Despite what sometimes seems to be the case, anti-Semitism in this country has just reached its lowest level in the 45 years that it has been tracked. That is reason to celebrate. At the same time, anti-Semitic acts of violence do seem to be increasing, which gives one reason for both concern and precautionary measures.

Last week the Anti-Defamation League released its annual survey of American anti-Semitic attitudes. It found that 12 percent of Americans hold such views. Obviously any racism, hatred or bigotry is too much—even though there always be some. Indeed, this represents roughly 30 million Americans – and the mark is much higher amongst African Americans (28 percent) and foreign born Hispanics (35 percent). Interestingly, at all age levels, men are more likely than women to hold anti-Semitic views. Still, in overall numbers, this is a nice drop the 15 percent of 2007 and the now seemingly impossible high mark of 29 percent in 1964.

As ADL National Director Abraham Foxman explained, “just as the good news about the election of an African-American as President has been tempered by the surfacing of racism and conspiratorial thinking in reaction, so too the significant diminution of widespread prejudice against Jews is tempered by the manifestation of violence, conspiracy theories and insensitivities toward them.”

Not surprisingly, education levels have a lot to do with levels of anti-Semitism. That’s why a range of programs – such as nationally with ADL’s World of Difference, and locally with the Jewish foundation sponsored placement of a Jewish educator at the St. Francis Academy – can make a real impact.

How can it be that an “old, tired play,” one seen by everyone so many times, can still be performed so well and spark Jewish identity anew?

I had that thought Tuesday night after taking my 11-year-old daughter to the Hippodrome Theatre in Baltimore to not only see “Fiddler On The Roof,” but to see the lead role played once again by the iconic Haim Topol in what is likely the last run in the role for the 74-year-old.

The Israeli-born actor is of course not quite the young father he could easily portray back in the mid-60s when he started in the role. But that did not matter one bit. In fact, I think his beard and age simply made his message transcendent. And the play was straight forward. Fortunately, it did not get lost in a bizarre array of special effects. Rather it was – and is – the story that captivates so many. In fact, I was thrilled that the crowd seemed not to be heavily Jewish, no doubt due to season ticket holders. But every one knew how special a night this was, cheering for Topol when he first appeared and then leaping up to give him a standing ovation at the curtain call.

But most important was to see the reaction of my daughter. She laughed and cried and was captivated by a three-hour production that was well-paced and well-acted.

What happened after the play, however, was even more important. We began talking about my great-grandfather, the Ukrainian-born pauper (Nisan Shlomo Wolf) for whom I am named. Then we spoke of life in general for Eastern European Jews, so mixed with the joys of klezmer and the tragedy of pogroms (the latter suddenly, frighteningly shown in the play).  Then, of course, came the topic of intermarriage. I explained to her how “back then and until not long ago,” some Jewish families would sit shiva when a child married a non-Jew.

That led to the conversation every Jewish parents needs to have with their children. “What would you do if I married a non-Jew?” I have a standard response for this, one that that has been appropriate until now: “That’s not going to happen sweetie, so I’m not worried about it.”

Of course, I know that she’ll go off to college and there is a chance she’ll meet a non-Jew and fall in love. (However, with a day school education and a kosher home, I’m hedging my bets as we’ll have her eat at Hillel.) Nonetheless, I told her, “Remember that non-Jews do become Jews. If you love someone who is not Jewish, you need to look long and hard as to how you want to go forward. Personally, I cannot understand how any Jew would not want to be part of the Jewish people.”

She agreed. And the night was even grander.

So if you have not taken your children to see this “old-new” play (to steal a phrase from Theodor Herzl), do so here or elsewhere. It is a fabulous way to start meaningful conversation. And I promise you, you’ll be humming the songs for days. And Jews talking, well that’s the essence of Tradition, Tradition!

Funerals are not supposed to be enjoyable, and I would not call today’s final send off for Rabbi Mark G. Loeb a party. However, it certainly did provide as many profound and reflective moments as chuckles and warm feelings.

That’s because Rabbi Loeb – a man as complicated as he was diverse – touched a remarkable amount of lives. I’ve written my own reflections in this week’s column. CLICK HERE

But I want to describe some of the scene inside a very crowded Beth El sanctuary today, one that seats about 1,700 people.

I arrived around noon – an hour early to make sure I could be in the main sanctuary. I was about 10 rows back on the left-hand side, which gave me a chance to see much of the room. There were already several hundred people there. Cars were already lined up on the street outside, no doubt many people not wanting to be stuck in the huge parking lot behind the congregation for a ceremony likely to be anything but short.

The hallways were already filling with people, many of them pausing to sign the 10 or so tables from Sol Levinson & Bros. Funeral Home. Rows of black kippot sat next to the books. Inside the sanctuary, people would occasionally approach the coffin, bow their heads and move their lips. A few people hugged each other. Most, however, were comfortably talking, often sharing their stories about their late spiritual leader.

More than one person noted that only 17 months ago many of us had been in the same room for the amazing retirement weekend the congregation had hosted for our late friend. I looked up, stage right, and imagined him as he was that night – sitting in a comfortable chair as he listened to outstanding performances, whether the penetrating clarinet of Dr. Eyal Bor, or the amazing singing of Cantor Thom King or the riveting speaking of Pulitzer Prize winner Doris Kearns Goodwin. Mark smiled a lot that night. He hugged as many of us as possible in the mob scene afterwards that was the reception.

Now he was lying in front of us in a plain pine box.

After starting – surprisingly on time – for 90 minutes no less than eight speakers told their stories. Former assistant rabbis, a congregant and colleagues. The choir’s voices were soothing.

No one moved. No one seemed antsy about being late for a meeting. A few tears were held back. Finally, when it was his turn Beth El Senior Rabbi Steve Schwartz related that his predecessor had of course left specific instructions as to how the funeral was to go. That was in a note given to him a year ago, one with instructions to open only in case of death. Rabbi Loeb, you see, planned out everything.

Rabbi Schwartz apologized for not keeping within the 45 minute time frame that Rabbi Loeb had requested. Rabbi Loeb even jokingly had written that if this wish were not fulfilled “I will haunt you forever.”

Then, after describing their own profoundly close relationship, Rabbi Schwartz read the last line of that note: “All the best for the future I would have enjoyed seeing. My love to all.”

I was not able to go to the cemetery, so I waited outside for the limo carrying Rabbi Loeb’s body to leave. In the traditional way, I took a few steps behind it to follow it as it began driving off into a fittingly rainy, dreary day. As I headed back to my car on nearby Brooks Robinson Avenue, I thought of how the weather’s gloom had just been overwhelmed by the love and admiration that oozed from the many people who had gathered to honor a very special man, one of whose likes we may never see again.

Leading American Jewish groups are asking the Iowa Democratic and Republican parties to change the 2010 causes to avoid Shabbat. That’s a mistake as it’s not necessary.

Last week, major national Jewish groups representing Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist Jews, as well as the National Jewish Democratic Council and the Republican Jewish Coalition sent a letter to the political parties opposing the caucus. The letter was coordinated by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the umbrella group for community relations councils, including the Baltimore Jewish Council.

The caucus is scheduled for 1 p.m. Saturday, January 23, 2010, which would preclude Shabbat observant Jews from participating.

However, in an era of multiple forms of voting, this request seems unnecessary. While it is nice to be sensitive to everyone’s every needs, it also is not realistic. American Jews now represent less than two percent of the U.S. population. Our needs can be taken care of with early voting, including electronic voting. The issue should be that those votes will then be calculated into caucus results.

However, Iowa does not currently allow for such early voting in caucuses. Changing that is where Jewish efforts should be directed. In doing that, the combined Jewish groups will not only bring focus on Iowa’s multi-cultural community, but bring positive attention to the state’s Jewish community as well. 

Irving Kristol, the “godfather of the neo-conservative movement,” died Friday, Sept. 18 at age 89. The life story of the son of non-observant Eastern European Jewish immigrants reveals how American Jews continue to openly, confidently shape the broader society without retribution.

If it was anything, Kristol’s intellectual journey was fascinating. Praised in his final decades as an icon of the intellectual right, in his earlier years he was a hardcore leftist. Back in 1940, as a City College of New York student he was part of a Trotskyite communist sect that morphed into the New York Intellectuals. In 1973, disenchanted with the Democratic Party’s left-wing, he coined with Michael Harrington the term “neo-conservatism.”

Along the way, Kristol’s many positions of influence included being Managing Editor of the American Jewish Committee’s Commentary magazine (1947-1952), of which he was a lifelong contributor. From 1965 to 2002 he was the co-founder and co-editor of Public Interest. From 1985 to 2002 he was the founder and publisher of The National Interest. He also authored four books, including the 1978 “Two Cheers for Capitalism.”

Now I’m a regular reader of Commentary. I have always found Kristol’s essays intelligent, even though I’d say I only agreed with about half of his conclusions. Still, he made you think about your positions – and he made me reconsider several of mine. (That’s far more than I can say for his son Bill at the Weekly Standard, who I just don’t think has anywhere near the intellectual clout and is much more of a political hack.)

Over the years, Irving Kristol’s choice quotes included:

• “A neo-conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.” (Nu, Irving, ever hear of self-defense classes?)

• “The danger facing American Jews today is not that Christians want to persecute them but that Christians want to marry them.” (I couldn’t agree more. We’re not being done in by anti-Semitism in this country, but by our inability to convince people that Jewish living is worthy of perpetuating.)

• “A liberal is a person who sees a 14-year-old girl performing live sex acts onstage and wonders if she’s being paid the minimum wage.” (As offensive as that is to some, it has to make you chuckle a little.)

Whatever his perspective, Kristol’s essays had impact, even as the vast majority of American Jews defied his hopes by voting with the Democratic Party.

Regardless, Kristol gave right-leaning American Jews an intellectual comfort in GOP circles. And unlike so many in the political arena today, he was a principled gentleman more interested in stoking ideas than anger. In short, he left an indisputable imprint on the American Jewish experience while shaping the national debate as well. 

It’s never fun when you are invited to a party that you have to attend and you know that a despised fiend will be given the floor. Should you stay or should you go? The World Jewish Congress and other groups are urging the latter. That is, they want diplomats to boycott the September 23 U.N. General Assembly address of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is fresh off a contested reelection bid in which an unknown number of protestors were beaten and killed in the streets by his henchmen.

Nonetheless, U.N. rules clearly declare that as a head of state the ruler must be admitted to the world body and allowed to address it if desired.

Few readers need detailed reminders of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s pathological hatred of the State of Israel, the United States and freedom in general. Nor are they likely oblivious to his overt interest in making Iran a nuclear power.

While the Iranians say they are pursuing nuclear energy for domestic energy consumption, their years-long refusal of International Atomic Energy Agency inspections has led numerous governments to conclude that they are well-engaged in a nuclear weapons program. When one combines that with Iran’s long-time support for terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah (which until 911 had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group – remember the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon?), and Mr. Ahmedinejad’s pledge to wipe out the state of Israel, the concern is palpable.

That noted, diplomats should not walk out of the U.N. hall when the Iranian president takes to the rostrum. Rather, they should simply stand and turn their backs on him. Further, as he speaks they should refrain from any applause or cat-calling. Let him and the world see that he is being shunned for what he is – a pariah.

Meanwhile, let us work to ensure that if the Iranian leader does make other public appearances, that he is met at every turn with a broad coalition of those opposed to his venomous thoughts and actions. He might spoil the mood of the party for all, but that does not mean that he should have a good time doing it.

Talk about letting the fox into the henhouse. A leading candidate to be the next head of the U.N.’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is Egyptian Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni. UNESCO’s 58 member states were set to vote on their next leader on Thursday, Sept. 17 in Paris.

For the record, Mr. Hosni, according to the Anti-Defamation League documents, not only has a history of rejecting cultural relations with the State of Israel, but once even advocated the burning of Hebrew books in Egyptian libraries. At one point, he reportedly said, “I’d burn Israeli books myself if I found any in libraries in Egypt.” He later clarified that statement, saying it was made in anger and not intended literally. OK, then what actually was intended? That he merely hated Israel but would not act on it?

Now there’s a great role model for Arab youth. With cultural advocates like these, who needs books in the first place?

Likewise, he reportedly refused to permit Israeli participation in major Egyptian cultural events, such as the annual Cairo Book Fair and Film Festival.

But it’s not Jews or Israelis that are the Egyptian official’s sole targets. “His role in banning books from the Cairo Book Fair, films from the Alexandria Film Festival, and television shows from being broadcast has come under fire from artists, journalists and intellectuals from Egypt and around the world,” according to ADL officials.

Thus, one is left to conclude that building people-to-people ties to promote peace between Arabs and Jews – long a desired effort for those seeking to create long-term positive relations – is not even an option for Mr. Hosni.

How many times can you say no while hinting at yes? It’s a question raised in the latest announcement by the Vatican that it will soon remind some renegade co-religionists that blatant anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial just might not be the image the Church wants to project in this new century.

That’s part of what comes to mind with the news that Pope Benedict XVI will in upcoming doctrinal talks with the traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) insist that respect for Judaism is mandatory for being readmitted into the Catholic fold. Pius X was the early 20th century pope (1903-1915) who was, shall we say, doctrinaire in his adherence to the strictest application of traditional Catholic teachings.

But the problems with SSPX are even more fundamental than the obscene denial of humanity’s most documented mass crime. The group rejects the landmark 1964 Vatican II Council, which among other things finally, formally absolved Jews from the murder of Jesus of Nazareth – something that had sparked many centuries of bloody anti-Semitism.

This all also reveals the baffling layers of process in the Church, something which confuses outsiders and is often poorly explained by insiders. Indeed, last year the pope lifted the excommunication decree against the Society of Pius X. The group included the British-born Bishop Richard Williamson, a patent and unrepentant Holocaust denier.

So members of the group – including Bishop Williamson – were no longer excommunicated, but not yet readmitted to the Church. In Jewish terms, that seems kind of like being allowed to wait in the hallway during Rosh Hashanah services so that you can hear what’s going on, but being prevented from entering from one of those pesky ushers.

Despite the Vatican’s explanations then and now as to what all this means, one cannot deny that that the pope has already removed the stigma of belonging to the SSPX without any concessions from its leadership.

It is certainly the Benedict’s business as to whom he wants to be in good standing in the eyes of the Church. However, when it comes to ambiguity with Holocaust deniers, he cannot expect to escape a torrent of criticism from those who are simply at a loss of comprehension about understanding such policies. 

Even in an era of $30 billion here and there for various industry bailouts, $20 million still goes a long way. That’s all the more so for a relatively small population that is under-employed, has inadequate schools and needs more food. With that in mind, one has to wonder what the wonks at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are thinking these days with their allocations to a West Bank project.

