The Jews Down Under

A Roundup of Australian Jewish News

By Garry Fabian

ECAJ calls for compassion on asylum seekers

SYDNEY- While reconciling Australia’s obligations under international refugee laws with the need for proper screening might prove a difficult balancing act for the
federal Government, the Jewish community has called for asylum seekers to be processed “expeditiously” and “in a spirit of compassion.”

A statement on asylum seekers from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) last week also called on the Rudd Government to “to work
constructively with other governments and appropriate non-government organisations to ameliorate the plight of refugees around the world and in Australia”.

It called on the Government “to implement in good faith and with humanity, Australia’s important legal and moral obligations” on refugees.

The ECAJ statement drew on the recent history of world Jewry in highlighting that “especially prior to, but also during and immediately after World War II, many thousands of Jewish refugees attempting to flee persecution in Europe were
denied entry into other countries or [were] forced to engage ‘smugglers’ to try to escape to freedom”.

The ECAJ stated that the International Convention on the Status of Refugees of 1951, to which Australia is a signatory, “came into existence in belated recognition by the international community of the great wrong that had been done by civilised nations in refusing to grant asylum to Jewish refugees fleeing from Europe prior to and during World War II.”

More broadly, ECAJ president Robert Goot called on Australians to discuss asylum seekers in a considered and respectful manner and avoid resorting to “pejorative generalisations”, which he said are unhelpful and can be misleading and unfair.

Wide selection at Jewish Film Festival

MELBOURNE and SYDNEY– The Festival of Jewish Cinema’s 2009 program kicks off on a decidedly light note with the quirky fish-out-of-water tale, A Matter of Size.

From co-directors Sharon Maymon and Erez Tadmor, the film follows four overweight friends and their quest to find their place in the world.

Resigned to an endless regime of diets and fitness groups, the friends stumble upon the one place that accepts them for who they are — the world of Israeli sumo wrestling.

The festival opens in Sydney on November 11 at Bondi Junction and in Melbourne on November 12 at ACMI Cinemas, Federation Square and the Classic Cinema, Elsternwick.

A Touch Away is one of Israel’s best-kept secrets. A riveting drama series produced for the small screen, the series follows two families in a religious suburb of Tel Aviv. One is ultra Orthodox and the other is a newly arrived secular Russian family.

The powerful, confronting eight-part series broke ratings records in Israel and will be screened in two parts as an encore presentation.

Acne is an offbeat coming-of-age tale about a bar mitzvah-age boy who is beginning to awaken sexually. Set in Montevideo, Uruguay, Rafa has
lost his virginity, but has never kissed a girl.

His efforts to do so are thwarted by bad skin, an interfering Jewish community and his parents’ messy divorce. A charming outsider tale, Acne‘s
sexually charged plot will likely divide audiences, but it’s a romp not to be missed.

One of the picks of the festival is Adam Resurrected, starring stalwart Jeff Goldblum and based on the novel of the same name.

Goldblum plays Adam Stein, a former Berlin magician, who used his talents to survive the horrors of the Holocaust.

Forbidden love in the Orthodox community is examined in the contoversial feature Eyes Wide Open. The film focuses on the gay realtionship between a father of four and his younger shop assistant, and is sure to divide audiences.

French film Hello Goodbye stars two of the country’s iconic figures: Gerard Depardieu and Fanny Ardant. A middle-upper-class French couple
uproots and makes aliyah in the hope of re-discovering their Jewish identity.

The mid-life sea change swings into action after their son’s decision to marry out in this romantic comedy.

Other films to look out for include From My Father, a love story about the relationship between a Palestinian and an Israeli; Cycles, which looks at four different generations of a French Jewish family; and Slovakian Holocaust drama Broken Promise.

Being Jewish in France is a documentary about Jewish lie in the European country from the Dreyfus Affair to the rise of anti-Semitism in modern France.

Other documentaries in the program include Inside Hana’s Suitcase, about a group of present-day Japanese students that unravel the mystery of a
young Auschwitz inmate; Killing Kasztner, which looks at the controversial figure Israel Kasztnerwho saved nearly 2000 Hungarian Jews
during the Holocaust; and Operation Moses, which tlls the story of the emergency evacuation of Ehiopian Jews to Israel during the 1970s and ’80s.

Australian filmmakers are also well represented inthe documentary section of the festival. Leave the Stone’s Throw is a documentary by journalist
Julie Szego, who details her struggle to accept the legacy of the Holocaust in her family, while Israeli documentaries A History of Israeli Cinema, Z32 and the Tunisia/France co-production The Wedding Song are also featured.

In the 20th anniversary retrospective section is From Hell to Hell, a film about the events leading up to the Kielce Pogrom in Poland in 1946,
German political thriller The Giraffe Mechugge) — from the producers of Run Lola Run, Khroustaliov and My Car – about Stalin’s
infamous Doctor’s Plot to get rid of Jewish doctors,Dutch film Left Luggage about a secular Jewish girl in Antwerp who takes a job with an Orthodox
family and the brilliant Phyllis and Harold, a film about the family of artist Cindy Kleine, are also in the retrospective.

Pilger continues diatribe on Israel

SYDNEY– Peace Prize winner John Pilger launched a scathing attack on the
media’s coverage of Israel during a lecture at the Sydney Opera House on Thursday night.

Speaking before a capacity audience in the concert hall, Pilger, a journalist, author and filmmaker, criticised the Australian media for its “modern propaganda”, particularly when it came to coverage of the Gaza war.

“In no other democratic country is the discussion of the brutal occupation of Palestine as limited as it is in Australia,” he said to applause. “Are we aware of the sheer scale of the crime against humanity in Gaza? Twenty nine members of one
family – babies, grannies – are gunned down, blown up, buried alive, their home bulldozed.”

He urged the audience to read the Goldstone Commission Report, stressing the point that it was written by “Jewish judge” Richard Goldstone.

“Those who speak from the article of freedom are working hard to bury the United Nations report. For only one nation, Israel, has the right to exist in the Middle East, only one nation has the right to attack others, only one nation has the
impunity to run a racist apartheid regime with the approval of the western world, and with the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia fawning over its leaders.”

Pilger also criticised United States President Barack Obama for “stepping up [George W Bush's] wars and starting his own war in Pakistan”.

“Like Bush, [Obama] is threatening Iran, a country Hillary Clinton said she was ‘prepared to annihilate’. Iran’s crime is its independence . Iran is the only resource-rich Muslim country beyond American control. It doesn’t occupy anyone
else’s land and it hasn’t attacked any country, unlike Israel, which is nuclear-armed and dominates and provides for the Middle East on America’s behalf.”

The Sydney Peace Prize is the only international peace prize awarded in Australia.

The citation for the Sydney Peace Prize refers to significant contributions to “peace with justice”, awarded to an organisation or individual “who has made significant contributions to global peace”.

Past recipients of the prize have included Professor Muhammad Yanus, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson.

*
American professor to bring Talmudic guidance down under

MELBOURNE–What guidance does the Talmud have for ethical decisions on space travel or human cloning? Plenty, according to Professor Laurie Zoloth.

