Local Stories
National News
International News
Features
Arts & Entertainment
Singles
Editorial
Local Columnists
Op-Ed
Letters/Commentary

Local Stories

Ross Cites Pitfalls to Israeli–Palestinian Coexistence

BRETT M. RHYNE
Jewish Journal Staff

BOSTON — With “700 Israeli dead and three times that Palestinian dead,” former Ambassador Dennis Ross characterized Israelis as filled with “an increasing loss of hope” and Palestinians with “an increasing level of anger” over the present situation in the region.

Ross, a former policy advisor to Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton, spoke on the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian coexistence and on the ‘road map’ for peace to 300 people, as part of the Anti-Defamation League’s “Hate and Hope: Is Coexistence Possible in the Middle East?” lecture series on Jan. 28 at Temple Israel, Boston.

Ross described the situation as paradoxical. The central Israeli contradiction was evident in this week’s election: while Israelis support the positions of Labor’s Amram Mitzna — withdrawal from some settlements, the building of a fence, readiness to give up territory — they voted for Likud’s Ariel Sharon because they did not base their votes on issues, but on attitude, anger and insecurity.

“When Israelis perceive they have a partner, they are willing to make great concessions,” Ross said. “When they don’t, they want a leader who shows the Palestinians the consequences of not acting like a partner.”

Ross saw several paradoxes on the Palestinian side, including the surprising emergence of a reform movement after last spring’s Israeli military incursion and, despite an increasing consensus that nothing will change with Palestinian Authority President Yassir Arafat as a leader, a lack of desire among Palestinians to challenge Arafat.
“The key,” Ross said, “is Palestinians have to show they are a partner. They must take responsibility for Palestinians who work against peace.”

While conceding “the concept of a road map makes sense to me,” Ross argued it is flawed. He posited three revisions: Israel must assert specific strategic goals, such as an end to Palestinian violence and terror and the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state; Arabs must stop supporting violence and terror; and all sides must interpret their responsibilities identically.

“The potential for coexistence exists,” Ross said. “The question is, how do we get from here to there?”

Back to top

BRETT M. RHYNE
Jewish Journal Staff

LYNN — Proposed cuts in Federal public housing programs will “definitely devastate” elderly Jewish Russian populations throughout the North Shore, according to Alla Brickman, a case manager at the New American Center, the Lynn office of Jewish Family & Children’s Services.

According to Brickman, 40 percent of the 7,000 Russians on the North Shore are elderly, and “practically all live in subsidized housing. A family of two has an income of $1,000 a month,” she said, “and a one-bedroom apartment already costs $750.”

A Federal cut in Section 8 housing vouchers most threatens this population. The U.S. House Appropriations Committee passed in October 2002 the VA-HUD-IA Appropriations Bill, which proposes to provide 150,000 fewer vouchers nationally than what President Bush requested.

According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Massachusetts would lose up to 2,730 vouchers, or 4 percent of its total vouchers.

This could force as many as 112 area families out of their homes this winter.

Additionally, in August 2002, Congress approved a five percent rent increase for Section 8 tenants who are part of a special mental health program; it is rumored that increase may be extended to all Section 8 and Federal public housing tenants.

Such cuts may spell homelessness for some North Shore residents. “What are they going to do with these people?” asks Brickman. “I just can’t imagine the situation.”

“Obviously, this is going to affect all people who live in public housing, especially the elderly and newcomers” said Serge Bologov, executive director of the Russian Community Association of Massachusetts. “Combined with other statewide cuts, especially health cuts, this makes matters even worse.”

“It boggles the mind that housing — the least costly of social service programs — is frequently the first to get cut,” said Ellen Feingold, president of Jewish Community Housing for the Elderly. “Our programs are currently assured under contracts. But no one is safe until the most vulnerable people are made the top priority of government.”

At a Jan. 23 meeting with members of the Chelsea Public Housing Organizing Committee, a group of Latino and Jewish tenant activists, Congressman Michael E. Capuano (D-Somerville) offered little hope.

“Your fears are well founded,” he said. "Funding is bad on both the Federal and state levels.”

The meeting, organized by Sarah Hershey of the Chelsea Human Services Collaborative and held in its Broadway office, included a dozen members of the 200-person group, including four Jews. They asked Capuano questions about cuts to the Section 8 voucher program and the rent increase. Capuano responded by placing responsibility on the Republicans in Congress, the voters who put them there and low-income people, who, according to Capuano, do not vote.

“People like me don’t run the government,” he said. “These people are not appointed, they’re elected. I’ve opposed them on both the state and Federal levels.

“Get used to the fact that it’s going to get worse,” he said. “Expect rent increases, cuts in subsidies, health increases. But remember — the people making the decisions are elected by voters. People on the receiving end of social programs don’t vote. It’s nobody’s fault but those people. Until poor and working class people get angry and vote, things aren’t going to change.”

Marvin Hooker, a lifelong Jewish resident of Chelsea, was unimpressed with Capuano’s responses. “He was very neutral on a lot of questions,” he said. “He didn’t give a straight answer. He was kind of negative on a lot of things.”

Linda Chipman, another lifelong Jewish Chelsea resident, was even more discouraged. “It’s gonna happen. There’s nothing anyone’s going to do. Nobody gives a damn.”

Back to top

BRETT M. RHYNE
Jewish Journal Staff

As part of the Chelsea Human Services Collaborative, Sarah Hershey has helped the community organize around public housing issues for almost two years.

The former Jewish Organizing Initiative (JOI) fellow advocates for two groups of tenants: those living in family public housing, the majority of which are Latino — mainly from Puerto Rico and Central America — and those living in elderly disabled housing, many of which are Jewish.

“A couple of decades ago, Chelsea had a thriving Jewish community,” Hershey says. “I work with the people who are still here.”

The West Hartford, Conn. native describes herself as “not completely secular. I grew up Reform and still observe various meaningful Jewish practices, like some Shabbat dinners, the High Holidays and Pesach. I’m mildly practicing.”

After graduating Lesley College in 2001 with degrees in social and cultural studies and middle school teaching, Hershey combined her interests in education and social justice to work as a JOI fellow in Chelsea. “What I do now is popular education,” she says.

“The Jewish piece of JOI is all about building a community, and relationships within a community,” Hershey says. “This is what I’m doing now — developing relationships with public housing tenants. It’s like a small family we’ve created. This is a large part of both JOI and Jewish history and culture.

“So much of Judaism is standing up for yourself and others when no one else will,” she adds. “It’s just like the tenant leaders who risk eviction by standing up to a housing authority that thinks tenants should be grateful just for having a roof over their heads.”

Back to top

AMY SESSLER POWELL
Special to the Jewish Journal

GLOUCESTER — Tefillin are described as the “ties that bind,” and the group of seventh graders and their parents at Temple Ahavat Achim Hebrew School experienced these ties as they wrapped tefillin for the first time in class.

“It was definitely the first time I put them on and the first time I had ever seen them. This was true of many of us in the class,” said Susan Quateman of Wenham. “I could tell that when I had it on my head, placed just above the place the mystics call the third eye, it did indeed help me focus and concentrate.”

Learning to use tefillin, sometimes called phylacteries, is part of the curriculum in many of the seventh grade Hebrew school classes on the North Shore. Seventh grade is the year when most children become b’nai mitzvah and they learn many of the traditions practiced by adult Jews. The religious basis for tefillin is in the V’ahavta following the Shema when it commands us to “bind the words to our hands and between our eyes.” The tefillin contain two leather boxes with prayers enclosed, attached by leather straps and bound to the arm and head. They are worn during morning, weekday services.

The tefillin, valued at $150 per child, is a gift to these children from the Jewish Federation of the North Shore. They are paid for from a grant from the Robert I. Lappin Foundations to the Jewish Continuity Committee of the Federation. Other Hebrew schools in the area are also working with tefillin this year, including Temple Ner Tamid, Temple B’nai Abraham, the North Shore Hebrew School and Cohen Hillel Academy.

Debbie Coltin, educational director at Ahavat Achim, said, “The tefillin bind us and our children to our Jewish Heritage. It is such a tactile experience. It transforms you and puts you in the here and now.” Coltin is also director of Jewish Continuity Development and the Interfaith Outreach Coordinator for the Jewish Federation of the North Shore.

