A major victory for victims of Arab terror this week. A jury here found the PLO and the Palestinian Authority responsible for terror attacks in Israel going back more than 11 years, resulting in a multi-million dollar award and, perhaps more importantly, exposing the "moderate" claim of these groups.
Stewart Ain reports, and our Editorial deals with lessons learned.NEW YORK
As PLO Victims Proclaim Justice, Collecting Millions May Be Elusive
Process likely to be complicated by political pressure, given PA’s standing.
Stewart Ain
Staff Writer
Leonard Mandelkorn testifies at the federal trial here before Judge George Daniels. The attorney is Rachel Weiser.Jane Rosenberg
The door has now been opened for a fresh look at pending civil suits in Israel against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization — as well as possible new suits here — after a Manhattan federal jury Monday found the groups liable for six terror attacks in Israel between 2002 and 2004 that killed and injured Americans.That’s the view of Nitsana Darshan Leitner, Israel counsel to the victims’ families. “We are always prepared to file new cases for victims of Palestinian terrorism if we can establish the evidence,” she told The Jewish Week via email.
“We have many cases against the PA pending in the Israeli courts. We really hope the Israeli government will finally understand the utility of our civil actions and startsupporting the litigation wholeheartedly,” she added.
The jury verdict, reached after six weeks of testimony before Manhattan Federal Judge George Daniels, awarded the 10 American families who brought the case $218.5 million in damages, a figure that is tripled to $655.5 million by provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, under which the suit was filed 11 years ago.
But whether the victims will be able to collect the jury award is unknown, as that process would likely run into political pressure given the Palestinian Authority’s standing in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Attorneys are only now permitted to pursue documentation of the groups’ assets. Evidence presented during the trial revealed the PA has been paying imprisoned terrorists and their families $50 million a year.
Although several victims and their families testified during the trial, none were in the courtroom when the verdict was read. One of them, Arieh Mendelkorn, whose 18-year-old son was critically injured in a suicide bombing in 2002, told The Jewish Week by phone from Israel: “Hashem [God] has done justice in this world. We thank Hashem, who has given retribution to those who abused us. We see what evil we have to face and we have overcome with Hashem’s power.”
He said his son, Shaul, was in a coma for two days after the bombing in the French Hill section of Jerusalem. He underwent a year of orthopedic work and rehabilitation and today, at the age of 31, has permanent damage to his left eye.
Alan Bauer, who was injured along with his 7-year-old son when a Palestinian policeman blew himself up directly behind them as they walked home, said by phone from Jerusalem that he and his family are “thrilled” by the verdict.
A native of Chicago, Bauer said he was walking home from the office and holding the hand of his son, Yoni, in March 2002 when the bomb exploded.
“I was thrown forward,” he said. When he regained his senses, he saw that his hand was “covered in blood and I couldn’t find my son. I then saw him face down. I picked him up and heard him moaning, so I knew he was alive. He was taken to an ambulance and in the ambulance they removed a towel drenched in blood from the back of his head.”
Bauer, a biochemist and father of four sons, said doctors found that two screws had penetrated his left arm and that a screw had gone through his son’s brain.
“He was put in coma to let fluid drain out and was then left blind and paralyzed on his left side,” he recalled.
Bauer said his son, who will be 20 this year, testified during the trial and told the jury that he has regained partial vision but that his left side is still weaker than his right.
“The reason we sued was that six months after the bombing there was a published report that said those who sent the bomber were employees of the PA,” he said.
The bomb killed three Israelis, including a young couple returning from the doctor’s office.
“She was pregnant and had just had an ultrasound,” Bauer said. “I spoke with the brother of one of the Israelis killed and he is suing the PA in Israel. The case is in the preliminary stages, but he is hopeful the verdict in the U.S. will have a positive impact on the Israeli courts. Most such cases are thrown out here because there is no legal framework to pursue them like there is in the U.S.”
The Anti-Terrorism Act was enacted in the U.S. following the Achille Lauro hijacking, and Leitner said this was the first trial to test the effectiveness of the law. It was specifically designed “to address the brutality of Palestinian terrorism against Americans traveling abroad,” she noted.
Among the other family members and victims who testified was Rena Sokolow of Cedarhurst, L.I. She said she was on a family vacation to Israel in 2002 when she was knocked down by a bomb blast while buying a pair of shoes for her 12-year-old son. She said she felt as though she “was in a washing machine” as blood raced from her broken leg so quickly she thought she would die.
“I looked to my right and saw a severed head of a woman about 3 feet from me,” she told the jurors.
Leitner said the trial provided evidence “for the first time [in] an American court” of the “PA’s policies and culture of glorifying the suicide bombers and terrorist masterminds. The defendants in the end offered almost no evidence and no reasonable explanation for their policy of rewarding convicted terrorists — a policy that continues to the present day.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement that Israel expects “the responsible elements in the international community to continue to punish those who support terrorism just as the U.S. federal court has done and to back the countries that are fighting terrorism.
“Today as well we remember the families that lost their loved ones; our heart is with them and there is no justice that can console them,” he added.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a statement that the ADL is “gratified that the U.S. civil judicial process provided a venue to hold the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization accountable for the heinous acts of terrorism they incited, promoted, financed and carried out against the victims.” He added that the international community “failed to impose consequences” on the PA and the PLO for its actions and that the verdict “brings a measure of justice for these murderous acts.”
David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, also welcomed the verdict, saying: “Perpetrators of terrorism and their sponsors must be held accountable. Though the legal process took a long time, the victims’ families have finally seen justice in the admirable, reasoned decision of the jury in a federal court in New York.”
Jonathan Tobin, a senior editor at Commentary magazine, wrote that the verdict “should remove any doubt about the fact that so-called Palestinian moderates are as connected to terrorism as more extreme factions like Hamas. … The decision strips away the veneer of respectability that figures such as PA leader Mahmoud Abbas have acquired from both the Obama administration and the mainstream media.”
Last September, a jury in Brooklyn federal court ruled that the Jordan-based Arab Bank had knowingly financed the Hamas terrorist organization, which was responsible for a string of suicide bombings that killed and wounded American citizens. In May, another jury will hear from victims and their families in order to determine how much the bank must pay the victims and their families.
Yuval Shany, dean of the law school at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told The Jewish Week that he believes that neither the U.S. nor the Israeli governments are likely to help the plaintiffs collect their judgment against the PA and PLO.
“I’m not sure any of the parties have an interest in seeing the PA collapse financially, and so I don’t see strong diplomatic pressure aligned to enforce [the judgment],” he said. “And so far the Israeli government has been very ambivalent about cases against the PA.”
Leitner said that should the PA and PLO refuse to pay the judgment, the attorneys would “go after their assets in the U.S. and in Israel.”
“We’ll seek to locate their offices and bank accounts in the U.S. and we’ll go after their taxes that Israel collects — $100 million a month,” she said. “If they want to file an appeal, they will have to post a bond. If they lose, we would collect the bond.”
Shany, however, expressed reservations about their ability to collect the judgment. He noted that the Israeli government is withholding the PA’s tax collection money, a move initiated in December in response to the PA taking steps to join the International Court of Justice — a prerequisite to filing war crimes charges against Israel.
“I’m not sure you can confiscate money that has already been confiscated, and it is not clear whether the Israeli government would support such efforts by private litigants because it would have political implications,” she said. “It is also not clear if the courts here would cooperate with the process because there are some immunity issues that have been raised. It has taken years for cases to be brought here against the PA, and no cases in which immunity from seizing property been litigated.”
Thus, Shany said, “economic, political and legal factors makes it difficult.”
He pointed out that Leitner and her organization, Shurat HaDin — The Israel Law Center, have won other cases in the U.S. on behalf of American victims of Israeli terror attacks. But he said her organization’s website acknowledges being able to get back only about 10 percent of the money awarded.
“That is not insignificant,” he said, “but it is indicative of the gap between getting an award and being able to collect.”
stewart@jewishweek.org EDITORIAL
Exposing The PLO In Court
The significance of the Federal District Court verdict here this week against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, awarding damages amounting to $655.5 million to victims of six terror attacks in Israel, is far more than financial. By determining, after a legal battle of more than a decade, that the Palestinian organizations were supportive of and responsible for the attacks, which killed 33 people and injured 450 others, the jury in effect was saying that the PA and PLO are involved in terrorism in Israel.
The argument that these groups are “moderates” has been exposed as fraudulent, challenging the prevailing narrative of the Israeli-Arab dispute that suggests Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza are the primary militants and that the Mahmoud Abbas-led groups are on the side of peace.
The verdict awarded $218.5 million to the plaintiffs, who are relatives of the victims. According to a special terrorism law, that sum is automatically tripled. Among the attacks involved in this case were bombings at the Hebrew University cafeteria, on Jerusalem buses and in the city’s streets.
The verdict represents a serious problem for the PA, which is financially strapped and faces further cuts by Israel as a result of the Abbas decision to abandon the Mideast peace process and seek to join the International Criminal Court. PA spokespersons called the ruling’s charges “baseless” and said they would appeal.
The verdict also represents a serious diplomatic problem for the U.S., which has long maintained that the PA under Abbas is a peace-seeking partner for Israel. In much of the mainstream media, reflecting attitudes at the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is the chief obstacle to a two-state solution and peace settlement. The evidence presented at the seven-week trial, however, indicated through testimony and financial documents that those who carried out the deadly attacks had been employed by the PA. In addition, it was determined that the PA provided salaries to jailed terrorists in Israel as well as funds for the families of suicide bombers.
In his closing argument, Kent Yalowitz, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told the jury that “money is oxygen for terrorism,” and that the antiterrorism law “hits those who send terrorists where it hurts them most: in the wallet.”
The case follows the victory several months ago here in the ruling against The Arab Bank, which was held responsible for transactions that knowingly provided funds to terror groups like Hamas. Another trial will assess damages for the 300 victims of the 24 attacks cited.
Looking forward, it will be that much more difficult for Washington to pressure Israel to negotiate with the PA and to continue to support the Palestinian leadership as it has until now. Time will tell whether this major court case will motivate U.S. officials to change their perspective and approach. Will they now show greater empathy for Israel’s concerns, or will they do their best to ignore the reality of the Palestinian leadership’s actions and continue down the path leading to a diplomatic dead-end.
editor@jewishweek.org
Writing from Israel, Contributing Editor Nathan Jeffay says Bibi may be using his clash with President Obama for political purposes as Israel's election nears.
ISRAEL NEWS
Bibi Campaigning On Clash With U.S.?
New ad's comparison with ’48 raises fresh questions.
Nathan Jeffay
Contributing Editor
Within this tiny bite of time, his campaign did what it should have tried its very hardest to avoid — turning the clash with the U.S. into a campaign issue. Worse still, it unwittingly makes the case for why the Congress speech, set for March 3, is misguided.
In his campaign’s latest video, as dramatic music plays and black-and-white images take you back in time, a narrator tells you that the U.S. State Department was against the declaration of Israeli independence in 1948. The Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion defied it, and created Israel.
Text then flashes on to the screen asking: “Would we be here today if Ben-Gurion hadn’t done the right thing?” Viewers are left with the slogan: “Only Netanyahu, only Likud.”
It is a stirring message — until one actually stops to think about it.
If Bibi Netanyahu truly believes that he must go to Congress for the sake of Israel’s security, then he needs to go and respectfully state his case, while doing the maximum possible damage control in terms of his relationship with the White House. He would go with a heavy heart that he has angered the White House, but a conviction that it was a speech that needed to be made.
My colleagues at this newspaper suggested in a recent editorial, Netanyahu needed to make the diplomatic best out of a bad situation. Quite. Instead, he decided to make political hay out of it.
He has tried to campaign on his clash with the White House. Netanyahu constantly talks about friends being prepared disagree with one another. Yes — friends can disagree, but they shouldn’t then leverage the fact they are disagreeing to try to score points. Using the disagreement in this way is offensive to Washington.
Beyond this, the 1948 comparison is pompous and misguided. In a single declaration Ben-Gurion brought about Jewish statehood for the first time in two millennia; Netanyahu is talking about one speech in a prolonged campaign on the Iranian threat, and a speech of dubious diplomatic value.