Prof Zoloth is professor of religion and Jewish studies at Chicago’s Northwestern University and is also the director of the university’s Centre for Bioethics, Science and Society.

She will be in Australia next week to take part in Hadassah Australia’s stem-cell awareness week of activities, together with her colleagues in science, Professor Alan Trounson and Professor Ben Reubinoff.

A secular ethicist, Prof Zoloth served for two-and-a-half terms as the sole philosopher on NASA’s National Advisory Council, one of the highest positions a civilian can hold.

Today she chairs the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Bioethics Advisory Board, and serves on NASA’s planetary protection advisory committee and the International Society for Stem Cell Research.

Like a lawyer, Prof Zoloth draws precedents from classical texts, including Jewish ones.

“It is one of many traditions that I use. If there’s a really good argument that emerges from the Orthodox or halachic texts, I bring it in,” she said.

Indeed, much of talmudic teaching is highly resonant with the aspirations of science. “The rabbinical position is that much is permitted in order to learn,” she explained.

Prof Zoloth is renowned by her peers for her rigorous intellect.

“She is very demanding and articulate,” said Prof Trounson, the Australian scientist who since 2008 has been president of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), and a guest speaker at Hadassah Australia’s dinner next week.

“If you say something that requires a better philosophical or scientific underpinning, she’ll challenge you,” he said. “I don’t always agree with her, but it’s always intellectually satisfying,” Prof Trounson added.

Prof Zoloth’s visit is timely, with a review of Australia’s human embryos and cloning legislation imminent.

Her visit also coincides with a major shift in the scientific and ethical landscape of stem-cell research.

Since 2007, researchers have learnt how to avoid the use of embryos altogether in the making of embryonic stem cells. Skin cells can be turned directly into embryonic stem cells – cells that could provide a patient with a limitless supply
of matched tissue to treat diabetes, blindness, bone-marrow disease, skin diseases and neurodegenerative disease.

According to Prof Trounson, CIRM is now funding translational studies in these areas ­ meaning in the next four years stem cells will be making their way out of the lab and into the clinic.

Another guest speaker at the dinner, Hadassah University Hospital’s Prof Reubinoff, is one of the pioneers of that journey.

Working together with neurologist Tamir Ben Hur at Jerusalem’s Hadassah, Prof Reubinoff ­ who worked with Prof Trounson at Monash University ­ is using embryonic stem cells to treat macular degeneration and multiple sclerosis.

###

Restaurant Review: Los Arcos provides fish with a Mexican flair

By Lynne Thrope

CHULA VISTA, California –When I was told that the rabbi in Mexico City blessed the kitchen in that city’s Los Arcos Restaurant, I had to find out what the attraction was for the community of Jews living in that southland metropolis. Lucky for me, I didn’t have to travel far to check out its first sister restaurant in the United States.

Los Arcos Restaurant #17 was recently voted Best Mexican in San Diego Magazine’s Best Restaurants Issue in 2009 and I couldn’t agree more with that accolade. For the past 30 years, the Angulo family has been serving the highest quality seafood available on the Pacific Coast. An easy jaunt down Highway 805 to 89 Bonita Road in Chula Vista is where residents and tourists can experience the authentic cuisine of Mexico without having to cross the border – this confirmation from my Jewish Mexican food expert who lived for a time in Guadalajara and eats no traif.

Because of this dietary choice she would frequently eat at the Los Arcos in Lazaro Cardenas, Guadalajara. Now that she’s back living in San Diego, she eats at Los Arcos in Chula Vista every chance she gets. After having sampled a good portion of the menu’s fare myself, I suggest you do the same, if you demand variety in taste and freshness in ingredients.

Begin the experience with Cerviche de Pescado to let your mouth be wowed by the symphony of salmuera (brine) broth, lime juice, tomatoes, onions, and cilantro. (It’s so wonderful that kosher salt has made its way into so many global cuisines.) Next, to punctuate its authenticity, try the Fish Rolls swimming in a tangy cilantro cream sauce or any one of the Tacos with Your Choice of filling. Here lies the difference between the Los Arcos experience and your neighborhood Mexican restaurant.

Think of the Los Arcos menu as a springboard of items to be tweaked and personalized by the patron. Don’t want the smoked tuna filling in that taco? Order the diced fresh fish instead. Add a little mole to it for a hint of chocolate and chiles flavor or how about an aurora sauce for you lovers of tomatoes and cream? Want to substitute the cream with a tamarind glaze? “Have It Your Way” is the unwritten promise that is provided for a successful dining experience at Los Arcos.

A restaurant is not identified for 25 years as the “Best Seafood Cuisine from the Pacific Coast” if it is not deserved. Because of this unceasing distinction, Los Arcos Restaurants have defined a national gastronomy and we San Diegans are now the lucky beneficiaries of their reputation for the finest Mexican cuisine.
To be educated about this unique dining adventure, invite Cezar to be your culinary guide. He’s got an endless imagination for mapping foods to rare preparations. His tongue rattles them off like an auctioneer at a temple fundraiser. It’s no wonder that Cesar and his treasure trove of gastronomical gifts is just one of many memorable moments at Los Arcos Restaurant…B’Tayavon

*

Lynne Thrope can be contacted at lynnesworld@mac.com

In hands of extremists, Koran justifies Ft. Hood massacre

The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran by Robert Spencer, Regnery Publishing, Washington, DC ISBN 978-1-59698-104-1, 2009, $19.95, p. 232

By Fred Reiss, Ed.D

WESTMINSTER, California–President George W. Bush, in December 2006, issued greetings to the Muslim world on the occasion of the Islamic feast of Eid al-Adha, which commemorates both the Hajj and Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son. This past June, President Obama addressed the Muslim world in Cairo. Obama’s speech contained many platitudes about the compassionate teachings of the holy Koran, and quoted it by saying, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.”

In the wake of the recent Fort Hood massacre of army soldiers by what appears to be a lone Muslim US Army officer, Nidal Hasan, Islamic centers around the country issued press releases assuring the American public that the Koran condemns violent attacks on innocent people. Simultaneously, the Islamic Society of North America – the largest US Muslim umbrella body – also launched a special fund for the benefit of the families of the victims of the Fort Hood attacks. Yet, the website Answering-Islam.org notes that the Koran contains over one hundred verses calling Muslims to war with the Infidels, which author Robert Spencer says the Koran defines as anyone not submitting to Allah.

Prominent Muslim scholar, Anwar al-Aulaq, calling Nidal Hasan a hero, wrote on his blog
Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

Five of the Muslims accused of plotting the September 11 attack in a response to the government’s accusations wrote, “Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.” Last month, Dutch right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders told an assembly of Temple University students, “Where Islam sets roots, freedom dies.”

So which face of Islam is the truth? Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch, a program of the conservative foundation, David Horowitz Freedom Center, wrote The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran to direct the spotlight on a holy book mentioned by many, but read by few, including most Muslims. This is so, because translations of the Koran are not acceptable in the religion. The original language of the Koran is Arabic, and ninety percent of Muslims do not speak Arabic.