Many of the parents and children, who had previously considered the use of tefillin an ancient or at least all-male practice, were overwhelmed by the beauty of seeing so many people don the leather straps and wrap the tefillin on their arms and head. It brought spirituality into the room.

Daniel Katz, 13, of Wenham, agreed. “It was kind of like I felt connected to a tradition and it made me think that it is important to carry on the traditions of the Jews.”

The students have the option to keep or return the tefillin and are asked to keep them if they think they will use them. All the students opted to keep them.

For some, the tefillin program answered some long standing questions. Laila Goodman of Magnolia said
she remembers seeing tefillin many years ago when she was a seventh grader in Jewish day school.

“I would see the old men wearing them and wonder, what are these boxes on their heads? But for some reason, I felt like it was a forbidden subject. As an adult, I know about them, but had never seen or wrapped them or thought about how much meaning it could have,” said Goodman.

Some students saw it as a rite of passage. “It certainly made me feel closer to God,” said Molly Miller-White, 12, of Rockport. “It’s a whole different feeling having the tefillin on. It made me feel more grown up.”

Back to top

BRETT M. RHYNE
Jewish Journal Staff

BOSTON — Poet Amiri Baraka’s appearance at Wellesley College on Nov. 23 brought home the antagonism between Jewish and African-American groups on campus nationally. His talk, picketed by 100 Jewish students, was mostly a defense of his 9/11-inspired poem, Somebody Blew Up America. The Anti-Defamation League has called the poem anti-Semitic. The New Jersey state Senate voted to remove Baraka as Poet Laureate on Jan. 23.

Wellesley Classics Professor Mary Lefkowitz has been at the center of debates about Black anti-Semitism for over a decade. The Journal spoke with her after she discussed Baraka with members of the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League:

Jewish Journal: In the poem, Baraka argues Israel had advance knowledge of the World Trade Center attacks. Is that anti-Semitism?
Mary Lefkowitz: The poem itself, aside from the reiterated junk about the Israelis, isn’t particularly anti-Semitic. But if you’re going to be a public poet, you ought to try to be more factually accurate than he is. His research is lousy.

It’s the other stuff he said, in defense of himself, and about the ADL, that are pretty obnoxious. I argued against paying him a high honorarium, simply because it was really divisive. I knew this would happen. It’s happened in the past. That’s part of what I call “oppression theater.” And everyone plays their little role. People may learn from that. I hope so. There’s no evidence of that.

JJ: In a way, the ADL set Baraka up — they issued a press release declaring the poem anti-Semitic, provoked a response from him, then declared his response anti-Semitic.
ML: The trouble is, when Baraka gets in a room, he says the sort of stuff that he says. Why attack a student and say she’s a Nazi if she complains about his response to ADL? Why get into this kind of rhetoric? And why do people invite him, knowing he’s going to do that? Because if he was going to get up there and really talk about the Black Arts Movement, who could object?

It’s oppression theater. You can pick whichever group wants to do that. I think we ought to be doing something else. American Jews aren’t particularly oppressed, and American Blacks on American campuses aren’t particularly oppressed, either. I think we should stop acting like victims and just talk about some real stuff. That would be nice.

JJ: Don’t Afro-centrism and Zionism come out of the same contexts — diasporas, slavery, permanent underclasses, genocide?
ML: There’s so much that Blacks and Jews have in common, it’s a pity this wedge has been driven between them. There’s still tremendous support among people in both groups for the other. As Americans, our real duty is to work together and not have divisions, not accuse each other.

JJ: Do you see any paths through this antagonism?
ML: Yes. There are always reasonable people. Given enough time, they’ll get together. A number of people on the Wellesley campus all howled this was wrong. This kind of response is encouraging. But the only way you get progress is by talking this stuff out. A campus is a great place to do that. The problem with Wellesley in the past was that we didn’t do it. We just hoped it would go away.

The point I would make is, we must get beyond the point where we regard racisms differentially. They’re all bad.

Back to top

Back to top

MARK ARNOLD
Jewish Journal Staff

This issue of The Journal includes an envelope appealing to readers to help North Shore Jewish families and individuals who are in crisis this winter and who — in the words of the appeal — “can’t make it without your help.” Here’s an explanation of the appeal, based on an interview with Jon Firger, chief executive of Jewish Family Service of the North Shore, which is administering the new program. Donations in any amount can be sent to the Jewish Community Emergency Fund, PO Box 8217, Salem, MA 01970-8217.

Q. What is this appeal? Who is it aimed at?
A. It is called the Jewish Community Emergency Fund. It is short-term assistance for people in our community who, because of loss of job or other factors, face emergency needs this winter that can’t be met in any other way. It provides money to, for example, prevent utilities from being shut off, prevent eviction, foreclosure, or to make sure people short on funds don’t run out of food, or to keep a car on the road for someone seeking employment.

Q. Aren’t there already programs to help the needy?
A. Not money for emergency needs like this. In the overall community, funds for the needy have been shrinking. A lot of the funds that are available are driven by geography. In Marblehead there are emergency funds for rent, in Peabody if you have kids and face eviction, that kind of thing.

Q. How much money is there? Where is it coming from?
A. The Jewish Federation of the North Shore provided a $12,500 grant in mid-January to get the program started. Another $2,500 comes from the Jewish Community Trust Fund. An additional $7,000 has come from people in the community responding to the article in The Journal (Jan. 17) or appeals at synagogue services and other meetings in the Jewish community.

Q. Is there a goal?
A. We hope to raise $75,000 before Purim (March 18).

Q. What about administrative expenses?
A. None of the money will go to administrative costs. Jewish Family Service has the capacity to handle the processing so all the money collected will go to those in need.

Q. Where are these families and individuals from? How many are there in need?
A. We don’t know how many there are yet. What we do know is that they are all people from our own Jewish community, who are down on their luck because of job loss or for other reasons. They could be your neighbors. But you won’t learn who they are because all conversations will be held in confidence.

Q. How much can one family get?
A. There’s no set limit. So far we have been giving $500 or $1,000. If it’s not enough, people can come back and apply for more.

Q. How can someone apply? What’s the process for evaluating their need?
A. Applications can be obtained from Mary Beth Latorella, Jewish Family Service (978-741-7878 x10). We do need details of expenses and income and we ask for backup documentation. With the help of a volunteer financial consultant, we will evaluate the level of need and make a determination. Once approved, we issue a check.

Q. How long does the application process take?
A. About a week in most cases.

Q. How many have applied so far?
A. We have had 22 people who asked for help since last June. But since we didn’t have the money we could only help them by providing food. Now, we’ll be able to provide funds. We’ve had two or three apply since the publicity started with the last issue of The Journal. We’ll be helping out with some of those 22 also if they’re still in need.

Back to top

Back to top

BRETT M. RHYNE
Jewish Journal Staff

In the current issue of Temple Tifereth Israel’s newsletter, Rabbi Tom Alpert writes about the Reform Jewish perspective on gay and lesbian inclusion:

“There is no record of significant Jewish violence against gays and lesbians. […] The Union of American Hebrew Congregations encourages inclusion of gays and lesbians into our congregations and created a task force to sponsor that inclusion.

“The position of our Movement can be summed up in the words of its leading authority on Jewish law, Rabbi Mark Washofsky. In his recent Jewish Living: A Guide to Contemporary Reform Practice, he writes, “[I]t is a mitzvah to welcome gays and lesbians into our communities and to accompany them, as we accompany all of our people, along the path of Jewish life. This mitzvah requires that we recognize homosexual unions as households, the nuclear social and family units which compose our communities and whose strength and stability are primary Jewish religious concern.

“Rabbi Washofsky does not use the term mitzvah loosely. He is saying that it is a Jewish obligation, something that we are required to do.

“Torah was written at a time when people assumed that sexual orientation was a matter of personal choice, and that gays and lesbians could not form stable, loving relationships. We now know that both these assumptions are wrong. This means that Judaism does not condemn and has never condemned homosexuality as we understand it today.

“I look forward to the time when each of us, straight or gay, will have his or her own place as we move toward God.”

