Political Insider: The Jewish Vote - Not as Simple as it Seems

Why is there such a big and persistent gap between the political chatter about Jewish voters and the reality, at least as it shows up in polls and in past elections?

Weeks of controversy about his anti-Israel, anti-white Chicago pastor and a relentless campaign from the right to paint the candidate as hostile to Israel were supposed to generate a strong backlash against Sen. Barack Obama.

But last week's Gallup poll (read the Jewish Week story here ) suggests support for Obama continues to grow among Jewish Democrats, despite the Jeremiah Wright controversy, although political observers say the damage could prove greater in a general election, when independent Republican groups are sure to run ads reminding voters what Wright actually said.

Now, according to Gallup, Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton are just about even in the race for Jewish votes. That's particularly significant since the Illinois senator is not as well known to the community as Clinton, who has worked for more than a decade to cultivate strong relations with Jewish opinion leaders.

What about the general election? There's already a big gap between the ever-present talk predicting a big shift to the Republicans, especially if the race pits Obama against Sen. John McCain, and the political insiders who concede McCain could do better than President George W. Bush did in 2004 but who scoff at the notion of a huge partisan shift.

Why the gap?

For one thing, commentators take their cues from a small cadre of Jewish leaders - an elite that is much more likely to focus on Israel as the preeminent political issue than the broader Jewish public, more likely to be hawkish in their foreign policy views and more likely to support Republicans.

The average Jewish voter cares about Israel, but generally doesn't put it at the top of his or her political agenda unless a candidate is seen as egregiously anti-Israel.  There's no evidence efforts by Obama's rivals to portray him that way have stuck with Jewish Democrats. Early indications suggest Obama won't do worse than most other recent Democrats in a general election, although there some wild cards - including the sensitive race factor.

The conventional wisdom also doesn't take into account the age divide that is becoming more of a political factor across the American electorate.

Are younger Jewish voters looking at the political world differently than their parents? There's little data, but anecdotal evidence suggests the trend may turn out to be a big factor in November if Obama is the nominee - possibly offsetting losses among older Jewish voters who are more likely to be swayed by the charge Obama is soft on Israel or by his offensive pastor.

The lack of data - most surveys don't break down the Jewish vote because of small sample sizes - leaves plenty of room for the partisan spinmeisters to do their thing.

The Republicans say that we're on the verge of a seismic shift in Jewish voting, and they say it enough that it becomes part of the political background noise even though such predictions in the past have proven overblown.

The Democrats say (with a kind of whistling-past-the-graveyard feel) that nothing has changed, and Jews will continue voting Democratic until the end of time, even though there is clear evidence the Jewish electorate is in ferment, like the rest of the nation.

Jewish voting patterns MAY be changing, but that change is probably more complex and more averse to simple explanations than most commentators admit  or most partisan advocates want us to believe.

PermaLink

This Jewish Life: Perceptions of America

I traveled to Oxford, England last week on a much-anticipated and needed vacation.  I was excited to step away from my desk and leave behind my daily tasks and stresses.  I was especially looking forward to having some time off from the typical political beltway conversations. 

While I definitely reached the level of rest and relaxation that I was hoping to obtain, I was unable to escape the political discussions-- especially about the Presidential race.  I was genuinely surprised by the number of people (Americans, Europeans, and Australians alike) who seemed to be following and felt invested in the outcome of the 2008 election.

Unfortunately, I am not an expert on Presidential politics and I am far more interested in talking about policy issues (particularly the ones in my portfolio) than about individual politicians, so I was a bit out of my element when questions were posed. 

But it was interesting to engage with people who were so geographically removed from the election and yet were deeply interested in its results.  Being in DC, it's easy to forget that this election isn't just one of the wonky DC topics of discussion-it's being debated, discussed, and followed around the country and around the world.

The most interesting comment about the U.S. that I heard from someone in England (completely unrelated to the election) was--"Oh you're from the US.  They don't care about the environment over there."  While said partially in jest, this comment was a clear indication of the perception that people around the world have about U.S. environmental policy. 

And their perception isn't skewed.   Compared to what I saw in Oxford, we are certainly lagging behind.  There were various books with titles like "The Green Guide to Oxford" and informational signs and cards everywhere advertising the environmentally-friendly aspects of businesses and events.  I was impressed.  And ashamed-- to be from a place that was not prioritizing environmental protection to nearly the same extent.

Throughout the trip, I alternated between being proud to be an American and embarrassed of being associated with some of our less-progressive policies.  Perhaps the results of the election will make my odds of feeling proud even better…

PermaLink

Route 17: Obama And Father Coughlin

When Father Charles Coughlin, the most incendiary anti-Semitic preacher of the 1930s, supported Huey Long, do you think Jewish Democrats rolled over and charged that there some unpleasant preachers supporting Alf Landon, too, or do you think Jews in the 1930s had more dignity than that?

Let’s pretend: If Herbert Hoover was a member and financial supporter of Father Coughlin’s church for 20 years, would liberal Jews have said, hey, I’ve been to shuls where I disagreed with the rabbi, too?

Remember, a few months ago, when left-wing Democrats told us how terrible it was that candidate Mike Huckabee was preaching from a pulpit during his campaign? What exactly did Huckabee ever say that made you feel more uncomfortable than the word of God as preached by Barack Obama’s mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Now that Huckabee is out of the race it is suddenly a smear to bring up candidates and their pulpits.

Isn’t it ironic that it now matters less that Obama’s father was a Moslem but it matters more that his father-figure is a Christian, Rev. Wright? Oh, I’ve been warned by Obama supporters that it is “a smear” to say Obama’s father was Moslem. Is it now a smear to bring up Obama’s Christianity? What else can’t we discuss?

Just a few weeks ago, in December, Rev. Wright, who is even more toxic than Father Coughlin, and whose toxic views were already well known, certainly by Obama, was appointed by Obama to Obama’s Religious Leadership Council before the heat got too hot. Let’s assume the preposterous notion that Obama wasn’t in church any time Father Coughlin, uh, Rev. Wright poured gasoline on his congregants’ attitudes toward Jews and the United States. But do you think Obama reads the church bulletin? How about when the July 10, 2007 bulletin that featured a major article on Obama? Do you think the politician checked it out, to see what was said about him, as any politician would?

Do you think Obama would have seen the viciously anti-Semitic article that directly preceded the one about him?

Wasn’t that what the so-called black-Jewish alliance was supposed to be about, good men refusing to take their time when it was past time to stand up to evil? Or was that alliance only a one-way street, demanding dignity for blacks but not demanding dignity for Jews, demanding that you be an obsequious sycophant if the evil being talked about is you, the Jew? Shouldn’t we be terrified about a world in which good men won’t stand up against anti-Semitism, or can only Obama and his mentor speak of the last 200 years?

Hey, am I smearing anybody or do I get a pass, like Jeremiah Wright, because of my unhappy childhood, knowing my relatives were slaves in Egypt and Poland?