There’s no comparison between the creation of Israel and the upcoming speech, but let’s accept the odd parallel for a few moments anyway. The Zionist movement knew that it had the support where it really mattered. It wasn’t going it alone — the American President Harry Truman had privately made it clear to the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann that he supported the statehood move. There is a world of difference between acting with “only” presidential backing in Tel Aviv and touching down in Washington and, albeit with Congress support, giving a speech that upsets both president and State Department.
If the history of the 1948 era is being explored for lessons, they are, sadly for the Netanyahu campaign, the opposite of the point it was trying to prove. Few people recall how Congress responded to the declaration of Israeli independence. And whatever the State Department thought, the important thing was that Truman gave an immediate positive reaction, and made the U.S. the first country to recognize Israel — and starting the special friendship that has existed ever since between the two countries. Ben-Gurion penned Truman a latter thanking him for giving the “lead to the whole world,” and the rest is history.
And so, Netanyahu’s campaign is bragging about clashing with the president of the United States by invoking a story that asserts the utter importance of what the president thinks and does, in spite of others in Washington.
This video was a low point even for an election campaign that has been so full of big publicity-grabbing stunts and so lacking in real substance.
Take, for example, the loud calls to disqualify the Arab lawmaker Haneen Zoabi from running due to her inflammatory comments. They became a rallying cry, and backing her disqualification became a benchmark of patriotism. But it was obvious all along that it was just about the publicity opportunity and the galvanizing effect that hatred towards this figure has.
Similar considerations drove calls to disqualify the Kahanist Baruch Marzel. There are strong arguments that neither should be allowed to run — but it was clear that even if the Central Elections Committee banned them, as it did, the Supreme Court would reinstate them. And this is exactly what happened, with a panel of judges putting them back in the running last week.
There was a similar pattern with another so-called scandal that died with a whimper last week. Netanyahu’s Likud claimed, with indignation, that rival parties the Zionist Union and Meretz were effectively receiving money from foreign donors, which is illegal. It argued that the V15 campaign for a change of government, which is heavily funded by diaspora Jews such as S. Daniel Abraham and Daniel Lubetzky, was in effect donating to Israeli parties.
This claim was dismissed as “fanfare” by the Central Elections Committee when it met to consider it was week. It was clear that the objection never stood a chance of being taken seriously by election officials — its supposed evidence that V15 and the parties are in cahoots consisted of things like records of Facebook “likes” for V15 by people connected with the parties. But this was irrelevant, as by the time they reached the committee the V15 allegations had served their purpose, creating a media buzz, and nobody was interested when they were discredited.
The Zionist Union also neglected the issues for fluff during much of its campaign. It allowed the various scandals surrounding Netanyahu, such as the so called “Bottlegate” about recycling revenues in the prime ministerial residence, to dominate the agenda instead of veering it towards questions that are important for the day-to-day lives of Israelis. Only in the last few days has it taken its campaign up a gear, but it is still too thin on content.
Israeli parties patronize voters when they presume that they don’t want to engage with issues. In the last election, the big surprise winner was the party that got voters rallied around a real issue — Yesh Atid, which went from zero to 19 Knesset seats, by championing plans to draft the ultra-Orthodox to the army. Candidates are failing to internalize this at their peril.
Nathan Jeffay’s column appears twice a month.
And my column explores the diplomatic tightrope France's Chief Rabbi walks, seeking to reassure New Yorkers that Jewish life in France goes on as normal while seeking support for increased security.GARY ROSENBLATT
French Chief Rabbi Walking A Fine Line
Korsia ‘under conflicting pressures’ in wake of terror attacks, say expats here.
Gary Rosenblatt
Editor and Publisher
Many came to hear the 51-year-old former French military chaplain gauge the level of his community’s fears in the wake of last month’s terror attack in Paris, and respond to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s call for European Jews to “come home” to the Jewish state in large numbers.
But at a well-attended Sunday morning breakfast at the synagogue, I came away intrigued by the passionate remarks from those in the audience, made up largely of French-born and French-speaking Jews now living here, in contrast to the rabbi’s comments, which were decidedly diplomatic, and at times made for a mixed message.
Yes, there are “moments of fear” among Jews, he said, but daily life goes on as normal. Anti-Semitism continues to come from the right and is now joined by those on the left, primarily in the Muslim community; but terror attacks on Jews “can happen anywhere.” Rabbi Korsia said, “We have to be for the Muslims, but we have to be strong.” And he said the community was grateful for the government providing 10,500 police and soldiers to protect our synagogues, schools and other Jewish institutions, “but we need our own security.”
A number of those who spoke up during a question-and-answer session with the rabbi, and chatted among themselves after the 90-minute program was over, felt strongly that France has failed in assimilating its large population of Muslim immigrants, many of whom channel their anger at Israel and at Jews in general.
Rabbi Korsia asserted that in the wake of the kosher supermarket killings, French leaders now understand, finally, that such attacks are aimed not just at Jews but also at the government, and all it stands for.
He said this response was a dramatic and welcome change. “We [the Jewish community] are now the symbol of France,” and it is understood that “anti-Semitism is not just against Jews but against [French] society.” This support will make Jews feel “less alone now.”
Alternating between speaking in an eloquent (I am told) French and a choppy English, Rabbi Korsia, whose manner is gentle and sincere, praised French leaders for their statements of support for the Jewish community, the largest in Europe (estimated at about 600,000). And he chose to avoid a direct response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s inference that European Jewry is in great danger, with Israel its salvation. Instead, the rabbi noted that “he [Netanyahu] has his job, and we have ours,” which he described as giving French Jews “a real choice — and to have a real choice you have to feel secure, safe.”
He acknowledged that the thousands of soldiers now guarding Jewish sites in France are doing so on a temporary basis. On several occasions he stressed the need for his community to provide its own security, from cameras to prevent cemeterydesecrations to guards to protect Jewish institutions. Some say one of his goals in visiting New York this past week was to fundraise, and when an audience member asked the rabbi who will pay for this effort, he quickly and emphatically replied, “you,” with a smile.
Rabbi Korsia described his host, Rabbi Arthur Schneier of Park East, as a mentor, and cited several of the senior rabbi’s homilies. He also noted that Park East spends about $500,000 a year on security.
Rabbi Schneier had invited me to conduct a public interview with Rabbi Korsia as part of the program, during which I tried to elicit direct answers to my questions about the level of fear among French Jewry today. But the chief rabbi’s responses were somewhere between generic and evasive, often focusing on the need for unity and fraternity in France.
He did emphasize, though, what he felt to be a significant statement by French President Francoise Hollande, made Jan. 27 at a Paris ceremony commemorating the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Hollande asserted that anti-Semitism is “nourished by hatred of Israel,” and he vowed to combat anti-Semitism.
Rabbi Korsia sounded optimistic about this new level of commitment, though some in his audience, citing their own experiences in France, were less sanguine.
“I think it’s too late,” one young man told the rabbi, citing his family’s experience in a French city where, he said, the Muslim population has become increasingly emboldened and hostile.
“He [the rabbi] is under conflicting pressures,” another French native told me after the program. “He represents the government and as an employee of the state he is serving a Jewish community that is very worried about its future.”
No doubt Rabbi Korsia is seeking to calm his people at home while seeking financial support here and in Israel for security to ensure a sense of normalcy. And the reality is that even if aliyah doubles or triples in the next several years — from 7,000 this past year — that means more than 500,000 Jews will remain in France and need their communal life to be secured and strengthened.
“Come to see us in Paris,” the chief rabbi said in closing, “and tell your friends to come. Things are better there than most people think.”
The audience empathized with and admired him, but didn’t seem persuaded by his parting message.
Gary@jewishweek.org
Also this week, a Jewish husband for a "Downton Abbey" bride; Orthodox groups divide don new pre-k rules; the speech Bibi should deliver to Congress; and Culture Editor Sandee Brawarsky on shul politics, the novel.
SHORT TAKES
Downton’s Intermarriage For The Ages
The Abbey's Jewish subplot takes center stage.
Amy Sara Clark
Staff Writer
About as closely watched as the boy (Jordan) being raised by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and longtime Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Or the girl (Charlotte) being raised by Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky.
For Jewish “Downton Abbey” fans, the hope for a Jewish subplot that began in Season Two came to full fruition Sunday night when Lady Rose tied the (chuppah-less) knot to Atticus Aldridge.
There are members from both families that are unhappy with the union, with the father of the groom, Lord Sinderby, bemoaning the fact that his grandchildren will not be Jewish. (To which Atticus optimistically notes that the since the children will be taught about both parents’ religions they might choose to convert to Judaism one day.) Rose also shows her enthusiasm for her husband-to-be’s religion by asking that the marriage be blessed in a synagogue. (Sinderby informs Rose that with her non-Jewish status, this isn’t an option.)
Despite his disapproval, Lord Sinderby begrudgingly tolerates the wedding under pressure from Atticus’ mother, who says she’ll leave him if he stops the marriage.
It’s Rose’s mother, Susan, the Marchioness of Flintshire, who pulls out all stops to stop the wedding, announcing her impending divorce in an effort to derail the marriage, and then framing Atticus by hiring a woman to follow him to his room after his stag party. Tipsy though he may be, Atticus politely gets her to leave, but not before Susan’s hired photographer snaps some photos that she sends to Rose in the hopes she’ll call off the wedding. She doesn’t, and the wedding goes forward.
The Downton Crew comes across best, grudgingly accepting the marriage, with the Dowager Countess declaring that “Love may not conquer all, but it can conquer a lot.”
Lady Grantham even spoke of her own Jewish roots at the wedding reception, telling a friend that her father was Jewish, which caused the friend to politely end the conversation.
In an interview with Time published the morning after the episode aired in the U.S., series creator Julian Fellowes said he found fodder for the Jewish subplot from his own experience, having himself dated a woman from a “very prominent, grand Jewish family.”
“And it was one of my only times when I have been considered ineligible and not a sort of desirable party.”
Let’s hope that that doesn’t happen with any child that might arise from Lady Rose and Atticus’ love.
editor@jewishweek.org
NEW YORK
Orthodox Groups Divided On New Pre-K Rules
Option to hold class six days a week called a good first step by some, unreasonable by others.
Amy Sara Clark
Staff Writer
While Agudath Israel of America, an umbrella organization for chasidic and black-hat Orthodox groups, said the new rules represent “meaningful changes,” the Orthodox Union called the changes “cosmetic.”
Since the universal pre-K program was announced, Jewish schools have been asking the city to expand its half-day program in order to have time for religious instruction off the city-funded clock. But the de Blasio administration’s goal is to provide as many full-day spots as possible and says it hopes the modifications will allow more Jewish schools to participate in the 6-hour-and-20-minute full-day option.
“These are common-sense changes that open doors for more institutions and families to participate,” Wiley Norvell, the city’s deputy press secretary, wrote in a statement to The Jewish Week.
Deputy Mayor Richard Buery announced the new rules Wednesday in a letter to preschool directors.
The most significant change allows schools to take “a short break” during the day, which doesn’t count towards the required secular hours, allowing teacher-led prayerafter lunch. Currently schools must provide the 6 hours and 20 minutes of secular education contiguously. Schools that have a break will be required to offer a supervised meaningful activity for children who don’t want to participate in the prayers.
A second change allows schools to hold classes on federal holidays. Because all schools are required to offer 180 days of instruction during the school year, Jewish holidays can make it difficult to meet that requirement. Schools are already closed for Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur, but not for the eight additional Jewish holidays that observant students must take off. In years when these holidays fall mostly on weekdays, and especially if a snow day or two are thrown in, meeting the requirement can be dicey. Schools will also be allowed to hold mandated staff development days over the summer instead of closing school during the school year.
A third change gives schools more flexibility with the length of each school day. Currently schools must offer five 6-hour-and-20-minute school days a week, on either a Sunday-Thursday or Monday-Friday schedule. The new rules allow schools to hold classes six, or even seven days a week, as long as they meet the total weekly requirement of 31 hours and 40 minutes. A school, for example, could hold classes six days a week with 5.5 hours of secular education per day. (Any religious education would come on top of that.)
Both the Orthodox Union and Agudath Israel agree that requiring fewer hours overall would be the best solution, either by offering more half-day seats or by allowing schools to follow the state mandate for full-day preschool of five hours. Where they split is on how reasonable it is to expect parents to send their kids to school onSundays, and, to a lesser extent, federal holidays.