Back to top

National News
None

Back to top

International News

Israeli Voters Rally Around 'Warrior-Statesman'

MICHAEL S. ARNOLD

NEW YORK (JTA) — Israeli politics have seen few transformations as remarkable as Ariel Sharon’s.

A little more than four years ago, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appointed Sharon as foreign minister, many Israelis were outraged that the man they considered the villain of the 1982 Lebanon War was to be Israel’s face abroad.

When Sharon was appointed interim Likud leader after Netanyahu lost to Ehud Barak, few thought the septuagenarian would be more than a caretaker. Yet Sharon solidified his hold on the party and in February 2001 swept Barak out of office, capping a two-decade climb from ignominy to power.

Now the former bête noire of Israeli politics has become the first prime minister to win re-election since Menachem Begin in 1981.

Sharon’s success is attributed to his personal qualities, his performance during his first term and, paradoxically, voters’ despair over the state of the nation, something that rarely redounds to the incumbent’s credit.

In 2001, running for election during the nascent Palestinian intifada, Sharon promised voters peace and security. Two years later, Israel is further from peace, demonstrably less safe — and undergoing an economic meltdown.

Yet voters largely do not blame Sharon. He inherited the intifada from Barak, and while both the ferocity of Palestinian terrorism and Israel’s military response have increased markedly under Sharon, most Israelis do not see a realistic alternative.

It helps that Sharon is the last of the generation of the giants, warrior-statesmen like Yitzhak Rabin and Moshe Dayan whose history is synonymous with Israel’s, and who have always filled the breach at moments of crisis.

It is perhaps that aura that helped Sharon weather alleged vote-buying and financial scandals that cost Likud several Knesset seats in the election, but didn’t sink Sharon’s candidacy.

Then, too, in contrast to his predecessors, Sharon is a personable and avuncular figure, liked and respected even by his political foes. Unlike Barak and Netanyahu, both considered brilliant but arrogant, Sharon has surprised Cabinet colleagues and military officials with his willingness to solicit advice and follow it.

For someone nicknamed “the bulldozer,” Sharon proved flexible and deliberate during his first term.
He repeatedly rejected the hard-line proposals of his government’s more hawkish members, effectively giving the Labor Party veto power over military decisions in order to preserve the national unity that he considered essential in time of war.

Much of the world accuses Sharon of brutality in his response to Palestinian terrorism, but many believe he moved rather slowly in intensifying Israel’s military actions. Often he showed restraint — such as after the June 2001 bombing of Tel Aviv’s Dolphinarium disco — when opponents expected Sharon to reveal his “true colors” as a warmonger.

In part, Sharon knew he would gain by being patient, intuiting, correctly, that if given another chance the Palestinians would supply another outrage, and the case for Israeli retaliation would be even stronger.
Sharon’s patience also was born of his experience as defense minister two decades ago. Accused of having engineered a “war of choice” in Lebanon, Sharon knew he painstakingly had to build public support before launching bold military actions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Sharon quickly accelerated Israel’s policy of assassinating terrorists, and critics accused him of fanning the embers of war. But Sharon waited more than a year in office before ordering a large-scale invasion of the West Bank last April, an event that decisively transformed the intifada by throwing the Palestinians on the defensive.

And even after two years in office, Sharon has not ordered a similar large-scale invasion of the Gaza Strip, where fighting in densely populated areas would likely entail heavy civilian casualties. He has resisted numerous calls — and, reportedly, his own desire — to exile Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, fearing that it would antagonize the United States.

Beyond the remarkable degree of unity he maintained at home, the greatest accomplishment of Sharon’s first term surely was the rapport he established with Washington, which has remained as Israel’s sole significant ally in an increasingly hostile international environment.

By his handling of the Karine-A arms smuggling affair and the trove of PA documents uncovered during Israeli raids in the West Bank, Sharon convinced President Bush of Arafat’s personal role as a sponsor of terrorism.

That led to Bush’s landmark June 24 speech, in which he effectively endorsed Sharon’s position that peace with the Palestinians is not possible as long as Arafat remains in power — with all the policy implications that entails.

By promising Bush early in his term that he would not harm Arafat physically, Sharon set himself a daunting task: to effectively kill his long-time antagonist without actually doing so.

In addition, Labor Party Chairman Amram Mitzna’s vow not to enter a national unity government — assuming he honors it — places Sharon in a difficult spot.

While the decision probably cost Labor several seats in Tuesday’s election, it also could leave Sharon with few options except a narrow right-wing government.

Given Sharon’s reluctance to take extreme measures against the Palestinians, a right-wing coalition appears highly unstable, raising the specter of more elections in the not-too-distant future.

If that happens, even a survivor like Sharon may find that his time has run out. It’s one thing to approach elections with the Labor Party fragmented and — having shared responsibility for government policy until a few months ago — unable to present a compelling alternative.

Another round of elections after Labor has gathered its bearings in the opposition — and the public has stewed in more terrorism and recession — could be another matter entirely.

Back to top

Features

Senior Lifestyles
Act of Mercy Yields Lifetime of Thanks

GARY BAND
Jewish Journal Staff

PEABODY — Ephraim Tsouk of Israel once helped transport Jewish refugees to Palestine as a member of the Mossad Aliyah Bet. In 1946, Tsouk was a shipmate of life-long friend Arthur Bernstein of Peabody, whom he visited in October — his first trip to the United States as a civilian.
Born in Germany in 1923, Tsouk immigrated to Palestine with his family in 1935 and went to sea as an “engine boy” with a Palestinian friend at the age of 15.

What compels a 15-year-old to go to sea?

According to Bernstein, “Like so many youth at the time, Ephraim imagined himself to be Jack London, a literary, hard-drinking social activist fighting against the administration.”

“Having come from Germany I had an axe to grind,” Tsouk said. But he wouldn’t encounter any German military men for another four years.
From 1938-42, Tsouk served on European vessels such as freighters and Scandinavian tramp ships. His shipmate, with whom he first served in 1938, went on to become a senior captain in the Israeli Navy. “His father was a lawyer who represented shipping interests,” said Bernstein. “That’s how they got on board their first ship.”

But on May 12, 1942, a remarkable incident took place, changing Tsouk’s life forever. While serving aboard a Danish cargo ship, Laconia, with a crew of 33 sailing unaccompanied 500 miles east of the West Indies, they were approached by a German U-Boat. Fearing the worst, the crew abandoned ship and crowded into its two lifeboats.

The submarine surfaced, and its captain, Commander Hartenstein, saw the men in the lifeboats and addressed them — personally. “He actually spoke to us,” Tsouk said. “Something to the effect of ‘Sorry gents, but this is war.’” The submarine then fired a torpedo at the abandoned six-ton vessel, sinking it in less than ten minutes. While the horrified crew looked on, wondering if they were next to be sunk, killed or captured, the sub submerged and went on its way.

Grateful to be alive and free, but with very little food, the 33 men sailed 450 miles before coming ashore in the Dominican Republic weeks later. Tsouk and the others were brought to New Orleans, where most of them parted company. He soon earned his seaman's license and signed on with the American Merchant Marines.

Tsouk sailed for the rest of the war on American vessels, aiding the war effort by transporting materials and rising through the ranks of the engineer corps. It would be three decades, though, before he would find any descendants of Hartenstein to thank.

In 1946, Tsouk’s life would take another turn. After nine months on board a Merchant Marine ship stationed in Nagasaki, Japan, he received a telegram from a girlfriend in New York who worked for Haganah, the pre-Israeli Defense Forces, requesting his help. He and his friend broke their contracts with the Merchant Marines and signed on to one of ten ships purchased in the US to help Jewish refugees illegally immigrate to Palestine.

They were assigned to the ex-Coast Guard cutter ship Ulua out of Baltimore, where they soon met a young American deck officer named Bernstein. Together for over a year, the crew sailed from Baltimore to Marseilles, Sweden and Italy, and eventually to Palestine with 700 future Israelis on board.
The ten ships would help over 30,000 Jews make aliyah.

Tsouk served on many ships for the Mossad, including one that was stopped by the British and from which Tsouk was arrested and held in the Atlit Detention Camp in Haifa. He later escaped by stealing wire cutters and cutting his way through a fence. Tsouk managed to get word to Haganah headquarters, alerting them to the camp and prompting a future large-scale prison break, freeing hundreds of Jews.