It is June 10, 2007. You’re walking down 95th Street in Chicago and step into the Trinity Church. One of the ushers hands you the weekly bulletin and program (read it here).  On Page 8, you can read the Pastor’s Page, written this week by Ali Baghdadi, a rank anti-Semite, with Pastor Wright’s obvious approval. The Pastor’s Page will tell you how and why the Jews are worse than Nazis; how the Jews worked on “an ethnic bomb that killed blacks and Arabs.” Then, on Page 12, you can read about how the media – as far back as last summer -- was trying to smear Obama by linking him to his own church.

Is that a smear?  The one thing I learned from Obama and his Jews is that it’s okay to smear everyone – Obama’s grandmother, Evangelicals who support Israel and McCain, rabbis who support Likud and are therefore supposedly like Wright – you can smear everyone except Obama. You can say the worst things about everybody; you can drag Avi Weiss into this -- comparing him to Jeremiah Wright, as some of Obama’s Jewish journalists have done (see this link). Obama’s writers’ can smear Avi Weiss’ name but I can’t even say Obama’s middle name. Terrific, the way they have it all worked out.

I don’t want to hear any more from Obama’s Jews about smears.

I don’t want to hear any more from Obama’s Jews about why I’m supposed to be afraid of Evangelicals.

Go ahead. Read Obama’s favorite church bulletin for yourself. Make up your own mind. Do you think it’s like anything you’ve ever seen in any place where you ever prayed or is it closer to Der Sturmer?

PermaLink

Political Insider: Jewish Web Site Hits 'National Day of Prayer'

Sometimes, evangelicals who say they support Jews walk some pretty precarious lines.

This week the Web site JewsOnFirst, which is devoted to protecting the wall of church-state separation, is calling on readers to protest National Day of Prayer events on May 1 - a nationwide celebration that politicians say is intended just to get Americans to focus more on their religious heritage and the need for prayer.

The group that sponsors the events, the National Day of Prayer Task Force, says it invites "people of all faiths to pray for the nation," and that the day "represents a Judeo-Christian expression of the nation's observance."

Sounds sort of ecumenical, doesn't it, at least if you're not Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or some other non-Judeo-Christian faith?

But the "Judeo" part isn't exactly accurate, either, say the JewsOnFirst people. 

For one thing, the Task Force explicitly excludes ALL non-evangelical clergy from leadership of the events.

An application that event coordinators must sign states explicitly: "I commit that the (National Day of Prayer) activities I serve with will be conducted solely by Christians, while those with differing beliefs are welcome to attend."

While describing the event as "conforming to a Judeo-Christian system of values," the application requires applicants to sign a long statement of orthodox Christian belief.

Despite its connection with the conservative "Focus on the Family" ministry, politicians in both parties tend to treat the Day of Prayer as a quasi-official event,  something planners try to exploit, according to JewsOnFirst.

"The Task Force call itself 'official' on its Website and it instructs its coordinators to make their events appear to be official government functions," Jews on First says.

Read the entire JewsOnFirst report here.

PermaLink

Route 17:  YU and March Madness

With March Madness upon us, a Jewish soul wonders what it would be like to see Yeshiva University in the national mix. Maybe YU, saddled with a dual curriculum, plays a schedule that's too demanding. Maybe a religious school can't be tough enough. Here are some teams I'd like to see in a Heavenly Invitational: the North Carolina Wesleyan Bishops; St. Joseph College Monks; Oklahoma Baptist Prophets; Penn Quakers; Meredith College Angels; Kenyon College Lords; Alvernia Crusaders; Bloomfield College Deacons; New England College Pilgrims; and the Lincoln Christian Preachers.

The YU Maccabees might suprise in the first round.

PermaLink

Political Insider: Grim Iraq Milestone, but Most Jewish Groups Stay Silent

This week newspapers across the country were busy noting the fact that the Iraq war has now cost 4000 American lives, not to mention the uncounted Iraqi dead.

But anti-war groups still can't get much traction in a nation that doesn't seem to regard the issue as a top priority, like philandering governors and ranting pastors.  And Jewish groups, which have something to say about just about every important issue, continue to act as if Iraq is not one of them.

This week only the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism had anything to say about the war - which most analysts argue is a key factor in the nation's current economic woes and which many say has added new layers of danger to Israel's neighborhood.  (Read the full RAC statement here )

"After five years of this war, the world is arguably less safe, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed and Iraq's infrastructure remains unstable," said Mark Pelavin, the RAC's associate director. "And we are still not coming to grips with the economic costs of the war, which some now estimate to be more than $3 trillion, or $15 billion each month."

While President Bush's troop "surge" may have "sharply reduced" the number of deaths in some areas,  Pelavin said, "military progress alone will not make the changes necessary for long term success in Iraq. We believe that a call for a phased withdrawal will help keep the kind of political pressure on Iraq's leaders that can lead to these necessary changes."

And what did other Jewish groups have to say about a war that continues to affect every one of their political priorities in myriad ways?

We're still waiting.

PermaLink

Behind the Headlines: YU Controversy Goes Beyond Rabbi Schachter 

The subtext of the controversy over the recent shocking remarks made by Yeshiva University rosh yeshiva Rabbi Hershel Schachter -- where he appeared to advocate shooting the Israeli Prime Minister if the government would "give up Jerusalem" -- is less about the rabbi himself and more about the division within the Orthodox community over da'as Torah [literally, Torah knowledge, but meaning possessing a higher level of Divine insight].

Until recently, one of the clear lines that separated Modern Orthodoxy from those further to the religious right was that it did not subscribe to the belief in da'as Torah. That is to say Modern Orthodox Jews believed that Torah scholars should decide matters of halacha, or Jewish law, but not necessarily be sought out for their views on other aspects of life, from politics to personal choices about who to marry or what job to take, as many haredim do.

But that separation has been eroding, and there is a generational divide within Modern Orthodoxy, and more particularly within the Yeshiva University community.

As YU has trained a number of rabbis who excel in Talmudic learning, they in turn have developed strong relationships with students who often study with them for two, three or four years or more. In addition, most of these students first spent a year or two after high school learning at yeshivas in Israel, where the norm was to have a rebbe as a source of guidance and advice not only in Jewish law, but on spiritual and personal matters, especially since these students were thousands of miles from parents, family and friends.

So it is not surprising that these students seek out a rebbe with whom they can bond when they return to America, and that many of these Orthodox Jews, now in their 20s and 30s, are more inclined to consult closely with their rebbe on a wide range of issues than would their parents. A number of these young people tend to subscribe to the notion of da'as Torah, and while they do not necessarily view their rebbes as prophets, they believe these men have greater insights into the Divine because of their breath of Torah knowledge.

The parents of these young people tend to view such devotion with a mix of admiration and skepticism - proud that their offspring take Jewish practice so seriously but wary of sacrificing one's own powers of choice and independence to another, regardless of how learned.

In the case of Rabbi Schachter, the controversy is not only over what he said - he has a history of making blunt pronouncements on Israeli policy, feminism, and the differences between Jews and non-Jews - but on his position within Orthodoxy, at the fulcrum between the modern and charedi worlds.

He is a rosh yeshiva at Yeshiva University, a highly respected Torah scholar throughout the Orthodox community and, most recently, a key decisor for the Rabbinical Council of America on conversion issues.

But despite his "modern" credentials, many believe that in temperament and outlook, he is more closely aligned to the more traditional yeshiva world.