On the more conservative, charedi end of the spectrum, older boys already go to school on Sunday, so the idea of sending preschoolers to school six days a week is more palatable, and in some cases, perhaps even desirable.
On the Modern Orthodox end of the spectrum, the five-day week is the norm. As is the celebration of some non-Jewish holidays such as Thanksgiving.
“We have a pathway put forward by the mayor where our Jewish day school students would be in school on federal holidays, they would be in school on Sundays,” said Maury Litwack, the political affairs director for OU Advocacy, which has been in negotiations with City Hall over UPK requirements since the program was announced. His group has been lobbying especially hard for the city to allow a five-hour full-day option or to create more half-day slots.
“The objective of the OU is for universal pre-K for all 4-year-olds. There are simple reasonable ways to get to that objective,” he said. Asking 4-year-olds to go to school six days a week, he said, is not one of them.
“It’s not a reasonable solution and should never have been proposed as a method of actual inclusion of the day school population,” Litwack said.
“If you’re interested in universal pre-K for your 4-year-old next year and you’re planning on sending them to a Jewish day school, the mayor’s office appears to be saying that the doors are closed to you,” he added.
Rabbi David Zwiebel, Agudath Israel’s executive vice president for government and public affairs, agreed that the changes were “not by any means a panacea that’s going to bring everyone into the picture,” but saw them as a good first step.
“If you measure progress in incremental stages, this is a nice little increment, I think. It will prove to make a difference, and that’s good,” he told The Jewish Week.
“I don’t think that they will work for everybody,” Rabbi Zweibel said of the rule changes. “There will be a number of families for which the long hours that are necessary to meet these requirements are going to be difficult. ... [B]ut I think probably the outcome is that this will expand to some extent at least both the number of schools that are prepared to undertake this kind of programming and the number of families who are prepared to send their children to these kinds of programs.”
Both OU and Agudath Israel agree, however, that more half-day seats are needed and fear that the mayor’s office is pulling back on its promise in December to add at least a few additional half-day seats for next year.
Buery’s letter addressed the half-day option. “As we have already stated, we anticipate continuing a modest half-day program, however, we believe the flexibility explained here will make full-day a viable option for even more families and providers, consistent with our vision to provide full-day, high quality pre-K for every 4-year-old in the city whose family is seeking that option,” he wrote.
The wording set off alarm bells for Rabbi Zweibel, who fears the December commitment to more half-day seats may not hold. “The letter says the city anticipates putting out an RFP [Request for Proposal] for half-day programming,” he said. “The word ‘anticipate’ is somewhat of an equivocal word. I hope that this does not represent in any way a backing off from that commitment.”
Norvell, the city’s deputy press secretary, responded to the concern by saying, “I think they’re reading too much into that.”
More signs that the de Blasio administration might be pushing half-day programs to the sidelines include the fact that the city has not yet given preschools the chance to apply to participate in half-day programs for next year (putting out an RFP), and this year, for the first time, parents will have to apply separately to half-day and full-day programs, with the full-day application expected to come out first, The Jewish Week has learned.
editor@jewishweek.orgEnjoy the read and stay warm,OPINION
The Speech Bibi Should Deliver To Congress
Martin Raffel
Special To The Jewish Week
Honored members of the U.S. Congress, I stand before you today as prime minister of the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people, a people yearning for security and peace in a part of the world wracked by extremism and violence.
I know that my decision to accept the invitation to speak here today has generated much controversy, for which I am genuinely sorry. Please know that it certainly was not my intention to create an atmosphere of partisanship around the U.S.-Israel relationship. Quite to the contrary; our two nations have forged an unshakable bond anchored in shared values and vital strategic interests. This bond, which crosses all political lines both here and in my country, cannot be broken by occasional disagreements that may come up between the leaders of our two countries.
In addition, my appearance here today should not be interpreted as a sign of disrespect for President Obama, who has been a great friend of the State of Israel. We are deeply grateful for the support he and his administration have given us during the last six years, as we also appreciate the wonderful bipartisan support Israel has received from the U.S. Congress. The Iron Dome program, which saved countless Israeli lives in recent conflicts, is just one example of our partnership.
Perhaps it would have been preferable to wait until after our general election to speak to you. But because it is scheduled to take place just one week before the target date for a framework agreement with Iran, I decided this appearance could not be delayed. It is true that my main opponent for the prime minister’s office, Mr. Isaac Herzog, criticized my decision. However, you should not mistake his criticism as a difference of policy. On the threat to Israel posed by Iran, he and I are very much like-minded.
Recognizing that negotiations with Iran are ongoing, nonetheless we are concerned about the direction they are taking. Unlike your expansive country that sits halfway around the world from Iran, Israel is small, roughly the size of New Jersey; it is in the heart of the turbulent Middle East; and it has been explicitly and repeatedly threatened with annihilation by the rulers in Tehran.
Iran’s regime for many years has been the leading state sponsor of global terrorism. Israelis, Americans, Europeans and South Americans all have been the victims of its unbridled violence. It is a regime, which, to this very day, refuses to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and hides important facets of its nuclear and missile programs. In short, it is a regime that cannot be trusted to keep its commitments.
It is not that we are against diplomacy with Iran. If successful, it is far preferable to other options. For us, however, it is not enough simply to deny Iran an actual nuclear weapon. Israel cannot accept — and our children cannot comfortably go to sleep at night knowing — that Iran continues to possess the capability to produce a nuclear weapon in a relatively short period of time. That means Iran should not be permitted to maintain significant uranium enrichment capacity. Make no mistake; this same concern is shared in the region. While they are not as open and candid about this issue as I, many of America’s Arab allies feel exactly the same way.
Again, a final deal has not yet been struck. But from what we understand, negotiators may be on the verge of reaching one that keeps Iran’s ability to threaten us and America’s other allies in place. We beseech President Obama and Congress — in the interest of regional and, indeed, global security — do not let this happen!
I also recognize that Israel’s security as the Jewish and democratic state requires that we reach an historic conflict-ending agreement with the Palestinians. We have no interest in ruling over another people who are entitled to self-determination no less than the Jewish people. Both Israelis and Palestinians have suffered long enough — far too long. President Abbas, going to the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court in an attempt to isolate Israel diplomatically will not lift your people to independence. Now is the time to return to the negotiating table and to stay there as long as it takes until we are successful.
When negotiations resume, President Abbas should be aware that when it comes to fundamental Israeli security, there can be no compromise. With three terrorist organizations operating just outside of our borders — Hezbollah, Hamas, and, now, ISIL, all of them armed with thousands of sophisticated rockets — Israel has no margin for error.
But we can reach a compromise agreement on permanent borders based on the 1967 boundaries with agreed-upon swaps; we can reach a compromise on Palestinian refugees and their descendants that provides for dignity and appropriate compensation; we can also reach a creative compromise on Jerusalem that allows for both our states to have internationally recognized capitals without requiring us to divide the Holy City. Meanwhile, as a demonstration of good faith and the sincerity of my commitment to the vision of two states, I also am declaring a freeze on growth outside of the large settlement blocs during the course of our negotiations. In parallel, we also wish to advance toward normalized relations with the rest of the Arab world based on the constructive Saudi Peace Initiative.
I have also called for Palestinian recognition of Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state, not as a precondition to negotiations, but in the context of a final agreement. Let me be clear about this issue. It means that Israel will continue to serve as the democratic nation state of the Jewish people, while remaining fully committed to protecting the equal rights of all its citizens. I regard this matter as fundamental to Israel’s long-term security. Until our Arab neighbors accept that the Jewish people have reclaimed our sovereignty in Israel by right — that we are not an illegitimate colonial presence — true reconciliation in unattainable. Please know that I have not raised this matter to place obstacles on the path to peace, but rather to make sure the treaty we may sign today will not be discarded by future generations.
Since Israel’s founding in 1948, we have found ourselves occasionally in disagreement with our friends here in the United States. But on the big issues of seeking peace, defeating tyranny and terrorism, and promoting democracy and freedom, fundamentally the United States and Israel have stood together. I have no doubt we will continue to do so long into the future.
Martin J. Raffel recently retired as senior vice president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA). He now consults for the JCPA and for the Israel Policy Forum. BOOKS
Shul Politics, The Novel
Raphael Silver’s posthumously published novel, set in a Cleveland synagogue, dissects congregational life.
Sandee Brawarsky
Culture Editor
“He wasn’t afraid to fail,” his wife, the filmmaker Joan Micklin Silver, says in an interview in her Park Avenue apartment, explaining his ability to keep trying altogether new things. “It’s a wonderful quality to have.”
She just helped to publish, “Congregation” (Author House), Raphael’s first novel, posthumously. He had finished it and was beginning to show it to publishers when he died in a skiing accident in Salt Lake City. This week marks the second anniversary of his death.
The author, son of the prominent Zionist leader Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver who led the Cleveland congregation known as The Temple for 46 years, sets his novel in a Cleveland synagogue, where the longstanding rabbi faces the end of his career and the board of directors begins to make plans for his succession.
The fast-paced narrative shifts between several strands of the story, a mix of shul politics and a major business takeover, with sharks in both arenas. Silver’s characters are memorable if not morally exemplary — from the aging talk show host trying to preserve her looks and her job to the assistant rabbi who’d like to move up — serving themselves as they serve the community through their various involvements.
The connections between synagogue members seem to form a web hovering over the city of Cleveland and its suburbs, with every member only one business deal, family relation, school chum or romantic affair away from another. Throughout the novel, the characters surprise readers.
“Ray wanted to write a book about congregational life,” Micklin Silver says, “but this book has nothing to do with his father’s congregation.” She says that he grew up with congregational talk as dinner conversation — they talked about politics, world affairs, spiritual matters and what was happening in the shul. “All that talk must have stimulated his imagination.”
Raphael Silver was not a rabbi but his late brother Daniel was. Rabbi Daniel Silver succeeded their father at The Temple, serving 26 years until his death in 1989.
In the novel, Rabbi Eli Stone has only one son, Josh, who works in finance. Having served his congregation for 40 years, Rabbi Stone has a national reputation for impassioned oratory — he was jailed for protesting with civil rights activists in the South, and he protested the war in Vietnam. He is descended from a line of Orthodox rabbis and is the son of an Orthodox rabbi, but he “wanted to practice his faith in a way that would let him participate in the world around him,” which created a rift with his father.
Rabbi Stone is tall and regal, with a full mane of white hair at age 65, when the novel opens. During Rosh HaShanah services, dressed in his signature clerical robe, he announces to the congregation — a full house, with 2200 seats — that he has ALS, and wishes to continue serving as rabbi, at least for the immediate future.
Against Rabbi Stone’s wishes, the shul president, the wife of a wealthy businessman, wants to elevate the assistant rabbi. The younger rabbi, shorter than Rabbi Stone, feels diminished in his clerical robes and is known to trip over the hem. He’s a man who keeps tracks of numbers — the number of times the phone rings before his secretary picks it up, the number of empty seats in the sanctuary and the numbers within baseball stats. He has a particular interest in bringing an ethical sensibility to baseball, returning the game to the fans with more affordable ticket prices, which doesn’t leave him in good stead with the owner of the Cleveland Indians and a star player who are also voting members of the synagogue board.
When Josh Stone returns to Cleveland to work on a business deal at the same time that his father’s health is failing, he notices that the Ohio city “had become a quieter place, drifting into a dignified old age like a dowager on a respectable pension.”
The striking cover of the book features a photo of a historic synagogue bima (taken at Congregation Beth Elohim in Brooklyn) rising into a city skyline.
Micklin Silver says that her husband really enjoyed writing, and also wrote several short stories, but not enough of them to be compiled into a book. With their daughter Marisa, who lives in California and is also a novelist, he would often trade pages of what they were working on.
The Silvers married in 1956, soon after she graduated from college, and they lived in Cleveland from 1956 to 1967, when they moved with their three daughters to a brownstone on Manhattan’s East Side and joined Temple Emanu-El. In their Cleveland years, they would spend every Friday night at Shabbat dinner with her in-laws (Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver died in 1963).
“He was very strong and good looking. He spoke beautifully and with great authority,” she says of her late father-in-law, a Zionist hero who mobilized support for the creation of the State of Israel. “He had an Old World reserve about him.” She remembers him mostly as a grandfather who really loved his grandchildren. She says that he wanted Ray to become a rabbi too, but that wasn’t what Ray wanted to do. That his brother Daniel went to rabbinical school took the pressure off.
