Federation officials deny the charge and say they are working strenuously to heal the breach. Lappin too seems anxious to do so. In an interview with the Journal January 25, he said: “The way I view it, rather than being a part of Federation, we are now a partner of Federation. This is a normal relationship — a funding organization and a Federation. That’s what you have every place else and we’ll have it here now too.” Continuity staffers are physically moving out of Federation offices at 21 Front Street in Salem into Lappin’s Shetland Properties building on Salem’s waterfront. The programs will transfer with them, but Federation will continue to offer them, only now it will do so “in partnership with Continuity.” Ponn has assigned Mulman to work with Coltin to make the transition as seamless as possible. Lappin says he foresees “no reduction in programs.” And in terms of his own financial commitment, he told The Journal he plans to “fully support Federation as in the past.” One-on-One
with Dr. Rice Trude
B. Feldman WASHINGTON — January 22 marked four years since Dr. Condoleezza Rice became the first female National Security Advisor to the president. When confirmed January 26 by the U.S. Senate as the 66th Secretary of State, she also became the first African-American woman, and only the second woman, to serve in that position. In a farewell interview as President George W. Bush’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, Dr. Rice says the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the war on terror and the war in Iraq will become the president’s “highest priorities” in his second term. Dr. Rice also tells me that the new leadership in the Palestinian territories is an important step to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian impasse and that that solution is now of interest all over the world. “Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen) or any Palestinian leader needs to understand that the only peaceful outcome is through a negotiated solution, not through the use of terrorism,” she says. “The Palestinian people need leadership committed to the legitimate aspirations for a democratic, transparent accountable government. We will work with the new leader when he renounces violence and is committed to stopping terrorism.” Disclosing that she had never met Mr. Abbas’s predecessor, Yasser Arafat, who, at age 75, died November 11 in France, she adds: “President Bush’s refusal to meet him reflected a determination that the American view be known —that there is no excuse for violence and terrorism, and that the president will not legitimize those who employ it.” Dr. Rice believes that a solution is closer with Mahmoud Abbas because he has asserted that, in retrospect, the intifada and violence against Israel were mistakes and that he will attempt to end that. “There is now a good chance for the development of a democratic Palestinian state where the people can self-govern and live side by side with Israel,” she said. “The Palestinians ought to have a state where they are allowed dissent. The best way to reach a peaceful solution is for there to be democracies living side by side.” Asked how she would now begin to help solve the dispute, Dr. Rice responds: “Some of the fundamentals may soon be in place to make that possible. Israeli Prime Minister (Ariel) Sharon’s disengagement plan, where Israel will give back land and dismantle settlements in the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the West Bank, is a good start. He pushed his proposal hard and got a favorable vote in Israel’s Parliament to approve the plan and he seems to be managing the politics of it very well. His plan for disengagement can significantly advance our vision for peace and security in the region. That’s why the president is supporting it. We certainly support Mr. Sharon’s withdrawal and see it as an historic time — when Israel begins to give back land to the Palestinians. “The plan stands to do more than just begin the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the dismantling of settlements in the Gaza and West Bank. It could provide a new opportunity for reform of Palestinian institutions, particularly now with the new leadership.” When questioned whether the U.S. also supports Israel’s security barrier, she replies: “In terms of the security fence, we envision a Middle East in which such a fence would not be needed. We spent the last several months working with the Israelis to make sure that any fence would not prejudge a land agreement, and most important, that it would not intrude too much on the lives of ordinary Palestinians.” What changes in U.S. policy in the Middle East will be considered in the President’s second term? “Well, a lot of it is happening on the ground,” Dr. Rice responds. “A lot will be the U.S. taking the opportunity about to present itself, like with changes in Israel’s withdrawals and with new Palestinian leadership. Our strategy is beginning to change the terms of debate in the Middle East. As you know, we have close relations with Israel mainly because President Bush speaks candidly about the conditions everyone must meet so that Israelis and Palestinians are able to live in peace.” She points out that George W. Bush is the first American president to publicly call for the creation of a Palestinian state, and as an ally of Israel, he views a peaceful and democratic state as being in the best interests of both Palestinians and Israelis. “He is also the first American president to say that the nature of any Palestinian state is as important as its borders,” she adds. “A Palestinian state must have a just and democratic government that serves the best interests of the Palestinian people, and one that is a true partner with Israel for peace. Creating such a government really is the only way to realize the President’s vision of two states — Israel and Palestine — living peacefully side by side. A Palestinian state will never be achieved through terrorism. Neither Israel nor the United States would permit it.” She continues: “Our strategy is to help establish freedom in the area. Freedom is at the core of our approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Those Arab states that are committed to peace need to end incitement to violence in their official media and cut off funding for terrorism. They also need to establish better relations with Israel. And Israeli leaders must support the emergence of a viable Palestinian state. “I believe if violence subsides, freedom of movement will be restored, and that would help innocent Palestinians resume a normal life. And in accordance with the ‘road map’ peace plan (proposed by the president on June 24, 2002), settlement activity in the occupied territories needs to end.” Recalling the East-West conflict that dominated the last half of the 20th Century, Dr. Rice says the United States was not then in “a limited engagement with Communism, we were in the struggle of those times. “The global war on terror is the struggle of our times. We are not the first generation to face a defining struggle or be called to defend freedom. We’re cognizant that no cause justifies terrorism, and that terror — not an absence of will — remains the single, largest impediment to peace in the Middle East.” During our 45-minute, one-on-one interview, Dr. Rice also replied to questions on Iraq, Iran, U.S. reliance on foreign oil and the role that faith plays in her life and in her decisions. She discussed the Administration’s accomplishments in the war on terror; weapons of mass destruction; the Intelligence Reform Act, based on recommendations of the September 11, 200l Commission Report, and her sentiments on the attacks of 9/11 and how they changed the world. She maintains that the killers who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks wanted to terrorize and demoralize us and that they chose the center of our economic might, the headquarters of our military power and the seats of our democratic government to do so. “They
were acts of war designed to cripple us as a nation,” she says.