Tsouk went on to serve in the Israeli Navy and as a civilian engineer aboard Israeli ships, until retiring 17 years ago. With time on his side, he began traveling and later earned bachelor's and master's degrees in engineering.

Motivated by a strong desire to express his thanks for the humane behavior Hartenstein showed when he could have just as easily killed all the men, Tsouk searched for and found members of the Hartenstein family in 1989. The commander had long since died, but Tsouk wrote a letter to his nephew and invited him to Israel at his expense. The nephew assured Tsouk his uncle was never a member of the Nazi party and had been severely reprimanded for not capturing or killing the crew.

A reunion for crew members of the Laconia, Hartenstein’s relatives, and local German leadership will be held in Germany in March.

Back to top

Anapolsky— Grozalsky
Susan and David Anapolsky of Peabody announce the engagement of their daughter, Caryn Lynne, to Marc Evan Grozalsky, son of Marjorie and Samuel Grozalsky of Brookline.

The future bride is a graduate of Peabody Veterans Memorial High School and Union College in Schenectady, NY. She is a Spanish teacher in the Weston Public Schools.

The future groom is a graduate of Brookline High School and Union College. He is employed at the Medstat Group in Cambridge as an analyst.

An August wedding is planned.

Moskowitz— Feldberg
Lorraine and Harvey Moskowitz of Natick announce the engagement of their daughter, Sherry Hope, to Brian Jay Feldberg, son of Claudia and Philip Feldberg of Peabody.

The future bride is a graduate of Natick High School and Union College in Schenectady, NY. She works as a communications associate with Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.

The future groom is a graduate of Peabody High School and UMass Amherst. He owns a restaurant business in Lynn.

An October wedding is planned.

Liberty Makes the List
Samuel Liberty has been named to the Dean’s List for the fall semester at Emerson College. He is the son of Sarah and Ted Liberty of Salem.

Birth Announcements
George and Sharon (Goldstein) Orfaly of Marblehead announce the birth of their son, Andrew David, on October 16. Grandparents are Beverly Benson of Swampscott and Naguib and Henny Orfaly of Ft. Lauderdale, FL. Great-grandparents are Morris and Frances Young of Peabody.

Traci and Kenneth Segal of Marblehead announce the birth of their fourth son, Carter Julien, on January 11 at Salem Hospital. Grandparents are Donald and Melissa Bornstein of Salem and Paul and Roberta Segal of Rhode Island. Siblings are older brothers Joshua, Malin and Cameron.

Back to top

LISA M. PETSCHE
Special to the Jewish Journal

There’s a good chance your aging parent will require hospitalization at some point, especially if he or she has chronic health conditions. Following are some tips to help you be prepared:

What to bring
Be ready with the following paperwork to bring to the hospital: a list of current medications - prescription and over-the-counter drugs as well as vitamins and other natural remedies - and the dosage; health insurance information (be aware most insurance plans don’t cover private room accommodations); and a copy of any advance directive, living will or durable power of attorney.

Be prepared to provide the nursing staff with an alternate contact person in case you’re not available in an emergency. Provide as many phone numbers as possible - home, work, cell - to maximize the chances one of you can be reached in a hurry.

Keep a note pad and pen with you. (It’s wise to maintain a log of your parent’s diagnoses, past and present medications and any adverse reactions, specialists consulted, hospitalizations and surgeries.)

Clothing-wise, bring pajamas, a robe and non-skid slippers for nighttime. For daytime, provide comfortable clothing that’s easy to put on, such as loose-fitting shirts, pants, skirts or dresses. If your parent will be participating in physical therapy, track suits and running shoes are advisable. Don’t forget socks and underwear.

The following grooming items will also be needed: soap, deodorant, shampoo, a toothbrush and toothpaste or denture cleaner, comb or hairbrush, hand mirror and disposable razor. For safety reasons, patients are asked to refrain from bringing electrical equipment such as razors and radios into hospitals.

Don’t forget to bring dentures, eyeglasses, hearing aids and prostheses. Keep in mind, though, that these and other items are at risk of going missing. Bring a denture cup and eyeglass or hearing aid case for proper storage, and label or engrave whatever belongings you can. If your parent uses a cane, walker or wheelchair, let staff know and be prepared to bring it in.

If your parent has short-term memory problems, leave on the nightstand a labeled notebook with a pen attached so relatives and friends can record their visits. Let staff know it’s there.

What not to bring
For security reasons, don’t keep anything of value - cash, wallet, purse or jewelry - in the room. You might, however, wish to leave a few dollars to cover the cost of sundry items, such as newspapers or snacks.

Don’t bring in prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications or herbal remedies. Interactions with medications the hospital physician has prescribed could prove harmful.

Visiting do’s & don’ts
If you have a cold, flu or other contagious illness, refrain from visiting. Otherwise you might pass it on to your parent or others in the hospital who are already compromised and can become seriously ill. Telephone instead.

Limit visiting to two people at a time, especially if your parent is in a shared room. Speak softly in the room and hallways so as not to disturb patients who are resting. Exercise good judgment when it comes to bringing children under age 12, and ensure adult supervision at all times.

Find out your parent’s schedule and don’t visit around therapy times unless you’ve been invited to participate.

Consult with nursing staff before bringing in food, beverages or candy.

If you’d like to take your parent off the ward for a change of scenery, let one of the nurses know.

Making the Most of Medical Visits: Tips for Communicating with Your Doctor

LISA M. PETSCHE
Special to the Jewish Journal

These days, health care is viewed as a partnership between patient and provider, with both parties responsible for ensuring a constructive relationship. Patients — also now referred to as health care consumers — are taking a more active role than ever in this regard.

Good communication is essential, of course, to any positive doctor-patient relationship, whether it involves your family physician or a specialist recommended by him or her. Following are some ways you can do your part to make the most of medical visits:

Before an appointment
• Make a list of the things you want to discuss, in order of priority. Also jot down any symptoms you’re experiencing, including their frequency, duration and intensity, and how they are affecting your daily life. Note, too, any treatments you have tried. Always bring a list of the medications you’re taking—prescription and over-the-counter drugs as well as any natural remedies—including the dosage.

• Bring along a note pad and pen to jot down key information.

• Consider asking a good friend or family member to accompany you; they can help with processing information and remembering instructions. They may also have questions that hadn’t occurred to you.

During the visit
• If you have a hearing or visual impairment, let the doctor know at the outset of the visit. If you have a language impairment from a stroke or other condition, such that it’s hard for others to understand you, bring along someone who knows you well and can interpret your responses, if necessary, or ask questions on your behalf.

• Share information. Provide as much detail as possible about any problems you are experiencing and how these are affecting you. Don’t leave out anything — let the doctor decide what’s relevant. Share your list of medications, too. Be honest about your lifestyle and habits — for example, if you’re diabetic but you don’t stick to the recommended diet, or you haven’t been taking medications as prescribed. Let the doctor know about anything going on in your life that may be contributing to your situation — for example, a recent loss or other traumatic event that’s causing significant stress.

• Write down important information provided to you. If you have brought someone along, ask him or her to do this so you can give the doctor your undivided attention.

• Ask for details. If you’re diagnosed with a medical condition, inquire about what to expect, including how long it’s likely to last, treatment or management options, and where you can get more information. For any recommended test or treatment, inquire about cost, where it must be done, what’s involved, benefits and risks, and alternatives.

• Request a layman’s explanation if you don’t understand medical jargon used by the doctor. Summarize aloud the information he or she gives you, to check if you have interpreted it correctly.

• Don’t try to be an expert. While there’s a wealth of medical information readily available to consumers these days (especially via the Internet), and it’s good to be informed, don’t act as if you know more than the doctor does. Be tactful if you wish to challenge findings or recommendations. For example, it’s much less threatening to say, “I’ve read about a new medication called X; what do you think of it for my situation?” rather than, “Why aren’t you prescribing X?”

• Don’t hesitate to voice doubts, worries or fears. If, after your doctor addresses them, you’re still uncomfortable with a diagnosis or the treatment options presented to you, request a second opinion.

• Ask about the best time to call if any more questions occur to you after you leave the office.

Lisa M. Petsche is a medical social worker in Ontario, as well as a freelance writer and columnist.