The Silvers moved to New York so that he could expand his business and she could pursue her interest in film, but it was hard in those days for a woman director to get funded. So Ray stepped up to the plate, with no previous knowledge of the film world, and served as producer of films Joan directed, “Hester Street,” “Crossing Delancey” and “Between the Lines.” His curiosity about the business turned to mastery. He also directed two films, “On the Yard” at a men’s penitentiary in Pennsylvania, using inmates in minor roles, and “A Walk on the Moon” (the 1987 film about a Peace Corps volunteer assigned to a Columbian village, not the Liev Schreiber film about a Catskills bungalow colony).
Micklin Silver agrees that “Congregation” is cinematic, and she says that with all its episodes, she can see it as a series. A member of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, she meets with a reporter the morning after the Oscars in her late husband’s spacious study, filled with many objects from their world travels, like a printed Japanese kimono on the wall and intricate Mexican and Chinese figurines. While he was writing the novel, she would work in an office on the other side of the apartment, and they’d break for lunch together (breaking earlier in the morning to discuss the possibilities of lunch).
“Ray had it all,” she says. “He was very bright, he had a wonderful education at Harvard, he had a real curiosity about things and such a heart.” Her voice cracks as she speaks.
In another room, there’s a photo of a beaming Ray Silver on top of Mount Kilimanjaro, with his arms wide open to the world.
editor@jewishweek.org
ISRAEL NEWS
Bibi Campaigning On Clash With U.S.?
New ad's comparison with ’48 raises fresh questions.
Nathan Jeffay
Contributing Editor
Benjamin Netanyahu
It was a stretch, but we were trying to believe it — that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Congress speech is all about safeguarding Israel and not motivated by electioneering. But in 30 seconds on Saturday, this all went out of the window.Within this tiny bite of time, his campaign did what it should have tried its very hardest to avoid — turning the clash with the U.S. into a campaign issue. Worse still, it unwittingly makes the case for why the Congress speech, set for March 3, is misguided.
In his campaign’s latest video, as dramatic music plays and black-and-white images take you back in time, a narrator tells you that the U.S. State Department was against the declaration of Israeli independence in 1948. The Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion defied it, and created Israel.
Text then flashes on to the screen asking: “Would we be here today if Ben-Gurion hadn’t done the right thing?” Viewers are left with the slogan: “Only Netanyahu, only Likud.”
It is a stirring message — until one actually stops to think about it.
If Bibi Netanyahu truly believes that he must go to Congress for the sake of Israel’s security, then he needs to go and respectfully state his case, while doing the maximum possible damage control in terms of his relationship with the White House. He would go with a heavy heart that he has angered the White House, but a conviction that it was a speech that needed to be made.
My colleagues at this newspaper suggested in a recent editorial, Netanyahu needed to make the diplomatic best out of a bad situation. Quite. Instead, he decided to make political hay out of it.
He has tried to campaign on his clash with the White House. Netanyahu constantly talks about friends being prepared disagree with one another. Yes — friends can disagree, but they shouldn’t then leverage the fact they are disagreeing to try to score points. Using the disagreement in this way is offensive to Washington.
Beyond this, the 1948 comparison is pompous and misguided. In a single declaration Ben-Gurion brought about Jewish statehood for the first time in two millennia; Netanyahu is talking about one speech in a prolonged campaign on the Iranian threat, and a speech of dubious diplomatic value.
There’s no comparison between the creation of Israel and the upcoming speech, but let’s accept the odd parallel for a few moments anyway. The Zionist movement knew that it had the support where it really mattered. It wasn’t going it alone — the American President Harry Truman had privately made it clear to the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann that he supported the statehood move. There is a world of difference between acting with “only” presidential backing in Tel Aviv and touching down in Washington and, albeit with Congress support, giving a speech that upsets both president and State Department.
If the history of the 1948 era is being explored for lessons, they are, sadly for the Netanyahu campaign, the opposite of the point it was trying to prove. Few people recall how Congress responded to the declaration of Israeli independence. And whatever the State Department thought, the important thing was that Truman gave an immediate positive reaction, and made the U.S. the first country to recognize Israel — and starting the special friendship that has existed ever since between the two countries. Ben-Gurion penned Truman a latter thanking him for giving the “lead to the whole world,” and the rest is history.
And so, Netanyahu’s campaign is bragging about clashing with the president of the United States by invoking a story that asserts the utter importance of what the president thinks and does, in spite of others in Washington.
This video was a low point even for an election campaign that has been so full of big publicity-grabbing stunts and so lacking in real substance.
Take, for example, the loud calls to disqualify the Arab lawmaker Haneen Zoabi from running due to her inflammatory comments. They became a rallying cry, and backing her disqualification became a benchmark of patriotism. But it was obvious all along that it was just about the publicity opportunity and the galvanizing effect that hatred towards this figure has.
Similar considerations drove calls to disqualify the Kahanist Baruch Marzel. There are strong arguments that neither should be allowed to run — but it was clear that even if the Central Elections Committee banned them, as it did, the Supreme Court would reinstate them. And this is exactly what happened, with a panel of judges putting them back in the running last week.
There was a similar pattern with another so-called scandal that died with a whimper last week. Netanyahu’s Likud claimed, with indignation, that rival parties the Zionist Union and Meretz were effectively receiving money from foreign donors, which is illegal. It argued that the V15 campaign for a change of government, which is heavily funded by diaspora Jews such as S. Daniel Abraham and Daniel Lubetzky, was in effect donating to Israeli parties.
This claim was dismissed as “fanfare” by the Central Elections Committee when it met to consider it was week. It was clear that the objection never stood a chance of being taken seriously by election officials — its supposed evidence that V15 and the parties are in cahoots consisted of things like records of Facebook “likes” for V15 by people connected with the parties. But this was irrelevant, as by the time they reached the committee the V15 allegations had served their purpose, creating a media buzz, and nobody was interested when they were discredited.
The Zionist Union also neglected the issues for fluff during much of its campaign. It allowed the various scandals surrounding Netanyahu, such as the so called “Bottlegate” about recycling revenues in the prime ministerial residence, to dominate the agenda instead of veering it towards questions that are important for the day-to-day lives of Israelis. Only in the last few days has it taken its campaign up a gear, but it is still too thin on content.
Israeli parties patronize voters when they presume that they don’t want to engage with issues. In the last election, the big surprise winner was the party that got voters rallied around a real issue — Yesh Atid, which went from zero to 19 Knesset seats, by championing plans to draft the ultra-Orthodox to the army. Candidates are failing to internalize this at their peril.
Nathan Jeffay’s column appears twice a month.
And my column explores the diplomatic tightrope France's Chief Rabbi walks, seeking to reassure New Yorkers that Jewish life in France goes on as normal while seeking support for increased security.GARY ROSENBLATT
French Chief Rabbi Walking A Fine Line
Korsia ‘under conflicting pressures’ in wake of terror attacks, say expats here.
Gary Rosenblatt
Editor and Publisher
Gary Rosenblatt
Chaim Korsia, thrust into the international spotlight as the chief rabbi of France in the past year, was the center of attention as scholar-in-residence at Park East Synagogue here last weekend.Many came to hear the 51-year-old former French military chaplain gauge the level of his community’s fears in the wake of last month’s terror attack in Paris, and respond to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s call for European Jews to “come home” to the Jewish state in large numbers.
But at a well-attended Sunday morning breakfast at the synagogue, I came away intrigued by the passionate remarks from those in the audience, made up largely of French-born and French-speaking Jews now living here, in contrast to the rabbi’s comments, which were decidedly diplomatic, and at times made for a mixed message.
Yes, there are “moments of fear” among Jews, he said, but daily life goes on as normal. Anti-Semitism continues to come from the right and is now joined by those on the left, primarily in the Muslim community; but terror attacks on Jews “can happen anywhere.” Rabbi Korsia said, “We have to be for the Muslims, but we have to be strong.” And he said the community was grateful for the government providing 10,500 police and soldiers to protect our synagogues, schools and other Jewish institutions, “but we need our own security.”
A number of those who spoke up during a question-and-answer session with the rabbi, and chatted among themselves after the 90-minute program was over, felt strongly that France has failed in assimilating its large population of Muslim immigrants, many of whom channel their anger at Israel and at Jews in general.
Rabbi Korsia asserted that in the wake of the kosher supermarket killings, French leaders now understand, finally, that such attacks are aimed not just at Jews but also at the government, and all it stands for.
He said this response was a dramatic and welcome change. “We [the Jewish community] are now the symbol of France,” and it is understood that “anti-Semitism is not just against Jews but against [French] society.” This support will make Jews feel “less alone now.”
Alternating between speaking in an eloquent (I am told) French and a choppy English, Rabbi Korsia, whose manner is gentle and sincere, praised French leaders for their statements of support for the Jewish community, the largest in Europe (estimated at about 600,000). And he chose to avoid a direct response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s inference that European Jewry is in great danger, with Israel its salvation. Instead, the rabbi noted that “he [Netanyahu] has his job, and we have ours,” which he described as giving French Jews “a real choice — and to have a real choice you have to feel secure, safe.”
He acknowledged that the thousands of soldiers now guarding Jewish sites in France are doing so on a temporary basis. On several occasions he stressed the need for his community to provide its own security, from cameras to prevent cemeterydesecrations to guards to protect Jewish institutions. Some say one of his goals in visiting New York this past week was to fundraise, and when an audience member asked the rabbi who will pay for this effort, he quickly and emphatically replied, “you,” with a smile.
Rabbi Korsia described his host, Rabbi Arthur Schneier of Park East, as a mentor, and cited several of the senior rabbi’s homilies. He also noted that Park East spends about $500,000 a year on security.
Rabbi Schneier had invited me to conduct a public interview with Rabbi Korsia as part of the program, during which I tried to elicit direct answers to my questions about the level of fear among French Jewry today. But the chief rabbi’s responses were somewhere between generic and evasive, often focusing on the need for unity and fraternity in France.
He did emphasize, though, what he felt to be a significant statement by French President Francoise Hollande, made Jan. 27 at a Paris ceremony commemorating the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Hollande asserted that anti-Semitism is “nourished by hatred of Israel,” and he vowed to combat anti-Semitism.
Rabbi Korsia sounded optimistic about this new level of commitment, though some in his audience, citing their own experiences in France, were less sanguine.
“I think it’s too late,” one young man told the rabbi, citing his family’s experience in a French city where, he said, the Muslim population has become increasingly emboldened and hostile.
“He [the rabbi] is under conflicting pressures,” another French native told me after the program. “He represents the government and as an employee of the state he is serving a Jewish community that is very worried about its future.”
No doubt Rabbi Korsia is seeking to calm his people at home while seeking financial support here and in Israel for security to ensure a sense of normalcy. And the reality is that even if aliyah doubles or triples in the next several years — from 7,000 this past year — that means more than 500,000 Jews will remain in France and need their communal life to be secured and strengthened.
“Come to see us in Paris,” the chief rabbi said in closing, “and tell your friends to come. Things are better there than most people think.”
The audience empathized with and admired him, but didn’t seem persuaded by his parting message.
Gary@jewishweek.org
Also this week, a Jewish husband for a "Downton Abbey" bride; Orthodox groups divide don new pre-k rules; the speech Bibi should deliver to Congress; and Culture Editor Sandee Brawarsky on shul politics, the novel.
SHORT TAKES
Downton’s Intermarriage For The Ages
The Abbey's Jewish subplot takes center stage.
Amy Sara Clark
Staff Writer
Against all odds: Lady Rose and Atticus Aldridge tie the knot. Nick Briggs/Carnival Films for MASTERPIECE
If it comes to pass that Lady Rose and the dashing Member of the Tribe, Atticus Aldridge — the new “It” couple on “Downton Abbey” — have a child, it will surely be a closely watched interfaith upbringing.About as closely watched as the boy (Jordan) being raised by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and longtime Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Or the girl (Charlotte) being raised by Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky.
For Jewish “Downton Abbey” fans, the hope for a Jewish subplot that began in Season Two came to full fruition Sunday night when Lady Rose tied the (chuppah-less) knot to Atticus Aldridge.