“We were drawn into a global war against an assertive enemy. What
happened on 9/11 changed our direction of foreign policy. We continue
to do everything possible to defeat all terrorists and their recruits,
as well as the ideology of hatred that sustains them.” Dr. Rice, who just turned 50, is the author of “Germany Unified and Europe Transformed” (l995) with Philip Zelikow; “The Gorbachev Era” (l986) with Alexander Allin, and “Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army” ( l984). She
earned her bachelor’s degree in political science, cum laude and
Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Denver in l974, and her Ph.D. in
l98l from the University’s Graduate School of International Studies. Professor Korbel, whom Dr. Rice calls “one of the most central figures in my life,” is the father of Madeleine Albright, America’s first female Secretary of State. As for Dr. Rice’s own father, a Presbyterian pastor, and the roles that he and faith have played in her life, she tells me: “Faith plays a major role in my life in general. It is a kind of organic and integral part of me, not separate from anything I do. I am very religious, committed to my faith and committed to prayer. I am one who is analytical about decisions or recommendations I make, and a big believer in trying to seek guidance on a daily basis.“You know, I think of myself as a package. I am female. I am black. I am 5 feet, 8 inches tall, and I am a professor of international politics. It all kind of comes together. It is hard to pull out one piece and say, ‘This comes to that or that comes to this.’ I do think that women, in general, have a major role to play in our democratization effort.” Trude B. Feldman, a veteran White House and State Department correspondent, has known Dr. Rice for some 16 years. Ms. Feldman has interviewed every National Security Advisor to the President since Henry A. Kissinger in the Richard Nixon White House. Is ‘Jewish Advocate’ Going Sensationalist? Mark
Arnold The Jewish Advocate, Boston’s century-old Jewish newspaper, may be about to undergo a radical makeover. Its owners, Britain’s media company TotallyPLC, is known for its punchy prose, screaming headlines, and suggestive photos. Key question: Does it want to make the Advocate a clone of London’s racy Jewish News? A year ago, owner Grand Rabbi Y.A. Korff sold Boston’s staid old Jewish weekly to the London-based media conglomerate. The new owners made no changes for months. Then on January 10, they fired Advocate Editor Richard Asinof, a seasoned journalist, and installed in his place British editor Richard Ferrer, a newcomer to the Boston scene. To make up for Ferrer’s ignorance of the local scene, they rehired former Advocate staffer Logan C. Ritchie, who once covered community news, and made her deputy editor. Curiously, no announcement was made. Veteran Advocate watchers say headlines are growing larger, stories shorter, content less weighty than readers have come to expect. “I want to up the story count – 20-40 versus 10 before the change, not counting community news,” Ferrer told The Journal in a phone interview. Staffers are said to be under instructions to limit most stories to under 400 words. The goal is to appeal to a younger, hipper audience. The London paper has made inroads with the up and coming youth market — something few U.S. Jewish papers have been able to do. “They want stories to be short and snappy, with sexier content,” says an ex-staffer. The issue of January 21, the first edited fully by Ferrer, boasts a five-column page 1 story about an ADL report warning, “local schools could be targeted by anti-Semitic hate CDs.” Worries ex-editor Asinof: “The new British owners are intent on remaking the Advocate into the image of The Jewish News – despite feedback from community leaders and even focus group participants, who voiced a strong dislike for both the look and content of The Jewish News product. The Advocate has long been a revolving door for editors. Asinof who prides himself on upgrading the quality and scope of the paper’s coverage, lasted 16 months. His predecessor, David Nathan, less than two years. TotallyPLC’s purchase of the Advocate, for about $14 million, marked the third time in 102 years that the Advocate had changed hands. The paper, which went from broadsheet to tabloid size several years ago, is the oldest continually published regional Jewish weekly in the nation. Boston Jewish leaders contacted for reaction declined to be quoted on the situation, saying they want to wait and see what happens.