Spencer, who has been accused of Islamophobia, argues that he is not against Muslims. He acknowledges that The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran is not written from the Islamic frame of reference, and asserts, “whether the Koran really says what this guide claims it says can be easily verified. And if this guide reports its contents accurately, that couldn’t possibly be an act of ‘hatred’ or ‘bigotry’. If the Koran really curses Jews and Christians [Sura, meaning chapter] (9:30) and calls for warfare against them in order to bring about their subjugation (9:29), it is not Islamophobic.”
Spencer wins his argument. An Internet review of the various translations of the Koran shows that Spencer has encapsulated the message in the verses cited in his book, and clearly points out inaccuracies found in the Koran. For example, he shows that the Koran has a clear misconception about Judaism. Sura 9:30 begins, “The Jews said, ‘Ezra is the son of God.’” Of course, in Judaism neither Ezra, nor anyone else, is called “son of God.” Even the Jewish Messiah, God’s anointed, is referred to metaphorically as “the son of [King] David,” and “the son of Jesse.” Both are very human.

The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran is a succinct volume that moves quickly from the basics of “What is the Koran?” through its history and development, and into the details of its inherent theology and practices, including the Koran’s view of women. Thus, Spencer not only discusses war-mongering verses aimed at infidels, but also exposes the meaning of “nonviolent” verses, as understood by Islamic hearts and minds.

In his view, the previously cited congratulatory statements made by Bush and Obama convey one message to the Western world and a completely different one to the Muslims. To Christians and Jews, the message about Abraham conjures up images of the reward for a courageous father. God tells Abraham that he will become the father of a great nation. But, in all likelihood, the biblical message is lost on Muslims unfamiliar with the Book of Genesis. Abraham is a Muslim in the Islamic world. So is Moses, the patriarchs, Jesus, and so forth. In Sura 60:9, Abraham tells the people that unless they become Muslims there is nothing except animosity and hatred between them. To the Muslim mindset, according to Spencer, Bush holds up hatred as exemplary.

As far as Spencer is concerned, when Obama reminded the Muslims to be conscious of God and speak the truth, he makes out no better than Bush. In fact, the translation of Sura 9:119 is, “O believers, do not stray from the path of Allah, and be with those who are truthful.” So, Spencer appears to be right again, when he asserts that the Koranic passage is “actually about fighting unbelievers, and doesn’t remotely advocate peaceful coexistence.”

The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran is unrelenting in its assault on the Koran and Islam as a peaceful religion, except to fellow Muslims. On one hand, we have statements from Islamic organizations condemning terrorist attacks, such as the one on the World Trade Center. “We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents.” On the other, the Koran says (9:5), “When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.”

Both sides are right. Jewish extremists would stone you to death should you transgress the Sabbath in Mea Shearim, and Muslim extremists believe they have a God-given obligation to convert you, subjugate you, or kill you. The words of moderate Islamic organizations show that Muhammad’s revelations can be reinterpreted. Spencer lays out a plan for dealing with both types of Muslims. His plan, some of which borders on the unconstitutional, includes monitoring mosques and Islamic schools in America for preaching or teaching extremists’ views. Spencer argues that interfering with the Muslim religion is one thing, but prosecuting anyone fomenting the overthrow of the government is not. The framers of the Constitution did not intend the Bill of Rights to be a death knell for the country.

The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran provides a deep understanding of the Koran and Muslims who believe in it, and offers a starting point for a legitimate debate on how to monitor a religion whose extremists advocate the elimination of Western Civilization. Is Richard Spencer an Islamophobic? Only if he is not telling the truth.

**
Dr. Fred Reiss is a retired public and Hebrew school teacher and administrator. He is the author of The Standard Guide to the Jewish and Civil Calendars; Public Education in Camden, NJ: From Inception to Integration; Ancient Secrets of Creation: Sepher Yetzira, the Book that Started Kabbalah, Revealed; and Reclaiming the Messiah.

Yarrow enchants children and adults at San Diego Jewish Book Fair

_______________________________________________________________
By Gail Feinstein Forman

LA JOLLA, California –When Peter Yarrow walked onto the stage Thursday night, November 12, at the San Diego Jewish Book Fair, the electricity in the air was palpable. He owns the audience even before he starts to sing. And it is not all about the music—but Dayenu, that would be enough.

It is also about his exemplary life of Tikun Olam-his personal mission as one individual to “repair the world” through his activism on behalf of civil rights and the support for the dignity of each individual.

Yarrow lives by his words that “If you’re responsible for being Jewish, then you’re responsible for tzedakah (charity) for everyone and creating a mitzvah for the whole of humankind. If not, you’ve missed the boat of being Jewish.”

Yarrow appeared at The Jewish Book Fair to promote one of his newest endeavors, the children’s book with accompanying audiotape CD, Day Is Done.

The book, based on the song of the same name that he recorded as part of the Peter, Paul and Mary folksinging group in 1969, is a tender embrace of childhood fears and the loving reassurance parents or mentors can provide. The illustrations are rich and compelling – a perfect compliment to the warmth of family story-times.

The book also comes with an audio CD with three songs, Yarrow’s Day Is Done, the traditional, I Know Where I’m Going, and Dona, Dona, Dona, a popular Yiddish folk song.

Yarrow began the Thursday night program by inviting children in the audience to join him on the stage for a lively “Happening!”

The children introduced themselves, pantomimed to song lyrics Yarrow sang, and sung along with a children’s repertoire of popular folk songs. Yarrow also led a rousing version of Puff the Magic Dragon with a new, extended, ending.

But after the children left the stage, Yarrow, alone with his guitar, still after fifty years of performing, completely fills the stage. We meet Peter Yarrow unadorned, the man whose music has rallied people all over the world to
courageously do what must be done for equality and freedom.

Yarrow mesmerized the audience with a haunting rendition of Leaving on a Jet Plane, dedicated to his folksinging colleague Mary Travers, who recently passed away.

He turned to his next song, Don’t Laugh at Me. The song telescopes the negative effects of bullying and hatred while reaching out for acceptance
and love. It is now the anthem of his current heartfelt project, Operation Respect.

“It’s the most important work of my life,” Yarrow stated while on stage, referring to his ten-year old project, Operation Respect, a character development program now in 22,000 elementary schools.

Developed as an outreach attempt to stem the rising tide of bullying in schools and disrespectful public discourse, Yarrow passionately believes that music remains a catalyst for social change by creating a sense of community that is shared when singing together.

Paired with effective strategies for peaceful conflict resolution, the program’s goal is to open the eyes and hearts of children and the tools they need recognize and act upon the world with respecting the dignity of all individuals.

Though on the “book circuit” to promote the children’s book version of Day Is Done, his appearance can be seen as part of a larger whole to provide children with a vision of what a better world could look like by encouraging each individual to contribute his or her part.

Sitting alone on a stool in the center of the stage with his laptop, Yarrow eagerly shared a new development in Operation Respect. He speaks with pride about his groundbreaking innovation of Operation Respect in Israel.

He now has the song Don’t Laugh at Me produced in an audio CD of the song sung separately in Hebrew, Arabic, and English, and then simultaneously in all three languages.

Yarrow played a part it for the audience right off his laptop that night.