The Washington-funded operation, according to the Israeli newspaper Yediot Acharonot, has embarked on a $20 million project to fund the replacement of road signs in the area with ones in Arabic. The problem – for the Palestinians – is that the current ones are in Hebrew, although when appropriate some also have Arabic and English. Mind you, most of the ones only in Hebrew point toward Jewish settlements. Besides, many West Bank Arabs read some Hebrew, which they have been exposed to all of their lives.

The official reason for this project is that USAID wants to help the Palestinians prepare for statehood. That in itself is a dangerous statement of intentions. One day, and perhaps sooner than some think, a Palestinian state will come into being. However, new road signs now will not even remotely advance the cause and it’s not USAID’s role to get ahead of the peace process. Rather, Palestinian political hopes will be achieved at the negotiating table when Arab rejectionists of the Jewish state are finally under control.

Besides, what’s wrong with some Hebrew road signs in the West Bank? After all, most of the markers in pre-1967 Israel are in Hebrew, Arabic and English. In fact, the first two are the state’s official languages. One wonders if the Palestinians would simply outlaw Hebrew were they to gain an independent state.

That said, any semblance of Israeli-Palestinian peace will include economic cooperation, which will be enhanced by clear road signage. It may seem like a minor detail, but it speaks loudly about future possibilities and intentions.
Instead of wasting money on irrelevant trappings of potential statehood, let’s pay attention to helping Palestinians promote democracy and tolerance, let alone building schools and clinics.

Word that the Vatican is now charging that the U.S. and British governments suppressed information about the extent of the Holocaust is all at once comic, ironic and tragic. Recently, the Vatican’s official newspaper, “L’Osservatore Romano,” declared that Allied governments during World War II deliberately failed to act to stop the systematic murder of European Jewry despite having detailed information about it. The Vatican article also noted that the wartime Pope Pius XII worked quietly to help save Rome’s Jews during the Nazi occupation of the city.

The charges against the Allies, the paper wrote, are evident when one reads the diary of then U.S. Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthau, who was Jewish. “The incapacity, indolence and bureaucratic delays of America impeded saving thousands of Hitler’s victims,” wrote Morgenthau. For good measure, he added, “We in Washington [knew that the Nazis] had planned to exterminate all the Jews of Europe” since August 1942 [but] for about 18 months from receiving the first reports of this horrible Nazi plan, the State Department did practically nothing.”

This is neither new nor news. In fact, scholars have poured over such references and in doing so rightly tarnished the reputation of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Indeed, significant research has shown that protestations that any move against the concentration camps would have taken away from the fight against the Nazis – the best way to stop the Holocaust –rings hollow.

It’s more likely that this article is part of the Vatican’s ongoing campaign to deflect criticism of the wartime Pius XII, who is still on the path to sainthood – a topic extremely emotional and controversial amongst Catholic-Jewish dialogue participants.

In truth, everyone failed when it came to the Holocaust. There are no points to score here, but only profound lessons to learn. That is why trying to place one group’s piety over another is a sad, sad chapter in the ongoing effort to comprehend the massive tragedy of the 20th century.

Stop the presses or hit the “refresh” button on your computer. It’s news when the world is offered a rare moment of fairness from the often anti-Israel biased U.N. decision-making apparatus.

Last week the world body’s Security Council finally agreed that the Lebanese Hezbollah had created a “serious violation” of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701. That’s the document that brought a halt to the summer 2006 war between Israel and Lebanon. Some of the conditions of that resolution called for Hezbollah to disarm and to pull its forces from Southern Lebanon, which would allow the Lebanese Army to patrol in that area. Israel did fulfill its obligations by stopping hostilities and pulling troops from the often violent country on its northern border.

But ever since the conflict’s end, Hezbollah has been stockpiling a massive amount of weapons. What must be further investigated is who else helped to bring these estimated 40,000 or so missiles – more than in Hezbollah’s arsenal before the war itself – to Israel’s northern border. The Iranians have made no secret of their supplying Hezbollah with weapons that usually arrive through Damascus International Airport, implicating the compliancy of the Syrian government as well.

All this caught the world’s attention again after a major explosion on July 14 in Southern Lebanon at a Hezbollah weapon’s cache. The U.N. Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) confirmed that the stockpile belonged to Hezbollah. Even more indicting, Hezbollah sent supporters to block U.N. staff from investigating the incident.

With humor, I note that Hezbollah – responsible for repeated attacks against U.S. forces in the 1980s and Israeli ones since—likes to refer to itself not as a militia, but a political party.

Meanwhile, despite the U.N. resolution, the world must be reminded anew that not only does Hezbollah have these weapons, but that it has already proven that it is willing to use them on Israeli civilians. So the lingering question remains: What will be the next step?

Sadly, it’s not hard to find world leaders far less deserving of recognition than former U.N. Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) head Mary Robinson. Yet that in no way means that she should be among the 16 people rewarded by President Barack Obama with the 2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom.

There are solid reasons as to why nearly every major Jewish organization is speaking out against this announcement. What did Mrs. Robinson do that offends so many Jews and others in the pro-Israel community?

• For starters, she presided over the anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist flavor that permeated the 2001 U.N. World Conference on Racism, the high profile so-called Durban Conference, named for its locale in South Africa. Under the leadership of then Secretary of State Colin Powell, the United States and many other civilized nations boycotted the event – after giving months of notice over their concerns.

• During an interview to the British Broadcasting Corporation following, despite attempts to pass a “Zionism=Racism” statement in the Durban text, Mrs. Robinson described the event’s outcome as “remarkably good, including on the issues of the Middle East.”

• In 2002, under her leadership the UNHRC tried to condone Palestinian suicide bombings and terrorism as a legitimate means to establish Palestinian statehood. As the German ambassador said in explaining his vote against the measure, “The text contains formulations that might be interpreted as an endorsement of violence [and] no condemnation whatsoever of terrorism.”

Let’s be clear: I’m not interested in standing in the way of those who wish to criticize the human rights policies of Israel, the U.S. or any other nation. (I’ve been known to do that when I felt it was justified.) However, the pathological obsession with the Jewish state’s alleged negative behavior often comes from serial human rights abusers who are given a big juicy pass over their own well-documented atrocious behavior.

Likewise, no one doubts that Mr. Obama is interested in shining the spotlight on those who promote human rights. However, doing so by honoring an individual who presided over a xenophobic debacle does not advance such a noble cause.

This coming fall Jewish high holiday season, I fear that fewer Jews will be in the pews. It’s already bad enough that the vast majority of American Jews are uninterested in appearing at a house of worship within a week after Yom Kippur’s end.

Now we’re in real trouble if due to the economic turndown, more of those who at least marginally affiliate decide the cost isn’t worthwhile.

You can cite the familiar reasons: cost, boredom, better choices, alienation, etc. All of those excuses come down to two main reasons, one unspoken and one often not discussed: money and the boredom. Fortunately, both can be dealt with and many people are hard at work on just those topics.

When it comes to cost, there are two dynamics at work.

The first is that it is obviously expensive to join most synagogues, particularly larger ones. And if you’re not going to use it, is the $2,000 or so a year worthwhile (sometimes including, sometimes not including a building fund)? An obvious response to people who say no is “Use it more.” The problem is that doesn’t fly with most people.

That brings us to the second factor: In general synagogues do not do such a good job in engaging their members’ many needs. One good effort to change that is the Shleimut program being employed at Beth Israel Congregation in Owings Mills and elsewhere. It brings in a social worker and a nurse on a regular basis on weekdays to be available to congregants who want “wellness counseling.” Obviously, that gives people a powerful message: Your synagogue cares and can change your life.

Now let’s not beat on ourselves (and yes, I’m active in a synagogue). I know that volunteers and professionals are overwhelmed with what they need to do before even thinking about what they could do. Yet, let’s recognize that our synagogues need a “usefulness gut check” from top to bottom, one involving all staff and volunteer leaders in discussions about how realistically more of people’s needs can be reached.

If we don’t do this, I fear that even more current members will leave in the next few years. Thousands have already done so in Baltimore alone. Not sure? Check affiliation rates of today vs. those of 15 years ago.

Finally, we simply have to deal with the boredom factor. You know and I know exactly what’s going to happen at High Holiday services this year. For some, that’s comforting like an old, warm blanket. For others, it’s just boring. We don’t need rabbis popping out of cakes and cantors swinging from the trapeze, but we do need to make it all more fun. And yes, entertaining while delivering profound spiritual messages. And we ought to be offering snacks throughout so that people – particularly with kids – don’t need to run home to grab something to eat … and turn on the TV, and make a few calls, start a project and so on.

We need coffee in the hallways. We need ongoing discussions in other rooms—and we need to end them right before the rabbi’s sermon and make it known that we ask them now to all come in for the big talk.

Most of all, we need to give them new reasons to come back within a few weeks.

Is your synagogue doing any of that? Would it make a difference to you if it did? Is it doing something else that works? What else should we be doing?

There is no starker reminder of the inability of Palestinians and Israelis to live together than the recent revelation by the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem that both sides cannot even agree to purify their regional sources of drinking water. Without such a joint effort, neither community can thrive in the often parched region. That’s why finding agreement on such relatively uncontroversial matters should be a barometer of future cooperation. Indeed, it is to this and similar projects that U.S. mediators must turn their focus as they seek to build the confidence of both Israelis and Palestinians as to the fruits of dialogue.

In short, nearly 2 million of the 2.8 million Jews and Arabs living in Jerusalem and the West Bank is not being treated. The failure to act could result in “permanent contamination” of the region’s mountain aquifer, a main water source for both Jewish and Palestinian communities. In addition, only 81 of the 121 West Bank Jewish settlements are connected to a wastewater treatment plant. Worse, many of those operations are outdated and cannot handle the full load, according to B’Tselem.

For their part, the Palestinians suffer a double blow: The waste from the Jewish communities, mostly built on hilltops, flows down to them and into their springs and wells. Meanwhile, an astonishing 95 percent of Palestinian wastewater is not treated. Not only that, but the Palestinians reportedly have refused attempts by Israel to jointly deal with wastewater. The fear, according to the Palestinians, is this would legitimize the settlements.

Regardless of what does or does not happen in the peace negotiating arena, Israelis and Palestinians need to learn how to become drinking buddies.

The latest flare-up in Catholic-Jewish ties was an unexpected one. That’s because I’ve met too many bright, well-intentioned Catholic theologians along the way to think that their official body could take such a dangerous step backwards in the fragile Catholic-Jewish rapprochement, which after about 1,900 years of bad blood – often spilt blood at that—began in earnest less than five decades ago.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops appears – according to the Anti-Defamation League – to have given a “green light” for the missionizing of Jews. And it certainly seems that way.

The twist comes in a document called “A Note on Ambiguities Contained in Covenant and Mission,” which says that interfaith dialogue with Jews (and others) is a prime opportunity to spread the good word of the Catholic faith. The document was jointly released on June 18 by the USCCB Committee on Doctrine and Pastoral Practice and the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs.

This seems to overturn a 2002 statement in “Reflection On Covenant and Mission.” In that text, interfaith dialogue was called “a mutually enriching sharing of gifts devoid of any intention whatsoever to invite the dialogue partner to baptism.”

Now there’s a weird thing about all this that Jews often forget; Christians are supposed to evangelize, and a whole branch of Christiandom, which happens to be the spiritual home of some 60 to 70 million Americans, is known as Evangelical Christianity. So let’s not criticize Christians for spreading the good word in general, but let’s hold them accountable for the context in particular.

After all, the very sordid history between Christians and Jews has seen Jews numerically and often physically overwhelmed since the first century C.E. Further, in Europe this led to Jews living precariously amidst Christian xenophobia, slander and outright slaughters, all of which I believe in part – not in entirety – laid the groundwork for the Holocaust. So it’s more than fair to say that the Catholic Church needs to back off here.

We have a gargantuan amount of work to do together to make life on God’s good [and not green enough] earth better, something which will take many centuries because we didn’t arrive at this mess yesterday. Indeed, our fractured world – to borrow a phrase from the late Emil Fackenheim (who took it from kaballah) –needs immediate attention from our spiritual leadership, which means we don’t need stupid distractions.

Maybe after we relieve all of the poverty, hunger, educational inequalities, racism and other hatreds that lead to such insanity, maybe then we can worry about whose theology trumpets whose. And maybe then God will even send us a text message weighing in.

Until then, let’s cut the narrishkeit. (Note to Catholic friends: It’s Yiddish; look it up. After all, I have to look up your Latin phrases.)

One would excuse Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for seeking medical relief after the self-induced pain of political deja vu.

On Sunday, June 14, he did it again – gaining a coveted pat on the back from a U.S. president, and angering Israel’s right and left (and their supporters abroad) for respectively selling out and not going far enough. Meanwhile, the Palestinians’ predictable “not good enough and violence is coming” quickly followed.

The same thing happened back in 1998 when Mr. Netanyahu was prime minister and he negotiated the Wye Accord, which promised to give 13 percent more of the West Bank to the Palestinians (which never occurred as the deal imploded Mr. Netanyahu’s governing coalition).

The new flare-up came after the Israeli leader’s speech at Bar Ilan University – interestingly the political home of the religious nationalist camp, including its most infamous student, Yitzhak Rabin murderer Yigal Amir.

Bibi’s speech deserves serious attention by American Jews for what was said and what it means in our efforts to help the Jewish state as we have more power than we often believe.

For starters, Mr. Netanyahu called for immediate, unconditional negotiations with the Palestinians, talks that will eventually lead to a Palestinian state aside Israel. This was the long-awaited (by the Obama administration) endorsement of a “two-state solution.” It is anathema to the right-wing roots that watered Mr. Netanyahu’s intellectual upbringing.

Not so fast, critics cry. Mr. Netanyahu dumped heavy conditions into the mix, merely making this a long delaying tactic. They include: the Palestinian state being demilitarized, Jerusalem being recognized as Israel’s undivided capital, the end of the Palestinian refugees’ demand to return to pre-1967 Israel and formal Palestinian agreement that Israel is “the Jewish state.”

On West Bank Jewish settlements, Mr. Netanyahu said “natural growth” in existing communities would go on, but new settlements will not arise.

The predictable Palestinian response from P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas: “The speech has destroyed all initiatives and expectations.” For good measure, a top aide added, “in the aftermath of this speech, we are headed toward another round of violence and bloodshed.”

In such quick denunciation, the Palestinians sadly proved an inability to negotiate even before the process begins. No one expects them to embrace Israel’s opening positions any more than vice versa. Would they need the dialogue were they in agreement?

Rather than offer a knee-jerk defense toward Israel’s positions, American Jews and their organizations should go beyond their general congratulating Mr. Netanyahu on his historic two-state concession. They also must push him on the details. In particular, they need him to outline – and then to politically and financially support – economic progress for the Palestinians.