National Bush Team to Focus on Mideast Ron
Kampeas WASHINGTON — It’s like a backward version of a boxing match. Israel and the Palestinians are facing off — and the first one to stop throwing punches, walk back to his corner and hang up his gloves, wins. The referee, as always, is the United States. Each side is eager to win the contest — but is just as wary of turning his back on his opponent. Yasser
Arafat is dead, a relative moderate favored by the United States was elected
in his place this month, William Burns, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, met Monday in Frankfurt with other representatives of the “Quartet” — the diplomatic ensemble of the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union that drives the Middle East peace process — and was to meet with Israeli, Egyptian and Palestinian leaders later in the week. Even before her confirmation, Rice was set to meet with Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister, in her current capacity as President Bush’s national security adviser. Bush is expected to make support for a renewed peace effort a centerpiece of his talks with European leaders next month. He sees such a push as a way both to cultivate common ground and to nudge Europe to help control an increasingly restive Iraq. One of Rice’s first events as secretary of state will be a March conference in London to help the Palestinian Authority adjust to Israel’s planned withdrawal this summer from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank. After that, Rice will visit the region. The timetable seems to back Rice’s pledge during her confirmation hearings last week to devote ”enormous effort” to the issue. Israelis and Palestinians are eager to please Rice and her boss — and U.S. officials have made clear they’re keeping score. “What we are looking for, first and foremost, from the Palestinians is concrete steps to get the security situation under control,” State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said. ”We’ve seen some steps that Abu Mazen has already taken, and we find that encouraging,” he said, using the nickname of P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas. “We are also pleased at the level of coordination that we’re seeing between Israelis and Palestinians,” he said. The
Palestinian Authority has deployed a few thousand troops along the Gaza
Strip border to stop rockets from being launched into Israel, and Abbas
is trying to cajole terrorist groups into stopping attacks temporarily. Israeli officials also are telling their U.S. and Palestinian counterparts that Sharon’s planned withdrawal will be more extensive than they expect and will not leave Israel in control of ports and borders, as previous formulations have suggested. They also say a second phase of withdrawals will include the Jordan Valley, a region that previous Israeli governments were loathe to give up. The rationale is that with Saddam Hussein behind bars and the U.S. occupation of Iraq showing no signs of abating soon, Israel no longer faces a grave threat from the east. But such assurances also dovetail with Rice’s insistence during her confirmation hearings that Israel’s withdrawal must leave the Palestinians with a contiguous West Bank territory that borders Jordan. “It has to have territory that makes it viable,” she said. “It cannot be territory that is so broken up that it can’t function as a state, and I think that that’s now well understood. It has to have economic viability, and it probably needs to have economic viability in relationship to other states around it — to Jordan, to Israel and to others.” On the other hand, each side is making clear that it believes the other must prove good faith. Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the Palestinians don’t deserve any reward for preventing attacks — after all, they’re obligated to so under the “road map” peace plan — and warned Abbas that Israel is ready to act against Palestinian terrorists if he fails to control them. “With Abbas, we may have something, and we’ll know,” Netanyahu told Fox News Channel last week. ”And of course, if they don’t do the job, we’ll do the job.” Palestinians qualified their intentions. “This is not a cease-fire; this is a Palestinian tactic to avoid giving the enemy any pretext to escalate the situation during the dialogue that would foil it,” Abu Qusai, a spokesman for the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, a terrorist group in Abbas’ Fatah party, told Reuters on Sunday. “If there is any Israeli escalation, there will be a Palestinian response.” The scars of four years of terrorism and of Israeli counter-incursions make it hard for either side to fully accommodate the other, said Naomi Chazan, a former Israeli legislator from the dovish Meretz Party who now is a visiting professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That’s a factor the Bush administration cannot ignore, she warned an audience last week at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “A lack of trust is part of the conflict, emotion-driven policy is part of the conflict, the absence of the word ‘reconciliation’ is part of the conflict,” Chazan said. It wouldn’t take a lot to precipitate a breach of trust. Palestinians are chafing at Israel’s acknowledgment this week that it is considering plans to confiscate land in eastern Jerusalem owned by “absentee” Palestinians, some of whom live just miles away in the West Bank.
Features Lest
We Forget Herbert
Belkin On the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, it is important to remember that against the vast darkness of the Holocaust, there were rare flashes of light that blazed as Jewish resistance. One such resistance took place in 1944 at Auschwitz II, also known as Birkenau. Perhaps the most dreaded and fearful symbols of the Holocaust were the crematoria at the death camps. The crematoria were the mechanisms that Hitler used to make Europe judenrein — free of Jews. The crematoria at Auschwitz embody the horror of the inhuman crimes burning within them. This story tells how Jewish inmates in Auschwitz blew up one of these hellish infernos. Under the command of their German captors, Sonder-kommandos or sondermen were prisoners who performed all the gruesome tasks at the death camps like Auschwitz. Their abhorrent job was to herd inmates into the gas chambers and then remove their bodies to the crematoria for burning. The role of the sondermen has always been difficult to accept and understand. The question about the sondermen, never satisfactorily answered, is: What kind and how much of a price do you pay for survival? But it was the sondermen at Auschwitz in 1943, together with other Jewish prisoners, who organized the Auschwitz uprising. The Jewish heroine who worked with the sondermen and played a key role in the uprising was Rosa Robota. Rosa was the contact between Jewish women prisoners who worked at the Union Munitions Plant outside Auschwitz and the sondermen. Rosa arranged to have the women in the plant’s gunpowder room smuggle out small quantities of gunpowder — the equivalent of three teaspoons of powder a day— to a sonderman who was a munitions expert. This seemingly simple act of smuggling gunpowder was always fraught with danger. The German guards would periodically search the women as they left the plant and, with deadly consistency, punish any infraction with execution. Over a year’s time the munitions expert accumulated enough smuggled gunpowder to make bombs and grenades using empty sardine and shoe polish cans as bomb casings. After fabricating the bombs, the next problem was where to store them. If guards discovered the bombs, all those connected with the explosives would be killed and the uprising ended. The
solution was to hide the bombs in the same carts that carried gassed Jewish
bodies to the crematoria. It is symbolic that these carts played a dual
role of transporting the dead while hiding the instruments of their revenge.