He plans to use the program in the Palestinian Authority and in Israeli schools. He is convinced that this program will foster understanding between the children living in these areas and will help create building blocks for peace.

Yarrow is often criticized for his Herculean efforts to rebuild the world from the bottom up with many admonishing his efforts as “Pie in the Sky” illusions- scenarios that are just not possible.

But Yarrow is undeterred. He has seen through his earlier endeavors how the work of just a few could change the course of society, and he soldiers on very much like the White Queen in Alice in Wonderland:

Alice laughed. `There’s no use trying,’ she said `one can’t believe impossible things.’

`I daresay you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen. `

When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. “

Yarrow’s connections to San Diego go back a few decades and demonstrate a “menchlichness” that goes beyond music in this very surprising, poignant
story.

In 1988, San Diegan Paul Nestor was living in New York and working as a window blind installer. One day, Nestor found himself installing blinds in Peter Yarrow’s New York apartment. After chatting awhile, Nestor mentioned that his mother, Harriet, was struggling with ovarian cancer. Nestor asked Yarrow if he would write a song for his mother to lift her spirits, and he gave Yarrow his phone number.

Yarrow responded that he would be happy to dedicate a song to her, but his songs dealt with social issues, not a person’s health.

So Nestor completed the installation work and left, giving up the idea of Yarrow composing a song for his mother.

Surprisingly, about a month later, Yarrow called Paul and sang him a song over the phone that he had written for Paul’s mother, Harriet, Nestor liked the song, but complained to Yarrow that it wasn’t “personal” enough,” and that ended the conversation.

A few months later, while back in San Diego visiting his mother, a small package arrived for Paul with recycled writing all over it. Apparently, Yarrow was and is an avid recycler and sent Nestor a package with scribbling all over the envelope.

But Nestor was visiting his mother and that took all his attention. He tossed the package aside, unopened, not knowing what it was.

Paul’s brother opened the package and found an audiotape from Peter Yarrow. On the tape, Yarrow explained how the song With Your Face to the Wind had come to be written and also included an acapella rendition of the new song that he had taped in his own apartment.

Luckily, Paul’s whole family, including his mother was able to hear and experience the musical gift of “menchlichnik” from afar.

Though Peter never had the intention of singing the song as part of his repertoire, when he played the song for his 86-year-old mother, she was reduced to tears and said, “This song isn’t just for Harriet. This song is for all of us. You must sing this song for other people.“

Now called Harriet’s Song, the song was recorded on the 1992 Peter, Paul, and Mary album Flowers and Stones, has inspired and lent hope to individuals facing critical health issues.

Over the years, Nestor and Yarrow formed a close friendship and when Nestor related the tragedy of San Diego’s Marla Bennett who had been killed in a terrorist attack in Israel, Yarrow made contact with the Bennett family and performed at Temple Emanu-El in their honor.

Yarrow also has close connections with many individuals in the San Diego School District where Operation Respect is clearly established as a working, dynamic program.

*
Gail Feinstein Forman is a freelance writer based in San Diego

Animal protection group hails ban of horse-drawn carts in Tel Aviv

TEL AVIV (Press Release) – CHAI (Concern for Helping Animals in Israel)’s based in Alexandria, Virginia, and Hakol Chai’s campaign to ban cart horses in Tel Aviv, and eventually around the country, achieved its first goal with the banning of horse-drawn carts from Tel Aviv streets. For over a decade, CHAI and its sister charity in Israel, Hakol Chai, pressured the Tel Aviv municipality to regulate, and later to ban, the practice of horses pulling heavily-laden carts through city streets. These animals are often starved, beaten, made to work in the hot sun without water, and not provided with veterinary care. CHAI was the first organization to raise this issue and the first to undertake a campaign to ban horse-drawn carts.
CHAI’s presented its concerns to city officials in 1999. When they were rebuffed, CHAI repeatedly exposed incidents of horse abuse in Jaffa, the old part of Tel Aviv, and rescued and rehabilitated abused horses. A Hakol Chai video of abused animals was shown on TV, and the organization exposed an extreme horse abuser in Jaffa named Nissim, who hacked horses apart with an axe while they were still alive and sold the meat in the market as meat. In 2003, Nissim started up again, and Hakol Chai organized a raid on his facility and closed him down again, this time for good.

In 2005, Hakol Chai’s attorney wrote letters to the Ministry of Transportation, the Tel Aviv Mayor, and other Mayors around the country to raise awareness of the issue and call for a ban on the practice. Hakol Chai also organized an international letter writing campaign to government officials. 2007 saw Jaffa plastered with Hakol Chai posters saying “A horse is not a truck! Hundreds of miserable horses and donkeys around us. Don’t be indifferent! If you see a horse or donkey in distress, demand that the city act!”
Hakol Chai’s formal written proposal to the City resulted in Council holding a special meeting to discuss the issue. Outside the Council meeting, Hakol Chai protesters staged a demonstration, joined by the Green Party and other organizations. The municipal veterinarian at sided with Hakol Chai in saying only a ban, not regulations, would work because city lacks the funds to inspect horses and has no facility to house them even if they removed them from their abusers. The Mayor, pressured by cart owners, continued to decline to impose a ban.
In 2009, 350 supporters of Hakol Chai’s campaign crowded into a Tel Aviv venue featuring a protest concert at which popular Israeli entertainers volunteered to perform. This event was part of an international coalition of organizations throughout the world called Horses Without Carriages International that seeks to end horse-drawn carts and carriages. The event was followed by a civil disobedience action in front of City Hall, at which protesters blocked the entrance and handed out hundreds of flyers on one of the city’s busiest streets.
At long last, Tel Aviv’s Mayor issued a ban, and Hakol Chai will continue to press Mayors of other cities around the country to do the same. Said CHAI’s Director, Nina Natelson, “We are pleased that, at long last there will no longer be sights of thin, injured, beaten cart horses in Tel Aviv, and we will continue pressing Mayors of other cities in Israel to issue similar bans.”
*
Preceding provided by Concern for Helping Animals in Israel

The Goldstone-Gold debate at Brandeis University

By Bruce S. Ticker

WALTHAM, Massachusetts–It was a rare opportunity. Not only did I visit Brandeis University for the first time, but I observed two of the world’s most respected Jewish figures review the severe accusations against Israel contained in the United Nations document known as the Goldstone report.

The speakers were South African Judge Richard Goldstone himself, who
headed the commission which produced the report, and Dore Gold, former
Israeli ambassador to the United States. Hundreds of students, faculty and
Boston-area residents comprised the heavily Jewish crowd that listened to
Goldstone and Gold on the same day as a United Nations vote on the report;
by coincidence, I was vacationing in the greater Boston area.

The experience of personally witnessing these two prominent figures laying
out their conflicting positions merely served to enhance my take on the
Goldstone report: It is a sideshow of an appalling, senseless 61-year-old
conflict that refuses to end.

The aftermath of Israel’s invasion of Gaza in late December and January
has endured so many contortions that it is impossible to take the
Goldstone report seriously. The United Nations Assembly voted 114-18 on
Nov. 5 to call for UN Security Council action if Israel and Hamas fail to
investigate alleged war crimes within three months. The United States is
expected to veto further movement in the Security Council.