Back to top

Arts & Entertainment

Gulman Takes Flight

BRETT M. RHYNE
Jewish Journal Staff

Comedian Gary Gulman, a Peabody native now living in Los Angeles, recently returned to New England for two nights at Boston’s Comedy Connection. The Jewish Journal had a few questions for him when he was back in town:

Jewish Journal: How would you characterize your humor?
Gary Gulman: Personal/ observational mixed with ultra-sarcasm. It comes from an extreme sensitivity to discomfort as well as a relentless memory of the mundane.

JJ: Compared with a lot of other comics, your routines are strikingly tasteful. What are the advantages to going clean or dirty?
GG: The pros are things like, I had a much quicker route to television because of my taste. I can play a lot more venues being clean. The con is, sometimes it’s hard to follow a dirty comic. I personally don’t mind dirty comedy, it just isn’t me. I prefer dirty to unoriginal or hackneyed comedy.

JJ: You still do some regional humor — loved the bit about TV meteorologist Harvey Leonard. Now that you’re based on the West Coast, has your act changed?
GG: My act has only changed in that after 2,000 appearances and 30 notebooks and countless hours writing, I have become a better artist. I am finally becoming a comic I would stay up late to watch and then try to retell the jokes the next day in homeroom.

JJ: What was it like to play New England again?
GG: I love doing the radio here. I love seeing my friends and family. I can always add new things to my act, because I’m reminded of certain family or local occurrences that I used to take for granted but are actually odd. For instance, the wooden broomstick in my mom’s sliding glass door or the — enough already! — 1-800-54-GIANT ads.

JJ: You use Yiddishisms and make Jewish references throughout your act. Would you characterize yourself as a Jewish comic? Are you a practicing Jew?
GG: No, I don’t think of myself as a Jewish comic. And yes, I am a practicing Jew, although sometimes I feel as if I’m practicing to be a practicing Jew.

JJ: Do you see any Jewish religious or cultural influences in your material?
GG: The main thing — and David Brenner amplified this — is to build up the Jewish people, and not mock ourselves for the sake of a laugh. I try to avoid that type of stuff in my act, or at least address it ironically. I think, unfortunately, in America, it has become acceptable to stereotype Jews in cliché terms. We’re not all rich. I got free lunch in school, since my family was not well off. The Jewish Federation paid for my Hebrew school classes. Most Americans, even educated ones, think that Jewish guys get a million dollars at their bris.

I wish I were braver about addressing anti-Semitism in my act, but it can make people very uncomfortable. I try to find instances that are so egregious that most people, even minor league bigots, can say, “Wow, that’s over the line, I would never say anything like that.” I remember being young and very nervous about being Jewish because I felt different. It was nice to see certain comedians acknowledge their ethnicity, which is very courageous in some cases. It made me feel very proud. I hope I can give the same feeling to someone else sometimes.

Gary Gulman’s website is www.garygulman.com.

Back to top

GARY BAND
Jewish Journal Staff

Carla: You do date complicated women.

Miles: Is there any other kind?

Single, thirty-something Miles (Jason Beals) is exploring the wretched state of his love life with his therapist, Carla (Eve Passeltiner). In the course of two sessions, as Miles describes the women in his life, Passeltiner portrays not just his therapist, but four of his girlfriends — and his mother.

Dodging Bullets, a one-act play written by Journal Assistant Editor Brett M. Rhyne and directed by Bob Stachel, explores the complex, emotional relationships between a man, his lovers, his history and his therapist.

Stachel is a Boston-area actor/director. As co-artistic director of the Shadow Boxing Theatre Workshop, he has a strong interest in developing new work. He recently co-produced and co-directed the Partridge in a Pear Tree Festival of new short plays, and directed at the Arlington New Play series. He was last seen on stage at the Arlington Friends of the Drama as Reese in Communicating Doors.

Rhyne made his playwrighting debut with the recent Pear Tree Festival’s theatrical satire, My Worst Audition Ever. In March, his domestic comedy, Love Slash Hate, will be produced twice as part of Shadow Boxing Theatre Workshop’s Double Plays Festival. He holds a doctorate in Communication from the University of California-San Diego. We spoke with him about Dodging Bullets:

Jewish Journal: What was your inspiration/motivation for writing the play?
Brett Rhyne: Actually, I wrote Dodging Bullets as a therapeutic exercise. I had been in therapy about a year at that point — this was last spring — and I was starting to work through issues that were affecting my romantic life. I had this vague sense that I was dating the same type of woman over and over again, and this was why the relationships never worked out. So I used the play to gain some perspective on myself and on others. I found it helpful — and a lot less painful — to see myself and the people in my life as characters, with identifiable traits. With his patients, Freud used “the talking cure”; my therapist called Dodging Bullets “the writing cure.”

JJ: Will people who know you view this as a variation on Woody Allen’s film, Deconstructing Harry?
BR: It’s nearly impossible to be a Jewish playwright and write about therapy and not be compared to Woody Allen. If rehearsals are any indication, I think Dodging Bullets will please Woody fans. I think the director, Bob Stachel, and the actors, Jason Beals and Eve Passeltiner, are all very talented. It’s funny you should say that, though, because several people who know the play have mentioned that it reads like a cross between Woody Allen and Neil Simon: they say the theme is introspective and the dialogue is witty. You can judge for yourself.

JJ: What are some things you learned about yourself and relationships through writing this play?
BR: I learned to take responsibility for the choices I make in life. I learned to see people as complete beings, and not just for the traits I find attractive or unattractive. What’s been interesting in rehearsal, though, is how the actors have taken the characters and made them their own. As the writer, I provide the bones; the actors add the flesh, the skin and all the social and psychological elements to make them real people. Or maybe I’m just in denial, and don’t want to believe I’m as neurotic as Jason’s portrayal of Miles.

JJ: What do you hope audiences will take from the performance?
BR: The value of psychotherapy. Also, I hope they take all their personal belongings.

Friday & Saturday, Feb. 7 & 8, 8 pm
Discussion with the playwright to follow
For tickets:
617-625-1300
www.theatrecoop.org
The Theatre Coop, 277 Broadway, Somerville, Mass.

Back to top

WENHAM - I Promised I Would Tell, a book by Peabody resident Sonia Weitz, which was made into a theatre production, will be performed Friday, Jan. 31 through Saturday, Feb. 8 in the Margaret Tweten Jensen Theatre at the Barrington Center for the Arts.

Show times are scheduled for 8 p.m. on January 31, February 1,4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Matinee performances will be held at 2 p.m. on Saturday, Feb. 1 and 8.

Weitz is a survivor of five Nazi concentration camps (including Auschwitz). Shipped off to her first camp at the age of 11, she saw 82 members of her family killed. The book, I Promised I would Tell: Reflections of a Holocaust Survivor, reflects her experiences in these camps and how these experiences shaped her and countless others.

Weitz now speaks widely about the Holocaust, keeping a promise to tell what happened to her and millions of Jews in the German extermination camps.

The theatre version of the book was written by Daniel Levinson. The play is described by Levinson as “...a story of undaunting courage and forgiveness in the midst of a seemingly impossible and horrifying situation.”

When this play premiered at Gordon College in Spring 2000 it received excellent reviews. Theatergoer praised the production for its emotional drama and power.

Tickets are now available. Call the Gordon College Box Office at 978-867-3200 to reserve tickets or for information.

Gordon College is located off exit 17, route 128. The Barrington Center for the Arts is located at the rear of campus, on the site of the former Rhodes Gymnasium.

Back to top

Singles

None

Back to top

Editorial

The US, the UN, Iraq and Israel

Within the next month, the United States, and by implication Israel, may be at war in the Middle East. Because Iraq’s Saddam Hussein is unlikely to declare war on us, we will declare war on him — a pre-emptive, unprovoked war, authorized by Congress in resolutions passed last fall in a heat of passion.

The case for invading Iraq was set forth by President George W. Bush in his State of the Union message Jan. 28. The rhetoric was strong, the evidence to support it weak. The Administration promises that Secretary of State Colin Powell will lay out the case against Iraq before the United Nations Feb. 5. When he does so, the White House says, there will be no doubt as to our justification for war.