There are members from both families that are unhappy with the union, with the father of the groom, Lord Sinderby, bemoaning the fact that his grandchildren will not be Jewish. (To which Atticus optimistically notes that the since the children will be taught about both parents’ religions they might choose to convert to Judaism one day.) Rose also shows her enthusiasm for her husband-to-be’s religion by asking that the marriage be blessed in a synagogue. (Sinderby informs Rose that with her non-Jewish status, this isn’t an option.)
Despite his disapproval, Lord Sinderby begrudgingly tolerates the wedding under pressure from Atticus’ mother, who says she’ll leave him if he stops the marriage.
It’s Rose’s mother, Susan, the Marchioness of Flintshire, who pulls out all stops to stop the wedding, announcing her impending divorce in an effort to derail the marriage, and then framing Atticus by hiring a woman to follow him to his room after his stag party. Tipsy though he may be, Atticus politely gets her to leave, but not before Susan’s hired photographer snaps some photos that she sends to Rose in the hopes she’ll call off the wedding. She doesn’t, and the wedding goes forward.
The Downton Crew comes across best, grudgingly accepting the marriage, with the Dowager Countess declaring that “Love may not conquer all, but it can conquer a lot.”
Lady Grantham even spoke of her own Jewish roots at the wedding reception, telling a friend that her father was Jewish, which caused the friend to politely end the conversation.
In an interview with Time published the morning after the episode aired in the U.S., series creator Julian Fellowes said he found fodder for the Jewish subplot from his own experience, having himself dated a woman from a “very prominent, grand Jewish family.”
“And it was one of my only times when I have been considered ineligible and not a sort of desirable party.”
Let’s hope that that doesn’t happen with any child that might arise from Lady Rose and Atticus’ love.
editor@jewishweek.org
NEW YORK
Orthodox Groups Divided On New Pre-K Rules
Option to hold class six days a week called a good first step by some, unreasonable by others.
Amy Sara Clark
Staff Writer
The city’s new rules will allow preschools to operate six days a week. But how many will want to? Michael Datikash/JW
The de Blasio administration announced rule changes aimed at making it easier for Jewish schools to participate in its signature free universal preschool program. But Jewish organizations are divided on just how helpful these changes will be.While Agudath Israel of America, an umbrella organization for chasidic and black-hat Orthodox groups, said the new rules represent “meaningful changes,” the Orthodox Union called the changes “cosmetic.”
Since the universal pre-K program was announced, Jewish schools have been asking the city to expand its half-day program in order to have time for religious instruction off the city-funded clock. But the de Blasio administration’s goal is to provide as many full-day spots as possible and says it hopes the modifications will allow more Jewish schools to participate in the 6-hour-and-20-minute full-day option.
“These are common-sense changes that open doors for more institutions and families to participate,” Wiley Norvell, the city’s deputy press secretary, wrote in a statement to The Jewish Week.
Deputy Mayor Richard Buery announced the new rules Wednesday in a letter to preschool directors.
The most significant change allows schools to take “a short break” during the day, which doesn’t count towards the required secular hours, allowing teacher-led prayerafter lunch. Currently schools must provide the 6 hours and 20 minutes of secular education contiguously. Schools that have a break will be required to offer a supervised meaningful activity for children who don’t want to participate in the prayers.
A second change allows schools to hold classes on federal holidays. Because all schools are required to offer 180 days of instruction during the school year, Jewish holidays can make it difficult to meet that requirement. Schools are already closed for Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur, but not for the eight additional Jewish holidays that observant students must take off. In years when these holidays fall mostly on weekdays, and especially if a snow day or two are thrown in, meeting the requirement can be dicey. Schools will also be allowed to hold mandated staff development days over the summer instead of closing school during the school year.
A third change gives schools more flexibility with the length of each school day. Currently schools must offer five 6-hour-and-20-minute school days a week, on either a Sunday-Thursday or Monday-Friday schedule. The new rules allow schools to hold classes six, or even seven days a week, as long as they meet the total weekly requirement of 31 hours and 40 minutes. A school, for example, could hold classes six days a week with 5.5 hours of secular education per day. (Any religious education would come on top of that.)
Both the Orthodox Union and Agudath Israel agree that requiring fewer hours overall would be the best solution, either by offering more half-day seats or by allowing schools to follow the state mandate for full-day preschool of five hours. Where they split is on how reasonable it is to expect parents to send their kids to school onSundays, and, to a lesser extent, federal holidays.
On the more conservative, charedi end of the spectrum, older boys already go to school on Sunday, so the idea of sending preschoolers to school six days a week is more palatable, and in some cases, perhaps even desirable.
On the Modern Orthodox end of the spectrum, the five-day week is the norm. As is the celebration of some non-Jewish holidays such as Thanksgiving.
“We have a pathway put forward by the mayor where our Jewish day school students would be in school on federal holidays, they would be in school on Sundays,” said Maury Litwack, the political affairs director for OU Advocacy, which has been in negotiations with City Hall over UPK requirements since the program was announced. His group has been lobbying especially hard for the city to allow a five-hour full-day option or to create more half-day slots.
“The objective of the OU is for universal pre-K for all 4-year-olds. There are simple reasonable ways to get to that objective,” he said. Asking 4-year-olds to go to school six days a week, he said, is not one of them.
“It’s not a reasonable solution and should never have been proposed as a method of actual inclusion of the day school population,” Litwack said.
“If you’re interested in universal pre-K for your 4-year-old next year and you’re planning on sending them to a Jewish day school, the mayor’s office appears to be saying that the doors are closed to you,” he added.
Rabbi David Zwiebel, Agudath Israel’s executive vice president for government and public affairs, agreed that the changes were “not by any means a panacea that’s going to bring everyone into the picture,” but saw them as a good first step.
“If you measure progress in incremental stages, this is a nice little increment, I think. It will prove to make a difference, and that’s good,” he told The Jewish Week.
“I don’t think that they will work for everybody,” Rabbi Zweibel said of the rule changes. “There will be a number of families for which the long hours that are necessary to meet these requirements are going to be difficult. ... [B]ut I think probably the outcome is that this will expand to some extent at least both the number of schools that are prepared to undertake this kind of programming and the number of families who are prepared to send their children to these kinds of programs.”
Both OU and Agudath Israel agree, however, that more half-day seats are needed and fear that the mayor’s office is pulling back on its promise in December to add at least a few additional half-day seats for next year.
Buery’s letter addressed the half-day option. “As we have already stated, we anticipate continuing a modest half-day program, however, we believe the flexibility explained here will make full-day a viable option for even more families and providers, consistent with our vision to provide full-day, high quality pre-K for every 4-year-old in the city whose family is seeking that option,” he wrote.
The wording set off alarm bells for Rabbi Zweibel, who fears the December commitment to more half-day seats may not hold. “The letter says the city anticipates putting out an RFP [Request for Proposal] for half-day programming,” he said. “The word ‘anticipate’ is somewhat of an equivocal word. I hope that this does not represent in any way a backing off from that commitment.”
Norvell, the city’s deputy press secretary, responded to the concern by saying, “I think they’re reading too much into that.”
More signs that the de Blasio administration might be pushing half-day programs to the sidelines include the fact that the city has not yet given preschools the chance to apply to participate in half-day programs for next year (putting out an RFP), and this year, for the first time, parents will have to apply separately to half-day and full-day programs, with the full-day application expected to come out first, The Jewish Week has learned.
editor@jewishweek.orgEnjoy the read and stay warm,OPINION
The Speech Bibi Should Deliver To Congress
Martin Raffel
Special To The Jewish Week
Martin Raffel
In my judgment, it was unwise for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address a joint session of Congress in early March. It has led to partisanship in Washington and polarization in the Jewish community, and I believe there were more appropriate forums to convey his message. That said, barring any unforeseen circumstances, he is giving the speech. Here is the one I would like to see him deliver:Honored members of the U.S. Congress, I stand before you today as prime minister of the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people, a people yearning for security and peace in a part of the world wracked by extremism and violence.
I know that my decision to accept the invitation to speak here today has generated much controversy, for which I am genuinely sorry. Please know that it certainly was not my intention to create an atmosphere of partisanship around the U.S.-Israel relationship. Quite to the contrary; our two nations have forged an unshakable bond anchored in shared values and vital strategic interests. This bond, which crosses all political lines both here and in my country, cannot be broken by occasional disagreements that may come up between the leaders of our two countries.
In addition, my appearance here today should not be interpreted as a sign of disrespect for President Obama, who has been a great friend of the State of Israel. We are deeply grateful for the support he and his administration have given us during the last six years, as we also appreciate the wonderful bipartisan support Israel has received from the U.S. Congress. The Iron Dome program, which saved countless Israeli lives in recent conflicts, is just one example of our partnership.
Perhaps it would have been preferable to wait until after our general election to speak to you. But because it is scheduled to take place just one week before the target date for a framework agreement with Iran, I decided this appearance could not be delayed. It is true that my main opponent for the prime minister’s office, Mr. Isaac Herzog, criticized my decision. However, you should not mistake his criticism as a difference of policy. On the threat to Israel posed by Iran, he and I are very much like-minded.
Recognizing that negotiations with Iran are ongoing, nonetheless we are concerned about the direction they are taking. Unlike your expansive country that sits halfway around the world from Iran, Israel is small, roughly the size of New Jersey; it is in the heart of the turbulent Middle East; and it has been explicitly and repeatedly threatened with annihilation by the rulers in Tehran.
Iran’s regime for many years has been the leading state sponsor of global terrorism. Israelis, Americans, Europeans and South Americans all have been the victims of its unbridled violence. It is a regime, which, to this very day, refuses to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and hides important facets of its nuclear and missile programs. In short, it is a regime that cannot be trusted to keep its commitments.
It is not that we are against diplomacy with Iran. If successful, it is far preferable to other options. For us, however, it is not enough simply to deny Iran an actual nuclear weapon. Israel cannot accept — and our children cannot comfortably go to sleep at night knowing — that Iran continues to possess the capability to produce a nuclear weapon in a relatively short period of time. That means Iran should not be permitted to maintain significant uranium enrichment capacity. Make no mistake; this same concern is shared in the region. While they are not as open and candid about this issue as I, many of America’s Arab allies feel exactly the same way.
Again, a final deal has not yet been struck. But from what we understand, negotiators may be on the verge of reaching one that keeps Iran’s ability to threaten us and America’s other allies in place. We beseech President Obama and Congress — in the interest of regional and, indeed, global security — do not let this happen!
I also recognize that Israel’s security as the Jewish and democratic state requires that we reach an historic conflict-ending agreement with the Palestinians. We have no interest in ruling over another people who are entitled to self-determination no less than the Jewish people. Both Israelis and Palestinians have suffered long enough — far too long. President Abbas, going to the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court in an attempt to isolate Israel diplomatically will not lift your people to independence. Now is the time to return to the negotiating table and to stay there as long as it takes until we are successful.
When negotiations resume, President Abbas should be aware that when it comes to fundamental Israeli security, there can be no compromise. With three terrorist organizations operating just outside of our borders — Hezbollah, Hamas, and, now, ISIL, all of them armed with thousands of sophisticated rockets — Israel has no margin for error.
But we can reach a compromise agreement on permanent borders based on the 1967 boundaries with agreed-upon swaps; we can reach a compromise on Palestinian refugees and their descendants that provides for dignity and appropriate compensation; we can also reach a creative compromise on Jerusalem that allows for both our states to have internationally recognized capitals without requiring us to divide the Holy City. Meanwhile, as a demonstration of good faith and the sincerity of my commitment to the vision of two states, I also am declaring a freeze on growth outside of the large settlement blocs during the course of our negotiations. In parallel, we also wish to advance toward normalized relations with the rest of the Arab world based on the constructive Saudi Peace Initiative.
I have also called for Palestinian recognition of Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state, not as a precondition to negotiations, but in the context of a final agreement. Let me be clear about this issue. It means that Israel will continue to serve as the democratic nation state of the Jewish people, while remaining fully committed to protecting the equal rights of all its citizens. I regard this matter as fundamental to Israel’s long-term security. Until our Arab neighbors accept that the Jewish people have reclaimed our sovereignty in Israel by right — that we are not an illegitimate colonial presence — true reconciliation in unattainable. Please know that I have not raised this matter to place obstacles on the path to peace, but rather to make sure the treaty we may sign today will not be discarded by future generations.