The Gestapo, called in to investigate the uprising, discovered that the explosives came from the munitions plant and that Rosa Robota was a central figure in the plot. Rosa was subjected to cruel, inhuman torture in an attempt to make her reveal the names of other conspirators. Even under severe torture Rosa refused to give any names. At the age of 23, Rosa and three other Jewish women, Regina Saperstein, Ella Gartner and Esther Weisblum were hanged before camp inmates. The last words of this Jewish woman of valor, Rosa Robota, were “HazakV’Amatz” (Be Strong and Brave). In the face of almost insurmountable odds, the prisoners of Auschwitz were able to strike a blow for Jewish honor and dignity. In October of 1944 the destruction of Crematoria IV was a testament to their courage and steadfastness. It is a great irony that a few months later, in January of 1944, the Germans themselves blew up the rest of the crematoria at Auschwitz. They sought to hide their inhuman crimes from the rapidly approaching Russian army and the world. Herb Belkin is a writer and speaker on the Holocaust, dedicated to preserving its lessons so that this tragedy never happens again. He can be reached at beachbluff@comcast.net. Manners
Maven
JODI
R.R. SMITH PETA would be pleased to know that their exposé of the kosher meat processing plant in Iowa profiled recently in the Journal sparked a series of discussions. In the kosher aisle at Stop & Stop, a shopper and I chatted about the kosher brands. At the post office, while a fellow temple member and I waited for non-denominational stamps, we talked about ritual slaughter. And, in the JCC playground, a group of parents and I spoke about the lives of cattle destined for our tables. All three conversations proved interesting, a bit controversial, and occasionally a bit graphic. At one point, one of the parents declared: “This conversation is great for my diet…. I am skipping lunch.” Another said: “This is probably terrible dinner conversation!” And all eyes turned towards me. She was correct: The dinner table is not the best time to discuss ritual slaughter. As anyone can imagine, the topic has the potential to be highly contentious as well as appetite limiting. There is a time and place for almost any discussion, and as you may have guessed, the grocery store, the post office and the playground are all appropriate places to talk about the details and realities of kosher dining. The dinner table is not. Topics of conversation best kept from the table are those that create contentious debate, describe a nausea-inducing subject or cover medical aliments/treatments in great detail. At the dinner table, the idea is to enjoy the conversation, enlighten others on a topic you enjoy and to facilitate digestion by allowing diners to breathe a bit in between bites and courses. Acceptable topics include Biblical reasons for kashrut, keeping kosher in a modern world, and whether there should be “levels” of kashrut? Questionable topics include descriptions of slaughterhouses, details of meat production, the rise of agri-business and what it is doing to our food supply. If you do keep kosher or have other eating restrictions, you need to plan in advance when dining anywhere other than your own home. You may have dietary restrictions (diet), religious restrictions (kosher), medical restrictions (allergies), philosophical restriction (vegetarian) or you may just be a picky eater. If you blow up like a balloon at the first sniff of seafood, it is a bit late to be telling the host once everyone is seated in anticipation of a lobster dinner. If you have an eating restriction, you should let the host well in advance of the meal. Once the host has the information, he/she can then decide whether or not he/she wishes to accommodate you. Whatever your restrictions are, over the dinner table may not be the best place to discuss them; they rarely make for enjoyable dinner conversation. So what is a gentleperson to do when served something you do not enjoy? First and foremost, do not call attention to yourself. Move it around a bit on your plate, but you are not required to eat it. When asked, acknowledge the question, but do not answer directly. Here is why: If you say you are not hungry but then gobble down dessert, your tablemates will know you were lying. If you go into detail as to why you are not eating your host may try to fix the problem, just drawing more attention to you and your food instead of each other’s company. Try a comment like “Oh, would you like a taste? I am so glad we were finally able to get everyone together for dinner! It is great to see everyone. When was the last time we were together?” That type of strategy removes your food from the focus of conversation. As someone who purchases kosher meats, the situation in Iowa has brought many questions to my mind: Who is monitoring the meat processing plants? What are the standards? Should PETA be involved in policing? Should quality of life be considered in addition to a minimally painful death? Are their local kosher slaughterhouses? How would I find out about local sources of kosher meat? What is the cost difference? Should a deeply religious person, Jewish or not, be a vegetarian? These are questions I will struggle with over the next few weeks and discuss with others. Meanwhile the rule on table conversation is this: The more graphic the discussion is likely to be, the less likely it should occur during a meal. New Magazine for ‘Hip Jewish Teens’ Ben
Wallen Editor’s Note: JVibe is a new national magazine launched this month targeting Jewish teens aged 12 to 16. Brimming with celebrity interviews, advice columns and teen commentary, the bimonthly publication seeks to engage post-Bar and Bat Mitzvah teens, giving them hip Jewish role models and suggestions for relating Jewish values to their lives.Published by Yossi Abramowitz’ Jewish Family & Life! of Newton, backed by two foundations and launched after extensive research, JVibe is a full color magazine to be distributed through Jewish Community Centers, youth groups, and congregations. Individual subscriptions are $18. Here’s one teen’s assessment: JVibe is jam-packed with articles that appeal to Jewish teenagers. The topics covered range from very Jewish to a little Jewish to not-so-Jewish at all, and there is a pretty even balance among all of the categories. Topics covered include Jews in the media, music, and even in comics. There are articles about how Judaism is a new fad among Hollywood stars and how Kabbalah is sweeping America. Other articles discuss how there are many Christian-themed Grammy awards such as Best Rock Gospel album or Best Contemporary Gospel album, but there seem to be none with a Jewish slant. The authors of the article ask, “Is it asking too much for the Academy to bestow one measly award on us Jews?” JVibe
addresses issues of girls mainly but the book and movie reviews are really
good. The books have good plot lines, and the same goes for the movies.
The authors and actors are highlighted to show that they are Jewish. On the whole, the magazine is pretty good, and it can help teenagers deal with problems they might have. It certainly kept my interest and it was fairly easy to read. I would recommend it to anybody who likes to be informed of Jewish fads and who likes to read Jewish-style novels. JVibe showed a side of the religion that many don’t see on a regular basis. Ben Wallen, 15, is a sophomore at Swampscott High School. People in the News
Arts & Entertainment‘Merchant’ Offers Potent Portrait of Prejudice Michael
Fox Of all the prestigious films released at the end of the year for Academy Award and Top 10 consideration, none is more important, or more harrowing, than William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. An uneasy combination of moral fable and romantic comedy, the first-ever screen adaptation of Shakespeare’s problematic play is made unforgettable by an agonizing, unrelenting courtroom scene. This
eminently literate costume drama, set in 16th century Italy, decidedly
does not play like a museum piece. It broods and crackles with an energy
and momentum that, purely from an entertainment standpoint, put it way
ahead of the season’s higher-profile movies. The film opened Jan.