Most of all, they need to keep asking: Why the delay in dismantling the 101 West Bank outposts? These small clusters of ramshackle homes are often populated by the “hilltop youth,” the current vanguard of the settler movement. But Bibi and his immediate two predecessors have agreed the outposts are illegal. Likewise, they have to date lacked the political will and strength to move against them.

We also need definitions of “natural growth” for existing settlements. It is a valid concept, and this week – surprise, surprise – even former President Jimmy Carter agreed that many Israeli settlements around Jerusalem would not leave Israeli control, which means they can grow within their borders.

At the same time, American Jewish groups need more outreach to Palestinian groups and their allies in this country. And we need to deliver this message:

“There are more words than ‘no.’ Stop negotiating through the media, and start doing it with Israel. Make the West Bank a `Hamas-free zone.’ Build bridges with American Jewish groups. U.S. support is critical and no one follows your plight more closely than we do and, yes, we do know how to work the political system, and for the right reasons.

“So drum up a realistic list of confidence building measures. Yours start with stopping incitement toward Jews, a cesspool that breeds violence; Israel’s starts with the maximum freedom of movement possible (within legitimate security limitations) on the West Bank, and encouraging development projects that will employ Palestinians.

“Do this, and push us to realistically push Israel. In doing so, you will dare Netanyahu, the Jewish state and the Jewish people into trusting you, which will be a path toward peace.”

The old stereotype of American Jews having white Ashkenazi backgrounds is slowly being whittled away to the reality that we are diverse in every way imaginable. Yet another important milestone in bringing this to fore came last week with the ordination of Alysa Stanton, 45, from the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.

Rabbi Stanton, one of 14 spiritual leaders of the Jewish people who graduated that day, is the first African-American woman rabbi in the United States. Not only that, but the trained psychotherapist is a former Pentecostal Christian. She converted to Judaism 20 years ago while in college.

It would be a vast understatement to say that this mother to an adopted 14-year-old daughter brings a new perspective to the Jewish people. But when she takes the pulpit as the spiritual leader of Congregation Bayt Shalom in Greenville, S.C. in the coming weeks, she will help enforce the notion that Judaism is about the spirit and the heart, not about one’s skin color and ancestors.

In congregations throughout our country, Jews with ethnic backgrounds in Asia, Africa and elsewhere are enriching our communal lives. (My Jewish friends include people who hail from Nicaragua, Nigeria and Asia – not your typical gefilte fish munching crowd.)

In fact, according to the San Francisco-based Be’chol Lashon (Hebrew for “In Every Tongue”) http://www.bechollashon.org/, the diversity of the Jewish people continues to grow around the world. Some were born Jewish; others willing chose to join the Jewish people. All are Jews, and all give credence to the notion that Judaism welcomes all.

While everyone in the world is chiming in on what was in and out of President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo yesterday, I wonder why no one is taking his travel agent to task.

That is, how can it be that after such a major initiative – in which the section on the pressuring Israel on settlements gained some of the largest applause – the president didn’t then go to Israel where he could directly take the case to Israelis and Palestinians? After all, President Bill Clinton was wildly popular in Israel (meaning he could push Israeli prime ministers a little more) because he went directly to the Israeli people in talking about the need for sacrifice.

After speaking in the Knesset – Israel could not deny such a request to do so – Mr. Obama could then have gone to Ramallah (another first for a U.S. President; Mr. Clinton went to Gaza City) to speak with Palestinians and say, “You must end all support for terror – physical, financial and emotional. And you must end all incitement against Jews and Israel. You can talk about policy differences, but the vitriolic hate that is endemic to your P.A. controlled media must be halted.”

That could have really kick started the sluggish peace process, giving this phase more than a media cycle or two.

The White House would likely respond that this didn’t happen because Mr. Obama had just met in Washington in the past few weeks with both Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. But that just doesn’t fly. It’s not the leaders who need to buy into his philosophy, it’s the people who will press them up from the street.

So Mr. Obama, you are indeed an extremely bright person who can deliver a great and weighty speech. But this is the Middle East my friend; if you don’t push the personal relationships – and that means getting yourself out in front of the people – it’s going to be more of the same old game.

John Demjanjuk is now eighty-nine-years. He has spent more than 20 years fighting the most heinous of allegations for his alleged role as “a terrible Ivan.” That is, as a Ukranian who served as a Nazi concentration guard allegedly responsible for the deaths of up to 29,000 Jews. Actually, after serving in an Israeli jail from 1986 to 1993, he was released when the Jewish state’s prosecutors failed to establish that he had served at Treblinka, as originally charged. It now seems clear that he in fact was a guard at Sobibor.

All along, plodding down the path of a legal labyrinth seemed destined to follow him to the grave, he continues to declare his innocence.

Now he’s finally back in Germany. A few weeks ago U.S. authorities delivered a notice to his Cleveland-area home that he must surrender for deportation this week.  The U.S. Supreme Court then rejected without comment an appeal to stop the deportation; the Demjanjuk’s had asked for it to be halted due to the old man’s frailty. But the record already shows that Mr. Demjanjuk has lost his U.S. citizenship as he lied about his Nazi past.

Why go after an ailing Nazi who cannot have many years left on this planet? The real question that must be asked is “Why would you not do so?” In fact, were Mr. Denjanjuk to die today, researchers must continue to look into his past and those of so many others who duped U.S. and other authorities. In doing so, the message will be passed down to another generation: Justice knows no time limits, nor does the suffering caused by its perpetrators.

Yes, it might all sound like a cliché and easy to offer from afar. However, I think of the other continuing historical explorations and how they have changed what we think about who we are and the flawed humanity of our great leaders – Thomas Jefferson’s illegitimate child, Franklin Roosevelt’s reluctance to bomb the tracks to Auschwitz, H.L. Mencken’s anti-Semitism and so much more.

All of this needs to be exposed if we are with a straight face to continue to teach our kids the values that we want them to emulate.

Israel for sure has a rough and tumble political world. So it’s no surprise that with an eye toward keeping the far right of the governing coalition satisfied, Prime Minister Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s office announced Monday – hours before his meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama—that a new settlement was in the works on the West Bank.

Mind you, I’m a Bibi fan this time around. I think he’s been not only practical in most policies to date, but done so without the naiveté that stained his first tenure at the top from 1996-1999. But not on this one.

So it was that the government of Israel announced it would soon begin construction on 20 housing units in Maskiot, a former army outpost. Actually, plans for the settlement have been on the books for three years but then-Defense Minister Amir Peretz backed down. Back then, strong U.S. opposition led to the plans being abandoned. That should again be the case here, too. In fact, Bibi you should blame this on the U.S. That’s a good cover for you.

That’s because U.S. government officials have conceded in recent years that there will be “natural growth” of existing settlements. So one is hard pressed as to the need to start a new one, particularly as this is a well-known lightening rod issue.

Maskiot is intended to house former residents of the Gush Katif settlement bloc in the Gaza Strip. Those residences were destroyed by the Israeli army in August 2005 in a planned evacuation of the area. The Government of Israel has indeed performed poorly – to be polite—in its repeated vow to provide new residences for those former Gaza settlers. However, that is no reason to go ahead with a new settlement now, especially when other settlements have additional housing being constructed, such as around the Jerusalem suburb of Ma’aleh Adumim.

Bibi, you’re a smart guy. Now you need to act that way.

Last week Facebook – you know what it is if you’re reading this on-line – agreed to take down pages set up by Holocaust deniers, including ones called “Holocaust is a Holohoax” and “Holocaust: A Series of Lies.” As attorney Brian Cuban pointed out, Facebook has in the past removed groups based on complaints. “There is no First Amendment right to free speech in the private realm,” he told the Cable News Network. Because of that, he said, this is not a freedom-of-speech issue. Rather, Facebook can set the standard to which it wants to adhere.

That’s true. But it’s also dangerous. That is because this drives the deniers to seek yet more creative ways to spread their drivel. Rather, these sites must be monitored and combated. It is unlikely that banning them will help.

So while Facebook finally agreed to block the sites, I wish they had not done so.

I know a lot of people don’t agree and think that such vicious hate should be kept out of the public realm. Yes, I know that the journalist in me is sometimes too detached from the raw emotions of modern Jewish trauma. Still, one cannot hide from the technology revolution and the new challenges it will continually create.

Rather, incorporating strategies on confronting such issues must now be the part of Jewish defense leagues such as the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (to which the Baltimore Jewish Council belongs), the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress.

But censoring hate? I’d rather fight it than force it underground.

Welcome to the social networking revolution.

I almost fell off my chair last week when Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced that Dr. Michael Oren was his pick to be the next ambassador to the United States. I’m honored to know the guy a little bit.

I had last spoken with Michael in the fall when then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was finally, formally bowing out – a process that took six more months to be effective. A few years earlier Michael, now a visiting professor at Georgetown University, had stopped by our office. He was promoting his then best-selling book “Power, Faith and Fantasy: American In The Middle East, 1776 to Present.”

I also had read his other best-selling book, “Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East.” Since then we had spoken a few times and I had run his essays at http://www.jewishtimes.com .

Both of his books are fantastic scholarly works that are accessible to the general reader. Most of all, I found Michael engaging and enjoyable. I also saw in him a rare remnant of the ethos of those who crafted the Jewish state in its early years – an immigrant (this time from New Jersey) who passionately believed in both Jewish peoplehood and an independent state. More so, he was one of the few – unlike me –so moved that he went to Israel, stayed, became a paratrooper, and then a bonafide intellectual.

Michael is no slouch, for sure. He has received fellowships from the U.S. Departments of State and Defense, from the British and Canadian governments, and from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv University. In 2006, he was a visiting professor at Harvard and Yale, returning to Yale in 2007. For the past few years, he’s been a become a senior fellow at Jerusalem’s Shalem Center, which has quickly become a growing and influential think tank.

Now he moves into the political arena, where he has no formal experience. That actually does not worry me. The Michael Oren I know understands how to talk to diverse groups; if you can make it these days on college campuses with your unabashed pro-Israel agenda you have good training. And along the way, he’s had more than a few ties with leading politicians and policy makers around the world.

So the choice is truly out-of-the-box for a Prime Minister who fumbled a great deal last time in the post. In particular, Bibi first rankled the Clinton administration with his peace process policies – giving credence to style being as important as substance—and then alienated American Jewry’s non-Orthodox communities during the “conversion crisis” of 1997-98.

Now Michael –an independent thinker who calls both for attacking Iran and withdrawing from large chunks of the West Bank – will give Bibi advice from Washington. That’s very, very good. What Netanyahu does with such words of wisdom remains to be seen.

Yet with the appointment of Michael Oren in Washington, and Natan Sharansky at the Jewish Agency for Israel, I find myself in a very different position than in the late 1990s vis-a-vie Binyamin Netanyahu. That’s because, so far, I both publicly and privately like what I’m seeing and hearing.

Natan Sharansky may just have been given the job he was truly born to fill – head of the Jewish Agency for Israel, a job that puts him in the forefront of representing the State of Israel to Diaspora Jewry and cementing the ties between the two communities. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has recommended Mr. Sharansky for the post, and the body’s Board of Governors is highly likely to agree. And well they should.

There may be no Jew alive today who is as respected by diverse groups around the globe as is Mr. Sharansky. In his time on the world stage – which began in the 1970s while he was but in his 20s – his titles have included: Soviet human rights activist, refusenik, Prisoner of Zion, Israeli Russian community leader, political party founder, Israeli cabinet minister, noted author and more.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Mr. Sharansky rocketed to international fame as the leading voice and cause of the Soviet Jewry movement, due in no small part to his publicly reticent wife, Avital. Ever since arriving in Israel in January 1986 after a prisoner/spy swap with the Soviet Union, he has been his usual gregarious, candid, outspoken and principled self. Sometimes that has angered Diaspora Jews – such as in 1997-98 when he was Mr. Netanyahu’s point man in that round of the “conversion crisis.” At other times, he has thrilled Israel’s right-wing for his stands on behalf of Jewish settlers, which led to disappointment on the left. At other times, the adulation has been reversed.

Through it all, Mr. Sharansky has remained a fearless intellectual with a remarkable common touch. He is, in short, an authentic Jewish story and a hero of our time. As such, he may be one of the last truly charismatic figures who can reach across the widening gulf between Diaspora and Israeli Jewish mentalities. We should look forward to challenging and being challenged by him on the issues of the day as we strive together to strengthen the Jewish people.

It’s official. Likud leader Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu was sworn in as Israel’s Prime Minister earlier this week. Those in America and Israel who are yelling despised much of what Bibi did during Round One in the job from 1996-1999. They remember his stalling the peace process, his poor handling of the “conversion crisis from 1997-1998) and his miserable management of subordinates.

Some critics are already deriding Israel’s “most right-wing” government in years. But I’m hoping that a different reading of Bibi’s past performance – combined with what we now hope is his political maturity – may surprise some people. People forget that in 1999 his government fell because he was not right-wing enough for some coalition partners. That is because he first gave up 80 percent of Hebron, one of Judaism’s most sacred cities, and an additional 13 percent of the West Bank. Thus, he can make surprising compromise.

This time, Bibi has the cover of the Labor Party as a coalition partner (even though Labor leader Ehud Barak should resign as head of that party and just be a professional Defense Minister, a job at which he is quite good).

Labor is on record as favoring “land for peace.” The same goes for another major coalition partner – the Shas Sephardi Orthodox Party. In the past it consented to such policies, social issues important to their voters being their primary concern. After all, they voted for the Oslo Accords.

Finally, Bibi’s much criticized other major partner – the Russian-based Yisrael Beitenu Party – is led by new Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Despite criticism of his words, in policy Lieberman believes in a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is a different portrayal than is often characterized.

As a product of democracy, I think Netanyahu can be “dared into making peace.” That will only happen if the Palestinian Authority can assert governance over its people, which today is far from the case. With that in mind, Bibi is right to first focus on “economic independence” for the Palestinians. I hope this builds a middle class with something to lose, as well as the joint Palestinian-Israeli ventures that were once a hallmark of the ill-fated Oslo years. (They collapsed in large part due to Yasser Arafat’s miserable leadership.)

So I’m willing to give Bibi a chance and believe that all American Jews should. In Israel’s chaotic political system – and is our crazy one any better?—he emerged as the choice of the majority of parliamentarians chosen by the people. Let’s respect that and root for him. There will be time to yell if things don’t work out.

P.S. LITTLE KNOWN ISRAELI TRIVIA

Bibi is the fourth Israeli to serve as Prime Minister twice. The others are:

David Ben-Gurion – 1948-1953, 1956-1963 (Ben-Gurion had resigned as part of the infamous Lavon Affair, which become an unhealthy obsession for him the rest of his days.)

Yitzhak Rabin – 1974-1977, 1992-1995 (Rabin actually wasn’t elected the first time, but took over for the disgraced Golda Meier, who actually won the late December 1974 elections – which had been postponed due to the October Yom Kippur War.)