The report singles out Israel to account for its actions in a military
strike that, overall, was necessary and justifiable. I recognize that the
report charges Hamas with war crimes, but the commission’s mission was
originally to investigate only Israel. Goldstone saw to it the commission
probed both parties, but critics in the U.N. focused on Israel’s role
and Israel responded with uneven defenses.

As for the Arabs, since when have they been concerned about deaths of
their own people? They have launched countless wars that placed Arab
civilians in the cross-fire, pressured their own to battle Israel and
murdered Arab leaders and individuals who sought peace.

There is only one significant consequence of the Goldstone report: In
pressing for action on these charges, Arab extremists admit that Israel
won this round and they can’t stand it. It is another Nakba’a — the
Arab world’s term describing their failure to destroy Israel in 1948.

Meanwhile, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are locked in gridlock
over a peace settlement, and Israel must deal with a nuclear threat from
Iran and potential aggression from Gaza and southern Lebanon. The UN
habitually ignores human rights abuses committed by Russia, China, Sudan,
Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other countries.

Gold and other advocates for Israel repeatedly understate Israel’s
reason for invading Gaza in late December last year. Israel had every
right to attack Gaza after rockets were fired into Sderot and other parts
of southern Israel, which is the routine defense of Israel and its
supporters. If that is all of it, I would need to agree that the attack on
Gaza was, literally, a case of overkill.

However, Hamas – the force that controls Gaza – was clearly building a war
machine to cause far more damage to Israel. The Israel Defense Forces had
no other choice but to move in, and they were compelled to endanger
civilians in order to reach Hamas troops, supplies and facilities.
Israelis would sound far more reasonable and less flippant if they
employed this argument.

Both Goldstone and Gold were disingenuous in some of their assertions.
After cataloguing much of the destruction of Gaza, Goldstone declared:
“If that isn’t collective punishment, what is?”

Well, the planned destruction of a sovereign nation – namely, Israel -
might constitute “collective punishment,”a phrase beaten to death by
advocates for inhabitants of Israel’s territories. Could Goldstone have
discovered this term independently of this persistent mantra?

Goldstone even attributed the report’s blanket accusation that Israel
intentionally targeted civilians to past statements of high-level Israeli
officials who projected that attacks on Israel would instigate excessive
harm to the offending country or territory.

Such a prospect deserves serious consideration, but none of their
statements prove anything. It is not even direct evidence of formal policy
and it is my educated guess that these comments would be inadmissable as
evidence in court. Goldstone’s claim of evidence is loosely comparable
to introducing a suspect’s criminal record into a trial. Maybe they
allow that in South Africa, but not in American criminal courts.

The Israeli government complicated the conflict by refusing to cooperate
with the investigation. No question that the UN discriminates against
Israel, but Israel’s failure to participate leaves the impression that
it has something to hide.

The swiftest way to antagonize a prosecutor is to stonewall him. Israel
succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. Any self-important prosecutor will
slam the subject of his investigation if they refuse to cooperate. At
Brandeis, Goldstone made a point of Israel’s obstinence. His words were
civil and evenhanded, but his tone was sarcastic. Internally, Goldstone
was probably boiling.

Already, anything that Israel’s defenders would say is highly suspect.

Gold’s sleep-inducing rebuttal was flawed partly because he expended too
much time on details to bolster his position. That is fine for a book, as
demonstrated with one he authored, The Fight for Jerusalem, but not
a public discussion in which time is limited. He should have summarized
his arguments and complemented them with brief examples.

The effectiveness of Gold’s response – in part that ‘Hamas
deliberately embedded in the civilian population’ – recedes because the
Israeli government waited until after the investigation to defend itself.

We still cannot dismiss the question of whether Israel’s military
committed war crimes. My educated guess is that the truth lies somewhere
between the report’s accusations and Israel’s reaction.

It is possible that some commanders and soldiers at least acted
recklessly, without regard for the safety of civilians. The single
documented clue is that the 2006 two-front war with Lebanon and Gaza
exposed severe weaknesses in military prepardness. Reservist training was
inadequate and soldiers could not find weapons and other supplies. Prior
to the 2006 war, terrorists breached security three times at military
bases, which includes the kidnapping of Sgt. Gilad Shalit.

Not so clear is whether extremists belong to the IDF who ignore policies
and disregard the safety of Arab civilians. J. J. Goldberg, a respected
veteran of Jewish journalism, said in a commentary in the weekly <ins Forward that soldiers informally complain about fanatics in their ranks.

While Goldberg offers no hard evidence, this concern makes sense. There
are plenty of extremists in Israel, and nearly every Israeli is required
to serve in the IDF. It stands to reason that there could be an
overabundance of abuse on that basis.

If the IDF is burdened with serious shortcomings, it is long overdue to
clean up its act. Otherwise, the military will not only jeopardize the
lives of Arab civilians but its own troops, and the world will keep
demanding explanations.

One Goldstone report is one too many.

*
Ticker is a Philadelphia-based freelance journalist who has written for both secular and Jewish publications.

Hasan’s slideshow told motiive for Ft. Hood killings

By Barry Rubin

HERZLIYA, Israel — How do we know that the attack at Fort Hood was an act of Islamist terrorism? Simple, Major Nidal Hasan told us so. You’ve seen reports of a long list of things he did and said along these lines. But what’s most amazing of all is this:

Hasan is the first terrorist in history to give an academic lecture explaining why he was about to attack. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/11/09/ST2009110903704.html?sid=ST2009110903704 )

Yet that still isn’t enough for too many people—including the president of the United States–to understand that the murderous assault at Fort Hood was a Jihad attack.

It was reported that the audience was shocked and frightened by his lecture. He was supposed to speak on some medical topic yet instead talked on the topic: “The Koranic World View as it Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military.” All you have to do is look at the 50 Power Point slides and they tell you everything you need to know.

It is quite a good talk. He’s logical and presents his evidence. This is clearly not the work of a mad man or a fool, though there’s still a note of ambiguity in it. He’s still working out what to do in his own mind and is trying to figure out if he has a way out other than in effect deserting the U.S. army and becoming a Jihad warrior. Ultimately, he concluded that he could not be a proper Muslim without killing American soldiers. Obviously, other Muslims could reach different conclusions but Hasan strongly grounds himself in Islamic texts.

In a sense, Hasan’s lecture was a cry for help: Can anyone show me another way out? Can anyone refute my interpretation of Islam? One Muslim in the audience reportedly tried to do so. But unless these issues are openly discussed and debated–rather than swept under the rug–more people will die.

In fact, I’d recommend that teachers use this lecture in teaching classes on both Islam and Islamist politics. .

Follow along with me and you’ll understand everything.

Hasan deals with three topics: What Islam teaches Muslims, how Muslims view the wars in Afghanistan and Iran, how this might affect Muslims in the U.S. military. [Slide 2] Hasan defines Jihad, showing how silly are the claims that it only means a personal struggle to behave better. It also signifies holy war, of course. [Slide 5].