So the argument among many in the older generation of Modern Orthodox Jews is that this man, however great his scholarship, can be judged as flawed and chastised for intemperate remarks he makes. And they would argue that the very nature of such remarks undermines the idea that the rabbi could possess da'as Torah.

The younger set, though, bristles at any criticism of a man of such sage-like stature and tends to believe that the barbs against him are politically motivated by those who want to take Rabbi Schachter down a notch.

YU's leadership is in a difficult position because it recognizes both the level of embarrassment Rabbi Schachter can cause in the "real" world and the fact that he gives the rabbinic school much of whatever standing it has in the influential right-wing yeshiva world.

But then, that's what YU has always been about, seeking the balance of Torah and ma'adah [secular knowledge], in the words of its motto.

Defenders of the rabbi say he should be viewed as above reproach and continue in his various roles of leadership; critics would agree that a rabbinic leader should be above reproach and say that is why Rabbi Schachter should be disciplined.

PermaLink

A Rabbi's World: Obama and Rev. Wright Again

As I write, a fierce debate is raging among my colleagues, and indeed among Americans, about the relationship between Barack Obama and his minister/mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. 

Americans of all creeds are disturbed by Rev. Wright's comments- played on what seems like a continuous loop on YouTube- that essentially blame 9/11 on America, and reveal a huge reservoir of toxic anger against insults both real and imagined perpetrated by White America against Black people.

Jews are understandably disturbed by his warped understanding of the Middle East, seeing Israel as the source of all problems and the impediment to all solutions.  And, of course, there is Reverend Wright's unabashed admiration for Louis Farrakhan, whom he regards as a great man and a hero.   From where I sit, it's hard to be more wrong than that, and most Jews see it the same way.

In the middle of it all is Barack Obama, who happens to be a member of Reverend Wright's congregation and, of course, a serious contender to become President of the United States.  Compounding the complexity is the fact that Rev. Wright is not merely Senator Obama's pastor, but also a vitally important figure in his life.  He introduced the Senator to the serious practice of Christianity, officiated at his wedding, baptized his children… theirs is a serious and long-time friendship, forged through connection at the most critical times in Obama's life.

As a rabbi, I understand those kinds of connections, because I have them with members of my own community.  I respect what lies behind them, and never minimize their importance. When you've officiated at a couple's wedding, or named their children, or buried a member of their family, you in essence become a part of their family.  As I see it, that's the nature of the relationship between the Reverent Wright and Barack Obama. 

So here's my first question. 

Given that Rev. Wright is such a significant figure in Senator Obama's life, virtually family, isn't it still fair to ask whether or not, at a certain point, one is obliged to say "Enough?"

I wondered aloud with my own congregation this past Shabbat morning what it would take for me, were I sitting in the pews instead of on the bimah, to say that the opinions being espoused by the rabbi were so distasteful to me that I could not in good conscience continue to be a member of that congregation.  After all, Jews leaving one synagogue for another is a common enough phenomenon to have spawned countless jokes about desert islands and multiple synagogues.  I'm sure I'd have a tolerance threshold, even for a rabbi who meant a lot to me.  What is Senator Obama's threshold?  And why hasn't it been reached yet?

It may well be that large numbers of Jews will find it hard to vote for Senator Obama because of his disinclination to sever his connection to his church and its pastor.  I understand that, just as I understand the antipathy for Reverend Wright.

But having said all that, I would be dishonest to myself and to you if I didn't share the other side of this issue as I see it, just as I did from the pulpit yesterday.  The eloquent speech that Senator Obama delivered in Philadelphia last week, on the nature of race relations in America, obliges us to look in the mirror.  And when I do, what I find myself thinking is "When you live in a glass house, be very careful before you throw stones."

I have been a part of the professional Jewish community for almost three decades.  During that time, I have heard respected- even revered- teachers of Torah say the most strikingly insensitive, insulting, and inappropriate things.  Have their followers left them in protest?  Did they even notice that what their teachers were saying was horrific?

When the late Lubavitcher Rebbe said that Israeli soldiers were dying in Lebanon (during the first Lebanon war in the 80's) because Jews in Israel had failed to check their mezuzahs carefully, was there a fall-off in the Chabad ranks?  When a Chief Rabbi of Israel blamed the Shoah on the rise of non-Orthodox Judaism in post-Emancipation Europe, or a revered Rosh Yeshiva here in New York only recently said to students that an Israeli Prime Minister who advocated giving back parts of Jerusalem should be shot (twelve years after the Rabin assassination!), did they lose followers, or, for that matter, their jobs?  I don't think so. 

You can quibble with me about quantity and degree of outrageousness, and none of them are running for President of the United States.  But the point is the point.  We have our loose-lipped teachers and preachers too, don't we?  What are our standards?  What is our threshold, beyond which we say, "You can't be my teacher, or my rabbi?"

And further still… I am deeply concerned that the real issue that Senator Obama raised in his Philadelphia speech- about Black anger, and its pervasiveness in even "mainstream" Black communities- is one that we Jews all too easily decide not to hear, or are incapable of hearing. 

Yes indeed, Black anti-Semitism after the civil rights movement has made many in our community understandably disillusioned.  And yes- the unique nature of Jewish suffering in the Shoah has forever placed us on a different playing field when it comes to historical injustice.  I could never argue other.  But that surely doesn't mean that others haven't suffered also, and have reasonable grievances and justifiable anger.

Who other than we Jews, who have such a large reservoir of historical anger at what was done to us- are better positioned to understand the residual reservoir of anger in the African-American community?  Of course steps have been take to ameliorate the injustices perpetrated against them in the aftermath of slavery, just as steps were taken to ameliorate the injustices perpetrated against us. Just last week, German Prime Minister Angela Merkel was in the Knesset to continue that process.  Here in America, we enjoy freedoms and privilege that we once could only dream of.  But does that delete the anger, so to speak, from our communal hard disk?  Hardly.  And does it come out in ways both toxic and non-toxic in the ways we relate to both Jew and non-Jew?  Absolutely. 

So why is it so difficult for us to understand this phenomenon in the Black community?

This question, like so many different aspects of the issue of race relations in America, is difficult to answer.  Altogether, the topic is a difficult one to address, because it takes but a moment for someone in the conversation to become insulted.  For taking the conversation to a higher level, I think Senator Obama is to be congratulated, whether one votes for him or not.
 

PermaLink

Political Insider: NJDC Hits Republicans With Purim Spoof on Jerusalem Embassy

In 2000, Gov. George W. Bush tried to boost his presidential bid with Jewish voters by promising to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as soon as he was inaugurated.  Well, he was inaugurated - twice, now - and the embassy remains in Tel Aviv.

Ever since Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, in the heat of an earlier presidential campaign, promises to move the embassy have rolled off the lips of candidates, but there hasn't been much action.

The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), anticipating a new barrage of promises by Sen. John McCain, who was in Israel this week, has responded with a bit of Purim satire.

In a spoof press release, the group conceded defeat in the Jerusalem political wars because of a unique strategy by the presumptive GOP nominee: retroactive foreign policy.