Right now, all we know is that the President is asking us to trust his judgment. U.N. weapons inspectors, after two months on the ground in Iraq, reported Jan. 27 they found no weapons of mass destruction. But neither did they find evidence that Iraq has destroyed such weapons. They want more time to look, and our major allies are inclined to give it to them. But not Washington.

The argument for a pre-emptive strike goes like this: Iraq has those weapons and intends to either use them itself or supply them to terrorist organizations for use against the West (including Israel). If we wait for a smoking gun, it will be too late. We must act now to overthrow Saddam and destroy his weapons, or we will all suffer later. And the Hitler analogy is brought into play: If we had clipped Hitler’s wings before he marched into the Sudetenland in the 1930s, World War II would never have happened.

We believe that our rush to war is unseemly. Support for war now — in the absence of evidence — is a function of patriotic fervor, post 9/11 fear, and, in our view, the undeniable fact that, under the post-Vietnam voluntary military system, those Americans who risk their lives in battle include few children of middle class and wealthy voters. It’s noteworthy that only one member of Congress, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, has a son in enlisted ranks.

We believe the issue of pre-emptive war deserves to be vigorously debated. Among the questions to be clarified: What kind of war are we prepared to wage? For how long? How many casualties do we expect to sustain? How many Iraqis do we expect to kill or maim, especially among civilians? What’s our plan for rebuilding Iraq? What are the implications of a war for anti-Western Islamic fundamentalism? For Middle Eastern stability? For the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What do we expect from Israel, which is inevitably put in grave peril by such a war?

Israel’s new government, with a stronger Ariel Sharon at the helm, will shortly be on war footing. Our President says he is pledged to work for “a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine.” Somehow, we’re not reassured. What is the United States prepared to do toward that end?

Momentous decisions are about to be made. Let’s avoid the temptation to rush into war and make sure the United States makes the right decisions.

MARK ARNOLD
Jewish Journal Editor/Publisher

Back to top

Local Columnists

Israel Election Not 'Beseder'

JERUSALEM— My grandmother often said in the face of her or another’s adversity: “Everything will turn out for the best.” In Israel, people are fond of saying, in the worst situations, Y’hiyeh Beseder — It will be OK.”

You and I know that things too often turn out for the worst. What those statements really mean is: “I hope everything will turn out for the best.”

I don’t think the Israeli election has been beseder, nor in the short run will it turn out OK. In fact, public interest here up to now seems like a big yawn, the least animated election in the 23 years I have been voting in Israel.

You are reading this a few days after the election. I am writing from Jerusalem 4 days before the election.

Unless the polls, the pundits and the professors are very wrong in their prediction, Ariel Sharon is now taking his 25 to 30 Likud Knesset seats and shopping for a workable coalition of 70 seats, or perhaps a national unity government of about 90. The next part of the drama will be in those negotiations.

First, to go back, the dissolution of the last Knesset was not OK. A public squabble between Labor and Likud drove each to make decisions that could not be easily backtracked and the election was set in motion.

The worst thing about the election was how it copied the American predilection for negative campaigning. Perhaps it was the American political advisors that both Likud and Labor employ. Perhaps the Israeli consultants copied the American way. It was very sad and not OK when TV commercials, newspaper ads, and billboard signs are all about how bad the other guy is and nothing about positive plans for the future of the country.

A lot of politicians got their comeuppance, which was OK in my book. Bibi Netanyahu, thought to be a sure winner against Ariel Sharon, was defeated in the Likud party primary. Then Sharon got his when the investigation of monies borrowed and laundered surfaced surrounding his last campaigns and his son’s shenanigans. Finally, the public was exposed to information on how seats on the Likud list are bought and sold.

Labor picked a seemingly attractive war hero former general over the never-say-quit old-timers in the party. But his chances went down the drain with his own statements of unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, which was seen as rewarding terrorism. Then, when Amram Mitzna declared that he would not join Sharon in a national unity government, he turned off the many voters who believe that national unity is imperative in this war of attrition with Palestinian terrorists.

Who would have thought that war would break out between the Haredi (ultra-orthodox) and the secular, in the guise of Shas and the Shinui parties? We all thought that our own religious civil war was in abeyance while in a hot or cold war with our Arab neighbors. How many seats Shas and Shinui each get and who finally sits in the coalition will be important for the future.

Meretz, the peace and social justice party, seems to be heading for keeping about the same numbers in the next Knesset. Should they go dramatically up or down, this will show a major shift in the values of a significant segment of the voters.

The Green Leaf Party, whose major platform is the legalization of marijuana, might get two Knesset seats, obviously a protest vote. Two weeks ago, I would have said that anyone predicting that result would himself or herself be under the influence.

And several parties seem to have discovered the “anglo” vote, for the first time targeting the English-speaking community with literature, promises, and even some Americans on their list of candidates. That’s a personal plus for me.

The biggest negative of this election, proving the “turn-out-OK” theory wrong, is that another election is in the offing, some predict in less than two years.
Israel needs strong, imaginative (and I think very new) leadership, with platforms and visions that will admit our shortcomings, capture the best hopes of our citizens — and produce a workable majority over a full Knesset term — so that progress, real progress, can be made in both foreign and domestic affairs.

Before you come down too hard on Israel, remember that its voter turnout is much higher than in the U.S. (Editor’s Note: 68 percent Jan. 28 vs. 40 percent in U.S. national elections) and that almost anyone can find a party they like among the 24 competitors. But, like so many things, the number and strengths of parties is a plus on one hand but a negative when trying to form a rational parliamentary majority.

Forgive me, too, for criticizing the political situation in the country where I lovingly vote. Some will argue that we have enough critics and enemies outside Israel. We do. But I don’t believe that Israel’s supporters either expect us to be perfect or without the hard work of making a democracy run.

Facing problems directly is the first step towards improvement. Perhaps then things will become much more beseder.

Back to top

When you are Jewish, nothing is simple, especially furniture.

We come not from the Ethan Allen tradition, certainly not from country French or even Queen Anne. In the formative stages of our identity as a people, we were a nomadic folk.

So what should furniture in a Jewish house look like? How should it reflect the identity and style of the people who use it?

I imagine my ancestors standing around, as the Torah says, B’petach ha’ohel, in the opening of the tent, searching the desert sky for their ethereal God. Their lives were heaven-directed and on the move. Whatever furniture they had was portable, hardly a fixture in the true sense.

After years of indecision, years when taste, wallet, and children’s fingerprints consigned me to yard and clearance sales, I have emerged ready to commit to furniture. And as a Jew in the modern world, I have come to the inevitable conclusion that I want to turn my house into a house of study.

“Lady, you’re not interested in kitchen furniture — you’re looking for office chairs and a conference table,” the irate clerk in the furniture megastore informed me.

He was right. Computers, book shelves, desks, and a good reading light. I want every room in my house to offer a pleasant atmosphere where family and friends can enjoy sitting, reading and, perchance, studying Torah.

I bought office chairs for my kitchen, comfortable pneumatic arm chairs that recline. And then, the pièce de résistance that would truly reflect my desert roots. “I’m buying a granite table,” I told my oldest daughter. “A big, round table where all six of us can fit comfortably.”

“Why granite?” was Frannie’s response.

“Because it’s beautiful — and it reminds me of the aseret hadibrot, (the ten commandments).”

“But if we get a stone table, Mommy, it’ll be too heavy to move to Israel.”

“Yeah, but I really want this table. It’s so beautiful,” I explained to her patiently.

“Yerushalayim is beautiful,” she answered. She looked at me quizically.

“Well, we may just not be moving to Yerushalayim right now,” I admitted to us both. “I really want this table.”

“Mommy, are you kidding? You’re choosing a table over Israel? What about all those times we said ‘L’shanah haba’ah be’rushalayim’ (Next year in Jerusalem). Didn’t you mean it?”

“Of course I meant it,” I said, though at that moment I wasn’t sure what I had meant by it. Of course we would one day move to Israel. The entire Jewish people were going to be ingathered there. It was just a matter of time. But couldn’t I get the table first? Other Jews have said L’shanah haba’ah, and they had furniture.

“Then we need to get a table that will fit in the containers for when we move, something light – like formica.”

My impeccable Zionist had taken it seriously — and more literally than I. She knew intuitively that Jews should value ideas over stuff, Zionism over furniture, the land of Israel over granite, leather, and wood.