Shimon Peres – 1984-1986, 1995-1996 (Peres was never outright elected. The first time he was part of a national unity government with Likud’s Yitzhak Shamir and the second time he finished out the term of the assassinated Rabin.)

Former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami –who in the late 1990s many thought could restore sanity to his Islamic nation’s foreign policy – just bowed out of his country’s June Presidential elections, Reuters news service reported today.

Mr. Khatami served in his country’s top elected position from 1997 to 2005, a period which saw a thawing in relations with the West. But since the election of his successor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, those ties have sharply deteriorated. Mr. Ahmadinejad, a populist who never missed an opportunity to inflame, clearly wants to keep his job for a second five-year term.

It’s hard to read the tea leaves from Tehran as to what Mr. Khatami’s move means. In my view there are two likely scenarios: First, it could signal that Iran’s true leader, whose title says it all – Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini—is uninterested in reform. Had he been of such inclination, Mr. Khatami would be a candidate. After all, in Iran only approved candidates are allowed to run for elected office, which is why many of Mr. Khatami’s reformist allies were disqualified in recent elections.

Alternatively, Mr. Khatami might be helping the cause of unseating the current president. That’s because he has announced his support for former Prime Minister Mirhossein Mousavi, who is seen as more moderate – moderation, of course, being relative when discussing Iranian politics. There is, then, the possibility that Mr. Khatami is solidifying opposition forces by helping Mr. Mousavi.

This is important because many analysts are saying this will be a year of decision for the West and Israel when it comes to a potential military strike on Iranian’s numerous nuclear installations, part of a network that surely is building nuclear weapons for the nation’s radical Islamic leaders.

Iran’s political maze is far from simple. Any alternative force to Mr. Khatami – which could express to Ayatollah Khamani popular resistance to Iran’s international position, would be welcome. Americans and Jews in particular should keep a close eye on the Iranian elections.

Pope Benedict XVI issued a strange apology yesterday in which he admitted to having mishandled the noxious affair regarding the rehabilitation of a Holocaust-denying bishop. (For his full letter: CLICK HERE

He in no way said that he would reconsider putting the ban back on at least that one individual.

Basically, the pontiff acknowledge that what was intended to be a reconciliation to a renegade sect of the Catholic Church – unity being a key focus of his papacy – backfired because it aroused the intense ire of Jews and a number of Catholics who, go figure, were upset that a Holocaust denier who is very public with his views was being welcomed back into the fold.

Now some Catholic friends have urged me to acknowledge and recognize that the rescinding of this excommunication did not mean that Bishop Richard Williamson can now perform Catholic rituals for congregants. Of course, I argue, that doesn’t really matter because he’s doing it anyway. The Church didn’t recognize those moves before January 12, 2009 when Williamson and other leaders of the Society of Pius X were unconditionally welcomed back, so what’s difference now other than Williamson is no longer, to borrow a phrase, glatt treife?

For certain, ever since the flap arose, Vatican spokesmen and the Pope himself have gone out of their way to criticize Holocaust deniers. Still, it’s not as if Williamson and his fans either had their welcome made conditional or were asked to give up their views.

But here’s the really amazing thing – the one that shows me that this Pope and his office are way out of touch. The Pope wrote in his letter “I hear that closely following the news available on the Internet would have made it possible to obtain knowledge of the problem in time. I learn from this that we at the Holy See have to pay more careful attention to this news source in the future.”

OK, so I’m glad the Pope now knows that the Internet is for more than finding good local movie reviews. I probably shouldn’t comment any more on this sad footnote to an already very sad affair.

A final point: Jewish groups have rushed to praise the Pope’s statement and basically say, “It’s behind us now.” It’s not. This touched the rawest of chords and Jewish outrage – and that of their Catholic friends – must continue to be heard until the Pope stands up and specifically says, “Bishop Williamsons’s views on the Holocaust are not welcome in the Church and neither is he until he sees the error of his ways and apologizes.”

That’s exactly what Jews have done to many in our own sordid past, including the late racist Rabbi Meir Kahane.

And a final, final point that exhibits how much has changed in such short time: Can anyone imagine this having happened on Pope John Paul II’s watch?

The Reform movement – currently the largest denomination in Jewish life (unless you count “unaffiliated”) – today said that the next Israeli government must stop expansion of West Bank settlements. (The movement also called for an end to Hamas’s Gaza rocket fire, the release of Israeli captive Gilad Shalit and favored the $900 million in U.S. aid to rebuild the West Bank and Gaza.)

Rabbi David Saperstein of the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center http://rac.org/index.cfm?”> CLICK HERE said in a statement, ““Israel must demonstrate its stated commitment to that goal by ending the expansion of settlements in accordance with prior commitments made to the United States government.”

This is nothing new for the Reform movement, having said something similar in 2004. However, it is likely to gain a lot of visibility now because the peace process has its highest level actors involved in the past eight years. Indeed, one can expect SOMETHING to happen with Hillary Clinton, George Mitchell and Dennis Ross involved.

That aside, this is an important issue that touches on several matters:

• the right of American Jews to criticize Israel and how they go about it;
• the reality that the last two Israeli prime ministers have agreed to take down settlements it defines as illegal, but have not done so;
• and the lack of action by the United States on this issue, despite the last two Secretary of States saying that settlements are a problem (not the problem).

As I’ve written in the past, Israel needs to take down those illegal settlements and the United States need to push it do so. There is heavy domestic political cost for any Israeli government, but much to gain as well.

However, I do not agree that current settlements cannot be expanded. It’s how they go about it that counts. They should be expanded for “natural growth,” but that is a term that has been inflated by Israeli governments. “Natural growth” does not call for adding hundreds of new homes to a settlement that might only have hundreds of homes. Nor does it call for the unilateral appropriation of large swaths of land used by Palestinian farmers.

The legal issues involved are complex – but not as deep as the emotional ones.

Bottom line: Israel needs to disband illegal settlements to strengthen the major settlement blocks it already has, such as in Gush Emunim and around Ariel. Those areas will stay Israeli in any future treaty (we can no longer call the agreements a “peace deal,” “peace” being something mythical, indefinable concept.)

Even though the United Nations now admits its own repeated bungling in one-sided accusations against the State of Israel, one should not expect a new era of fairness. Most recently, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) falsely accused Israel of targeting its school in the Gaza Strip during the recent Gaza War with Hamas, which was prompted by the terrorist organization’s multiple rocket barrages at Israeli towns.

On Jan. 6, went the U.N. version of events, Israeli mortars hit an UNRWA school in Jabaliya, killing 43 civilians seeking shelter. John Ging, UNRWA’s Gaza operations director, accused Israel of deliberately carrying out a “horrific” attack and claimed that Israel knew it was targeting a U.N. facility. UNRWA’s leadership decried Israeli “atrocities” that may be “war crimes.” A week later, investigations showed the number of dead at 21 and that the UNRWA school was not hit. Any death is tragic and cannot be shirked off. More recently, the number has plunged even lower. Likewise, blaming innocent parties for those deaths and inflaming already boiling passions is inexcusable.

For the record, recently the U.N. humanitarian coordinator issued a clarification “that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school.” It garnered an infinitesimal amount of coverage when compared to the original accusations.

That all prompted American Jewish Congress Acting Co-Executive Director Matthew Mark Horn to respond, “As was the case with U.N. reports of massacres in Jenin in 2002, these latest accusations reflect a willingness to enlist in a propaganda war against Israel with no regard for the facts.”
His organization called for the U.N. “to draw the appropriate conclusions about the serious accusations.”

Perhaps the UNRWA was too busy to do that. On Feb. 2, it announced the suspension of its humanitarian aid in Gaza. That was to protest Hamas’s seizure of UNRWA’S warehouses, which included the theft of 200 tons of food and supplies. Hamas returned the stolen property and the UNRWA aid program restarted. Of course, there was no international outcry – as would have surely followed had Israel done the same.

The recent “apology” of Bishop Richard Williamson for his comments minimizing the Holocaust falls far short of acceptable. In fact, it furthers the case as to why Williamson’s association with the Catholic Church is rightly viewed by many as a stain on that body.

Williamson, recently kicked out of Argentina, told the Zenit Catholic News Agency last week “The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy. Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.”

If that’s an “I’m sorry,” then Pope Benedict XVI will be leading Yom Kippur services next year at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. In other words, Williamson really feels bad that he upset people. But what he said? He obviously still believes it. Oh, for good measure he’s consulting with professional Holocaust denier David Irving to see if he can learn more about the most documented crime in history.

This is all happening because Pope Benedict sparked a furor last month when he reinstated Williamson and three other excommunicated bishops, all members of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X. That came just days after Williamson told Swedish TV that he believed “that the historical evidence is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler.” I guess the Jews were accidentally gassed, right? And they fell into those mass pits the Nazis forced them to dig before gunning them down and then going off to drink beer.

For good measure, Williamson tossed in that no more than a few hundred thousand Jews died in Europe during World War II.

Catholic Church officials, including Baltimore Archbishop Emeritus William H. Keeler, have said that the Pope would not have moved to welcome Williamson back into the fold had he known of the remarks. The Pope, and other leading Catholic officials, have since that time forcefully criticized those who would deny the enduring pain of the Shoah.

But the Pope has welcomed Williamson and his anti-modernization crew—which includes 500 priests and tens of thousands of followers—back on board as a first major step toward reconciliation. Mind you, this was done unilaterally, without the Pius X people needing to do anything other than continuing to hate the reforms of the famed 1965 Vatican II Council.

Now it’s time for the Pope to directly and forcefully and personally address Bishop Williamson and the like-minded. To not do so, remains a lasting insult to the Jewish people and their many Catholic friends who have spent recent decades seeking to bridge the chasm created by the faiths’ painful historical relationship.

Bernie, Bernie, Bernie—what are we going to do with an uber-gonif like you?

Well, Mr. Madoff, Graeme Warring of ModelWorks is hoping that we’re willing to hand over the low, low price of $99.95 to whack you good. And then again.

That’s the cost of his company’s new “Smash-Me Bernie” doll, according to the New York Daily News. It features Bernie’s face on a body with a red-suit, devilish pitchfork in hand. It even comes with a golden hammer that allows you to get to work.
You remember Bernie: He’s the shmoe (yes, I’m being nice in the interest of working for a family newspaper) arrested Dec. 11, 2008, for defrauding investors out of a cool $50 billion. He particularly targeted fellow Jews and their charities, including the likes of Steven Spielberg, Elie Wiesel, Hadassah, Yeshiva University and many others.

And while the price is high, if you were one of the gazillionaires who lost big bucks with the Waldo of Wall Street, it just might be worth it. (Because if you already lost a few million, really, what’s a C-note to you?)

Sounds like a great gift for Jewish preschools to teach them what happens to people who lie.

Here’s the worst part for American Jews about Israel’s national elections last week – not many people here seemed to care.

Rather than lament the fact and offer excuses about how we’re all so busy, we need to figure what can be done about it. That’s because an American Jewry that pulls away from Israel hurts both itself and the State of Israel.

The Taglit-Birthright Israel trip CLICK HERE is a great start, but the follow up with its participants has basically made it only half an investment. The free 10-day trip to Israel for young adults age 18-26 (who have never been to Israel before on a “peer organized trip” – and yes, there’s cheating, as I learned from staffing a trip in 2002) – is a fantastic experience. In fact, well more than 100,000 people have already gone on the trip from around the world (but mostly from the United States).

The problem is that when the young adults come home, few of them plug into the Jewish community. That means that either they don’t like what we offer or we need much more creative approaches than we old people currently offer them. More likely it’s a combination.

I know those on college campus might get a call and a bunch of e-mails inviting them to a speaker or breakfast. But the deal should be that there is mandatory programming before going and after returning from the trip. What if you don’t attend? Simple: You have to pay the bill for the trip, which these days is probably more than $3,000. Hard to collect? Well, maybe we should ask them to pay $500 or so into an escrow account before going, and then return it with a gift of a discount on an El Al flight when they fulfill their obligations.

Too heavy a price to induce people to go? Not if you’ve ever hear the expression “there’s no free lunch.”
At least then maybe they’ll be able to figure out who wants to be Israel’s prime minister and why it should matter.

A note on Israel’s inconclusive elections on Tuesday, Feb. 10, in which Tzippy Livni’s centrist Kadima gained 28 seats and Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s center-right gained 27 seats. Both are far short of reaching a 61-seat majority in the Knesset, which has prompted Israel’s usual noxious backroom deals for support.

Well, I’m betting on the odds that Bibi gets the tap from Israeli President Shimon Peres next Wednesday to form a government, which leads to Livni’s decrying of “denial of the people’s desires.” Guess what Tzippy? The people didn’t really want you or Bibi. After all, both of you gained only around a whopping 25 percent of the electorate.

Bibi’s the likely next boss because his overall right and center-right won more than Tzippy’s left and center-left.

I’m hoping that as Prime Minister Bibi will draw in another secular party in addition to the right-wing Yisrael Beitenu (15 seats). Ehud Barak of the center-left Labor (13 seats), says he won’t join. But frankly, he needs to be kicked out as head of the party (which his leadership style has basically destroyed) and then the party needs to enter the government. The Sephardi Orthodox Shas (11seat) will be chomping at the bit to get in, which will enable it to fund its always financially tottering school system. It would be fantastic if a chunk of Kadima went into the coalition. Even Tzippy is now saying – defying what she said during the campaign – that she might be game. That would mean she’d stay on as Foreign Minister, which could slow down any right-wing tendencies of Bibi’s government.

This would all give Bibi give him room to maneuver around the threat of a right-wing party pulling down his government, which is what happened in 1999. Here’s to hoping that Bibi is a much more effective manager than he was in that top job from 1996-99. I do think his experience as Foreign Minister, Finance Minister and opposition leader since then has seasoned him – and he needed it.

Now that our state’s former lieutenant governor is head of the Republican Party, what will it mean for outreach to Jews?

Not much … and here’s why.

If one looks at the numbers of American Jewry – always much more reliable than the anecdotal evidence many prefer –Jewish voters in this country have not moved in the past few decades from their solid Democratic base. The American Jewish Committee’s annual survey of American Jewish opinion makes this clear – despite the fact that around one-third of the Jews claim themselves as Independents. The fact is, the vast majority of that group votes Democrat in presidential elections. In fact, around 78 percent of Jews did so in this past election.

As that’s been happening, the Republicans have gone full press on courting Jews on their staunch pro-Israel support. Still, for most American Jews that’s obviously not been enough. For a national perspective, check out what my friend James. D. Besser just wrote in the New York Jewish Week: CLICK HERE

The Republicans, of course, do have a majority of Orthodox Jews, but that segment of our community only constitutes about 10-15 percent of U.S. Jewry (depending on what survey you want to use).

Meanwhile, what did Mr. Steele’s tenure as an elected official in Maryland show us? For starters he is an extremely likeable and personable. Like his boss, now former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Mr. Steele had excellent relationships with Jewish leaders in the state.