"Today, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) officially gave up trying to argue that Democrats are as good as Republicans on Israel," according to the spoof release.  "NJDC conceded defeat on this issue when presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain pledged that on his first day in office, he will RETROACTIVELY move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem."

McCain, according to the wits at NJDC, announced that "It's past time to move our embassy. I recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, so I am going to make sure that on my first day in office I will ensure that the move is ancient history."

It went on: "We totally give up here," said Ira N. Forman, NJDC Executive Director. "We were going to suggest to Senator Clinton or Obama that they permanently kasher the White House kitchen. But how do you compete with the Republicans when they can actually turn back the hands of time to help Israel?"

It was tongue in check, but it made a point NJDC is hoping to get across to Jewish voters; promises to move the embassy are easily made on the campaign trail but hard to keep in the Oval Office.

PermaLink

Political Insider:  Note To John McCain: Odd Choice Of Kippot

In 20 years of covering politics, I've had the chance to see dozens of politicians take part in that awkward  ritual that comes with campaigning at Jewish religious venues: donning a kippa.

There have been some interesting choices. The knitted version emblazoned with both the American and Israeli flags is popular, as are the black suede jobs with hand painted letters spelling out a politician's name and title in Hebrew.  In 2001 Fernando Ferrer, then the Bronx borough president and a candidate for mayor, toured Crown Heights wearing a suede yarmulke emblazoned with the Yankees logo.

Just as often, at a synagogue event or a funeral, you see politicians topped off with the old standard: the disposable, black satin yarmulke found in every shul bin that inevitably unfolds pointy on top.

The conehead look of the latter may not be flattering, but at least it's honest. It means the wearers are expressing respect for another culture in a manner suggested by their hosts. Whether one wears a yarmulke, or what type they wear, says nothing about that person's character or their level of commitment to, or respect for Judaism. And yet so many non-Jews or non-observant Jews, especially when running for office, seem to think they will score extra points with the choice headgear supplied by their Jewish liaisons or consultants.

This week John McCain was photographed at the Western Wall sporting an elaborately embroidered white kippa.

According to JTA, he got it from his friend, traveling companion and speculative running mate Joe Lieberman, who is an observant Jew but rarely appears in public with a yarmulke, especially at political events.  Lieberman,  incidentally, was wearing  an almost identical kippa in the photo.

"It's impressive to see that McCain understands the Jewish world enough to know that the cardboard yarmulke [given out at the Wall] doesn't cut it," says Rabbi Joshua Hammerman,  a Jewish Week columnist who has written about the significance of kippot. "But he may be marching into treacherous waters not knowing which group he's identifying with. Every yarmulke tells a story, especially in Israel, where the style you wear indicates your political leanings."

Maybe McCain and Lieberman knew exactly what they were doing. The knitted kippa is frequently associated with the settler movement. Were McCain and Lieberman sending a message of solidarity to the settlers, many of whom are U.S. citizens who can vote in absentee ballots, and their supporters here?

Or perhaps they were just trying to show attention to detail, like wearing a geyabarra shirt in the Puerto Rico Day Parade or a green sweater on St. Patrick's Day.

In either case,  it's pointless.

I doubt any archive has a picture of Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton wearing a non-yarmulke-bin kippa, and they were surely the two most popular presidents among Jews.

That's because Jewish voters don't need a leader who tries to look or act like an Orthodox Jew at the right times.

An outwardly gentile leader in a dorky kippa who respects their sensibilities and understands their issues will do just fine.

PermaLink

This Jewish Life: A Haircut and More

I went to get my hair cut after school today. I drove myself to the agora of Teaneck, Cedar Lane, to visit my regular barber.

Cedar Lane is an anthropological gem in itself. The street boasts at least eight separate nail salons, more banks than I can count, the Teaneck library,  myriad Jewish eateries, two CVSs, and (my favorite) a kosher and non-kosher pizza place that are adjacent to on another.

I parked and ran through the rain to Hair Master West where I was pleased to see the owner, Frank, sitting reading the paper; there was not a customer in sight.

Frank is not Jewish. That is apparent upon first meeting him. His raspy voice, no doubt altered by decades of smoking, has a distinctly—well—non-Jewish tone. He is a schmoozer nonetheless.

We began talking about the nascent NCAA Basketball tournament (I like UCLA over Kansas in the finals, if anyone was wondering), but soon started one of my favorite conversations of all time.

He asked me if I’d be back to get my hair trimmed before Pesach. He even pronounced the chet of Pesach with a distinctly Jewish-American sound.

He proceeded to explain that he knows that after Passover, some Jews don’t cut their hair for thirty-three days. “He know about Lag Ba’Omer?” I thought, puzzled. I was having trouble understanding how Frank the non-Jewish barber knew about that custom. He continued: “All I know is that on that 33rd day, every Jew in town comes in to get a hair cut. It’s crazy in here!” I laughed. It got funnier.

Frank moved on to discussing how his barbershop essentially functions on a Jewish calendar. He knows all the holidays and pronounces their names with a nonchalance that made me giggle. I half expected him to ask me about the parsha. 

I don’t know what to make of this right now, but I do know that it was amusing, and I hope you found it a fun read too.

PermaLink

A Rabbi's World: Where We Should be Talking about Eliot Spitzer

"Spitzer-fatigue" has set in.  For an eclectic variety of reasons, not least of which is the tawdriness and blatant hypocrisy of what Governor Spitzer was engaged in, most people appear to have had enough.  It's time to move on, they say, and to let him and his family deal with the detritus of his epic fall from grace.

By and large, I agree.  There is little to be gained by rehashing what is known, and speculating about what is not.  True enough.  But personally, I don't think that there's been enough discussion about it with our children. 

I did a decidedly unscientific sampling the other day of some of the teenagers who are in my orbit.  I teach a Hebrew High School class made up mostly of girls from some of the best public and private schools in New York City.  When I suggested to them that, in lieu of our regularly scheduled subject for that day, we spend some time talking about the Spitzer story, there was a bit of an awkward silence.  I asked them whether or not they had discussed it in any of their classes, the answer was an almost unanimous no.  One or two teachers had made a passing reference to it, but that was all. 

When I pushed them a bit about it, they expressed some considerable surprise that it was such a big deal.  "In Europe this wouldn't be such a big story," they said.

Then I asked my own two younger children, who attend Ramaz and Heschel High Schools, and they, too, answered no.

Why is this, I asked myself? 

You might be thinking, "too risqué for schools.  Parents should handle it.  It's not the appropriate subject for teachers or rabbis (also teachers) to be addressing."

Well, in a perfect world, where parents have the kind of open lines of communication with their children that make all subjects approachable and discussable, maybe.  But my experience has shown me that those kinds of homes are few and far between.  Most parents shy away from talking about the kinds of issues raised by the Spitzer affair, and leave their children to process them for themselves.

I think that's a terrible mistake.

Learning that people in important positions are human beings with clay feet is one of the most important life lessons a child (of any age) can learn.  Among the people who fall into that category are, potentially, parents themselves, rabbis, teachers, friends, and just about everyone they know. 