14 at Boston-area theaters. The opening shots are unambiguous in their depiction of an anti-Semitic, two-tier society. The Christians run Venice, living decadently and habitually abusing the Jews, who are made to wear red hats and live in ghettos. So absolute is the Christians’ power and loathing that even a respected and dignified merchant, Antonio (Jeremy Irons), thinks nothing of spitting in the face of an elderly Jewish moneylender. Shylock (Al Pacino) excels at an illegal occupation practiced only by Jews, who have been summarily banned from legitimate businesses. From the outset, “Merchant” steers even the most callous viewer to sympathize with the ill-treated Shylock. As Shakespeare would have it, though, Antonio has need of Shylock’s services. The businessman requires a bridge loan (until his ships come in) to finance his friend Bassanio’s journey to court a wealthy beauty named Portia (Lynn Collins). Shylock, holding the upper hand for once, regains a measure of pride by extracting tough terms that both men nonetheless view as symbolic: Should Antonio default, Shylock is entitled to a pound of his flesh. As played by Irons, Antonio is amply self-entitled but also uncommonly self-aware. He feels loss, rejection and loneliness in the course of the film, softening the villain’s edges to the point where he is also a victim. Pacino imbues Shylock with enormous gravity, playing him as world-weary but undaunted. He knows well the way of the world, but has never accepted it. Shylock is widowed but has a teenage daughter, Jessica. A peripheral, ambiguous figure, she nonetheless makes a choice that has devastating repercussions. Late one night, she takes a box of jewels and elopes with her non-Jewish boyfriend, Lorenzo. Meanwhile, Bassanio (Joseph Fiennes) succeeds in winning Portia’s hand. As with any production of “Merchant,” the comically romantic shenanigans that ensue at Portia’s estate are trivial compared to the devil’s play unfolding in the city. We are impatient to return to Venice where, indeed, Antonio has a stretch of bad luck. In a turn both far-fetched and inevitable, Shylock seeks the legal enforcement of the bond. Had Jessica not run away, had she not taken a large chunk of his fortune, (perhaps) had she not married outside the faith, Shylock might be reasonable. But he is mightily injured, and in his pain and anger does not see straight. In court, Pacino plays Shylock as both mercilessly rigid and tragically self-destructive. Some will see Shylock as an obstinate fool who gets what he deserves. But given the viciously anti-Semitic society on display, a courtroom correction would make little difference in either the short or long run. Once Shylock dared to publicly claim his rights against a gentile, there could be no possible resolution that would be good for the Jew — or the Jews. Some scholars assert that “The Merchant of Venice” is inescapably anti-Semitic, no matter how much Shylock suffers. Perhaps. But Shakespeare’s great gift was an ability to write speeches for every character that not only conveyed personality and moved the plot forward, but made convincing arguments for his or her point of view. If the fervor of the anti-Semites were impotent or diluted, the story would lose its underpinnings. Shakespeare’s plays served as a form of public debate, as well as drama and entertainment. This ambitious and enlightened film certainly warrants serious discussion. Unfortunately, it will be seen primarily in big cities, whose residents are already greatly concerned about the growing influence of religion on public policy.
Man, Technology, and the Weather It’s that time of year when many of us begin each day with the weather report, wondering if our cars will start, if we’ll be able to get to work, if the kids will have school, envying our friends and relatives basking in the sunshine of warmer climes. In our small corner of the world — a shabby second floor office in downtown Salem — we are suffering from a double whammy as this is written: Not only is Mother Nature clobbering us, like everyone else in these parts, for the second time in a week, but we have just installed a heralded new production system that will, we are promised, make life easier for our staff by enabling us to put out the paper faster and with less frustration. That’s the theory. The reality is that as we struggle to master the new system, it’s taking twice as long to grind out a page because of the steep learning curve required to do so. Further slowing us down is the fact that some staffers are having trouble getting to work. We’re like a car not operating on all its cylinders. Will we meet our publishing deadline or will the paper arrive in your mailbox a day or more late? At this writing, we don’t know. What we do know is that the best laid plans of earnest men and women are no match for nature’s fury. It’s a lesson worth pondering. The Gift That Keeps on Giving Israeli scientists appear to have discovered a gene that explains altruistic behavior — giving of oneself to others without seeking anything in return. A study by Professor Richard Ebstein and colleagues at the Jerusalem’s Hebrew University and Herzog Memorial Hospital, found a “gene variant of chromosome No. 11” is common to people who seek to help others. A team of psychologists asked volunteers to complete a questionnaire. Those whose answers suggested altruistic behavior were asked to give DNA samples. Statistically significant numbers of them, according to the report in the online edition of Molecular Psychiatry, possessed the obscure gene variant. A
decade ago, the Brooklyn-born Ebstein headed an Israeli team that identified
a ‘risk-taking gene.’ Now if the scientists could identify
the gene that predisposes certain world leaders to threaten others, we
might be on to something. — Mark R. Arnold
Local ColumnistsAmerican Takes Big Government Job in Israel
How often does a nation choose a citizen of another country for a high-level government job? Imagine George Bush choosing Tony Blair to replace Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve. That’s exactly what Israel did last month when it offered the position of Governor of the Bank of Israel to Stanley Fischer, an internationally-known economist, a vice president of Citicorp and an American. This column is about some of the differences Stanley Fischer will find between living in the United States and living in Israel. Israelis are opinionated and argumentative. How such a cultural norm came to be is a book in itself. But it impacts work and social life. So Fischer and even a tourist from Boston should be warned and not take the opinions and disagreements as hostility. For Israelis, it is just being involved. In Israel, if you say you like this restaurant, your friend, neighbor or relative will tell you why a different one is much better. Argumentative and let’s add, informal. In the offices of the impressive building housing the Bank of Israel, all the employees, including his secretary, will call him Stanley. Can you in your wildest dreams, conceive of anybody at the Federal Reserve calling Chairman Greenspan Alan or Al? Using first names in school classrooms and offices does not mean that strangers are friendly on the street. Yet, if an accident happens or a bomb explodes, people here run towards the problem, not away from it. If you have a connection with somebody — a neighbor or a friend —his or her home and hospitality are yours without appointment. Just knock on the door. Let’s discuss money, the main interest of Bank of Israel as it applies to ordinary Israelis. People here survive because of the “over” spoken with an Israeli accent and meaning, in English, “bank overdraft.” Banks here flourish because almost everyone is in “over.” Israelis call this “living in the moment,” meaning since you might die tomorrow from a terrorist bomb or military battle, enjoy today. Fatalism translates too often into smoking too much, driving too fast, leaving the country every year for rest and shopping, and expecting to eat good food every day, cooked at home. All that costs money. Add taxes to the overdraft. Seven-teen percent Value Added Tax on every transaction at the store, as well as bills from the plumber and the dentist. Many imported items like autos carry additional taxes. Figure the deal you get on a new Toyota or Ford Focus in Boston, add about 100 percent, and that’s what you pay in Israel for the new car. I mention that because many people think that Israel’s military and government budgets are largely financed by U.S. foreign aid and from generous donations of Jews around the world. The truth is, Israel is mainly paid for on the backs and brains of Israelis.. Stanley Fischer will have to live in Israel for a while to really know the country. Most of us welcome him. But tell somebody your opinion about giving this job to an American (though he will become an Israeli citizen) and you will likely get an opposite view. That’s how we are over here. That’s my opinion anyway. It shouldn’t be hard to find an Israeli with a contrary one.