That had a lot more to do with personality than policies. In fact, Mr. Steele headed the state’s first faith-based office, which intended to mirror President George W. Bush’s controversial effort on the national level. But in Maryland this did not account for much and the organized Jewish community’s questions were never answered: Who defines a religion? Should the Nation of Islam get funds? What about Jews for Jesus? And why – pray tell – were existing laws that enabled groups such as the Catholic Charities and the Jewish Family Services to get state funds not sufficient? Why drop the safeguards on hiring and practice in these operations?

Then came the big gaffe. When speaking to the Baltimore Jewish Council in February 2006 – amidst his failed U.S. Senate run against now Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Mr. Steele compared embryonic stem cell research to the Holocaust. Coming from a former Catholic seminarian, the remark made sense (despite my staunch disagreement with it). Coming from a politician, it was a gargantuan mistake. Mr. Steele correctly took a public beating over it. Jewish leaders accepted his subsequent apology; Jewish voters have long memories.

Nationally, Mr. Steele’s job in part is to open the GOP to groups that have in the past rejected its outreach – particularly Jews (with their prodigious fund-raising skills) and African Americans, whose loyalty the Democratic Party now seems to have a lock box on for the next eight years.

Mr. Steele, however, has charm and savvy. He’s currently playing the role of a moderate – just as Howard Dean successfully did from the other side of the aisle for the past four years. He’s generally known here as a conservative GOPer. Will the new Michael Steele’s work make a difference with Jews? At the moment, the odds of that are as likely as George Mitchell bragging at the Mir Yeshiva in Jerusalem about how in the morning he dedicated a Koran in Yassir Arafat’s memory.

Until now, Pope Benedict XVI has shown himself to be a warm partner in interfaith dialogue in word and deed. So one can only greet with profound dismay his pardon of the United Kingdom’s Bishop Richard Williamson. The British Church leader and three other ex-communicated Catholic leaders were brought back into the fold on Saturday, Jan. 24. They are members of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX. Their group rejects the reforms of the famous 1965 Vatican II Council. Among other things, that landmark doctrine called for the formal removal of anti-Semitism from the Church.

That would be bad enough. But Williamson – I won’t give him his religious courtesy title because he cannot, in my book, be a religious person—last year publicly declared that no more than 300,000 Jews were killed in the Holocaust and that there were no gas chambers.

Part of the response: In addition to the expected slew of critical press releases from Jewish groups, Israel’s Chief rabbis just broke relations with the Vatican and canceled participation in a scheduled March meeting in Rome with the pope’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.

The only good news is that our shock and revulsion does not stand alone. In fact, Dutch bishops have called their British colleague’s remarks “disrespectful and idiotic.” Likewise, Germany’s Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews, has said, “Such gibberish is unacceptable.”

Meanwhile, the Pope is scrambling to do some damage control, according to the JTA Wire Service. In his Wednesday prayer at his public audience, he said, “While I renew with affection the expression of my full and unquestionable solidarity with our [Jewish] brothers, I hope the memory of the Shoah will induce humanity to reflect on the unpredictable power of hate when it conquers the heart of man.” For good measure, a front-page editorial in the official Vatican newspaper in its Monday-Tuesday edition called Williamson’s statements “unacceptable.” Then Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior-general of the SSPX, publicly disavowed statements by Williamson that denied the Holocaust and barred Williamson from speaking further on the issue.

You know what? It’s not good enough. If an important Jewish leader declared, “Jesus had it coming to him for challenging the rabbis of his day,” we Jews would quickly denounce that person and never give him or her an important position again. Not only that, but as sure you can bet that I’ll eat chicken soup at Shabbat dinner, that rabbi would be making a public apology within a day or two.

Frankly, this is a moment of disgrace for the Vatican. After 18 plus centuries of anti-Jewish Church-inspired persecution, it is abominable to become an apologist for a Christian theologian who questions humanity’s most documented crime and then does not seek to apologize.

Look, I’m more than aware about the dangers in lecturing other religious leaders about their conduct within their faith. But for we Jews– and I’d think all caring people—this is far more than an internal Church matter. It is about how the Church chooses to position itself publicly on the most sensitive of concerns.

Until now, Pope Benedict has had good marks in the always emotional sphere of Catholic-Jewish ties. He has visited a synagogue in his native Germany and received Jewish audiences in Rome. Prior to assuming the papacy, he was a behind-the-scenes positive force in Pope John Paul II’s remarkable outreach to Jews.

So one must wonder what constituency Pope Benedict sought to ameliorate in this recent decision – and why it would be worthy of a world leader’s passing thought.

Is Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on the payroll of anti-Semites who gleefully pounce to prove their absurd notion that U.S. Jews and Israel control American foreign policy?

Of course not. Still, one wonders. Lambasted at home as “the worst prime minister ever,” the Israeli already faces pending indictments for multiple counts of corruption – assuming the country’s famously slow justice system comes through. Now he’s ensuring that American Jews remember him with great disdain as well.

On Monday and Tuesday this week, he wasted valuable time jockeying with State Department officials over allegations that he was proud to have “embarrassed” Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
CLICK HERE

Mr. Olmert told an audience in Ashkleon that he persuaded President George W. Bush to override Dr. Rice’s preferred support of a U.N. resolution calling for an “immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.”

The Israeli leader called President George W. Bush to ensure that the U.S. did not vote for the ceasefire resolution.

“I said: ‘Get me President Bush on the phone,’” he said during the speech. “They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care: ‘I need to talk to him now.’ He got off the podium and spoke to me.”

Then, he added about Dr. Rice, “She was left pretty embarrassed.”

Do anti-Semites need any more help? It’s so easy to maliciously twist this into “proof” that Israel and American Jews control U.S. foreign policy.

For her part, Dr. Rice countered, “I had made very clear that I thought the resolution was premature, and there were also concerns about a resolution that had Israel, a member-state of the United Nations, and Hamas, which is a terrorist organization. You don’t ever want there to be any equating those two.”

For good measure, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack suggested that the Israeli government might want to clarify or correct the record.

He’s right. This isn’t how you treat friends. And frankly, a U.N. resolution is the least of Israel’s worries right now.

Sadly but not surprisingly, major American Jewish groups have been silent on the matter. They should speak out. Israel’s Prime Minister speaks for the Jewish state and we Diaspora Jews seek to help whoever is in that position. That includes being heard when such a leader acts wrongly. It’s how we do it that counts. We love Israel, but we’re not political puppy dogs. We are far beyond the days of “Israel right or wrong” – even when the State of Israel is at war.

For sure, anti-Semites will hate the State of Israel no matter what. That doesn’t mean we should give them fodder for their cereal gruel.

ADDENDUM: Olmert is supposed to resign when a new government is formed. That government failed to come into fruition in October when Kadima leader and Foreign Minister Tzippy Livni failed to woo the Sephardi Orthodox Party, which wanted a political bribe larger than she would pay. Thus, Olmert is in power for at least one month after the scheduled February 10 elections, the period needed to form a new coalition. But those elections are likely to be delayed due to the war. Thus, Mr. Olmert will have a chance to insult incoming Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well.

It would be callous this week to write about Jewish topics beyond the 2008-2009 Gaza War.

One of the many fascinating aspects is the tortured and even apologetic approach many American Jews are taking to the newest round of fighting in a conflict whose modern outbreak began in earnest in the riots of the 1920s.

I can relate to the twisted emotions felt by so many here. How can anyone be anything other than heartbroken when seeing videos and photos of Palestinian children and families maimed and killed in the Israeli attacks? At the same time, how can any logical person say Israel’s massive counter-offensive was not justified? (What would, by the way, be considered a “proportionate response” to 6,500 rockets and mortars hurtling toward your civilians in about three years?)

Herein lies the difficulty for many American Jews: We are caught in the dilemma of wanting to strongly defend Israel’s actions while not sounding cavalier about the realities of Palestinian suffering. It is a difficult line to walk indeed. And if you are speaking with someone who has little background in the topic, it is even harder.

Thus, one understands the calls for an immediate ceasefire as well as allegations of stopping the “cycle of violence” while cringing at the news footage or radio reports.

One person who unknowingly has helped me is Rabbi Levi Weiman-Kelman of Kol HaShema in Jerusalem – a liberal congregation. He recently wrote “A Jew’s Prayer for the children of Gaza.” http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052871.html

All it does is ask for the protection of children. It’s that simple. It captures the sentiments of many of us. I obviously add to it prayers for the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces and the State of Israel.

So let us rally around Israel, which really is fighting a frontline action against Islamic terrorism/fundamentalism that if unchecked will eventually topple Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and more in the most violent of ways.

But let us also not hold back voicing our concerns for the Palestinians who – once again – are at the whim of unrepentant terrorist thugs who put many more millions of dollars into buying missiles than into updating classrooms and economic infrastructures.

The ongoing Bernie Madoff tragedy – a Ponzi scheme now in the $50 billion range – is one of the most bizarre Jewish stories of the ages.

Here you have a Jewish guy who targeted Jews as clients. Those Jews who made a lot of money (on paper at least) from Madoff then used it to found and fund countless good charities serving Jews and non-Jews. The end result in this very sad chapter in modern America is that some operations have already been forced to shut their doors (such as the Robert I. Lappin Foundation in Boston) and others (such as Hadassah and Yeshiva University) have lost more than $90 million each.

Unlike what many talking heads are jabbering about, this is not just all about the alleged greed of Madoff and key colleagues. Rather, it’s also about a handful of very wealthy Jews taking huge earnings and giving it away for good causes. In fact, I’ve seen some of those investors on TV talking about their sense of personal devastation over the reality that more people will go hungry and not be helped in countless ways because of those tidal wave of financial fraud.

Thus, we have a bizarre silver lining to all of this: American Jewish charitable largesse is being exposed to the nation once again. Of course, the anti-Semites won’t get that. But we should.

So say what you want about Madoff – and if convicted (how can he not be?) 50 billion life sentences is what I say for him and his alleged colleagues – but this all reveals a very good side about American Jews. May we continue to find such angels and may those damaged – particularly those who were being helped by all of these charities – gain new sources of income.

Only a few years ago the eyes of the Jewish world were nervously trained on France as that country’s Jewish community faced an unprecedented level of violence directed toward it in recent years. Much of that hatred – which resulted in firebombing of a few synagogues, roughing up Jews walking in the street and vicious articles in the media – was an expression of anti-Israel hatred that targeted all Jews. Emergency leadership missions took place as did top level dialogue. And, defying the predictions of many, the French government responded. Even more importantly, so did the official apparatus of the nation’s Muslim community, including via a personal dialogue between Paris’s chief rabbi and chief imam.

With that in mind, it is not a surprise but still quite welcome to learn that about 100 Jews and Muslims marched through the streets of the storied capital city last week under the auspices of the French Jewish-Muslim Friendship group, according to the JTA Wire Service. They were showing outraged and solidarity over the desecration of more than 500 Muslim and up to 20 Jewish graves.

Of course, the reason for their joint action comes from the equally disturbing reality that between Dec. 7 and 8, on the eve of the Muslim holiday Id al-Adha, a suspected group of neo-Nazis sprayed racist slurs on military gravestones in a northern France cemetery. As Bernard Kanovitch, a leading member of the Jewish umbrella group CRIF, to a crowd at the Place de la Bastille, “There are so many things uniting the Jewish and Muslim communities. What shocks us isn’t just that this happened again, but also the number of tombs.” On top of al that, on Dec. 12, more than 2,000 people gathered at the Notre Dame de Lorette cemetery to hear community and political leaders condemn the crime.

France still has tremendous problems in policing and controlling the racists and anti-Semites in its midst. Yet, there is progress on this issue. It is duly noted and must be roundly applauded and encouraged.

I keep trying to give the United Nations the benefit of the doubt, but it’s hard to come to a conclusion other than this: They stink.

The latest noxious smell comes as concerns mount over the planning for another U.N. human rights conference. It’s already predicted to be another likely orgy of radical anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism – just like the one a few years ago in Durban.

Now U.N. officials are again plunging their once prestigious organization into an ever thickening vat of anti-integrity slime. The latest incident occurred with Monday’s observance of the annual U.N. International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. I, too, have compassion for the plight of the Palestinian people – but I always put it in the context of their leadership’s historic allergy to doing anything to help their people while giving lavish attention to their own bank accounts.

Meanwhile, U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua just made remarks comparing Israel’s policy in the Palestinian territories to South Africa’s apartheid policies. In his noxious comments, the president declared that Israel should be subject to “boycott, divestment and sanctions.” Maybe he’s never heard of the U.N.-backed Road Map that he’s supposed to promote. Or perhaps he’s vying for his post-U.N. days to hold the position of leader of the Arab League boycott against Israel.

As JCPA Chair Andrea Weinstein declared rightly called it “terribly sad” for the U.N. to spend two days criticizing a member state’s existence.” She added that it was “more abhorrent” that Mr. Brockmann sought to delegitimize Israel in general. I add that his lack of mention of the continual Palestinian terrorist rocket bombings on Israeli civilians in Sderot, Ashkelon and elsewhere is appalling.

One must ask how these U.N. actions further promote peace in the Middle East. Instead of working to build a Palestinian peace constituency – as repeated Israeli prime ministers have now tried to do among the Jewish state’s citizens – the world body continues to enable further bloodshed among innocents by promoting a culture of hatred. Israel’s far from perfect, but at least it is transparent and its leaders understand context.

And this is coming from the keyboard of a guy who advocates for unconditional peace talks. So let’s keep talking, but let’s add some honesty to the mix.

The Supreme Court of Israel just made a very bad decision, one that seems very difficult to understand. It is now allowing the building of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Jerusalem Museum of Tolerance. The problem is that three-acre sight in Independence Park includes a Muslim cemetery that dates back 300 to 400 years. The cemetery fell into disuse after Israel gained statehood in 1948. The court said that since there had been no objections in 1960, when the city built a parking lot over part of the cemetery, it would not block construction of the museum on the same property, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The $250-million project had been delayed since early 2006, when builders unearthed ancient bones. The Court’s ruling requires builders to consult with Israel’s Antiquities Authority on reburying any remains found during construction. They also must create a barrier between graves and the building’s foundation, according to the Los Angeles Times.  Still, that’s not enough.

Simply put, this is an idea fraught with explosive possibilities. The Wiesenthal Center and the government of Israel simply need to do a better job at handling this most sensitive of matters. One finds it hard to understand how building on such a site after a legal contest promotes tolerance. At minimum, the grounds sacred to Muslims must be preserved as is, including public access.
Regardless, Jews should never place themselves in a position of disturbing the graves of other people – lest we give excuse for such abominable behavior to ourselves. To understand the sensitivities of Muslims in this matter, we simply need to place ourselves in their position. How would we respond were such news coming out of Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Morocco? We would justifiably be outraged and demand action. How can we treat others differently?