The devastating results of a serious betrayal of trust are difficult enough to deal with, even when one knows and understands human frailties.  When a child is left to figure all this out on his/her own, it's exponentially harder, and more damaging.  Schools and synagogue classrooms are exactly where our children should be talking about what happened, not out of prurient interest, but as a cautionary tale.  Well-prepared teachers and rabbis are precisely the right people to be bringing a little healthy skepticism into the mix, since they are powerful authority figures in the lives of the children they teach and mentor.

I did talk about the governor with my Hebrew High School students, and my own children.  I hope the message got through.
 

PermaLink

Political Insider: Reverend Wright: More Than a Jewish Problem for Obama

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't just a Jewish problem for Sen. Barack Obama.

For months, Jewish Democrats have wondered whether controversy over Wright, the fiery and newly retired pastor of Obama's church in Chicago, might have an impact with Jewish voters in the primaries and in the November election.

Wright is an admirer of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan; he has supported divestment against Israel and said that "racism" against Palestinians is the result of Zionism.

That may worry the campaign officials who do Jewish outreach, but the Wright problem, which exploded into the headlines last week after new video clips of the pastor's inflammatory, anti-American sermons surfaced, could have a much bigger impact.

In a nation where some voters may already be uneasy about the prospect of the first African-American president, Wright's radical views and the fact Obama once described him as a mentor may tip the balance for many - despite Obama's increasingly active rejection of those views.

Fearing just that, Obama reacted aggressively to the barrage of reporting about Wright, even submitting a lengthy blog entry to the Huffington Post in which he said "I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

But he also declined to renounce Rev. Wright himself.

"Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn."

 (Watch Obama respond to questions about Wright in this MSNBC interview)

PermaLink

Political Insider: Poll Shows Impact of Obama "Muslim" Rumors, and Renewed Focus on Controverial Chicago Preacher

A few months ago, the Jewish Week  reported that the viral email campaign tarring Sen. Barack Obama as a secret Muslim - and right-wing talk show hosts who invoked his middle name, Hussein, as if that alone was evidence of disloyalty - seemed to be gaining traction in the Jewish community (read the story here).

Since then, an abundance of evidence that the rumors are false seems to have eased concerns about a Jewish backlash against Obama's candidacy based on the Muslim issue.

"I actually think the invocation of 'Hussein' will have more influence with non-Jews," said Alan Wolfe,  a Boston College political scientist and director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life.  "Jews tend to be sophisticated voters; I don't think these kinds of attacks will make a real difference in November."

Wolfe may be on to something. While Jewish politicos say the Obama-as-Muslim campaign seems relatively static within the Jewish community, it may be having a bigger impact with the general electorate.   According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 13 percent of Americans, when asked about Obama's religion, now say he is a Muslim.

That may not sound like a lot, but it's a big jump from the 8 percent who answered that way in December.

(For an interesting analysis of how the Obama rumors spread, read Ari Berman's story in The Nation here). 

At the same time, there is evidence the Obama campaign's effort to reinforce the candidate's status as a practicing Protestant is also having an impact.  37 percent now say they believe Obama is a Protestant, compared to 17 percent in December.

One theory suggested by several Jewish politicos: the viral emails and invocation of Obama's middle name may be sticking with a small segment of voters who are unlikely to vote for a black Democrat in any event.

A more formidable problem for the campaign may be a renewed focus on a South Side Chicago megachurch pastor Obama once described as a mentor.

Fox News has distributed video clips of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Afro-centric sermons, and this week the Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece on the subject suggesting that Obama's "closeness to Mr. Wright underscores his radical record."

(Read the story by Ronald Kessler, a former WSJ reporter, here)

The renewed Wright controversy --  which Democratic insiders say points to a real vulnerability in the Obama campaign - comes as the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, deals with the fallout from his endorsement by the controversial Pastor John Hagee.

PermaLink

A Rabbi's World:  On the Meteoric Fall of Elliot Spitzer

What are we to make of Elliot Spitzer's dramatic fall from grace?  How can it be that the man who was swept into office by a record plurality of votes, running as the Mr. Clean who "judged every decision before him simply on the basis of whether it was right or wrong," as one of his campaign ads suggested, could be so very, very wrong on so basic a principle?

The answer, I'm afraid, is simple.  It "could be" because, without the trappings of power, the bodyguards, the swashbuckling political persona, and the political packaging, Elliot Spitzer is a man. 

A human being.  All of us- myself very much included- were shocked by what we learned about his private life because we had bought into the packaged myth of his public persona.  It was exactly as he and his handlers had orchestrated it.  We didn't know Elliot Spitzer the man.  We knew Elliot Spitzer the myth, the square-jawed, unflinching crusader for the common man against those who would exploit us.  We knew the myth, we bought into the myth precisely as it was packaged, and we voted for it in record numbers.  And now that the myth has, to our horror, been shown to be a myth, we are shocked and dismayed.

We really shouldn't be.  But we are, because we, too, are human, and we, too, want to believe in those who would claim to be better than we are.

The Elliot Spitzer that we thought we knew was presented to us as a family man.  He has what by all external appearances are a lovely wife, and three charming daughters.  But the sad truth would appear to be other that the packaged image. 

I don't doubt that he loves his daughters, and maybe even his wife.  And they probably are lovely.   But the life that he was living in secret was in such dissonance with the packaged image that it leaves us stunned.  How could it be that the man in those beautiful family portraits is the same one who paid thousands of dollars over the years for the services of prostitutes?

It could be about power. In my seminar on professional skills for graduating rabbis and cantors at the Jewish Theological Seminary, I remind my students as often as I can about the nature of power, and how to use it wisely.  Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.  It can make you feel invulnerable and untouchable, and can be as intoxicating as any drink or drug.  Maybe, just maybe, those extramarital trysts were about power.  "Because he could," so to speak.

Or it could be about a pathological addiction to a particular kind of sex.  That, too, is possible.  It brings to mind the adage about so many people living lives of quiet desperation.  There are surely many more people than Elliot Spitzer living ostensibly "straight lives" despite the fact that their sexual orientation is other, and their needs cannot be met in conventional relationships.

The bottom line is that we don't know, we probably will never know, and it only arguably matters for us to know.  Whatever Elliot Spitzer's demons are, it is he who must confront them.  And as far as I am concerned, I am far less disturbed for the body politic of the state of New York than I am for his wife and his daughters, whose agony I can only imagine. 

The whole thing is a horror.  I'm grateful for his resignation, and I pray for him and his family.  The state will certainly survive.  I hope they do.

PermaLink

Political Insider: RAC Attacks Rep. King for "Offensive" Comments About Obama

The attacks against Sen. Barack Obama are getting so outrageous that even some groups that religiously avoid political campaigns are feel the need to weigh in.

This week leaders of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism went after Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a serial offender when it comes to outrage.

King, you may recall, is the congressman who helped fuel anger about illegal immigration by claiming that 12 U.S. citizens die at the hands of "murderous illegal aliens each day" and calling illegal immigration a "slow motion terrorist attack."

Now, not surprisingly, he's going after Obama and his alleged Muslim ties.

In announcing his decision to seek another term in the House, the Iowa lawmaker said this:

"I don't want to disparage anyone because of their race,  their ethnicity, their name - whatever their religion their father might have been. I'll just say this: When you think about the optics of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected President of the United States -- I mean, what does this look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the world of Islam?"