Babylonia on the Jersey Turnpike
The kids are growing up — or the modes of entertainment are getting better. I used to scream like a fishwife, “There’s a jail in every town in Connecticut.” During our many trips to see Steve’s family in New Jersey, I’d wave my fist, time them out, and take away more privileges than the Constitution guarantees. Maturity has at last settled in. Now all I have to do is remember the extra batteries. The ipods come out, the videos, the books, the knitting, the multiple sets of headphones. Sometimes, we even sneak in a trip to Ikea whose motto tempts me even more than chocolate: “It’s a big country. Someone’s got to furnish it.” But even as times change, as families mature and rides becomes more bearable, there are some things that are forever — like the verbal rock concert that takes place whenever a few Jews get together. “Medicine hasn’t made much progress in the past 50 years,” says the orthopedist nephew, punctuating his speech with a surgeon’s steady hands “What do you mean?” I ask, “People are living longer and surviving so many diseases.” “That’s not from an advancement in medicine,” says the orthopod. “That’s public health. It got people to stop smoking. Now it’s running a campaign to end obesity.” The internist nephew concurs. “It’s true. Maybe 5 percent has been medical advancement — really conquering disease — the rest is improved public health. Greater awareness.” I watch Craig’s hands move as if he is signing. His watch bobs in front of my face. Why do Jews speak so much with their hands? “Well,” says Uncle Steve, the economist, “we really can’t afford such advances in public health. When they first envisioned social security, they expected people to live just a few years beyond retirement. — 65 or 68 — maybe 70.” Steve is a born professor. Though many Jews speak with their hands, he frames his discourse with sweeping gestures and large arm motions. “Who would’ve thought people would live so long?” Many palms turn upward. “Who knew?” say the hands. (Indeed, why is the Torah so concerned about “lengthening your days upon the earth,” I wonder. Did anyone bother to think how we were going to pay for longevity?) When I was a kid, I observed Yiddish speakers all the time. I noticed how my Uncle Morris would silence my Tante Eta just by holding her hands still. “Morris, vos tuts du?” was all she could say without gesticulating. The
holistic nephew, a gastro guy with the same predisposition, adds, “You
want to be able to afford social security? Give away free cigarettes and
super-sized Big Macs.” He, too, dances the ballet of the hands. All the arms go up. Touchdown! We have barely arrived in New Jersey and yet the guys have already solved the great conundrum of funding social security. Forget the bar mitzvah — this alone has to be worth the trip. The next day, as Andrew chants Moses’ Song of the Sea, and we all stand to honor the dramatic flight of Israel out of Egypt, and I solve yet another of the great mysteries of life: why people who know the service by heart even bother to use a siddur. Think about it. Without a siddur, all the arms flailing, the hand motions, the chat, it would be anarchy in the aisles. Back on the road at the end of the weekend, the kids return to the ipods, the videos, the books, the knitting, and the headphones. In a car filled with chatty Jews, ours is a quiet ride home. Even Steve, clinging contentedly to the steering wheel, has very little to say. Ah, New Jersey, you are my Babylonia. On Snowballs, Footballs and Matzah Balls
When I was a little girl, I loved snowstorms. Whether it was catching snowflakes on my eyelashes, creating snow angels or the bonus of a no-school day, I luxuriated in the big chill of winter. Even better than spending time frolicking in the snow was enjoying a blast of hot air and pink cheeks when I stepped indoors. I loved peering out of the frosted window as the snow piled high, and I relished the sheer delight of free time and hot chocolate. My how times have changed. Looking at winter through the lens of adult eyes creates a much different vision. Shoveling snow, jump starting cars and engaging in the battle of the supermarket are just some of the benefits of a New England winter. During our latest blizzard I watched with amazement as law-abiding citizens snatched shopping carts from elderly women and jostled me to get the last jug of spring water. The
pre-storm frenzy was almost as dangerous as the actual blizzard. I wanted
to grab the microphone and announce, “Hey everyone, a quarter of
a million people just died in the tsunami. If you don’t have nachos
for the Patriots game, it’s not a crisis!” I controlled myself,
bought my groceries and scurried home to beat the storm. Men
watching football used to drive me crazy, but now I find it entertaining.
