First, let me be clear: Israel is the sole governor of Jerusalem – even though I believe that one day the city’s boundaries will be redrawn (which is how an Israeli government will be able to legitimately say that it never divided the city).

Also, Jerusalem has a housing shortage. Still, there were alternatives to this move. For example, the government recently scrapped the Safdie plan, which would have seen the construction of 20,000 new housing units to the West of the city. It was canceled primarily over environmental concerns. One, however, wonders why it was not reworked to fit the needs of the area’s ecosystems.

And one can sense the personal ideological and political reasons behind Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s approval of the new housing. However, we American Jews are obligated to inform him that he is making one of our core tasks – advocating for the State of Israel –more difficult and that he is potentially damaging the State of Israel’s overall well being.

That’s because this occurs after Mr. Netanyahu’s successful White House visit, U.S. praise of Israel’s “unprecedented restraint” on settlement building, a rallying of the American Jewish troops at the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, and reports of real Palestinian economic progress on the West Bank.

Meanwhile, Israel needs help in the world of public opinion, which plays an important role in keeping Israel’s economic opportunities strong. In particular, Israel needs aid in thwarting mounting pressure from the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Goldstone report, which called Israel action during the 2008-2009 war with Hamas “war crimes.” In addition, this week’s headlines put Mr. Netanyahu’s call for immediate negotiations with the Palestinians and Syria’s overtures for such talks into a deep freeze.

Pride and bravado aside, the State of Israel – which receives about $4 billion a year in military aid from Washington—cannot stick its thumb in the eye of the U.S. government and seek business as usual.

This is a positive development in ties between the two communities. Yet, one is still troubled that leading members of the USCCB initially felt that such wording was acceptable. One sincerely hopes that the USCCB is changing its policy not out of pressure, but out of an understanding of how offensive this was to Jews, others and the spirit of interfaith dialogue in general.

Members of the coalition opposing the original wording included the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Council of Synagogues, the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council of America.

In part of its response to a formal letter raising the concerns, the Bishops wrote that the Jewish covenant “endures till the present day.” That reflects the well-established principles established by the late Pope John Paul II regarding the historic Catholic-Jewish rapprochement launched by the Catholic Church’s Vatican II teachings in 1965. 

Bottom line: Think of how far we’ve come. The Catholic Church actually is willing to listen to Jewish concerns. That speaks incredibly well of the Church and we Jews should acknowledge it.

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.

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!

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

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.

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.