Radical Islamists and al Qaeda will be "dancing in the  streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11" if Obama is elected "because they will declare victory in this War on Terror."

And this: "they'll be dancing in the streets because of his middle name."

(Watch an AP video of his comments here)

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, quickly rejected King's comments, but the lawmaker stuck to his guns, telling the AP this week that Obama would be viewed as "a savior" for radical Islam.

That prompted a strong reaction from the RAC.

His group "never supports or opposes any candidate for public office," said Rabbi David Saperstein, the RAC director. "That does not mean, of course, that we ignore racist or other hate speech just because it occurs in the context of the political campaign."

So Saperstein said his group had no option but to object to the "profoundly offensive comments" by King.  "What is offensive about Rep. King's statement is that it centers on who Senator Obama is.  The electoral success that Senator Obama has enjoyed suggests that we have come far as a nation and moved toward the moment when 'optics' such as skin color is not a proper subject for political debate. Rep. King's comments remind us that we still have far to go before we reach that day."

PermaLink

This Jewish Life:  A Tribute, On The No. 35 Bus / Sharon Millendorf in Jerusalem

Every morning I take the 35 bus line to work. It's a quick ride and usually takes no more than 12 minutes.  The third stop after I get on by the shuk is directly in front of Yeshivat Merkaz HaRav.

This morning I found myself a bit anxious, unsure of what I was going to see as we passed by.

As I looked around, I saw death notices pasted all over the street and flowers that had been brought lined the entrance to the Yeshiva.

When the bus pulled up to the stop, the driver shut off the engine and stood. With tears in his eyes he  told everyone sitting on the bus that one of the boys killed on Thursday night was his nephew. He asked if everyone on the bus would mind if he spoke for a few minutes in memory of his nephew and the other boys that were killed.

After seeing head nods all over the bus he began to speak. With a clear and proud voice, he spoke beautifully about his nephew and said that he was a person who was constantly on the lookout for how to help out anyone in need. He was always searching for a way to make things better. He loved learning, and had a passion for working out the intricacies of the Gemara. He was excited to join the army in a few years, and wanted to eventually work in informal education.

As he continued to speak, I noticed that the elderly woman sitting next to me was crying. I looked into my bag, reached for a tissue and passed it to her. She looked at me and told me that she too had lost someone she knew in the attack. Her neighbors child was another one of the boys killed.

As she held my hand tightly, she stood up and asked if she too could say a few words in memory of her neighbor. She spoke of a young man filled with a zest for life. Every friday he would visit her with a few flowers for shabbat and a short dvar torah that he had learned that week in Yeshiva. This past shabbat, she had no flowers.

When I got to work, one of my colleagues who lives in Efrat told me that her son was friends with 2 of the boys who had been killed. One of those boys was the stepson of a man who used to teach in Brovenders and comes to my shul in Riverdale every Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur to be a chazan for one of the minyanim.

We are all affected by what goes on in Israel. Whether you know someone who was killed or know someone who knows someone or even if you don't know anyone at all, you are affected. The 8 boys who were killed will continue to impact us all individually and as a nation. Each one of us has the ability to make a profound impact on our world.

This coming wednesday morning, I will be at Ben Gurion airport at 7 am with Nefesh B'Nefesh welcoming 40 new olim to Israel. We will not deter. We can not give up. We will continue to live our lives and hope and work for change, understanding and peace.

PermaLink

This Jewish Life: Making Terrorism Personal

The massacre at the Merkaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem last week is the killing in Israel that has affected me most in my entire lifetime.

My generation is unique. Having grown up with the Intifada, September 11th , and the Genocide in Darfur, my generation is all too familiar with tragedy and death. My mother always tells me that the first death that she experienced (that is outside the realm of grandparents or elder relatives) was when she was in her early twenties; I have attended numerous funerals of my friends’ parents, witnessed 9/11, and hope every day that there won’t be a terrorist attack in Israel.

All in seventeen short years. Tragedy is almost common. I hate saying it, but I expect bad things to happen in the world.

Last week in Jersualem, when eight Jewish teens were murdered, I felt tragedy in a new way. For the first time, I thought “That could be me.” I had never identified with the victims of an attack like that before.

Yes, Americans’ lives had been claimed in years past, but I wasn’t identifying with Americans. I was identifying with teens. Seven of the victims were between the ages of 15 and 18. That’s me. Those are my contemporaries. Next year I will be 18 years old at a Yeshiva in Jerusalem. Can it get any more similar?

This has not changed my mind about next year. I still intend on going to Israel for the year and studying at the Conservative Yeshiva. What this attack has changed, however, is how I look at the terror in Israel. For so long it has been a foreign tragedy; now it seems familiar—yet another familiar tragedy

PermaLink

Political insider: Lieberman To Join McCain In Israel

In a further cementing of their close ties, Republican presidential nominee John McCain and former Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman will travel briefly to Israel together on March 18.

Lieberman, who was elected in 2006 as an independent after losing the Democratic primary for re-election in Connecticut,  has repeatedly insisted he is not interested in the Republican vice presidential nomination, despite his endorsement of McCain and persistent campaigning for him.

But photos of McCain in Jerusalem with Lieberman, who in 2000 was the first Jewish vice presidential candidate  of a major party, are bound to be a major piece of his outreach to Jewish voters.  The Israel trip will be brief, only one day, followed by visits to London and Paris.

Also joining McCain will be Sen. Lindsay Graham, a South Carolina Republican.
Ira Forman of the National Jewish Democratic Council said the Israel visit would be viewed as overtly political.

"They are certainly not going there for policy reasons," said Forman. "Joe is an asset to John McCain, but at the margins. He's not going to take a lot of votes away [from the Democrats.]"

Matt Brooks of the Republican Jewish Coalition said the trip was "an incredibly important gesture on Senator McCain's part. It reflects his understanding of how important the issue of Israel's security is for him to take the time out in the middle of a campaign to show his support and solidarity."

PermaLink

PermaLink

This Jewish Life: Growing Up

I guess this is growing up…
 

I can't think of anything in the world that I love more than being at Camp Swift.  Yesterday, I received an application to be a member of the Camp support staff and, unlike in the past, I didn't immediately print it and fill it out.  Instead, I came to the jarring and upsetting realization that, for the first time in five years, I won't be there.

Last week, on a Congressional lobby visit with students from my home congregation (Temple Chai in Phoenix, Arizona), I heard a student give a speech on immigration in which she told the story of a kid she had met at Camp Swift whose family was deported very suddenly.  When we left the office, she said to me, "I saw you smiling when I started talking about Camp Swift." 

It was true. I loved hearing her talk about the experience that inspired me to become an advocate and knowing that the lives of a new generation of high school students are being touched by the kids that they meet at Camp Swift.

Camp Swift is a week-long retreat for inner-city Phoenix students, where we give them "all the food that they can eat and all the love that they can handle."  It's an incredible thing to be a part of.  We build a safe, supportive, and fun environment for kids whose home lives are often less-than-ideal.  High-school aged students serve as their counselors and everyone else helps to run fun activities like swimming, rock climbing, cooking, canoeing, etc.  It is the only time of year when I forget all of my other responsibilities, commitments and stresses and focus completely on giving back to my community. 