I keep my distance until the end of the fourth quarter and then gauge
whether to join in. It’s funny how your perspective on things changes
with age. It is remarkable how things manage to stay the same but our vantage point in life shapes the way we see them. I still enjoy looking out the frosted window at the blanket of show dumped by the blizzard. Only instead of dashing outside to imprint the perfect snow with footprints, I’d rather be inside eating a bowl of matzah ball soup. If I could just find someone to make it.
AIPAC, Jewish Loyalty and the FBI
By now there can be very few sentient Americans who are unaware of the president’s distaste for Social Security as we know it. And even though the debate has barely begun, it’s reasonable to suppose that very many Americans are thoroughly confused. Is there a crisis? Is the crisis imminent? Would privatization fix the problem? It is as if the opposing sides — the president and his people on the one hand, the Democrats, the AARP and a very substantial number of economists, on the other — are reading different data. Will the system, unreformed, soon be bankrupt, as the president claims? Or is the problem modest and manageable, as Roger Lowenstein argues in the Sunday Times Magazine of January 16, as Aaron Bernstein suggests in Business Week of January 24 and as Paul Krugman has again and again, in painstaking detail, insisted on the Times OpEd page? The answer is no longer in doubt, if ever it was. We now have the proof that the argument is not about numbers, not about actuarial tables, not about trust funds and deficits nor about the ratio of workers to retired people. The problem is ideological, not economic. We know this from one sentence in one memorandum that became public last week. The memo’s author, Peter Wehner, is Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives for the President, a senior deputy to Carl Rove. Wehner is not just another White House functionary. Bill Bennet, for whom he once worked, has said of him, “I’ve met a lot of people, famous and not famous. He is the single most impressive human being I’ve ever met.” He is a passionate advocate for social justice, which he sees as growing organically from his Christian beliefs. And this is what he wrote: “For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win — and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country.” Come again? What can this mean, save that those of Wehner’s mindset have been fighting against Social Security for 60 years? (Most likely, he meant to say seven decades, since the system was launched in 1935.) The fight back then was not principally about the solvency and sustainability of the system, but about the very idea that the economic condition of the elderly was a proper concern of the government. Back then — and now. For if that were not so, the president would propose, as have his predecessors, the modest adjustments that most informed observers believe would ensure the health of the system for the next 75 years. This is not esoteric wisdom; it is readily accessible fact. Comes the question: Does the president know that when he speaks of the imminent bankruptcy of the system, he is lying? One supposes that he does; the truth in this instance is not enigmatic, not concealed; it is there for all to see. But the larger truth, the explicit truth of disdain for a social safety net, cannot be spoken. This is not 1935. Two things are here at stake. One is the Social Security system itself, no small thing. The other is not less momentous: America’s conception of who we are as a nation, as a people – which means, among other things, our conception of the proper role of government. That, of course, is the great divide between liberals and conservatives, and that is how the president’s proposed reforms of the system must be understood. They are of a piece with his proposal to make the tax cuts permanent, with the steady and purposeful shrinking of environmental protections, with his indifference to the escalating deficit. No program better illustrates the Bush administration’s contempt for the very idea of social cohesion than health savings accounts, which offer tax incentives to people who accept very large deductibles, essentially insuring themselves for the first $1000 or more in annual medical costs. (The higher the deductible, the lower the premiums.) The predicted result? Younger and healthier people will opt out of the traditional system. Since it is the premiums of such people that help offset the costs of caring for the ill and the aging, the traditional system then has less money to care for sicker people. According to Wehner, the personal savings accounts the Administration seeks as part of a reformed Social Security system, would, “through the miracle of compound interest … provide workers with higher retirement benefits than they are currently receiving from Social Security.” Yet in the same memo, he explains why the administration does not endorse an entirely privatized system: “If the goal is permanent solvency and sustainability — as we believe it should be — then Personal Retirements [sic] Accounts, for all their virtues, are insufficient to that task.” How can that be? If the PRA offers higher benefits, why can these not be sustained? If they cannot be sustained, what does it mean to say they are higher? The only thing it can mean is that Wehner knows what experience teaches: The poorest Americans — those who depend most heavily on Social Security — are least likely to avail themselves of the PRA option, and this society is not prepared to abandon them completely. But if the better-off divert a significant part of their contribution from the public system to a personal system, there’s less available to sustain the public system. The president has made his choice, loud and clear. He stands for one nation, divisible, with fear as its energizing fuel. Now it is our turn. E pluribus unum, anyone?