Since Israel’s founding in 1948, we have found ourselves occasionally in disagreement with our friends here in the United States. But on the big issues of seeking peace, defeating tyranny and terrorism, and promoting democracy and freedom, fundamentally the United States and Israel have stood together. I have no doubt we will continue to do so long into the future.
Martin J. Raffel recently retired as senior vice president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA). He now consults for the JCPA and for the Israel Policy Forum. BOOKS
Shul Politics, The Novel
Raphael Silver’s posthumously published novel, set in a Cleveland synagogue, dissects congregational life.
Sandee Brawarsky
Culture Editor
The author, son of the prominent Zionist leader Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver. Courtesy of Author House
Around the time he was 80, Raphael D. Silver sat down to write his first novel. A few years earlier, he climbed Mount Kilimanjaro, his first climb. He’s a man who, after much success as a real estate developer, began producing and directing films.“He wasn’t afraid to fail,” his wife, the filmmaker Joan Micklin Silver, says in an interview in her Park Avenue apartment, explaining his ability to keep trying altogether new things. “It’s a wonderful quality to have.”
She just helped to publish, “Congregation” (Author House), Raphael’s first novel, posthumously. He had finished it and was beginning to show it to publishers when he died in a skiing accident in Salt Lake City. This week marks the second anniversary of his death.
The author, son of the prominent Zionist leader Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver who led the Cleveland congregation known as The Temple for 46 years, sets his novel in a Cleveland synagogue, where the longstanding rabbi faces the end of his career and the board of directors begins to make plans for his succession.
The fast-paced narrative shifts between several strands of the story, a mix of shul politics and a major business takeover, with sharks in both arenas. Silver’s characters are memorable if not morally exemplary — from the aging talk show host trying to preserve her looks and her job to the assistant rabbi who’d like to move up — serving themselves as they serve the community through their various involvements.
The connections between synagogue members seem to form a web hovering over the city of Cleveland and its suburbs, with every member only one business deal, family relation, school chum or romantic affair away from another. Throughout the novel, the characters surprise readers.
“Ray wanted to write a book about congregational life,” Micklin Silver says, “but this book has nothing to do with his father’s congregation.” She says that he grew up with congregational talk as dinner conversation — they talked about politics, world affairs, spiritual matters and what was happening in the shul. “All that talk must have stimulated his imagination.”
Raphael Silver was not a rabbi but his late brother Daniel was. Rabbi Daniel Silver succeeded their father at The Temple, serving 26 years until his death in 1989.
In the novel, Rabbi Eli Stone has only one son, Josh, who works in finance. Having served his congregation for 40 years, Rabbi Stone has a national reputation for impassioned oratory — he was jailed for protesting with civil rights activists in the South, and he protested the war in Vietnam. He is descended from a line of Orthodox rabbis and is the son of an Orthodox rabbi, but he “wanted to practice his faith in a way that would let him participate in the world around him,” which created a rift with his father.
Rabbi Stone is tall and regal, with a full mane of white hair at age 65, when the novel opens. During Rosh HaShanah services, dressed in his signature clerical robe, he announces to the congregation — a full house, with 2200 seats — that he has ALS, and wishes to continue serving as rabbi, at least for the immediate future.
Against Rabbi Stone’s wishes, the shul president, the wife of a wealthy businessman, wants to elevate the assistant rabbi. The younger rabbi, shorter than Rabbi Stone, feels diminished in his clerical robes and is known to trip over the hem. He’s a man who keeps tracks of numbers — the number of times the phone rings before his secretary picks it up, the number of empty seats in the sanctuary and the numbers within baseball stats. He has a particular interest in bringing an ethical sensibility to baseball, returning the game to the fans with more affordable ticket prices, which doesn’t leave him in good stead with the owner of the Cleveland Indians and a star player who are also voting members of the synagogue board.
When Josh Stone returns to Cleveland to work on a business deal at the same time that his father’s health is failing, he notices that the Ohio city “had become a quieter place, drifting into a dignified old age like a dowager on a respectable pension.”
The striking cover of the book features a photo of a historic synagogue bima (taken at Congregation Beth Elohim in Brooklyn) rising into a city skyline.
Micklin Silver says that her husband really enjoyed writing, and also wrote several short stories, but not enough of them to be compiled into a book. With their daughter Marisa, who lives in California and is also a novelist, he would often trade pages of what they were working on.
The Silvers married in 1956, soon after she graduated from college, and they lived in Cleveland from 1956 to 1967, when they moved with their three daughters to a brownstone on Manhattan’s East Side and joined Temple Emanu-El. In their Cleveland years, they would spend every Friday night at Shabbat dinner with her in-laws (Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver died in 1963).
“He was very strong and good looking. He spoke beautifully and with great authority,” she says of her late father-in-law, a Zionist hero who mobilized support for the creation of the State of Israel. “He had an Old World reserve about him.” She remembers him mostly as a grandfather who really loved his grandchildren. She says that he wanted Ray to become a rabbi too, but that wasn’t what Ray wanted to do. That his brother Daniel went to rabbinical school took the pressure off.
The Silvers moved to New York so that he could expand his business and she could pursue her interest in film, but it was hard in those days for a woman director to get funded. So Ray stepped up to the plate, with no previous knowledge of the film world, and served as producer of films Joan directed, “Hester Street,” “Crossing Delancey” and “Between the Lines.” His curiosity about the business turned to mastery. He also directed two films, “On the Yard” at a men’s penitentiary in Pennsylvania, using inmates in minor roles, and “A Walk on the Moon” (the 1987 film about a Peace Corps volunteer assigned to a Columbian village, not the Liev Schreiber film about a Catskills bungalow colony).
Micklin Silver agrees that “Congregation” is cinematic, and she says that with all its episodes, she can see it as a series. A member of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, she meets with a reporter the morning after the Oscars in her late husband’s spacious study, filled with many objects from their world travels, like a printed Japanese kimono on the wall and intricate Mexican and Chinese figurines. While he was writing the novel, she would work in an office on the other side of the apartment, and they’d break for lunch together (breaking earlier in the morning to discuss the possibilities of lunch).
“Ray had it all,” she says. “He was very bright, he had a wonderful education at Harvard, he had a real curiosity about things and such a heart.” Her voice cracks as she speaks.
In another room, there’s a photo of a beaming Ray Silver on top of Mount Kilimanjaro, with his arms wide open to the world.
editor@jewishweek.org
Gary Rosenblatt
P.S. You know the drill. Our website is there for you any and all the time with breaking news, exclusive videos, features, op-eds, advice columns, and more. Check it out.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/
Between the Lines
Gary Rosenblatt
French Chief Rabbi Walking A Fine LineGARY ROSENBLATT
French Chief Rabbi Walking A Fine Line
Korsia ‘under conflicting pressures’ in wake of terror attacks, say expats here.
Gary Rosenblatt
Editor and Publisher
Chaim Korsia, thrust into the international spotlight as the chief rabbi of France in the past year, was the center of attention as scholar-in-residence at Park East Synagogue here last weekend.
Many came to hear the 51-year-old former French military chaplain gauge the level of his community’s fears in the wake of last month’s terror attack in Paris, and respond to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s call for European Jews to “come home” to the Jewish state in large numbers.
But at a well-attended Sunday morning breakfast at the synagogue, I came away intrigued by the passionate remarks from those in the audience, made up largely of French-born and French-speaking Jews now living here, in contrast to the rabbi’s comments, which were decidedly diplomatic, and at times made for a mixed message.
Yes, there are “moments of fear” among Jews, he said, but daily life goes on as normal. Anti-Semitism continues to come from the right and is now joined by those on the left, primarily in the Muslim community; but terror attacks on Jews “can happen anywhere.” Rabbi Korsia said, “We have to be for the Muslims, but we have to be strong.” And he said the community was grateful for the government providing 10,500 police and soldiers to protect our synagogues, schools and other Jewish institutions, “but we need our own security.”
A number of those who spoke up during a question-and-answer session with the rabbi, and chatted among themselves after the 90-minute program was over, felt strongly that France has failed in assimilating its large population of Muslim immigrants, many of whom channel their anger at Israel and at Jews in general.
Rabbi Korsia asserted that in the wake of the kosher supermarket killings, French leaders now understand, finally, that such attacks are aimed not just at Jews but also at the government, and all it stands for.
He said this response was a dramatic and welcome change. “We [the Jewish community] are now the symbol of France,” and it is understood that “anti-Semitism is not just against Jews but against [French] society.” This support will make Jews feel “less alone now.”
Alternating between speaking in an eloquent (I am told) French and a choppy English, Rabbi Korsia, whose manner is gentle and sincere, praised French leaders for their statements of support for the Jewish community, the largest in Europe (estimated at about 600,000). And he chose to avoid a direct response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s inference that European Jewry is in great danger, with Israel its salvation. Instead, the rabbi noted that “he [Netanyahu] has his job, and we have ours,” which he described as giving French Jews “a real choice — and to have a real choice you have to feel secure, safe.”
He acknowledged that the thousands of soldiers now guarding Jewish sites in France are doing so on a temporary basis. On several occasions he stressed the need for his community to provide its own security, from cameras to prevent cemeterydesecrations to guards to protect Jewish institutions. Some say one of his goals in visiting New York this past week was to fundraise, and when an audience member asked the rabbi who will pay for this effort, he quickly and emphatically replied, “you,” with a smile.
Rabbi Korsia described his host, Rabbi Arthur Schneier of Park East, as a mentor, and cited several of the senior rabbi’s homilies. He also noted that Park East spends about $500,000 a year on security.
Rabbi Schneier had invited me to conduct a public interview with Rabbi Korsia as part of the program, during which I tried to elicit direct answers to my questions about the level of fear among French Jewry today. But the chief rabbi’s responses were somewhere between generic and evasive, often focusing on the need for unity and fraternity in France.
He did emphasize, though, what he felt to be a significant statement by French President Francoise Hollande, made Jan. 27 at a Paris ceremony commemorating the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Hollande asserted that anti-Semitism is “nourished by hatred of Israel,” and he vowed to combat anti-Semitism.
Rabbi Korsia sounded optimistic about this new level of commitment, though some in his audience, citing their own experiences in France, were less sanguine.
“I think it’s too late,” one young man told the rabbi, citing his family’s experience in a French city where, he said, the Muslim population has become increasingly emboldened and hostile.
“He [the rabbi] is under conflicting pressures,” another French native told me after the program. “He represents the government and as an employee of the state he is serving a Jewish community that is very worried about its future.”
No doubt Rabbi Korsia is seeking to calm his people at home while seeking financial support here and in Israel for security to ensure a sense of normalcy. And the reality is that even if aliyah doubles or triples in the next several years — from 7,000 this past year — that means more than 500,000 Jews will remain in France and need their communal life to be secured and strengthened.
“Come to see us in Paris,” the chief rabbi said in closing, “and tell your friends to come. Things are better there than most people think.”
The audience empathized with and admired him, but didn’t seem persuaded by his parting message.
Gary@jewishweek.org
Musings
Rabbi David Wolpe
Moses Did Not Take A Selfie
When Moses came down from Sinai, the Torah teaches, "He did not know that his face was aglow" [Exodus 34:29].
Special Section
Spring Arts The New Season In Theater, Film, Music, The Visual Arts And Books.
Spring Arts Preview February 2015
The New Season In Theater, Film, Music, The Visual Arts And Books.
INSIDE THIS SPECIAL SECTION
A More Perfect Union?
The Elkabetz Siblings’ Films Are Personal And Political
The ‘Divine’ Miss Dardashti
Judaica Gets A Fresh Look
Books
The Film List
The Music List
The Theater List
The Visual Arts List
Where Snow Is Always Welcome
Hilary Larson
Travel Writer
Nominations are now being accepted for our annual
"36 Under 36" issue.
This issue will announce on June 5, the thirty-six young visionaries, thinkers, social justice advocates, educators, philanthropists and artists who are reinventing, and broadening, the Jewish community.
To nominate a candidate click here.
Deadline for nominations is March 2.
Each year, The Jewish Week publishes a special section profiling a group
of 36 emerging leaders from across denominations and professions.
We look for individuals who have demonstrated unique initiative,
creativity and ability to inspire others.
The 36ers are for themselves but not for themselves alone.
They are high achievers. They help others.