I continue to wonder what I have meant all these years when I taught my children that we are in exile from the land of Israel — and will one day return. Yet here I sit, accumulating material goods and the lines of age. As for wisdom, I think I am running dry.

So I will look to my wise daughter when she returns from college to light candles with me this Shabbat evening. She will rest her head on my shoulder and stare at the tawny light. Together we will dream of Yeruyshalayim, the ingathering of the Jewish people, and the disassembly of our shulhan aruch — our set but portable table.

Back to top

Slice of Life
Learning Yiddish... On the Internet

I began writing for the Jewish Journal in September, 2002, and since then I have become an encyclopedia of Jewish knowledge.

Prior to September I was your average Jewish lady from suburbia. Now I still remain your average Jewish lady from suburbia; however, I am also a maven (expert) in all facets of Judaism. My limited knowledge of Jewish customs has expanded, and my Hebrew and Yiddish education has grown with every article I’ve written.

Would my parents be proud! My kids could care less.

Writing my articles with a Jewish slant has been a true challenge for me although I grew up in a Jewish home, went to the Anshei Sfard Shul for holidays, and attended the Lynn Hebrew School on Blossom St. in Lynn. As a grade school student, I was a crossing guard for William P. Connery School on Elm Street, but that didn’t count for anything. There was nothing Jewish about that.

When I sit down to write an article, I write via stream of consciousness. Then I must adapt my writing to a Jewish theme for this newspaper. This is where I need help.

My help came from surfing the web for Jewish sites. I was astounded at what I found via the internet. I am able to access a site for Jewish words that actually pronounces the Yiddish words for me through my speakers.

I found a Mitzvah Mall on the internet “where shopping is a mitzvah.” I have a friend who is probably very excited reading this because shopping is her life, and now she can rationalize her shopping sprees as performing mitzvot.

I found out that schlemiel and shlemazel are related. The schlemiel spills the soup on the shlemazel. Shlemiel means “a fumbler,” and shlemazel means “an unlucky person.” That makes sense. The schlemiel shouldn’t have been serving soup if he’s a fumbler anyway.

I also learned that halt din zoken means “hold your socks.” Why did I need to know that? A shaynem dank dir im pupik means “many thanks in your belly button.” When would I ever use that expression? Talking to a pregnant woman? There must be a hidden meaning to this phrase.

Mitndrinen means “right in the middle of everything.” When I am speaking and someone interrupts me, I forget what I was saying. That is when I would use the term, mittndrinen. “Mitndrinen she has to interrupt me so I lose my train of thought.” How many senior moments do I need without help from someone who interrupts me?

Kvetch…that’s a good word. Even gentiles know the meaning. A kvetch could be an ache or pain; and, then again, I know some kvetches. Some of them are really good friends.

When I enter a Jewish site via the internet, I am bombarded with Hava Negilah. I think that is the universal Yiddish song for Jewish sites. One site actually has a delivery service for kosher sushi with overnight FedEx service.

I enjoy hearing the spoken Yiddish expressions, albeit on my computer speakers. I remember my mother and father speaking them on occasion. They spoke in Yiddish so I wouldn’t understand. Ludicrous, isn’t it? I wish I had understood the Yiddish my parents spoke to one another. Now at my age I’m trying to learn the expressions and pass them down to my grandchildren. Yiddish expressions are really delightful and many put a smile on your face.

Zay gezunt…..Stay well, goodbye.

Back to top

Op-Ed

Why the US Needs Allies Against Iraq

LEONARD FEIN Leonard Fein is a veteran journalist. He writes from Boston.

It is exceedingly difficult to know what to make of and how to react to European misgivings about the American approach to Iraq. Germany and France, dismissed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as history, have made clear their opposition to Washington’s insistence on regime change in Iraq and the Bush administration’s readiness to act unilaterally if its traditional allies stand aside. For those of us who oppose the war with which the American administration seems obsessed, the European opposition is welcome. But the problem is that Europe’s track record on such matters is, to put it mildly, pathetic. We need only recall how Germany and France and the other European powers stood idly by as Dubrovnik was shelled, Sarajevo besieged, Bosnia “cleansed.” Here was a test of will and of morality, and Europe failed, failed miserably.

As it had before. Last month, at a European-Israeli dialogue in Berlin, Israel’s most distinguished political scientist, Shlomo Avineri, an Israel Prize laureate and former Director General of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, reminded the audience of the bankruptcy of British and French policy in 1936, when there was still time to stop Hitler and Nazi Germany.

“Imagine,” he said, “how different would the world be if Britain and France would have used force against the Third Reich in 1936 — when it was still not the military power it was to become three years later.” And then the zinger: “Saddam today has committed acts much worse than those of Hitler in 1936. In retrospect, this may sound incongruous — but it is a fact that Saddam’s treatment of his Kurdish minority population has been much worse than Hitler’s treatment of the German Jews in 1936; he has invaded two countries — Iran and Kuwait — and attacked two others — Israel and Saudi Arabia — with missiles; he has used poison gas against internal and external enemies; his regime is much more oppressive than Nazi Germany was in 1936; and he has developed non-conventional weapons, and defied for ten years all norms of international law and the U.N.

“And yet Europe hesitates. Hesitation before going to war is understandable, but this, after all, was the motivation of the 1930s’ appeasers. If one thinks [now] that Hitler should have been stopped by force in 1936, what are the moral and strategic arguments against doing the same to Saddam today?”
Avineri’s indictment of Europe’s behavior then and thereafter is fundamentally unrebuttable. But that does not mean that the question he raises is thereby rendered rhetorical. There are, indeed, moral and strategic arguments “against doing the same to Saddam today,” and the fact that Europe has so regularly been wrong before does not necessarily mean that the Europeans are wrong this time.

The moral argument is by now familiar. War, its current high-tech incarnation notwithstanding, is invariably messier than its planners intend. In the case at hand, beyond the United Nations estimates of up to 500,000 Iraqi casualties and widespread famine and disease, there is the very real prospect of a bloody battle in the streets of Baghdad that will claim large numbers of American lives as well. Most of all, there is the stark possibility that an attack against Iraq will prove merely the opening battle in a hundred-year war of the West against Islam. In short, the downside possibilities of the war that looms are so serious as to raise quite dramatically the level of threat that must be shown to exist if war is somehow avoided.

Now comes the tricky part: The only way this war can be won in any meaningful sense is if what appear to be the fantasies of its planners become the post-war reality. If we permit ourselves to imagine a transformed Iraq becoming the first genuine democracy among the Arab states, thereby a model for the others, then the prize becomes tantalizing. For now we are talking not merely about regime change; we are talking about a political and cultural revolution in the entire region, a revolution to be enthusiastically welcomed on its own terms as also for its contribution to ending the scourge of terrorism. Bear in mind that Iraq is not Afghanistan. It is potentially a rich nation, and its levels of education, public health, and other indices of social health are (or were, before the Gulf War and the sanctions that followed) impressive.

What makes this a tricky prospect is that such a reality is impossible to imagine without the full-bore cooperation of the European powers. As Tom Friedman has deftly argued in his column in the Sunday New York Times (January 26), the effort to make of Iraq what the allies so brilliantly helped make of Germany after 1945 will not be a sprint; it will be a marathon. The United States cannot and surely will not be either willing or able to run that marathon by itself. It will require the active involvement of precisely those nations Secretary Rumsfeld has so cavalierly dismissed and that Professor Avineri has so somberly critiqued, the very nations that we have managed, time and again, to offend in the two short years of the Bush administration.

We plainly do not yet know quite what it means to be the world’s only superpower. No surprise there; we are new to the role. But the clock is ticking, and we don’t have the luxury of time for reflection. A touch of humility to temper our arrogance seems, however, more a necessity than a luxury.

Back to top

DANIEL PIPES Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America (W.W. Norton). E-mail to: Pipes@MEForum.org

The day after 9/11, Texas police arrested two Indian Muslim men riding a train and carrying about $5,000 in cash, black hair dye, and box cutters like those used to hijack four planes just one day earlier.

The police held the pair initially on immigration charges (their U.S. visas had expired); when further inquiry turned up credit card fraud, that kept them longer in detention. But law enforcement’s real interest, of course, had to do with their possible connections to al-Qaeda.