Cheerleaders and Skeptics of Latest Peace Moves Need to be Careful
They point to Abbas’ history of personal involvement in terrorism, his stated unwillingness to disarm the terror groups, his support for the Palestinian “right of return” — which is to say, the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state — and ask why anyone could imagine such a person doing any differently than Yasser Arafat, the man he loyally followed for decades. But unlike the wide-eyed belief in a “New Middle East” that characterized the Oslo euphoria broadcast by the Labor Party government of the late Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s new coalition of Sharon and the ever-hopeful Shimon Peres claims it is taking nothing on faith. In the meantime, Israel’s American friends are left with a dilemma: How enthusiastic should they be about what some are claiming is a genuine opportunity for peace? And that’s where the line about history repeating itself comes in. A brief review of American Jewish attitudes toward the peace process from 1993 to the present shows the perils of making assumptions about the Palestinians. From the moment the Oslo accords were signed on the White House Lawn in September 1993 up until its final collapse in the fire and bloodshed seen in the launch of the Palestinian terror war of attrition in September 2000, the instinct of most American friends of Israel was to blindly support the -process. That wasn’t surprising. If Israel’s democratically elected leaders choose to take a chance on peace, the natural inclination of those who do not vote, pay taxes or do military service in the Jewish state ought to be to defer to their judgment. Americans who pose as greater experts in Israeli security than Israeli generals may not be wrong, but theirs is a difficult position to pull off. Being more Zionist than the Israelis is a pose few can credibly sustain. Yet during the Oslo period some Americans didn’t make that mistake. Instead, they merely demanded that the Palestinians live up to their Oslo promises to end terrorism and stop teaching hatred of Israel and the Jews. Championed by the Zionist Organization of America and its leader, Morton Klein, the demand for accountability started out as a marginal movement. But by the end of the decade, as the perfidy of Arafat became even clearer, Oslo skepticism became mainstream. The worst aspect of that debate was the foolish insistence on the part of both the Israelis and the Clinton Administration on lying about Arafat and Palestinian noncompliance. In the end, the whitewash of the Palestinians only undermined the pro-Oslo forces’ credibility. Will all this happen again? Klein, for one, who is no more impressed by Abbas than he was by Arafat, thinks we seem to be back where we were in 1993. Most American Jews were fooled by Arafat,” he asserts. “We should be acutely aware that Abbas was Arafat’s top deputy for 40 years.” Klein believes American Jews should place the same sort of pressure on Washington to insist on concrete moves for peace as they did during Oslo. But however principled it might be, such a stand runs smack into the desire of the Israeli government that its American friends not do anything that would scuttle the chances that Abbas will give Israel a measure of stability, if not peace. Sharon can rightly answer his American critics that he, not they, has the support of the majority of Israelis for his plan to withdraw from Gaza and to try to negotiate again. Pointing out Abbas’ very lengthy resume of dastardly deeds doesn’t help his cause right now, his people say. For now, that will probably be enough for most Americans, and even for those politicians who once supported Klein’s demands for Palestinian accountability. That means those right-wing Israelis who might be looking to America for help in stopping the Gaza withdrawal plan are doomed to disappointment. The ZOA would do well to merely insist that the Palestinians keep their promises. If their position remains one of open opposition to Sharon, few will follow. For now, most Americans will sit back and watch anxiously to see if Sharon’s bet on Abbas is a wise one. The Palestinians, and not the arguments of the skeptics, no matter how cogent, will answer that question. ‘Messianics’ Respond To Journal Article Editor's Note: In our November 5 issue, we ran an article by associate editor Gary Band on Shomer Yisrael, a ‘Messianic Jewish’ congregation in Beverly that calls itself a synagogue and seeks to reach out to Jews. The leader, Louis Vos Levitz, was raised Jewish, is not a rabbi, and the group is not accepted as Jewish by any mainstream Jewish movement. A guest column on the subject appears here. This is Levitz’ response to the article: Thank you for publishing the article about Shomer Yisrael. I have noticed that you and your staff provide fairly unbiased articles, and in particular during the past few months, on Jewish people in our community with a variety of belief systems. I however would like to point out a few things that were somewhat blurred from my interview with Gary Band. You started the article with a disclaimer (which I totally understand, since we are such an unknown quantity) but in the disclaimer you define who we are as Jews. I
made quite clear to Mr. Band that unlike Jewish Christians, we do not
pray or worship the man Yeshua (a contraction from Yehoshua or Joshua
a common Jewish name) but direct our devotion to HaShem. This was central
to his [Jesus’] teaching. What we do believe unashamedly, is that
he was the tzadik (wise man) of his time and will complete the geulah
(redemption) at a later time. This is not strange teaching but well within
the scope and opinion of many Jewish scholars. The identity of the individual
however, remains the question. We do not profess to be halachic Judaism (only the Orthodox community can claim that) but we are Torah Judaism that has an honest relationship with halacha and our traditions. My reference to Jews for Jesus was in terms of establishing a boundary and not out of ill will. I believe in ahavat Yisrael (love of Israel) even when there is total disagreement. We have no axe to grind with the Christian church or the evangelical organizations and mission groups. In fact we are privileged to rent space from the Beverly church of the Nazarene. I am extremely concerned at the loss of Jews and Jewish children through intermarriage; and to that cause I would not hesitate to guide intermarried families back to Torah and Jewish life, regardless of their background. (Rabbi)
Louis Vos Levitz
Prince Harry Lapse Symptomatic Regarding British Prince Harry’s dubious selection of a party costume, I can easily forgive his youthful indiscretion. Surely we all made choices at age 20 that revealed our naivete and proved to be excruciatingly embarrassing to ourselves and, perhaps, our loved ones. What I find troubling is the realization that the further away in time we get from the Holocaust era, the less the awareness of the world’s population to the scope of the atrocities our predecessors endured, and the toll it exacted on our people. Most Jewish parents make certain their kids are well indoctrinated to this via exposure to one of the comprehensive Holocaust museums and media centers, Yom HaShoah observances, and films like Shindler’s List. It is crucial that youth of all ethnic backgrounds are exposed to the potential for man’s inhumanity to man, by making mandatory a Holocaust study as part of school curriculum. I believe that this would go a long way in fostering an understanding of Jewish sensitivity towards the subject and the fervor of our religious leaders’ reaction when such an incident is splattered across world media. Larry
Cohen No Messiah Yet Regarding the Messianic congregation in Beverly (“Messianic Congregation Plants Roots on North Shore,” November 5-18), what’s this that the messiah came already? From this Jew’s perspective, it cannot be. At that time it will be Gan Eden again. We must work towards that day when ubiquitous poisons, injustice, war, and famine will be no more. Lynn
Nadeau
CHERKAS,
Lawrence — late of Malden. Died Jan. 2. Husband of Ina (Berman)
Cherkas. Father of Neal Cherkas and his fiancée, Melanie McShane,
and Lauren Cherkas. Brother of Rhoda Nichaman and Florence Andler. (G) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||