At least I know that, even though I won't be with them this summer, I haven't abandoned my commitment to improving the lives of these kids.  When I am advocating for more effective schooling or better health care coverage, the faces of the kids I have met at Camp are always flashing before my eyes.

But it's not the same as being there.  I won't get to watch a kid's face light up as he realizes that, for the first time in his life, he can eat as much food as he wants.  I won't get to give a hug to a kid who just overcame his fear of heights to scale a 15-foot rock wall.  I won't get to hear a counselor sing camp songs while walking around with one camper on his back and one holding each of his hands.  And I won't get to see a kid cry as she realizes that the best four days of her life are over. 

It's a sacrifice that I had to make in order to move across the country to take on a new life and job.  As much as I wish that I could stay involved and connected with everything (and everyone) that had an impact on my life in the past, I am quickly learning that it is simply impossible.  I have to abandon certain passions in order to make room for others.  While this is a reality that I am beginning to understand, I have a long way to go before I will be able to accept it.

PermaLink

Behind the Headlines:  Rabbis Out Of Touch With The Power Of Their Words

Pronouncements from prominent, sometimes revered rabbis, should uplift us spiritually, not embarrass us ethically. And I'm tired of trying to explain their behavior to those not prone to sympathize with Orthodox leaders. Take two remarkable incidents that took place here most recently.

Just yesterday we learned that Rabbi Hershel Schachter, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva University's rabbinical school, advocated shooting the Prime Minister of Israel if the government "gave away Jerusalem."(Read the story here)

He made the statement in a discussion with American students learning at Yeshivat HaKotel in Jerusalem, though it is not clear when. He also said that if the Israeli army was "going to give away Jerusalem," he would tell all Israeli soldiers to resign, and that it is a sin to "destroy" Gush Katif.

Rabbi Schachter, who was just appointed one of the two American rabbis to oversee the conversion process in an agreement reached between the Rabbinical Council of America and the Chief Rabbinate in Israel, is beloved by his many students and highly respected as a Talmudic scholar throughout the Modern Orthodox world.

But he is no stranger to controversy, sometimes speaking out in blunt, politically incorrect terms, be it about women – he once compared them to monkeys and parrots in describing who could read the ketubah at a wedding – or non-Jews, having noted that Jews have "different genes and instincts" than other people.

The rabbi, confronted with his remarks, issued an apology today, saying "they were not meant seriously" and did not represent his feelings.

His defenders say he is naïve, not mean-spirited, and that his words are taken out of the context of his yeshiva environment. But Rabbi Schachter should know by now that his statements are recorded and repeated, and that his words have weight outside the halls of the Beit Midrash.

Would we make excuses for non-Jews who spoke of when it might be proper to kill the Prime Minister of Israel?

And then there were the 33 ultra-Orthodox rabbinic luminaries who banned a chasidic music concert set for a venue at Madison Square Garden Sunday night. Titled "The Big Event," the fund-raiser for a charity providing free weddings for orphans in Israel, would have had separate seating for men and women – even separate entrances. Yet the rabbis said the event would cause "ribaldry and lightheadedness" and "strip the youth of every shred of Fear of Heaven and [lower] them into a pit of destruction."

Some say the rabbis didn't realize what they were signing onto, duped by a prominent member of the community who has it in for Lipa Schmeltzer, the singer and headliner of the show. (The other possibility is that the rabbis are so fearful of secular culture creeping into their communities that they decry a healthy outlet for families and teens.)

How can responsible religious leaders prohibit attending an event they apparently knew little about, causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars by the producer and performers – not to mention the charity?

Is the best explanation for these rabbis and Rabbi Schachter that they are naïve and not attuned to the world around them, making statements they don't realize will have ripples of repercussions?

If so, perhaps the walls surrounding our houses of learning have grown too high. Beware of a backlash among disillusioned followers.

PermaLink

A Rabbi's World: Soldiers in the Army of Torah

Just a few hours ago, an Arab terrorist (maybe two?) made his way into Yeshivat Mercaz Harav in Jerusalefom and opened fire, killing at least seven Yeshiva students and wounding many others.   It doesn't take a political scientist to attribute this heinous act of barbarism to some form of revenge for Israel's actions recently in Gaza.  Significant numbers of civilians were killed in those actions, and the conventional wisdom in that part of the world is "blood for blood."

 When I was spending a year of my rabbinical studies in Jerusalem in 1978, there were a number of terrorist incidents, but one stands out most clearly in my mind.   It came to be known as the "Coastal Road Massacre."  After coming ashore in Kibbutz Maagan Michael and killing nature photographer Gail Rubin, terrorists occupied a bus on Israel's k'vish hachof and ultimately, more than thirty Israelis were killed.  Among them, I recall, was a young clarinetist. 

The perpetrators of the massacre claimed that all citizens of Israel were appropriate military targets, since they were instruments of Zionist aggression.  I remember an op-ed piece that Cynthia Ozick wrote titled A Soldier in the Army of Clarinets.  How absurd, she said, to make such a claim.  In what possible way could this young musician be blamed for anything?  In what army was he a soldier?

 I can't help but think of that article today, as thirty years later, the same kind of senseless violence continues to be an instrument of some obscene and absurd political statement.  The yeshiva students who were killed were, ironically, celebrating the beginning of the new Hebrew month of Second Adar.  In our tradition it is a time of great joy, as we prepare to observe Purim, and commemorate our historic victory over a senseless hatred that threatened our very existence as a people. 

 I have no illusions about the purity of all Torah study.  My last entry in this blog decried the abuse of Torah learning by rabbinic authorities in Israel, and only the most naïve would deny that the nexus between religion and ultra-nationalism is a potentially toxic one.   Yes, religion plays a role in Israeli politics.

  But on Rosh Chodesh Adar- the beginning of this new month- those students were simply celebrating their religious tradition in a way that no one could construe as hostile.  Yes indeed- what an act of bravery and resistance it was to burst into a Yeshiva and start shooting a bunch of unarmed students of Torah.   Soldiers in the army of Torah… How brave.

 Without a doubt, the moral relativists will rationalize this act as the reprisal for Gaza.  It's so tempting.  But there is all the difference in the world between an enemy that hides its missiles and missile launchers among civilians, shooting them daily at non-combatants in undisputed territory in Israel, and a bunch of Yeshiva students celebrating Rosh Chodesh in Jerusalem.

 Isn't there?  Do you have to be Jewish, and Zionist, to see that?

PermaLink

Route 17: Surrender, Dorothy

Robert E. Lee got a better deal at Appomattox than Israel got at Annapolis.

The South got to keep its land, its guns and its mules.

Israel will have to give most of the Old City of Jerusalem, give up access to holy places in Judea and Samaria, acquiesce to apartheid rules that preclude  Jewish residence on the West Bank, give guns to Fatah, and send all kinds of goods and services (reparations, you might say) into Gaza.

Robert E. Lee came away with his dignity.

At Annapolis, Arab leaders wouldn't shake the hands of Israeli leaders, or even enter through the same door as they did. Prime Minister Olmert left Annapolis with no dignity at all, if indeed he had any going in.