If you know people who qualify, use the form below to nominate them.
Nominees must be under age 36 by June 1 and they must have some
connection to New York.
You can nominate a maximum of five candidates.
Questions? Email Maya Klausner or call 212 997 2946
To have a look at last year's edition click here!TOP STORIES
As PLO Victims Proclaim Justice, Collecting Millions May Be Elusive
Stewart Ain
Staff Writer
That’s the view of Nitsana Darshan Leitner, Israel counsel to the victims’ families. “We are always prepared to file new cases for victims of Palestinian terrorism if we can establish the evidence,” she told The Jewish Week via email.
“We have many cases against the PA pending in the Israeli courts. We really hope the Israeli government will finally understand the utility of our civil actions and startsupporting the litigation wholeheartedly,” she added.
The jury verdict, reached after six weeks of testimony before Manhattan Federal Judge George Daniels, awarded the 10 American families who brought the case $218.5 million in damages, a figure that is tripled to $655.5 million by provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, under which the suit was filed 11 years ago.
But whether the victims will be able to collect the jury award is unknown, as that process would likely run into political pressure given the Palestinian Authority’s standing in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Attorneys are only now permitted to pursue documentation of the groups’ assets. Evidence presented during the trial revealed the PA has been paying imprisoned terrorists and their families $50 million a year.
Although several victims and their families testified during the trial, none were in the courtroom when the verdict was read. One of them, Arieh Mendelkorn, whose 18-year-old son was critically injured in a suicide bombing in 2002, told The Jewish Week by phone from Israel: “Hashem [God] has done justice in this world. We thank Hashem, who has given retribution to those who abused us. We see what evil we have to face and we have overcome with Hashem’s power.”
He said his son, Shaul, was in a coma for two days after the bombing in the French Hill section of Jerusalem. He underwent a year of orthopedic work and rehabilitation and today, at the age of 31, has permanent damage to his left eye.
Alan Bauer, who was injured along with his 7-year-old son when a Palestinian policeman blew himself up directly behind them as they walked home, said by phone from Jerusalem that he and his family are “thrilled” by the verdict.
A native of Chicago, Bauer said he was walking home from the office and holding the hand of his son, Yoni, in March 2002 when the bomb exploded.
“I was thrown forward,” he said. When he regained his senses, he saw that his hand was “covered in blood and I couldn’t find my son. I then saw him face down. I picked him up and heard him moaning, so I knew he was alive. He was taken to an ambulance and in the ambulance they removed a towel drenched in blood from the back of his head.”
Bauer, a biochemist and father of four sons, said doctors found that two screws had penetrated his left arm and that a screw had gone through his son’s brain.
“He was put in coma to let fluid drain out and was then left blind and paralyzed on his left side,” he recalled.
Bauer said his son, who will be 20 this year, testified during the trial and told the jury that he has regained partial vision but that his left side is still weaker than his right.
“The reason we sued was that six months after the bombing there was a published report that said those who sent the bomber were employees of the PA,” he said.
The bomb killed three Israelis, including a young couple returning from the doctor’s office.
“She was pregnant and had just had an ultrasound,” Bauer said. “I spoke with the brother of one of the Israelis killed and he is suing the PA in Israel. The case is in the preliminary stages, but he is hopeful the verdict in the U.S. will have a positive impact on the Israeli courts. Most such cases are thrown out here because there is no legal framework to pursue them like there is in the U.S.”
The Anti-Terrorism Act was enacted in the U.S. following the Achille Lauro hijacking, and Leitner said this was the first trial to test the effectiveness of the law. It was specifically designed “to address the brutality of Palestinian terrorism against Americans traveling abroad,” she noted.
Among the other family members and victims who testified was Rena Sokolow of Cedarhurst, L.I. She said she was on a family vacation to Israel in 2002 when she was knocked down by a bomb blast while buying a pair of shoes for her 12-year-old son. She said she felt as though she “was in a washing machine” as blood raced from her broken leg so quickly she thought she would die.
“I looked to my right and saw a severed head of a woman about 3 feet from me,” she told the jurors.
Leitner said the trial provided evidence “for the first time [in] an American court” of the “PA’s policies and culture of glorifying the suicide bombers and terrorist masterminds. The defendants in the end offered almost no evidence and no reasonable explanation for their policy of rewarding convicted terrorists — a policy that continues to the present day.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement that Israel expects “the responsible elements in the international community to continue to punish those who support terrorism just as the U.S. federal court has done and to back the countries that are fighting terrorism.
“Today as well we remember the families that lost their loved ones; our heart is with them and there is no justice that can console them,” he added.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a statement that the ADL is “gratified that the U.S. civil judicial process provided a venue to hold the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization accountable for the heinous acts of terrorism they incited, promoted, financed and carried out against the victims.” He added that the international community “failed to impose consequences” on the PA and the PLO for its actions and that the verdict “brings a measure of justice for these murderous acts.”
David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, also welcomed the verdict, saying: “Perpetrators of terrorism and their sponsors must be held accountable. Though the legal process took a long time, the victims’ families have finally seen justice in the admirable, reasoned decision of the jury in a federal court in New York.”
Jonathan Tobin, a senior editor at Commentary magazine, wrote that the verdict “should remove any doubt about the fact that so-called Palestinian moderates are as connected to terrorism as more extreme factions like Hamas. … The decision strips away the veneer of respectability that figures such as PA leader Mahmoud Abbas have acquired from both the Obama administration and the mainstream media.”
Last September, a jury in Brooklyn federal court ruled that the Jordan-based Arab Bank had knowingly financed the Hamas terrorist organization, which was responsible for a string of suicide bombings that killed and wounded American citizens. In May, another jury will hear from victims and their families in order to determine how much the bank must pay the victims and their families.
Yuval Shany, dean of the law school at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told The Jewish Week that he believes that neither the U.S. nor the Israeli governments are likely to help the plaintiffs collect their judgment against the PA and PLO.
“I’m not sure any of the parties have an interest in seeing the PA collapse financially, and so I don’t see strong diplomatic pressure aligned to enforce [the judgment],” he said. “And so far the Israeli government has been very ambivalent about cases against the PA.”
Leitner said that should the PA and PLO refuse to pay the judgment, the attorneys would “go after their assets in the U.S. and in Israel.”
“We’ll seek to locate their offices and bank accounts in the U.S. and we’ll go after their taxes that Israel collects — $100 million a month,” she said. “If they want to file an appeal, they will have to post a bond. If they lose, we would collect the bond.”
Shany, however, expressed reservations about their ability to collect the judgment. He noted that the Israeli government is withholding the PA’s tax collection money, a move initiated in December in response to the PA taking steps to join the International Court of Justice — a prerequisite to filing war crimes charges against Israel.
“I’m not sure you can confiscate money that has already been confiscated, and it is not clear whether the Israeli government would support such efforts by private litigants because it would have political implications,” she said. “It is also not clear if the courts here would cooperate with the process because there are some immunity issues that have been raised. It has taken years for cases to be brought here against the PA, and no cases in which immunity from seizing property been litigated.”
Thus, Shany said, “economic, political and legal factors makes it difficult.”
He pointed out that Leitner and her organization, Shurat HaDin — The Israel Law Center, have won other cases in the U.S. on behalf of American victims of Israeli terror attacks. But he said her organization’s website acknowledges being able to get back only about 10 percent of the money awarded.
“That is not insignificant,” he said, “but it is indicative of the gap between getting an award and being able to collect.”
stewart@jewishweek.org
Downton's Intermarriage For The Ages
Amy Sara Clark
Staff Writer
SHORT TAKES
Downton’s Intermarriage For The Ages
The Abbey's Jewish subplot takes center stage.
Amy Sara Clark
Staff Writer
About as closely watched as the boy (Jordan) being raised by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and longtime Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Or the girl (Charlotte) being raised by Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky.
For Jewish “Downton Abbey” fans, the hope for a Jewish subplot that began in Season Two came to full fruition Sunday night when Lady Rose tied the (chuppah-less) knot to Atticus Aldridge.
There are members from both families that are unhappy with the union, with the father of the groom, Lord Sinderby, bemoaning the fact that his grandchildren will not be Jewish. (To which Atticus optimistically notes that the since the children will be taught about both parents’ religions they might choose to convert to Judaism one day.) Rose also shows her enthusiasm for her husband-to-be’s religion by asking that the marriage be blessed in a synagogue. (Sinderby informs Rose that with her non-Jewish status, this isn’t an option.)
Despite his disapproval, Lord Sinderby begrudgingly tolerates the wedding under pressure from Atticus’ mother, who says she’ll leave him if he stops the marriage.
It’s Rose’s mother, Susan, the Marchioness of Flintshire, who pulls out all stops to stop the wedding, announcing her impending divorce in an effort to derail the marriage, and then framing Atticus by hiring a woman to follow him to his room after his stag party. Tipsy though he may be, Atticus politely gets her to leave, but not before Susan’s hired photographer snaps some photos that she sends to Rose in the hopes she’ll call off the wedding. She doesn’t, and the wedding goes forward.
The Downton Crew comes across best, grudgingly accepting the marriage, with the Dowager Countess declaring that “Love may not conquer all, but it can conquer a lot.”
Lady Grantham even spoke of her own Jewish roots at the wedding reception, telling a friend that her father was Jewish, which caused the friend to politely end the conversation.
In an interview with Time published the morning after the episode aired in the U.S., series creator Julian Fellowes said he found fodder for the Jewish subplot from his own experience, having himself dated a woman from a “very prominent, grand Jewish family.”
“And it was one of my only times when I have been considered ineligible and not a sort of desirable party.”
Let’s hope that that doesn’t happen with any child that might arise from Lady Rose and Atticus’ love.
editor@jewishweek.org
EDITORIAL & OPINION
P.S. You know the drill. Our website is there for you any and all the time with breaking news, exclusive videos, features, op-eds, advice columns, and more. Check it out.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/
Gary Rosenblatt
French Chief Rabbi Walking A Fine LineGARY ROSENBLATT
French Chief Rabbi Walking A Fine Line
Korsia ‘under conflicting pressures’ in wake of terror attacks, say expats here.
Gary Rosenblatt
Editor and Publisher
Chaim Korsia, thrust into the international spotlight as the chief rabbi of France in the past year, was the center of attention as scholar-in-residence at Park East Synagogue here last weekend.
Many came to hear the 51-year-old former French military chaplain gauge the level of his community’s fears in the wake of last month’s terror attack in Paris, and respond to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s call for European Jews to “come home” to the Jewish state in large numbers.
But at a well-attended Sunday morning breakfast at the synagogue, I came away intrigued by the passionate remarks from those in the audience, made up largely of French-born and French-speaking Jews now living here, in contrast to the rabbi’s comments, which were decidedly diplomatic, and at times made for a mixed message.
Yes, there are “moments of fear” among Jews, he said, but daily life goes on as normal. Anti-Semitism continues to come from the right and is now joined by those on the left, primarily in the Muslim community; but terror attacks on Jews “can happen anywhere.” Rabbi Korsia said, “We have to be for the Muslims, but we have to be strong.” And he said the community was grateful for the government providing 10,500 police and soldiers to protect our synagogues, schools and other Jewish institutions, “but we need our own security.”
A number of those who spoke up during a question-and-answer session with the rabbi, and chatted among themselves after the 90-minute program was over, felt strongly that France has failed in assimilating its large population of Muslim immigrants, many of whom channel their anger at Israel and at Jews in general.
Rabbi Korsia asserted that in the wake of the kosher supermarket killings, French leaders now understand, finally, that such attacks are aimed not just at Jews but also at the government, and all it stands for.
He said this response was a dramatic and welcome change. “We [the Jewish community] are now the symbol of France,” and it is understood that “anti-Semitism is not just against Jews but against [French] society.” This support will make Jews feel “less alone now.”
Alternating between speaking in an eloquent (I am told) French and a choppy English, Rabbi Korsia, whose manner is gentle and sincere, praised French leaders for their statements of support for the Jewish community, the largest in Europe (estimated at about 600,000). And he chose to avoid a direct response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s inference that European Jewry is in great danger, with Israel its salvation. Instead, the rabbi noted that “he [Netanyahu] has his job, and we have ours,” which he described as giving French Jews “a real choice — and to have a real choice you have to feel secure, safe.”