Now here’s Hasan’s central theme. Muslims cannot fight in an infidel army against other Muslims. And Hasan himself says that it’s getting hard for Muslims in the U.S. military to justify doing so. [Slide 11] Obviously, Hasan was deciding that he couldn’t do so.

He then quotes the Koran extensively to prove the point. Allah will punish anyone who kills a Muslim [Slide 12]. Hasan then gives four examples of Muslim soldiers who broke under the strain. One who killed fellow American soldiers (which Hasan would himself do), one accused of espionage (but was acquitted), one who deserted, and one who refused deployment to Iraq. [Slide 13]

Quoting the Koran, Hasan next provides a number of quotations to show that the believer must obey Allah. If they do, they will enjoy great delights (though he left out the 72 virgins, there’s one quote hinting at pederasty), and if they don’t they will suffer torments of Hell.

Finally, he gets into the heavy stuff. Hasan introduces the concept of “defensive Jihad” which is a core element in radical Islamist thinking and has especially been promoted by Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida. [Slides 37-39]. If others attack and oppress Muslims, then it is the duty of all Muslims to fight them. September 11 was justified by its perpetrators by saying that the United States had attacked Muslims and therefore it was mandatory to kill Americans in return.

And here is the crux of the matter: Verse 60:08, “Allah forbids you…from dealing kindly and justly” with those who fight Muslims.” [Slide 40]

If Nidal Hasan believed this and would follow it, he must—to be a proper Muslim in his eyes—pick up a gun and join the Jihad, Muslim side. He was not shooting Americans because he caught battle fatigue from American soldiers he treated. Think about it. To have done so, Hasan would have had to sympathize with them, thinking about what it would be like for him if he’d been fighting…Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan. But that was precisely his problem. He sympathized with the other side.

Being ordered to ship out to one of these countries, Hasan now had to decide: which side are you on? Would he choose the side of Allah and the Muslims, to be rewarded in Heaven? Or would he join with the infidels, to be punished with Hell and to betray his religion? He made his decision.

It is interesting that no Muslim debate has developed over a very simple issue: What if two groups of Muslims are fighting, cannot one side with one group, even if it has non-Muslim allies? After all, Americans are not going to Iraq or Afghanistan simply to “kill Muslims” but to defend Muslims from being killed. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Egyptians had no problem with using Western troops to save them from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1991, for example. The Iraqi and Afghan governments, made up of pious Muslims, do the same thing.

Arab nationalists who are Muslims can take this position more easily. But for Islamists the problem is not some abstraction but knowledge that they are fighting a battle to seize control of all Muslim-majority states and indeed perhaps of the entire world.

The true problem, then, is not that some Muslims help infidels kill Muslims, but that some Muslims help infidels kill Islamists. But Hasan never considered this point, which could be quite persuasive to other Muslims in Western militaries.

So, in his thinking, how might Hasan have escaped from that stark choice? Hasan answers that question. Quoting the Koran, he indicated that if the Americans ended the wars, then that would be okay and no killing would be necessary. [Slide 42]

Another alternative is if the Americans accepted Islam or agreed to become subservient to Muslim rulers (dhimmis) and paid a special tax [Slide 43-44].

The third alternative would be if the Muslim Messiah came, destroyed Christianity as a false religion and set off the post-history utopia. [Slide 45]. He didn’t mention another part of this description, which was the murder of all Jews.

A digression is appropriate here. Hasan, although a Palestinian, has never been quoted as attacking Israel or the Jews. This is one more reminder that this struggle isn’t all just about Israel. But it also tells something important about Hasan which also applies to many Muslim radicals in Europe. Hasan is an American. As such he has no other nationality, neither Palestinian nor Arab. He doesn’t support Hamas or Fatah. But he has a religion that directs his thinking. That’s why he is an Islamist and why he supports a generalized Islamist revolutionary movement, al-Qaida.

As one moderate Muslim from Canada pointed out, the clothes he wore the day before committing his Jihad attack was not (as some sources put it in a silly manner) some martyr or even Arab garb but the clothing of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is an al-Qaida Jihadi, having changed sides in the War on Terror.

Hasan was no fool or blind fanatic. Indeed, he presents a sophisticated view. For example, he quotes contradictory Quranic verses, one suggesting that all religions can enter Heaven; another that all non-Muslims will go to Hell [Slide 47].

His conclusion takes on tremendous significance in light of what would happen at Fort Hood. He writes:

“If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the `infidels’; i.e., the enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.”

And of course, these groups did so convince Hasan. [Slide 48]

Why? Hasan tells us:

“God expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with Hell. Muslims may seem moderate (compromising) but God is not.” [Slide 49]

And at the very end, he proposes what might have been his own escape route:

“Recommendation: Department of Defense should allow Muslim soldiers the option of being released as `Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.” [Slide 50]

If that had existed for Hasan, I think, he would not have killed people. This proposal is worth debating, though it has negative implications too, of course. But then he had other options. He could have resigned his commission, deserted, or refused deployment as a conscientious objector and gone to prison. In fact, Hasan himself cited individuals who had done the last two.

Consequently, Hasan’s lecture also tells us why Muslims can choose not to be Jihadists, though this requires ignoring or rationalizing clear, religiously binding commandments in their religion or by being basically secular people of Muslim background. This is the kind of solution found in Christianity and Judaism, of course.

Hasan was too pious and consistent to take this way out. The answer to his personal behavior must be found in a mix of psychological factors and political-religious beliefs. The fact is, however, that he clearly did see himself as a Jihad warrior in the end. The existence of psycological factors in no way negates the importance of religious considerations.

All terrorists have some psychological forces working to make them follow such a path. Yet if not for ideological–and in the case of Islamists, religious–beliefs they never would have become terrorists. In contrast, criminals have psychological factors plus material goals, while mentally ill people who commit crimes are compelled by purely psychogical factors. Hasan does not fit either of those two categories.

Equally, his action cannot be attributed to a “misreading” or “heretical” interpretation of Islam. To read this lecture is to understand how carefully and self-critically he approached the issues. Anything so obviously false or deviant from mainstream Islam would simply not appeal to so many Muslims. Hasan was looking for a way out in the texts and listed the “loopholes” he did find: either the United States must not fight anyone who was a Muslim or it must let him out of the military.

What Hasan neglected was an explanation that lay outside what his strict reading of the Muslim texts would allow him to say: the United States must fight, in general, because the Islamists have been the aggressors. And the United States is actually fighting as allies with one group of (more moderate) Muslims against another (of radical Islamists). Yet the texts always deal with the Muslim community as a united whole (the umma), an interpretation that just doesn’t correspond with reality. Indeed and ironically, this view enables Islamists to themselves kill thousands of Muslims all over the world!

The fact that Hasan’s lecture has not been the centerpiece of the whole post-massacre debate is a true example of how impoverished are the “experts,” journalists, and politicians at dealing with these issues. Of course, without exploring the Islamic factor, they’re wasting everyone’s time. They’re also going to be wasting quite a few lives.