At long last, the final days of the forever presidential season are here. This two-year national journey has been akin to Disney World’s latest thrill ride. We have had unexpected twists and turns, dark tunnels and frightening apparitions, even long lines and crying babies.

A brief word on the campaign’s exciting historic nature. Marking the strength of our system, serious candidacies were launched by an African-American, a woman, a Mormon, a former ranking Prisoner of War and an Evangelical pastor. A former Democratic vice presidential candidate backed the GOP choice.

Now, at long last, on Tuesday, Nov. 4 we’ll pick our this nation’s 44th President. We do so deeply nervous: U.S. troops are at war in two countries; the economy is in free fall; pitched cultural battles rage; public education is in crisis; the healthcare framework is broken.

In reality, neither Sens. John McCain nor Barrack Obama will be our political savior.

Mr. McCain surely has skeletons in his closet, starting with the Keating Five Savings and Loan crisis scandal of the late 1980s and ties to numerous lobbyists. Then there is his legendary temper.

Mr. Obama, with but four years in the national spotlight, responded too slowly this past spring to the appalling tirade of his long-term pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He continually ties Mr. McCain to Bush administration policies – many of which are disastrous in historic proportions. But Mr. McCain should be applauded for differing in key areas with “Bush 43,” particularly on how to wage the Iraq War and policies on torture.

Both have run advertisements about their opponents that are – at a minimum – gross, manipulation.

Yes, I am ignoring whether Mr. Obama “pals around with terrorists,” as Mr. McCain’s less-than-enlightened running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, declares. She refers to the Illinois Senator’s serving on a board with former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers (along with leading Republicans).

Consider this: Were one to take such claims to their logical conclusion, Mr. McCain would be a communist and torturer. Tran Trong Duyet, former head of the “Hanoi Hilton” and Mr. McCain’s jailer, has said he would vote for Mr. McCain if he could because the American is now his “friend.”
Enough with such garbage. On to the issues – or at least the one that matters to me.

Mr. Obama’s policies are simply more comprehensive and sounder in the long-term. Take, for example, healthcare. Mr. McCain’s idea of $5,000 credit per family could drive up policies by at least that amount and persuade pinched employers to drop coverage. His heavy reliance on the unregulated free market – here as elsewhere – is unrealistic. Need proof? Look no farther than our battered banking system.

Mr. Obama’s plan would mandate employers offering health insurance or to contribute to the cost. A new National Health Insurance Exchange is likely to bring reasonable and stable premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Also, child health insurance would be mandatory. To pay for this, some programs must be slashed; the alternative is worse. And this plan has a better chance of structurally changing our system.

On to vice presidential choices. Many Jews – whom polls show are largely centrists – have been attracted to Mr. McCain’s past bi-partisan policies. Yet he insulted many in this camp by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. Her inexperience makes Mr. Obama look like Thomas Jefferson. Her reliance on sharp quips and populist rhetoric bring media attention and the cheers of some, but offer no depth. Mr. Obama picked Sen. Joe Biden, long a favorite with a large swath of Jewish voters and one of Washington’s brighter lights.

A President Obama will turn to his number two for advice and deep knowledge of Capital Hill. Mr. McCain must rely on his own valuable experience; his number two is not remotely capable of stepping in if needed.

Obviously I have a special interest in the fate of the State of Israel. The U.S.-Israeli relationship is strong and diverse. Mr. McCain is favored by many Jews living in Israel because of his tough talk on Iran and mocking of Mr. Obama’s desire to speak with such enemies. But Mr. Obama, with the counsel of Mr. Biden and long-time Mideast peace negotiator Ambassador Dennis Ross, will not sell out Israel. There will be disagreements, but none that surpass the hopes of large numbers of American and Israeli Jews.

The latest survey indicates that 74 percent of American Jews will vote for Mr. Obama. These voters are on to something. Barack Obama should be this nation’s 44th president.

When it comes to Evangelical Christianity’s self-professed love for the State and People of Israel, many Jews understandably retain a healthy dose of cynicism. That understandably comes from nearly two millennia of Christian antipathy and violence toward us. With Evangelicals in specific, their heavy emphasis on conversion is anathema to nearly every Jew – secular or otherwise. Others, however, argue that we desperately need friends these days. As Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League said a few years ago, “This is no time to say `You’re not our perfect friend.’”

One annual manifestation of Evangelical support is taking place in Jerusalem these days. Among the city’s visitors this Sukkot holiday are some 7,000 Evangelical tourists, according to the JTA Wire Service. They were celebrating the 29th annual Christian celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles. The event, sponsored by the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem, was expected to pump $18 million to $20 million into the economy of the Jewish state.

We must keep an open mind to all this while not letting down our guard. In short, we need more dialogue with Evangelical Christians. In doing so, we will learn – mirroring our community – that the Evangelicals are split on how to deal with Jews and Judaism. Some wings continue to single us out for proselytizing; others willingly supplant that to the proverbial back burner, freeing themselves to forge partnerships with us on issues such environmental concerns. Such diversity should not be surprising; there are an estimated 60 million and 80 million Evangelical Christians in this country alone. They are no more of one mind than are some 6 million American Jews.

The process of interfaith dialogue with other Christian groups, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, has brought profound rewards. Likewise with Protestant sects, despite some recent pushes for divestment in companies doing business with Israel – which other Protestants rose up against.
Mainly, in a world where hostile forces seek more than our souls, we need more talk and less preconceived notions.

If every presidential election is historic, this one may be even more so. For starters, there is the obvious reality of an African-American nominee from a major party. Then there is the oldest candidate yet from a major party. Finally, we have the GOP’s first nomination of a woman on the ticket (Sen. Geraldine Ferraro of the Democrats having gained the Democratic tap 24 years ago with former Vice President Walter Mondale at the ticket’s head).

Sadly, the vicious slander campaigns seemingly at the center of this campaign are not a first in the election process. Indeed, the 2008 presidential contest is as heated as any in recent memory in part due to “the sky is falling” accusations. A quick review of the noxious litany includes accusations of anti-Semitism from top policy advisers of both candidates; likewise with ties to anti-Jewish and offensive religious leaders – the latter relating to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama and GOP vice presidential pick Gov. Sarah Palin. Then there are cries by both sides that their opponent will sell out Israel when it comes to combating Iran’s clear nuclear threat. Finally, there are outright racist and misogynist sentiments that should be immediately combated.

With all that in mind, it’s far from surprising that the passions of Jewish voters in the race reveals all of this and more. So in these days leading up to the vote itself, we urge everyone to base their knowledge not on the plethora of rumors circulating on the e-mail and Internet. Rather, visit the candidates’ websites to review policies, attend an area forum and speak with sources that you trust. (Hint: Talk radio of any persuasion does not fit that last category.) Mostly, figure out what’s important to you and do the research.

There are indeed major issues to explore for us as both Jews and Americans. Some of that boils down to political philosophy; none of it should be based on fear-mongering.

No one can deny the phenomenal positive strides made between Catholic and Jewish leaders in the theological realm in recent decades. Hopefully, the relationships forged will help us weather the coming storm – the one politely and conveniently pushed off for the past five or six years, but which has now returned.

Last week at an interfaith symposium in Rome, Pope Benedict XIV defended the legacy of Pope Pius XII, reports the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (http://www.jta.org). The comments are likely meant to help prepare the theological world for the bombshell of the Vatican’s pushing to declare Pius XII – whose name is cursed by many Jews of the World War II generation – a saint.

Now Pope Benedict noted that his predecessor “spared no effort” to help Jews during World War II. Pius, he said, had undertaken “many interventions, made secretly and silently, precisely because given the concrete situation of that difficult historical moment, only in this way was it possible to avoid the worst and save the greatest number of Jews.”

Wait a minute. As is documented, the Pope did indeed help shelter Jews in Rome during the Nazi push to round up the cities Jews and send them to an unquestioned death in concentration camps. He also helped individual Jews whom he knew and their families. However, the truth is that the record is mixed. One simply cannot say that Pius “spared no effort” to help Jews. That’s because he and the rest of the world failed during this era, which brings a permanent stain to the human record. But as an influential leader whose words and orders were repeated by priests all over the continent – particularly in Poland – he had a heightened responsibility as well as opportunity to help stem the slaughter.

The Pope – and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill, and General Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the Zionist movement, and so many others – did not do enough. How can anyone say otherwise?

It’s the Catholic Church’s business as to who it wants to make a saint. It’s the obligation of the Jewish community to comment on their choices and remind our friends that in this ever-connected world, we’re going to need much more than platitudes and press releases to buy the words.

Sen. Barack Obama is an honorable man whose personal story embodies much that is great about this complex country.

Sen. John McCain has given his adult life to serving this nation with great honor and distinction; he personally understands what war means.

In short, that’s why both are excellent candidates to run for the U.S. presidency. Yes, like many I wish we could wrap them into one – McCain’s experience (because it does matter) and Obama’s intellect and charisma (because that too matters a great deal).

And no, I’m not going to tell you who’s the better choice. But I am tired of both the kooks on the left and the whackos on the right telling me who should sit in the Oval Office in an era of Iranian lust for nuclear power, increasing economic disparity at home and – God forbid – the return of “Beverly Hills 90210” to TV. (I really don’t care about that last one, but I didn’t make it up.)

Of late we’ve had Obamanik Madonna calling McCain a new Hitler and hardcore conservatives finding ways to applaud the teenage pregnancy of GOP VP pick Sarah Palin’s daughter. Yes, it shouldn’t be a campaign issue – but the Republicans are the ones who are whipping out that “family values” card all the time.

Meanwhile, the general kooks on the left – whom the Democratic party has never done a good enough job of silencing – grossly mis-characterize McCain’s support of U.S. involvement in Iraq. It’s quite bizarre to do so as the troop surge pays off, a move that McCain long-ago advocated. (As did I.)

Meanwhile, the general whackos on the far right think that Obama is a secret Muslim who will put a veil on the Statue of Liberty (and I don’t mean a figurative one). Likewise, the Republicans do far too little to silence them and their Internet innuendo campaign.

So let’s have both leaders of the political parties stand up to their radical fringes. How? Why not sign a contract for civil debate, one that includes making a donation to each other’s campaign when their surrogates go out and do the dirty work. Who would judge the violations? Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush – both of whom actually get along well – come to mind. If that doesn’t work, some pre-school teacher would do just as well because he or she is experienced in such baby behavior.

Let the games begin – again.

Now that the Summer Olympics Games are over, the November Election Games have begun. That means at the Baltimore Jewish Times we’re being courted heavily by surrogates from both parties who are out to convince us that their candidate is the best choice to lead our country these next four years.

Now the first thing they do is trot out the pro-Israel card. Frankly, I find it shallow and sad. That’s not only because the campaigns think that this is the beginning and end of what their importance to Jewish voters will be, but that many Jews agree.

The reason I’m downplaying the Israel card is actually because of the tremendous success of American Jewry in making the pro-Israel lobby – complete with its evangelical allies (at least on this issue) – a huge success. Indeed, each year the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee is ranked right up there with the National Rifle Association as one of the two most influential lobbies in the nation’s capitol. Now many Jews might not like the comparison, but when it comes to raw power our sliver of the population – about 1.9 percent in recent years – carries a mammoth wallop in the Halls of Power. We shouldn’t be ashamed of that, but proud of it.

But what about health care, immigration, religion in the public square, vouchers for private schools, national defense policies and more? I’m not taking sides here, and know that there is far from uniformity in the Jewish community on this and nearly anything else.

What I am saying is that Jewish groups in particular should press the candidates and their surrogates to detail these views. Push them to be specific, particularly when it’s Jewish surrogates that come in front of us.

Thanks to the pro-Israel lobby, there is no way in the world that an anti-Israel candidate can rise through the ranks of either party. That’s the way it should be. But we are still allowed to argue over what being pro-Israel means. (As but one example, is it in Israel’s best interest for the U.S. to pressure it to abandon West Bank settlements more quickly, or is it best to avoid the issue and let the status quo drag on – or even just say that those communities are now a permanent feature of the landscape?)

American Jews are likely the most educated, informed and sophisticated ethnic community in this country. Now we need to act that way.

Kooky politicians never fade away … they just run for president.

That’s my response after learning that Cynthia McKinney of Georgia is the Green Party nominee for president, as announced today. For sure, unlike year 2000 party candidate Ralph Nader, Ms. McKinney will not come remotely close to influencing the election. That’s because if she ever gained traction, the vast majority of Americans would see her as an increasing number of Georgians did over the years – a divisive, angry and out-of-whack politician.

I speak from personal experience. Back in the 1990s, I was editor of the Atlanta Jewish Times when she was a congresswoman. Her district was majority black, but had a healthy chunk of the Jewish community. Jewish leaders repeatedly tried to be friendly toward her; she repeatedly said in so many words, “I don’t need you so go stick your love somewhere.”

That was even before her father, long-time state representative Billy McKinney, began claiming that his daughter’s Jewish Republican opponent was being funded by national Jewish groups.

When that happened, Ms. McKinney slowly, with great reticence, ever-so-slightly distanced herself from her father’s comments. (For the record, no one was asking her to denounce her dad, just what he said.) I went up to her at a political event a day later, identified myself and said to her, “I’m glad you said what you said and look forward to now covering the issues of the campaign.” She gave me a glare and walked away. Her Jewish advisor was mortified. I told him, “Now we’re learning a lot about what she really thinks.”

Breaking tradition for the Atlanta Jewish Times, I refused to endorse the Democratic candidate in that race. Based on the history of Atlanta’s Jewish community – remember Jimmy Carter?—I was not ready to endorse Republican challenger John Mitnick. Looking back, I was wrong.

Back then I wrote that on the one hand Ms. McKinney, a black and single mom, was the type of person who should be in the U.S. House of Representatives because she truly represented a disenfranchised portion of the electorate. On the other hand, her behavior and beliefs were so outrageous that they raised serious questions.

Since then, she went on to win and lose her seat several times, finally being knocked out for good in 2006. Now she is calling for a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks – which would undoubtedly delve into the idiotic theory that Israel and/or American Jews are responsible. She also has said that peace in the Middle East could come “based on self-determination, respect for human rights and justice.” My guess is that she does not realize that Jewish settlers and their supporters might agree: justice for them comes in the right to self-determination and human rights in their ancient homeland.

That’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Ms. McKinney is such a contrast to the great Georgian African-American political leaders of past and present, including John Lewis – one of my heroes.

Well, at least we now know what Ms. McKinney is up to – at least until early November.

So now it’s Israel’s fault that gas prices are rising. Reports are increasing that the summer’s soaring cost of petroleum for the inefficient U.S. auto fleet is due in large part to speculation of a rumored pending Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sights. (Sure, the price for a gallon has dropped in the past few days. But people, it’s still over $3.70 in most places, or some $1.50 more than the cost not so long ago.)