Lee looked at the situation. He couldn't stop the burning of Atlanta, or the burning of other Confederate cities, with the military options at the Confederacy's disposal. By surrendering the Confederacy's principles of state's rights and the right to secede, he bought quiet, a cessation of death and terror, and a chance to move on.

Israel refuses to surrender its principles (the oft-ignored principle of refusing to negotiate with terrorists) and negotiate with Hamas. At the same time, with the military options at its disposal (as Israel understands it) Israel can't stop Hamas rockets that land every few hours in Sderot or Ashkelon. Israel can't prevent, under the status quo, Jews dying and their limbs being amputated. Israel didn't have the will or the wherewithal to fight the rocket launchers in Gaza for more than two days. Israel didn't have the will or the wherewithal to fight Hezbollah for more than a few weeks.

Israel has already surrendered the safety of its citizens in Sderot. Israel has already surrendered its principle of not negotiating with terrorists by negotiating with Yasser Arafat, the granddaddy of Palestinian terrorism, and now they negotiate with the Palestinian Authority's Mahmoud Abbas, the "good Palestinian," who sits in his office under a large photograph of Arafat. Abbas, the good one, broke off negotiations with Israel last week when Israel went into Gaza for 48-hours to fight Hamas and the rockets. That sure makes Abbas seem like he's more aligned with Hamas than with Israel.

Now Israel stopped fighting in Gaza and is talking with Abbas again. They might as well surrender and talk to Hamas directly.

In return for nothing, Israel has already surrendered the ability of Jews to safely visit Joseph's Tomb and the Temple Mount. Israel has surrendered the tranquility of Jewish pilgrimage to Mother Rachel in Bethlehem and our family plot in Hebron. Israel is unable to stand up to President Bush - who allegedly pressured an end to the foray into Gaza -- at a time when Bush is as lame as a lame duck can be.

At the same time that Congress voted 404-1 (House Resolution 951) in support of Israel's right to defend itself against rockets, Israel won't defend itself against rockets.

By surrendering to Hezbollah in the last war, and surrendering the lives of the two captives, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, Israel stopped the rockets on the northern front.

Israel has surrendered its dignity and its decency with every falling rocket on the southern front. It's time to surrender and negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas, even if it lasts a week. At least it would be a better week for the Jews of Sderot than the last 250 weeks. The Jews of Lodz, in 1850, lived in greater peace than do the Jews of this Israeli town in 2008.

Look at Robert E. Lee. He surrendered and a century later is loved in the South. He epitomizes dignity and self-respect. He is remembered for loving his soldiers and loving his country - both of them, the Confederacy and the United States, a two-state solution if there ever was one.

Olmert long ago surrendered his dignity and has done everything but lower the flag over that part of Israel where the rich won't live and the poor can't escape. His years have turned back the Zionist clock a century, convincing Jews that we are helpless, at the mercy of the world's scolding. In a mockery of Zionism, Jews are scared of shadows, the shadows of rockets, while walking in Zion.

After 4,000 rockets and no sustained or successful military or diplomatic effort to stop it, let's admit as much: Israel, for all of its Zionist bluster, is a Cowardly Lion, roaring at scarecrows but surrendering Sderot. Israel would only be surrendering to reality if it negotiated with Hamas.

PermaLink

Political Insider: Florida 'Do-Over': Another Chance for Clinton, Another Battle for the Jewish Vote?

So you've read (here, perhaps?) that Pennsylvania, with a primary on April 22,  will be the next chance for Jewish voters to get in their licks as Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton stumble around the primary ring like a couple of boxers who have gone a few rounds too many?

Guess again; there may be a Florida contest looming in the Democratic future.

Yes, Florida Democrats voted on January 29, but their votes didn't count because the party was mad that the state moved up its primary without authorization.

But suddenly, with Obama and Clinton locked in a political war of attrition, Florida's delegates are looking mighty important --  especially to Clinton, who remains behind in the overall delegate race despite strong wins on Tuesday in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island.

Now Clinton forces are pushing the idea of doing the whole thing over again. Let Florida voters go back to the polls in June and vote a second time, they say. Reportedly some key Florida and national Democratic leaders are keen on the idea. 

It doesn't take a genius to understand why Clinton wants a "do-over," as it's being called; she won the first time around, the state's population is older (DUH) and less liberal, and there are swarms of Jewish retirees, many from New York, who supposedly have an affinity for the New York lawmaker.

"This might be one for the lawyers," said University of Florida political scientist Ken Wald.  "As far as I understand, Florida law would govern this, and I imagine the GOP, which has a lock on the legislature and governorship... would love nothing better than to see the Democrats fight about this."

In other words, a redone primary might help Clinton win the nomination - but Florida Republicans might also see a rematch as a way to keep the Democratic family feud going a while longer.

Wald cautioned that a second primary could produce a "miniscule" turnout that would not represent the real mood of voters.

The Clintonites also want a rematch - perhaps statewide caucuses - in Michigan, another state where their champion is seen as having an edge and another state with a significant Jewish population.

PermaLink

Political Insider: Exit Poll Letdown as Clinton Wins Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island

For weeks, analysts predicted that Jewish voters could be critical in Ohio, which handed Sen. Hillary Clinton a stunning ten point victory in Tuesday's Democratic primary and increased the likelihood of Democratic trench warfare that could continue well into June.

But when the votes were counted, analysts were left with little more than speculation about the Jewish vote. 

Jews comprised a mere 2 percent of the Democratic totals in exit poll results on Wednesday morning --  far below the "other" and "no religion" categories, not to mention Catholics and Protestants. (It should be noted that this year's exit poll results have sometimes changed days after initial results were posted. Read the full Ohio exit poll results, with updates,  here).

That's too small for breakdowns among the candidates.

The Jewish vote was even tinier in Texas, comprising about 1 percent of the Democratic total - compared to 33 percent for Hispanic voters, who voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton by a whopping 2-1 margin and helped boost her to a critical victory there.

In Rhode Island, another win for Clinton, Jews were about 4 percent of the Democratic vote in Wednesday morning exit polls, again, too small a number to allow breakdowns.

Tuesday's results set the stage for the latest in a string of must-win primaries for the two surviving Democratic contenders.

"It's on to Pennsylvania, no question, and (Clinton) will be favored there," said Larry Sabato, political guru at the University of Virginia Center for Politics.  "The demographics have similarities to Ohio's, and like Ohio, Clinton will have the strong support of the Governor."

Pennsylvania voters go to the polls on April 22.

Overall, Obama still leads in delegates, he said, "but this contest will be a marathon. We'll probably go through June and the primaries."

Watch Jewish newspapers for the inevitable stories about how the Jewish vote will be critical in Pennsylvania.

The reality: at about 2.3 percent of the total Pennsylvania population, Jewish voters could comprise maybe 4-5 percent of the Democratic primary total - significant, but probably not critical.

Still, neither campaign will ignore the big Jewish populations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Read this week's Jewish Week for a look at how that may play out.
 

PermaLink

Behind the Headlines: A Seat At The Conversion Table

As reported in The Jewish Week last week (read the article here), The Rabbinical Council o