**

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

* Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

The thrill of an archive brought home to San Diego

By Donald H. Harrison

SAN DIEGO—There is something enchanting about historical research. You can visit a library or an archive in almost any city and provided you read the local language with sufficient understanding, you can peel back the mysteries of the past in pleasant academic surroundings.

For historians, genealogists and antiquarians, the lure of the archive can be magnetic and the routines within can be quite satisfying. By application of the librarian’s logic, one may locate sources that few other people have read, see documents written or signed by historical figures, and even experience a vicarious thrill from holding in one’s hands something previously handled by someone who may have died years or even centuries before.

Recently, I was flattered to receive from New Orleans an email message from Linda Canada, a researcher who recently had graciously served as the interim director of the San Diego Historical Society. She had accompanied her husband to New Orleans where he was attending a convention of anesthetists, which, in my opinion, could put any lay person to sleep.

To liven things up for herself, Linda found in the French Quarter near their hotel the Williams Research Center, and upon entering the archive knew she had found a spiritual home-away-from-home. A lover of San Diego history, she tried to recall connections between New Orleans and San Diego that she might research. She remembered that Louis Rose, San Diego’s first Jewish settler, had previously lived in New Orleans to which he had immigrated in 1840 from Germany. Recalling that I had written Louis Rose’s biography, she asked me if there was any information I would have loved to have dug up.

Of course there was. In any research project, there is that imperative extrapolated from Ecclesiastes: a time to research, a time to write. Rose, who came to San Diego in 1850 after spending a decade in Louisiana and Texas, had left behind a financially troubled marriage in New Orleans. After arriving in San Diego, he became quite successful as a businessman with a hotel, saloon, general store, tannery and butcher shop; was a prominent landowner (Rose Canyon, Roseville), and also served as a member of the City Board of Trustees and the first County Board of Supervisors.

He wrote to his wife that she should join him in California and they would make a new life together—but Caroline, believing she had been abandoned, had already begun a new life. She declined Rose’s invitation and not long afterwards became pregnant by a certain Frenchman. Embarrassed, her sister and brother-in-law sent her from New Orleans to South Carolina for the term of her pregnancy, but she miscarried and the fetus was buried somewhere under the name of Caroline Rose. Rose subsequently obtained a divorce in San Diego from Caroline.
So, thanking Linda for her kind offer, I asked her to check if the archives could divulge anything about whatever happened to Caroline Marks Rose after the miscarriage. Did she return to New Orleans? Did she remarry?

If such information had been in the Williams Research Center archives, Linda would have been the one to find it—she is an incredibly accomplished researcher. However, the sought-after epilogue was not to be found.

In the course of her investigation, Linda found not an end but a Rose-related beginning. She extracted from the archives a 165-year-old French-language document, written in Louis Rose’s handwriting. French was but one of several languages Rose spoke, also including his native German as well as Spanish and English.

I serve on the board of the Louis Rose Society for the Preservation of Jewish History, of which SDSU history professor Lawrence Baron is now the president. Among the other board members is Norman Greene, formerly my co-publisher of the San Diego Jewish Press-Heritage. For many years, his wife Bobby taught French at Montgomery High School in the Sweetwater Union High School District in southern San Diego, so it was to her I brought the document for translation. Although she was able to give me a fairly comprehensive early reading, because some of the language was archaic, Bobby faxed the photocopy for corroboration to Stella Salzmann, a native of Brussels who now lives in San Diego.

Their joint verdict was that the April 28, 1844 document was the minutes of a meeting of the Mason’s Germania Lodge No. 43 in New Orleans in which charter members including Rose admitted other members to the order upon verification of their good character. The founders also voted to have pins or medallions made for themselves identifying their Masonic affiliation. For many years, this particular lodge kept its records in both French and in German.

Rose subsequently would participate in the founding of the first Masonic Lodge in San Diego; the Masons being one of the chief organizations over the years that brought Jews and Christians together in fraternal association.

I have to admit that when Linda came back to San Diego with the photocopied document in her hand, I felt two conflicting emotions. My yetzer ha tov felt gratitude, because Linda had expended time and talent to further my knowledge of a central figure in early San Diego Jewish history. On the other hand, my yetzer ha ra felt a bit of envy—making a discovery in an archive is akin to the thrill archaeologists must feel when they find an artifact of consequence under the soil. I felt myself longing for that feeling again.

Perhaps some time I will have the opportunity to return the favor to Linda – and to myself that special researcher’s sense of accomplishment.
*
Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World and author of Louis Rose: San Diego’s First Jewish Settler and Entrepreneur.

Trying to understand Palestinians and Haredim

By Ira Sharkansky

JERUSALEM, Nov. 14– This is one of those times to wonder if ridicule or serious analysis is in order.

The occasion is a combination of two moves by the Palestinian leadership. It is not even clear which of the two warrants ridicule or analysis, or if they are both just part of the noise coming out of a entity with doubtful credibility. Perhaps they deserve no more attention than the bull sessions heard in the halls of a legislature, or in the dorm rooms of individuals aspiring to make a splash in student government.

One of the moves is a threat by the ostensible president of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas, to resign or not to run for re-election if Israel is not immediately forthcoming with respect to Palestinian demands. The other is to seek international recognition for an independent Palestine with the borders of 1967 and Jerusalem as its capital.

To be precise, it is not clear whether the threat is to resign, or not to run for re-election. The picture is confused by the formal end of Abbas’ term some months ago, which has led the Hamas leadership to declare that he is no longer the president. There is a further problem insofar as the Palestinian Election Commission has indicated that it may not be possible to implement the election scheduled for January, and Hamas has indicated that it will not let Gazans vote in an illegal election.

President Barack Obama, the heads of several European governments, and prominent Israelis in and out of government have urged Abbas to continue.

No doubt it would be easier for those saying he should stay if he accepted their call. Leaving aside the human factor (Doesn’t an ineffective 74 year old have a right to retire?), his continuation would avoid learning how to deal with someone new.

Some of those urging him to stay on are making the claim that “there is no one who could fill his shoes.” Apparently they come from places where the cemeteries are not already filled with indispensable people.

Palestinians are threatening that if Abbas goes, the only viable candidate is Marwan Barghouti. He has a following of unknown size in the West Bank, but was convicted of involvement in numerous murders and is serving several life sentences in an Israeli prison. One doubts that the Israeli government will respond with a “Sure, why not?” to Barghouti’s selection.

The other threat is that without Abbas, the Palestine National Authority will collapse, Israel will be saddled with governing the West Bank, and that will advance the idea of one country from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, with majority (i.e., Palestinian) rule.

If the Palestine National Authority does collapse, it is more likely that Israelis will not notice the difference from what currently exists. Those who do notice will be overseas Palestinian investors who are remaking the faces of Ramallah and Jenin. Perhaps their threats to halt the financial inflows will move the Palestinians in a direction of realism.

Those overseas investors might also work to moderate the Palestinian maneuver to seek international recognition for an independent state with the borders of 1967 and Jerusalem as its capital.

No doubt there are many unworthies of the world who will support the Palestinians. Will they notice that Israel surrounds the Palestinian areas of the West Bank, controls who and what moves in and out, including water and electricity? Will they pay attention to existing agreements between Israel and Palestinians that make changes of the kinds indicated dependent on an agreement of both parties?.