As the narrative goes, for starters a preemptive Israeli strike may not succeed. After all, it’s a near-impossible task of hitting at least 10 reinforced and underground nuclear installations over hostile territory, a mission that will take several days and at least 100 planes.

And the potential response is horrifying: Hezbollah unleashing its 15,000 plus rockets on northern Israel, weapons supplied by Iran. Hamas reignites its missile barrages against southwestern Israel. Syria gives the green light for terror attacks on Israel’s northern border – albeit from Lebanon so that Damascus can claim neutrality. Iran targets U.S., British and other oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. The regimes in Egypt and Jordan could be toppled by street demonstrations if their governments do not break peace treaties with Israel. And one can imagine what happens to world financial markets.

All in all, it’s a nightmare scenario that seems far from impossible.

But you have to wonder, why isn’t the world instead focusing on what a nuclear-armed Iran will mean? An even bolder Tehran will permanently threaten Saudi, Kuwaiti, Iraqi and other regional oil fields. It will give the ruling mullahs even more leverage and stronger ability to project bravado in exporting their militant brand of Islamic radicalism. Meanwhile, the even higher oil prices will given Iran even more money. That country already threatens the world by arming Hezbollah – which has struck in Israel, Lebanon, Argentina and elsewhere – and has ties with Hamas.

Iran claims that its drive for nuclear power is meant for peaceful purposes. If so, why does it refuse to welcome U.N. inspectors? It’s not as if the world body is in the hip pocket of the U.S. and Israel.

Oh yes, Iran and its supporters claim that Israel already has nuclear bombs so there’s a double standard at work here. Not really. Israel has never threatened Iran with nuclear weapons, despite the heinous things Tehran’s leaders continues to say about and do to the world’s only Jewish state. Meanwhile, Israel keeps negotiating to get out of the lives of the Palestinians—and we all know what Iran has been up to during that period.

State Comptroller Peter Franchot stopped by today to touch base, as he does periodically. Not surprisingly Maryland’s November slots referendum topped the agenda. If approved, it would lead to 15,000 slot machines in five sites. Mr. Franchot is leading the public charge against the initiative, pitting him against the state’s power structure in the likes of Gov. Martin O’Malley and State Senate President Mike Miller. The Comptroller believes that slots would lead to all types of ills and is a silly way to try and deal with a short-term budget issue. Besides, he said, “If it’s approved, the legislature can turn these sites from slots parlors into casinos and by then we’re half pregnant when it comes to five more sites for slots.”

Now I’m against slots on a slew of levels, particularly religious ones. I just don’t see how gambling helps people. This is nothing new. Rabbi Leon of Modena wrote about this in his memoir in the early 1600s. (I even find it offensive when synagogues hold casino nights and cannot bring myself to bet more than a few chocolates during a dreidle game). I also believe that the General Assembly and Mr. O’Malley, as I wrote during the fall emergency legislative session, punted by tossing the question of slots back to the voters. So much for legislators taking the hard vote and paying the price – or reaping the rewards – at the polls.

Instead, we’re getting a costly, politically divisive and drawn out debate. If slots are defeated, Mr. O’Malley is going to say, “Now I have to slash programs such as education, help for the poor, etc. to balance the budget.” And if they are approved, he’ll not only find that the revenue is not what’s expected, but need to start increasing funds for gamblers’ anonymous and the likes. And with a predicted $35 billion changing hands, there will be corruption.

But the issue of balancing the state’s budget is real, especially as revenue keeps dropping due to declining consumer confidence. In fact, despite gas’s rise, gas tax is down from last year at this time. People just are not going out as much. At a coffee shop I frequent , a worker just told me business was down 50 to 60 percent. A friend who owns a restaurant says it’s down 30 to 40 percent.

Yikes. What will we do without gambling’s alleged financial windfall? Mr. Franchot’s idea: get the state’s leading business men and women together and some others to give hard advice. “They can do it in a non-ideological way,” he said. Well, they really cannot totally do that, but at least it will be in a fashion less invested in keeping certain jobs and certain department budgets in tact.

So I do like the general idea. Mind you, everyone knows that Mr. Franchot might be vying for Mr. O’Malley’s job, and the latter may be recruiting someone such as Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith to run against Mr. Franchot. So there’s a lot of political infighting going on here, too. Nothing new. Nor is the reality that if Marylanders rush into gambling parlors, more than a few will join a crowd in walking out a bit dazed and wondering what they just did.

Saudi Arabian King Abdullah just threw an interfaith party and was kind enough to invite a few Jews, including representatives from the World Jewish Congress, the Latin American Jewish Congress, the Jewish-started Foundation for Ethnic Understanding and a handful of others.

The bash was the Madrid-hosted July 16-18 Inter-Faith Conference, which was hosted by the Muslim World League.

According to the invitation letter sent by Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the United States, Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir, the objective was “to bring together representatives from the three monotheistic faiths, as well as other major religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism, and to focus on the universal values handed down to mankind by our Creator, that all faiths share.”

It’s both fascinating and sad to me that Spain hosted this event. The Iberian Peninsula is the site of both tragedy and triumph for interfaith relations, and Jews in particular. Some 10 centuries ago, great Jewish philosophers such as Maimonides and Yehuda HaLevi were shaped by Spain’s truly multi-cultural society. Meanwhile, great Kaballists (Jewish mystics) made a name for themselves in Gerona in the 13th century.

Yet, a little earlier the Almohades, fanatic Muslims, drove out Jews and Christians from much of Spain in the mid-12th century. Then, of course, the Catholic-led Spanish Inquisition led to the great expulsion from Spain in 1492, creating great upheaval throughout Europe. Thus, there are many positive and negative episodes to reflect upon in the land of this gathering.

However, if King Abdullah really wanted to make a statement of interfaith understanding, he would have held the meeting in Saudi Arabia itself. After all, that country still officially discriminates against non-Muslims and is the scene of some vicious anti-Semitic writings in newspapers and broadcasts.

Still, it’s a start and while we should keep perspective, we should welcome it.

There might be another first coming in a 2008 presidential campaign that has already given us the first presumptive African-American nominee, nearly brought a female one, briefly put a Mormon in the frontrunner’s spot and has a long-term Vietnam War prisoner going for the big spot. This time Jews – an integral base to the Democratic Party’s coalition since the FDR campaigns of the 1930s – are reconsidering.

In fact, a new poll out says that Jewish support for Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama is the lowest for any of the party’s recent picks. That’s despite an overwhelmingly negative view of the George Bush-led GOP. The survey, according to the JTA Wire Service and commissioned by the Washington-based advocacy Jewish group J Street, found that only 58 percent of American Jews said they would definitely vote for Obama. Another 4 percent said they were leaning toward him.

Now that still sounds like a lot, but consider that Al Gore and Bill Clinton both drew around 80 percent of the Jewish vote in their presidential bids. In 2004 candidate Sen. John Kerry picked up 76 percent.

Most interesting is that unlike in other years when Jewish numbers for Democrats dropped, there’s no strong independent siphoning off some of them– a John Anderson or a Ross Perot.

That doesn’t mean that Jews are rushing to be elephants. Only 29 percent said they would vote for Republican Sen. John McCain – only five percent more than Bush’s 2004 mark. (Another three percent are leaning toward McCain.)

What this really means is that some Jews simply are not enthusiastic about Obama, which could hurt his fundraising among them (which, truth be told, is doing fine any way). That means that if Obama wins, the Jewish community will not play such a large role as in past years, which could have long-term implications. However, I think that if the number of Jewish support can get above 65 percent – and I see that as likely – Obama will continue to see American Jewry as an important to his coalition.

The reason for this skittishness, of course, is the last sting of distrust that Obama engendered by not immediately rejecting the racist and anti-American comments of his former spiritual leader, the flamboyant Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I personally think Jews – at least ones with active brains – laugh at reports that Obama is a secret Muslim who will poison our kids with jihad juice.

Obama might be a lot of things, but he is no terrorist. He is, however, a politician and as the Rev. Jesse Jackson just learned, for better or worse he will act like one first, second and third.

This comes from the “now I’ve seen it all” file. The JTA Wire Service just ran a brief entitled “Kabbalah seen as cause for A-Rod split.” Thus, Kaballah – the historically and currently maligned study of Jewish mysticism – is now at the root of America’s latest mega-celebrity divorce. What’s next: Gefilte fish causing the obesity of all Appalachin Americans? Matzah ball soup increasing high blood pressure on Native American reservations? Is this all the new way of saying, “The Jews did it?”

Jokes aside, for those not in the know, A-Rod is New York Yankee Alex Rodriguez, perhaps the greatest baseball player of modern times. The superstar is reportedly divorcing wife Cynthia because he is allegedly having an affair with popstar Madonna, whose marriage to film director Guy Ritchie is on the rocks. The reason: Madonna, according to trainer Dodd Romero on ABC’s “Good Morning America” has “brainwashed” Rodriguez by interesting him in Kaballah. To make it even crazier, Cynthia’s attorney, Raoul Felder, reportedly will challenge her husband’s credibility by bringing up his interest in Kaballah and claiming it is a cult.

(Didn’t the Colts leave Baltimore years ago?)

Oy. Now this all says a lot both about the place of Jews and Judaism in America, as well as the inability of Jews and others to understand that serious study of kaballah is both time-honored and vastly deeper than the surface brush strokes of those driven by the headline loving L.A.-based Kaballah Center, the venue where Madonna and a host of others enjoy their fad of the day.

In short, America – outside of Israel—simply put is the safest place in history for the Jewish people. Study of Kaballah, which still isn’t accepted by many mainstream rabbis, is embraced by some of the nation’s leading celebrities. Meanwhile, Jon Stewart on “The Tonight Show” is busy making jokes about hamentaschen. He wouldn’t do it if his audience wouldn’t get it. And most Americans no longer even know that words such as “chutzpah” and “glitch” are Yiddish.

Jews have it made in America. The only problem now is getting more of them to seriously engage Jewish living instead of the kitsch that goes over so well in our media-driven, celebrity-obsessed culture.

Agriprocessors, the embattled kosher food giant, is in part fighting allegations of employing illegal immigrants in poor conditions and cruelty to animals by hiring the public relations firm 5WPR, a growing power house in the field, according to the JTA Wire Service. This is done in the face of calls by some modern Orthodox groups, Jewish vegetarians, Conservative Judaism’s rabbinical arm and others to either boycott or carefully consider purchasing foods by Agriprocessors – which represents 60 percent of the kosher beef and 40 percent of the kosher chicken sold in the country. Their products are sold under major labels such as Rabushkin’s and Aaron’s Best.

If Agriprocessors does some good community work and is a great place to be employed, then I say more power to publicizing all of that. But they have some serious questions to answer before getting to the usual corporate bragging.

Not only that, but one poor argument in defense of Agriprocessors is that critics should back off because pursuing the allegations against it could create a spike in kosher meat prices. As one who only buys and eats kosher meat, I say Jewish morality should not have a price. If people cannot eat meat or must eat less of it for a short period, so be it. If there is a market for such products, there is no doubt that other companies would step up their production to fill the void.

Reasons for keeping kosher are both varied and complicated. For certain people it is done out of a sense of obligation for following halachah. Equally important, many believe that kosher food is prepared humanely and, due to kashrut regulations, is generally healthier than many other products. The Agriprocessors scandal undermines that second belief and could damage the ability to persuade more people to consider keeping kosher. This also points to an inability of many organizations to explain to Jews why keeping kosher is important in the first place. None of these elements can be ignored as this story moves forward.

The Rev. John Hagee, “the other pastor” in this already nasty presidential election, has not surprisingly made statements that have angered many Jews. High among the list are comments suggesting that the Holocaust was necessary to bring the Jews back to Israel which, of course, would lead to the return of Jesus – and you know what for those who decline to polish the rosary beads that the modern disciples will dish out at Ben-Gurion Airport.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) at first had had warmly accepted Rev. Hagee’s enthusiastic support. Then he was then forced to spurn it.

Now Rev. Hagee has apologized for his noxious comments. Should we Jews take that apology at face value? When is “I’m sorry” enough, and can it ever be? What about Sen. McCain? Should we slam him for eagerly lapping up Rev. Hagee’s support, despite now saying he no longer wants it?

Despite the partisan clash of verbal swords, and while we Jews can never forget, we are masters at moving on, which is what we should do here.

Remember, Rev. Hagee isn’t going away. He still commands national media attention and influences a slice of the American Evangelical community – albeit far from all of it. Hopefully – perhaps naively – I think now he’s a little more aware of how his comments shape the public discourse in our media-driven culture.

And let’s make sure that we’re not playing with a double standard. Democratic candidate Sen. Barrack Obama (D-Ill.) belatedly said he rejected the hate of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose career is now over. The latter than dug his hole that much deeper with his bizarre behavior at the National Press Club. Most Jewish Democrats – in presidential elections for decades the overwhelmingly Jewish vote has gone Democrat – remain uncomfortable with Mr. Obama’s historic association with Rev. Wright. Yet, they’re willing to move in.
So let’s do the same with the McCain-Hagee team. Revs. Hagee and Wright aren’t going to be put in the Responsible Religious Leaders Hall of Fame, and Sens. McCain and Obama aren’t running for sainthood.

Now our fine Senators are the latest politicians to learn that religion and politics present a noxious mix. That lesson tucked away, let’s get back to the real issues that face our nation.

Something is more than rotten when the world’s leading distributor of compensation funds for Holocaust survivors – a Jewish operation—is ordered by a court to disburse more money to survivors.

That’s why I was nauseated this week upon learning that a Tel Aviv District Court judge ordered the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany (a.k.a. the Claims Conference), to pay nearly $6 million to survivors from the former Soviet Union. (http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/108858.html)

The judge agreed that not only were many in this segment of the dwindling survivor’s community denied any funds until 1991 with the collapse of communism, but for the subsequent 17 years they have been denied the proper amount of funds. It is nothing short of outrageous.

The court agreed that the Claims Conference did not inform 1,365 Holocaust survivors who emigrated to Israel that they were entitled to a one-time restitution payment. Nor, the claim was made, did the Claims Conference adequately explain how to apply for the grant, which meant that many would not gain any funds. The Claims Conference says it will now appeal the ruling, which seems unseemly. Is this really the type of issue that should be dragged out in the courts at this period in the lives of the remaining Holocaust survivors? Of course not.

We are well aware that there is a massive debate in Jewish life as to whether such funds should go primarily to the survivors or toward the funding of memorial programs, sights and Jewish educational efforts. Likewise, there have been huge fights over how much attorneys in these cases should receive.

Personally, with such huge numbers being tossed around, I find it insane that survivors – no small number in Eastern Europe of whom are impoverished—would not gain enough funds on which to live out their remaining days in dignity.