To investigate this matter — and here our information comes from one of those two Indian Muslims, Ayub Ali Khan, after he was released — the authorities put them through some pretty rough treatment.

Khan says the interrogation “terrorized” him. He recounts how “five to six men would pull me in different directions very roughly as they asked rapid-fire questions. . . . Then suddenly they would brutally throw me against the wall.” They also asked him political questions: had he, for example, “ever discussed the situation in Palestine with friends?”

Eventually exonerated of connections to terrorism and freed from jail, Khan is not surprisingly bitter about his experience, saying that he and his traveling partner were singled out on the basis of profiling: “I was caught because I was a Muslim.” This is self-evidently correct; had Khan not been a Muslim, the police would have had little interest in him and his box cutters.

Khan’s tribulation brings to attention the single most delicate and agonizing issue in prosecuting the war on terror. Does singling out Muslims for additional scrutiny serve a purpose? And if so, is it legally and morally acceptable?

In reply to the first question — yes, enhanced scrutiny of Muslims makes good sense, for several reasons:

• In the course of their assaults on Americans, Islamists — the supporters of militant Islam — have killed close to 4,000 persons since 1979 and they are plotting to kill many more. No other group has remotely the same past record or future intentions.

• While most Muslims are not Islamists and most Islamists are not terrorists, all Islamist terrorists are Muslims. (In rare circumstances, non-Muslims provide help; thus the New York lawyer Lynne Stewart is charged with helping Omar Abdel Rahman, an imprisoned terrorist leader.)

• Islamist terrorists do not appear spontaneously but emerge from a milieu of religious sanction, intellectual justification, financial support, and organizational planning.

These circumstances — and this is the unpleasant part — point to the imperative of focusing on Muslims. There is no escaping the unfortunate fact that Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military, and the diplomatic corps need to be watched for connections to terrorism, as do Muslim chaplains in prisons and the armed forces. Muslim visitors and immigrants must undergo additional background checks. Mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches, synagogues, and temples. Muslim schools require increased oversight to ascertain what is being taught to children.
Singling out a class of persons by their religion feels wrong, if not downright un-American, prompting the question: even if useful, should such scrutiny be permitted?

To ask this question is to answer it. If Americans want to protect themselves from Islamist terrorism, they must temporarily give higher priority to security concerns than to civil libertarian sensitivities. Preventing Islamists from wreaking further damage implies the regrettable step of focusing on Muslims. Not to do so is an invitation to further terrorism.

This solemn reality suggests four thoughts: First, as Khan’s experience shows, Muslims are already subjected to added scrutiny; the time has come for politicians to catch up to reality and formally acknowledge what are now quasi-clandestine practices. Doing so places these in the public arena where, to the benefit of all, they can openly be debated.

Second, because having to focus heightened attention on Muslims is inherently so unpleasant, it needs to be conducted with utmost care and tact, remembering above all that seven out of eight Muslims are not Islamists and fewer still are connected to terrorism.

Third, this is an emergency measure that should end with the war on terror’s conclusion.

Finally, innocent Muslims who must endure added surveillance can console themselves with the knowledge that their security too is enhanced by these steps.

Back to top

Letters/Commentary

Relocating Israeli Arabs is ‘Unspeakable’
The Journal published an article by Robert Lappin (Dec. 6) under the headline, Speaking the Unspeakable. What, exactly, was unspeakable? First, he endorsed Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz’s proposal to destroy Arab villages that have been used as a base for terrorist operations. The entire Arab village would be destroyed, we assume, no matter how active all of its residents may have been in causing it to be labeled “a base for terrorist operations.” Then, in one broad stroke, Mr. Lappin labels the entire Arab world and the world of Islam “saturated with hatred of Jews and of Israel, beyond the point of no return” (italics ours).

Negotiations, according to Mr. Lappin, are no longer a realistic option, and then — since he thinks it might be an assault on the Jewish conscience to rule over another people — he advocates “relocation.” Although he attempts to legitimize it by offering financial assistance, Israeli Arabs, all of whom Mr. Lappin seems to feel are a “deadly source of terrorism,” are to go. So these citizens of Israel, these Israeli Arabs, would be expunged, just because they are Arabs. And then we as Jews will be expected to defend this process, both to ourselves and the world, by cloaking it in the “historical roots” of Our (his capitalization) Torah giving us a “solid” deed to this land. Please.

After reading this article, we sat back (always a mistake) and waited for the letters to pour in, helping Mr. Lappin understand Judaism and the way a Jewish nation-state should behave. Hy Goldin responded, but otherwise, silence.

The ideas set forth by Mr. Lappin are unspeakable. Occupation, bulldozers, relocation, etc. are certainly not God’s tools to bring reconciliation to this world, said Rev. Petra Helt of the Ecumenical and Theological Research Fraternity in Jerusalem. We personally agree, and we hope many would join us in this belief.

But then, as always, Mr. Lappin and his fellow ideologues of the right cloak themselves in the mantle of the survival of Israel. Israel “will have to hunker down. Solidarity and support of Diaspora Jewry will be essential.” So are we not supporters of the survival of Israel?

We most certainly are! But we have long taken to heart the injunction of the Israeli writer David Grossman in his book The Yellow Wind, written in 1988. Even then he commented on the abysmal treatment of Israeli Arabs, as well as those Palestinians that lived under the Israeli occupation. He thought that as a result of such actions, Israel contained within itself the seeds of its own destruction. We believe that this might be the course of history if Israel continues its current policies.

We do not believe we can or should bulldoze people into submission; we do not believe we can or should financially entice them into disappearing. We do believe that we should listen to President Jimmy Carter when he accepted this year’s Nobel Peace Prize: “In order for us human beings to commit ourselves personally to the inhumanity of war, we find it necessary first to dehumanize our opponents, which is in itself a violation of the beliefs of all religions. Once we characterize our adversaries as beyond the scope of God’s mercy and grace, their lives lose all value.” Let us listen, let us act accordingly, and let us reach out to those on the other side who feel the same.

Ed and Sheila Braun
Marblehead

Beware of Bush Road Map
Essentially, the Bush Road Map is a rewrite of the now defunct Oslo Accords – except that the timelines are far more taut and the advocacy for Palestinian statehood is far more pronounced. There is one other exception. The negotiations that ultimately lapsed into the Oslo Accords were initiated, at least in part, by the Israelis, while the Road Map was drawn up, or so it would appear, by a global coalition, euphemistically called the Quartet. The internationalization of the Arab-Israeli conflict will probably turn out to be the Quartet’s chief assignment which, by the way, has always been at the heart of all of Arafat’s desirings. One would have to be perfectly innocent to believe that the Quartet will navigate through the Road Map without preference or prejudice.

But besides our misgivings about the Quartet, there are existential questions about the Road Map. All of its particulars seem to be arranged in a rather circuitous format. For example, it detours around every claim that Israel might have about its Biblical heartland while stopping at every pit stop in order to bolster the Arab claim. More than that, it bypasses Israel’s most imminent threat: that ring of implacable Arab states that arc around the Jewish state. That arc of fanaticism enjoys a staggering numerical advantage in just about every weapons category.

That advantage is easy to explain. Roughly, 40% of the world’s arms traffic winds up in the arsenals and armories of the Middle East. Given that disparity and the rabid disposition of the Arab world, a return to the lines of ’67 would be a suicidal proposition. Solving the Palestinian problem by condemning Israel to an endless night of tears and terror is a solution we can do without.

Mitchell Finkel
Silver Spring, MD

Seeking Walnut St. Shul Congregants
Congregation Agudas Sholom in Chelsea, perhaps better known as the Walnut Street Shul, is celebrating its 102nd anniversary this year. I have been asked to write a history of this beautiful building, sometimes referred to as the “Queen of Synagogues.” I would like to speak with as many former, as well as present, congregants as possible and have them share their memories of the shul. In addition, artifacts, such as pictures, brochures, flyers, or other memorabilia are needed to help tell the complete history of this fascinating synagogue. These artifacts would be returned. Please contact me at the phone number or e-mail address below.

Deborah Willwerth
Beverly, MA
978-927-2892
willwerd@bc.edu

Back to top