Enough analysis? Or is this ridicule?

*
(November 15)

This overloaded news day provokes a secular and politically moderate Israeli to ask if the greater threat against a good life comes from Palestinians or Haredim (ultra-Orthodox)?

In an effort to avoid curses from Jewish readers, I will neither answer that question, nor identify myself as the secular, politically moderate Israeli who is asking it.

Let’s start with a cartoon in today’s Ha’aretz.

The text reads that the Haredi community is moving to high-tech. The picture shows the good men pushing their burning trash bin from the parking garage open on the Sabbath to an Intel facility, which this week announced that its production lines in Jerusalem would be working on the Sabbath.

Several hundred Haredim protested, threw things, and tried to break into the building. The police let them do their thing until they began attacked the front door. Before the Haredim attacked them, television journalists were able to film confrontations between individuals wanting to work and Haredim asserting that they were violating God’s law.

It is another open question as to whether the villains in this piece are the Haredim, the police, or the Intel management.

The hope is that the police were wise in keeping a low profile, letting the Haredim express their need to protest, and that the Haredim will abandon this mission after a few weekends, like they seem to have abandoned the parking garage without success.

The Intel management is not entirely innocent. This facility is in an industrial park only a short walk from a Haredi neighborhood. Working on the Sabbath any place in Jerusalem (except overtly Arab neighborhoods) is an invitation to protest, and something only a couple of hundred meters downhill from a Haredi neighborhood even more so.

Before the weekend, Intel’s Israel management indicated that the work must go on. If not, the company would consider pulling out of Jerusalem and perhaps even out of Israel.

That escalation would risk legal problems as well as management headaches. Intel has research and development as well as production facilities in Israel, with its largest facility south of Tel Aviv. It has received substantial financial inducements from the Israeli government, which entail some obligations on the part of the company.

We can hope for calm and good sense, without expecting it to erupt in the next week or two. And for the Haredim to stay in their communities, running their own lives without trying to impose their laws on the rest of us, while the Palestinians also pass over their rough patch of dire threats.

Anyone wanting to bet a shekel or two?

*
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University

Telushkin: Love your neighbor and yourself

By Jack Forman

LA JOLLA, California–Rabbi Joseph Telushkin spoke engagingly with humor and insight on Sunday, November 8, to an almost-filled auditorium of San Diego Jewish Book Fair attendees at the Lawrence Family Jewish Community Center about some of the issues he examines in his most recent book, A Code of Jewish Ethics, volume 2 – which is subtitled “Love Your Neighbor as Yourself”.

The first book in the series was subtitled “You Shall Be Holy” and it won the 2006 National Jewish Book Award. In it, Telushkin examined issues of character development such as judging other people fairly and deciding when forgiveness is obligatory and when not. He touched on these matters in this talk at the San Diego Jewish Book Fair, but he concentrated his focus on the newly published second volume in the series.

The current spiritual leader of the Synagogue of Performing Arts in Los Angeles, a senior associate with CLAL (The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership), and a member of the board of directors of the Jewish Book Council, Rabbi Telushkin is the author of many authoritative, thoughtful and lively-written books on Judaism and Jewish life, the most recent of which is a multi-volume compendium dealing with Jewish ethics (A Code of Jewish Ethics).

The rabbi noted that Leviticus 19:18 “You shall not take revenge or bear a grudge against a member of your people. Love your neighbor as yourself; I am God” states the Golden Rule in a positive statement. But it is part of a passage prefaced by an example of loving your neighbor prohibiting specific behavior about revenge and grudges. That is why, Telushkin explained, the Rabbinic commentaries on that Torah passage re-phrased the Golden Rule into a more negative format.

Rabbi Hillel’s teaching is the most famous of these transformed expressions of The Golden Rule: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor”, followed by the statement “This is the whole Torah! All the rest is commentary.” Hillel clearly believed that the Golden Rule summed up the essence of Judaism, but he also felt that it needed to be expressed in more specific terms related to oneself. And defining loving one’s neighbor as avoiding specific offensive behavior that others might inflict on you is more meaningful and instructive than simply saying “love your neighbor as yourself”.

In describing the toxic nature of holding grudges against people, Telushkin stated that “If you hold grudges or resentments, it is like allowing someone to live rent-free in your head.”

Telushkin emphasized while the central message of the Golden Rule is loving one’s neighbor, the sub-text — however it is formulated — is loving oneself. One can’t effectively be generous to others if one doesn’t have self-respect and self-understanding – an insight that is reflected in Rabbi Hillel’s often quoted passage from the Jewish Mishnaic classic, Pirke Avot (The Ethics of the Fathers): “If I am not for myself who will be for me? Yet, if I am for myself only, what am I? And if not now, when?”

Telushkin related a moving story that appeared in You Shall Be Holy (volume 1 of A Code of Jewish Ethics) about the famous Russian rabbi, Chaffetz Chayyim. On a train taking him to a nearby city where he was scheduled to speak, he met a man and asked him where he going. The man answered that he was going to the city to hear a speech by Chaffetz Chayyim, whom he called “the greatest sage and saint in the Jewish world today”. The Rabbi was embarrassed and told the man that he knows the scholar well, and he is not so great, and he’s certainly no saint. The man slapped the Rabbi in anger. That evening, the man attended the talk and with horror realized that the person he slapped was the great Rabbi. After the talk, he approached Chaffetz Chayyim and apologized profusely. The Rabbi smiled and responded: “You have no reason to request forgiveness. It was my honor you were defending. For years, I’ve told people not to speak disparagingly about others. Now I’ve learned it’s also wrong to speak disparagingly about oneself.”

As the rabbi of the Synagogue of Performing Arts in LA, Telushkin said he has met many congregants who have been badly hurt by the economic recession. He has given them help by having them examine how the Talmud defines and discusses states of being, emphasizing the spiritual components rather than those that are materialistic. Who is rich? — someone who is happy with his life. Who is strong? — someone who overcomes his or her bad inclinations. (Everyone has them in their mind.) Who is wise? — someone who learns from others.

Given all the stresses of contemporary life, Telushkin said it is important to reflect on the good things in one’s life rather than on the negative; he asked everyone to have a 24-hour complaint fast, during which nothing negative passes through your lips. He encouraged all to extend the parameters of prayer beyond one’s family and pray for people one doesn’t know well because that will help us keep in mind other people’s needs. Instead of complaining about a massive traffic jam one is caught in, one should pray for the people in the accident causing the backup. He said it will make a world of difference when you pass the accident because you will leave the scene hopeful and positive rather than angry and negative.

The first book Telushkin wrote was a book entitled Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism, a book he co-authored with Dennis Prager (who spoke at an earlier session of the Book Fair). It was – and still is today – a trailblazer because it presents for Jewish and non-Jewish readers alike nine questions about Judaism and Jewish life that are basic to the understanding of the oldest organized monotheistic religion in the world. His most recent two books, which Telushkin’s talk highlighted so entertainingly in his November 8 speech, are likely to do the same for Jewish ethics.
*
Forman is a senior librarian at Mesa College in San Diego