For those in the know, in but moments unhealed wounds from the verbal war between some supporters of the Baltimore Hebrew University and the Associated: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore could be opened yet again.

That’s because Dr. Robert O. “Bob” Freedman – one of the finest scholars ever to grace our community – stepped up to the microphone to deliver remarks after receiving an honorary doctorate from BHU.

In diplomatic but unmistakable language, he did not disappoint.

First some background. As a former BHU President, Dr. Freedman has long fought to promote high-level Jewish education and ensure that academics take it from the classroom into the community. Some of his key causes during his 33 years at BHU – when not preparing for Torah reading at Beth El Congregation or giving background briefings to CIA and State Department agents on Soviet/Russian affairs—has been serving as a leader in promoting Mideast peace and advocating for Soviet/Russian Jewry.

And in full disclosure, the brilliant man has been my academic mentor for 22 years.

So knowing that he would not be silent, how harshly would he criticize the Associated, which is cutting funding for BHU’s degree-granting programs in favor of more adult ed work and other identified community priorities?

His adroit tactic was to offer the graduates and the audience his four golden rules:

• “Don’t do it on the cheap.” If something’s worth doing – and serious Jewish education is certainly worthwhile – don’t cut back on funding.
• Don’t be afraid to speak out when you see something wrong.
• Make sure that you give yourself the gift of Shabbat to reenergize and internalize the Jewish message that you try to promote all week long.
• And, finally, continue to study, which is after all the essence of Judaism because in our tradition study leads to action.

As one community leader was heard saying to another, “I think he just criticized us.”

Yes he did. And after all these years, he is more than entitled to do so. Community leaders can differ greatly on their views for our healthy future. But they must listen seriously to all perspectives. BHU for certain has its flaws – just like the Associated and, yes the BALTIMORE JEWISH TIMES—and BHU has not yet done enough to convince the community of its merit, or until recently begin to change enough to meet the community’s evolving needs.

Now the looming question: Is BHU’s new path enough or too little to late?

To contemplate that, I’m going to go study, not be afraid of where that leads me, speak out as needed and make sure that I reflect on it all during on Shabbat.

Out of the mouth of babes.

My seven-year-old son innocently hit me with a 500 lb. sack of matzah balls a few days ago while we were driving home from his school. “I think I’d like for us to move to Israel and make a new life for ourselves. What do you think?”

That’s what you get, I said to myself, for sending your kid to Jewish day school. But, of course, he raised a profound question, certainly one that I have contemplated a great deal over the years. That is: “If Israel really is the easiest and most complete place in which to live a Jewish life, one in which daily existence itself is wrapped up into a uniquely Jewish experience, shouldn’t we be living there?”

One need not be an Einstein to study Jewish history – particularly the modern European brand – to learn that no Jew is safe if there is not a strong State of Israel. So how come more of us in America not want to make aliyah?

The usual reasons are the two big “F’s” – family and finance. That is, our families are here and we simply would not have the same standard of living in Israel, including needing to start over 20-year careers. For me, the second “F” is irrelevant. That’s because in some ways the standard of living would be better. But that first “F”? It looms large. After all, we have Shabbat dinner every week with my parents. Since they’re not moving to Israel, what price can be placed on that?

When one digs deeper, he or she must contemplate another reality: While the modern State of Israel is unique in our history (if anything for attempting to combine democracy and Judaism), so is the Jewish experience in the United States, a land where we are as free to practice – or not practice – our Jewishness as we see fit.

So how did I respond to my son? With honesty: “I always think about moving to Israel buddy. But I know it would be hard for us, a huge transition. But let’s keep talking about it. If we don’t do it as a family, maybe you will. That would make me very proud.”

Thanks to the understandable and inevitable superficiality of our media-driven culture, many American Jews gag when they hear the phrase “Evangelical Christians.” Instantly, stereotypes of politically moronic, easily manipulated and generally anti-intellectual masses come to mind. (Not “masses,” by the way in the Catholic sense.)

Well, we American Jews better get a little more sophisticated ourselves. There are 60 to 80 million Evangelical Americans, according to the Pew Forum. If all 6 million or so of us are on incredibly diverse spiritual journeys, then one need not be Talmudist to realize that characterization must be multiplied many times to characterize Evangelicals. In other words, there’s no such thing as “Evangelicals believe…” (although one can say “a majority believe….”)

That’s part of the message Rev. Jason Poling of Pikesville’s New Hope Community Church brought to this week’s Baltimore-hosted national convention of ARZA – Association of Reform Zionists of America. http://www.arza.org

“People like [Christian Zionist leader Rev.] John Hagee and [former Presidential candidate Rev.] Pat Robertson represent the old fundamentalist strain that is absolute and already passing away,” said Rev. Poling, whom in full revelation is a wonderful friend of mine. He added, “John Hagee is no more representative of Evangelicals than Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright is of the black church and the Lubavitcher Rebbe is of Conservative Judaism, let alone Judaism as a whole.”

And then the myth-buster for those of us who believe Evangelicals really want us all to return to Israel so that we can be converted or killed – the former helping throw garlands at a triumphantly returning Jesus (for whom the Hebrew street signs will be decipherable, unlike the experience the Revs. Hagee and Robertson would have).

“Evangelical support for Israel is not a theological matter for most [Evangelicals],” Rev. Poling explained. “Particularly I think we celebrate Israel for the same reason most Americans do, that it is the [region’s] only democracy … We see Israel as surrounded by hostile Muslim nations. One thing we know as Evangelicals is the actions of hostile fundamental Islam. When we hear about missiles being lobbed from Gaza, we think of the story of people riding by our churches in Indonesia on motorcycles and tossing bombs.”

(By the way, check out the Pew Forum’s interesting survey on Evangelicals and Israel: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=80 .)

Do most Evangelicals want us to become Christians with their theological beliefs? Sure. They want that for other Christians, too. And as long as they don’t legislate that, so what? As Rev. Poling is fond of saying, “I’ll let God work out the details of how that happens. My job is to live a good life that I think is true to my tradition.”

In the meantime, let’s realize how complex we humans are and shove the stereotypes in the garbage can of history.

So I ask, how should we approach Evangelicals?

If it weren’t for the presence of three native Taiwanese fellow worshippers and the Chinese writing on the door, I could have been in any synagogue in the western world. But this one was on the fifth floor of the Sheraton International Hotel in this densely populated, colorful and exciting capital city.

I had been invited to worship with the small – as in only seven people – group by Rabbi Ephraim F. Einhorn, a true character if there ever were one.  (About 80 people turned out a few weeks earlier for a kosher Passover seder. There are by estimates only about 100 to 150 Jews on the island of 23 million people, and they’re all either Israelis or Americans connected with businesses. There are no native Jews here, other than a few that Rabbi Einhorn has converted in his 30 plus years on the island. If you’re heading there, check out http://www.haruth.com/JewsTaiwan.html.)

I was here for a few days courtesy the government’s impressive Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov.tw/en/), which invited us to see how they are responding to the awesome challenges they face in the region (in no small part thanks to China’s recalcitrance on that and so many other issues). More on that in print and on-line in the coming weeks.

I had met with Rabbi Einhorn in his office a few days earlier. To say he has stories and has rubbed elbows with the Jewish famous is a bit like saying that Manischewitz cranks out a few boxes of matzah each Festival of Freedom.

AT 89, this native of Vienna, with an Orthodox rabbinical degree from an important seminary in London, has 10 business cards – ranging from honorary citizen of Montana, to chair of the Republicans of Taiwan (as in the GOP type), to founder of the country’s main Rotary clubs and much more. He speaks a host of languages (but not Chinese). He worked for the World Jewish Congress in resettling Holocaust refugees (his parents died in Auschwitz) and he has lived and worked in some dozen or so countries.

He arrived here – apparently his last stop in terms of addresses—in the mid-1970s as, get this, the head of a Kuwaiti business delegation. I asked, but he said, “It’s a story I’m not ready to tell” – which, probably by design, makes him even more interesting.

Back to Shabbat. The small room, which is the rabbi’s permanent synagogue, also houses the rabbi’s truly impression collection of rare Jewish books, dating from the late 1700s to present day, which he proudly showed off. The room also has a Torah and an ark, Sephardi and Ashkenazi prayerbooks (the former no longer used now that the Syrian Jews left for Hong Kong and India to follow business pursuits a few decades ago).

One Israeli businessman chanted the Torah reading. We stopped, discussed, argued the meaning and then went on. In other words, Jews gathering as across the globe to bring new life to our ancient texts. All along, the rabbi interjected his always interesting personal stories and cross references from his vast knowledge of the Jewish cannon.

At the end, there was Kiddush, Hamotzi and some more chatting. Then it was time for me to go and for the rabbi to rest. I could not make it back for Havdalah that night, but this coming week when I perform that ceremony at home with my kids, my thoughts will go East, Far East that is.

What do you say to a wildly popular female Buddhist monk who welcomes you into her serene grounds, engages you in a conversation about journalism ethics, extols the virtues of recycling, and wraps it up with a blessing for peace and a gift of coins (reminding me of how the late Chabad rebbe gave a $1 bill to visitors so they would go do good deeds)?

“Shalom v’todah” (peace and thank you) instantly crossed my lips as I mutually bowed in the respectful eastern way in front of Master Cheng Yen, founder of the Tzu Chi movement (http://www.tzuchi.org/). She is the so-called “Mother Theresa of the East” and we were finishing a visit to her home in Hualien, Taiwan a few days ago.

Master Cheng spoke with us – a handful of journalists brought to the country by its Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov.tw/en/) to check out the challenging environmental situation on that side of the world (more to come in print and on-line) – in what I was told was a rare meeting with such a group of outsiders.

This diminutive 61-year-old woman, in whose presence one sensed tremendous strength of purpose, long ago abandoned a life of family wealth. Since then, she has humbly transformed her own teachings of “earthly Buddhism” – which we might translate into “tikkun olam,” or repairing the world—into an international movement. She and her cadre of activists around the globe have inspired 10 million volunteers.

This Buddhist master is a true environmentalist; she does not even allow the burning of incense as it pollutes the air. She speaks directly but with neither political correctness nor grandiose statements.

“The mission of religions is like social therapy. All different beliefs convey this type of mission of conveying people’s sense,” she said in response to my question about her blossoming relationship with some Israelis enamored by her work, which has resulted in the planting of trees in her honor in Israel and her unexpectedly asking followers to “pray for Jerusalem’s peace.”

So that got me thinking about universalism and how some young Jews are attracted to Buddhism and other eastern religions. In part, I believe, that’s because such approaches to life are simple and don’t demand large sums of money or allegiance on political issues to become a leader. Rather, they are about personal, internal loyalties and values.

That’s something we Jews need to focus more on. After all, it’s not alien to the Jewish culture. Balancing that and our real demands for funding what we do while maintaining important social, cultural and political structure – operations that by definition can quickly become bureaucratic and anti-personal – is a great challenge.

How do we get better at all that?

Last week in the Far East, I began thinking about some answers – that start with qualified and quality leadership, which, sadly, is often an unwestern virtue.

Raphael Gamzou leaned forward to share the strange reality of life in Taiwan – and the Far East in general – when it comes to perception of the “powerful Jews.” “They know Einstein was Jewish and that he was smart. They think all Jews are smart and good businessmen. But their society does not have the hangup that Judeo-Christian ones have about wealth. Here they ask for wealth in every blessing and celebration.”

“Rafi,” as he’s known, is the Israel Economic and Cultural representative in Taiwan, an island of 23 million people.

So millions of people in this part of the world – I’m here on a five-day trip highlighting the country’s environmental progress, courtesy Taiwan’s Environmental Protection Agency – walk around believing all Jews are smart and sharp merchants. In the West, we’d call that notion anti-Semitic because of the European historically Christian-based stereotypes it conjures (and the resulting persecutions). I add ironically, trust me when I tell you that I know some Jews who are neither smart nor good at business, and both have certainly been applied to me.

So are such notions still anti-Semitism when said here, or is the offense in the wording situational? One can easily see how such notions said in an international forum such as the United Nations would create an uproar and result in instant Jewish defense agency press releases. Still, is there such a thing as pro-Semitic stereotypes? Should we encourage them?

Those are some of the questions that will be on my mind tomorrow as I meet with a Buddhist master and then on Saturday when I plan to attend Shabbat morning services – the only ones offered on this island with a whopping Jewish community of 100 or so souls.

It was so easy to blast former President Jimmy Carter for the naïve way in which he approached his headline making meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal last week in Damascus. And I did just that in print: click here.

Carter never understood the nuances, personalities and maddening patient creep of progress in the Middle East – while president or in writing two books on the subject, “The Blood Of Abraham” or “Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid.”

But I have to admit that in writing my piece, I had to wrestle with Carter’s key statement: Hamas is a factor in the Israeli-Palestinian relationship and eventually must be dealt with, so why wait to start talking?

I say that as someone who believes in dialogue with just about anyone. So if that’s the case, what about Hamas? I admit to remaining conflicted on some level, but rely heavily on three factors:

• Hamas couldn’t even suspend rocket attacks on Israeli civilians during Carter’s visit;

• Hamas didn’t have the courtesy to provide additional information on captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit (truly a prisoner of war, meaning Hamas must be pressed to allow observation visits by the International Red Cross);

• and Hamas has NEVER even agreed to Israel’s right to exist – the bar for all negotiations. The PLO did it in 1988 and then 1993. Then there’s the faulty comparisons from other violent liberation movements. But the IRA never tried to vanquish Great Britain, the African National Congress fought for democratic rule in South Africa (despite its Marxists elements) and the Kurdish PKK wants its own country, not all of Turkey.

Hamas, an unrepentant terrorist-sponsoring and inspiring group with not even a half-statesmen at the helm, is a different story. Until that changes, I say hold the line – but keep helping Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas improve living standards on the West Bank, showing Gaza Palestinians what they can gain if they kick Hamas out of office (if the Islamic fundamentalists ever allow another democratic election).

But what about you? Do you think it was worthy for Carter to at least try? Are the rest of us too obsessed with the conflict to see the value in such non-government efforts?

Comments

Add Comment

Most recent entries

• Anti-Semitism Drops
• Tevye As Teacher
• Rabbi Mark G. Loeb’s Funeral
• Bipartisan Error On Iowa
• Irving Kristol: Neo-Con’s Jewish Godfather
• Ahmadinejad’s New York Welcome
• Egypt’s Book Burner
• Papal Backtracks
• Bad Signs
• Comic, Ironic And Tragic Vatican Views
• Surprise! U.N. Fair
• Obama’s Mistake
• This Rosh Hashanah, Will Fewer Jews Show Up?
• Drinking Buddies
• A Message To Catholics

Monthly Archives

• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008

If you are using Firefox 2.0 or Internet Explorer 7.0:
Subscribe to this blog
Otherwise, copy and paste this url into your reader or aggregator:
blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin_rss