He acknowledged that the thousands of soldiers now guarding Jewish sites in France are doing so on a temporary basis. On several occasions he stressed the need for his community to provide its own security, from cameras to prevent cemeterydesecrations to guards to protect Jewish institutions. Some say one of his goals in visiting New York this past week was to fundraise, and when an audience member asked the rabbi who will pay for this effort, he quickly and emphatically replied, “you,” with a smile.
Rabbi Korsia described his host, Rabbi Arthur Schneier of Park East, as a mentor, and cited several of the senior rabbi’s homilies. He also noted that Park East spends about $500,000 a year on security.
Rabbi Schneier had invited me to conduct a public interview with Rabbi Korsia as part of the program, during which I tried to elicit direct answers to my questions about the level of fear among French Jewry today. But the chief rabbi’s responses were somewhere between generic and evasive, often focusing on the need for unity and fraternity in France.
He did emphasize, though, what he felt to be a significant statement by French President Francoise Hollande, made Jan. 27 at a Paris ceremony commemorating the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Hollande asserted that anti-Semitism is “nourished by hatred of Israel,” and he vowed to combat anti-Semitism.
Rabbi Korsia sounded optimistic about this new level of commitment, though some in his audience, citing their own experiences in France, were less sanguine.
“I think it’s too late,” one young man told the rabbi, citing his family’s experience in a French city where, he said, the Muslim population has become increasingly emboldened and hostile.
“He [the rabbi] is under conflicting pressures,” another French native told me after the program. “He represents the government and as an employee of the state he is serving a Jewish community that is very worried about its future.”
No doubt Rabbi Korsia is seeking to calm his people at home while seeking financial support here and in Israel for security to ensure a sense of normalcy. And the reality is that even if aliyah doubles or triples in the next several years — from 7,000 this past year — that means more than 500,000 Jews will remain in France and need their communal life to be secured and strengthened.
“Come to see us in Paris,” the chief rabbi said in closing, “and tell your friends to come. Things are better there than most people think.”
The audience empathized with and admired him, but didn’t seem persuaded by his parting message.
Gary@jewishweek.org
Rabbi David Wolpe
Moses Did Not Take A Selfie
When Moses came down from Sinai, the Torah teaches, "He did not know that his face was aglow" [Exodus 34:29].
When Moses came down from Sinai, the Torah teaches, “He did not know that his face was aglow” [Exodus 34:29].
This is one of the most inspiring verses in the Torah, awaiting our age to reveal its full depth. Today, the slightest sliver of charisma is noted, celebrated and selfied. We are all acutely conscious of our gifts, and encouraged not only to exercise them, but also to trumpet their existence to the world. If our faces were glowing, it would be on Twitter before the veil lowered.
Moses is called by the Torah the most humble man who ever lived. His humility was not forced or false. He did not know his own glow because he was not the preeminent subject in his own mind. At the greatest moment imaginable in life, rather than exulting in his encounter with God, Moses is literally unaware of the mark on his own face. He was not absent-minded, but rather very present-minded on things that mattered.
In our strutting and self-congratulatory age, Moses stands as a man who achieved the pinnacle of greatness and walked humbly with God.
Rabbi David Wolpe is spiritual leader of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles. Follow him on Twitter: @RabbiWolpe. His latest book is “David: The Divided Heart” (Yale University Press).
Spring Arts The New Season In Theater, Film, Music, The Visual Arts And Books.
The New Season In Theater, Film, Music, The Visual Arts And Books.
INSIDE THIS SPECIAL SECTION
A More Perfect Union?
The Elkabetz Siblings’ Films Are Personal And Political
The ‘Divine’ Miss Dardashti
Judaica Gets A Fresh Look
Books
The Film List
The Music List
The Theater List
The Visual Arts List
The slopes of Bansko feature quality skiing at reasonable prices. Wikimedia Commons
TRAVELWhere Snow Is Always Welcome
Hilary Larson
Travel Writer
Few of us welcome snow in New York, where it perhaps looks picturesque for a half-hour in the park — but then mostly just snarls up commutes, collects in dirty piles on the corner and fouls up sidewalks with slush.
In a city like Bansko, however, snow is always welcome. Bansko, a resort city of not quite 10,000 people in the Pirin mountains of southern Bulgaria, has evolved from the favored weekend destination of Sofia skiers to international winter-sports destination.
It may not be Gstaad or Aspen just yet, but Bansko’s very lack of cosmopolitanism is an asset: visitors get a first-world infrastructure and fellow travelers from diverse countries, yet they pay a fraction of Switzerland prices. And despite its growth, Bansko still retains the rustic feel of an Old World village.
Bansko is flooded with visitors this month as it plays host to the prestigious Audi FIS Ski World Cup, an event that draws the world’s best skiers and marks a kind of coming-out for the Balkan resort. Bansko lies at the heart of historical Macedonia — a region of snow-capped mountains and dramatic valleys that encompasses southwestern Bulgaria, Northern Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of the same name.
A two-hour drive south from Sofia, the Bulgarian capital, Bansko is also an excellent side trip from Greece’s second city, Thessaloniki; both cities are home to significant Jewish communities, heritage sites and (not least) major airports. Either way, the approach to Bansko — through a stunning landscape of jagged mountains and deep, forested gorges — is an unforgettable part of the journey.
Many a Bulgarian resort has fallen victim to the post-Communist plague of aesthetically dissonant architecture — ghastly approximations of Disney castles, Tuscan villas or Manhattanesque glass-box towers. Bansko has somehow been spared this fate; tasteful, wood-beam chalets in the Swiss style have sprouted up in the new section of town. British skiers snap them up for a cheap winter getaway, booking charter flights and flooding the towns with English chatter on snowy weekends.
All of which makes Bansko an appealing destination for snow-loving Americans. As I write this, the slopes at Bansko have two feet of powder at the base and nearly eight feet at the summit, with daily temperatures above freezing down in the town. (Despite its image, Bulgaria is not really all that cold.) Surrounded by mountains, far from the sea, Bansko is sunny, dry and windless; the lack of humidity or wind chill makes it a comfortable environment for hours of daytime strolling, even on very cold days.
And even for the non-skiers among us — count me as one of them — Bansko, ringed with thermal mineral baths, is a delightful place to while away a cozy weekend. The winding lanes of its historic core are dotted with tiny mehanas, Bulgarian taverns decorated in the traditional style, with wood-beam ceilings, bright-red tablecloths, and menus heavy on traditional fare. In mehanas, parties occupy tables for many hours on end; they might sit for coffee, progress to liquors or beers, and end up nibbling away at platters of fried potatoes, tomato-and-cucumber salads, grilled feta and kebabs.
Nowadays, there are plenty of British pubs serving up cheese on toast to the ski-weekend crowd. The last time I was in Bansko, I sat next to a large table of English skiers, and the subject turned to indoor heating standards — which are higher in rural Bulgaria, oddly, than in much of Western Europe. (Wi-Fi, too: I am always amazed by how much faster my Internet connections are across Eastern Europe than in the far richer countries nearby.)
But nobody comes to Bansko to stay indoors. Everyone in town seemed to be headed to or from the slopes, clutching gear or negotiating taxis to the lifts. I strolled down Pirin Street, a lively route lined with souvenir shops and cold-weather gear that cuts through the new part of town, wondering if there was any practical way to lug back hand-painted pottery (there wasn’t). There are even a couple of art galleries along this street, showing everything from religious icons to abstract paintings.
Back in the Old Town, icicles hung from the red-tile roofs of the old stone buildings; I passed snowy courtyards and frozen wells from a time before plumbing. Out on the central ploshtad (town square), a larger-than-life Communist hero loomed from his bronze pedestal, one of the political statues so common in this part of the world. Skiers have plied the nearby slopes for generations — but the statue was a reminder of how recently this mountain region has opened up to the world, inviting a new generation to enjoy the Southern Balkans.
editor@jewishweek.org
"36 Under 36" issue.
This issue will announce on June 5, the thirty-six young visionaries, thinkers, social justice advocates, educators, philanthropists and artists who are reinventing, and broadening, the Jewish community.
To nominate a candidate click here.
Deadline for nominations is March 2.
Each year, The Jewish Week publishes a special section profiling a group
of 36 emerging leaders from across denominations and professions.
We look for individuals who have demonstrated unique initiative,
creativity and ability to inspire others.
The 36ers are for themselves but not for themselves alone.
They are high achievers. They help others.
If you know people who qualify, use the form below to nominate them.
Nominees must be under age 36 by June 1 and they must have some
connection to New York.
You can nominate a maximum of five candidates.
Questions? Email Maya Klausner or call 212 997 2946
As PLO Victims Proclaim Justice, Collecting Millions May Be Elusive
Stewart Ain
Staff Writer
Leonard Mandelkorn testifies at the federal trial here before Judge George Daniels. The attorney is Rachel Weiser.Jane Rosenberg
The door has now been opened for a fresh look at pending civil suits in Israel against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization — as well as possible new suits here — after a Manhattan federal jury Monday found the groups liable for six terror attacks in Israel between 2002 and 2004 that killed and injured Americans.That’s the view of Nitsana Darshan Leitner, Israel counsel to the victims’ families. “We are always prepared to file new cases for victims of Palestinian terrorism if we can establish the evidence,” she told The Jewish Week via email.
“We have many cases against the PA pending in the Israeli courts. We really hope the Israeli government will finally understand the utility of our civil actions and startsupporting the litigation wholeheartedly,” she added.
The jury verdict, reached after six weeks of testimony before Manhattan Federal Judge George Daniels, awarded the 10 American families who brought the case $218.5 million in damages, a figure that is tripled to $655.5 million by provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, under which the suit was filed 11 years ago.
But whether the victims will be able to collect the jury award is unknown, as that process would likely run into political pressure given the Palestinian Authority’s standing in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Attorneys are only now permitted to pursue documentation of the groups’ assets. Evidence presented during the trial revealed the PA has been paying imprisoned terrorists and their families $50 million a year.
Although several victims and their families testified during the trial, none were in the courtroom when the verdict was read. One of them, Arieh Mendelkorn, whose 18-year-old son was critically injured in a suicide bombing in 2002, told The Jewish Week by phone from Israel: “Hashem [God] has done justice in this world. We thank Hashem, who has given retribution to those who abused us. We see what evil we have to face and we have overcome with Hashem’s power.”
He said his son, Shaul, was in a coma for two days after the bombing in the French Hill section of Jerusalem. He underwent a year of orthopedic work and rehabilitation and today, at the age of 31, has permanent damage to his left eye.
Alan Bauer, who was injured along with his 7-year-old son when a Palestinian policeman blew himself up directly behind them as they walked home, said by phone from Jerusalem that he and his family are “thrilled” by the verdict.
A native of Chicago, Bauer said he was walking home from the office and holding the hand of his son, Yoni, in March 2002 when the bomb exploded.
“I was thrown forward,” he said. When he regained his senses, he saw that his hand was “covered in blood and I couldn’t find my son. I then saw him face down. I picked him up and heard him moaning, so I knew he was alive. He was taken to an ambulance and in the ambulance they removed a towel drenched in blood from the back of his head.”
Bauer, a biochemist and father of four sons, said doctors found that two screws had penetrated his left arm and that a screw had gone through his son’s brain.
“He was put in coma to let fluid drain out and was then left blind and paralyzed on his left side,” he recalled.
Bauer said his son, who will be 20 this year, testified during the trial and told the jury that he has regained partial vision but that his left side is still weaker than his right.
“The reason we sued was that six months after the bombing there was a published report that said those who sent the bomber were employees of the PA,” he said.
The bomb killed three Israelis, including a young couple returning from the doctor’s office.
“She was pregnant and had just had an ultrasound,” Bauer said. “I spoke with the brother of one of the Israelis killed and he is suing the PA in Israel. The case is in the preliminary stages, but he is hopeful the verdict in the U.S. will have a positive impact on the Israeli courts. Most such cases are thrown out here because there is no legal framework to pursue them like there is in the U.S.”
The Anti-Terrorism Act was enacted in the U.S. following the Achille Lauro hijacking, and Leitner said this was the first trial to test the effectiveness of the law. It was specifically designed “to address the brutality of Palestinian terrorism against Americans traveling abroad,” she noted.
Among the other family members and victims who testified was Rena Sokolow of Cedarhurst, L.I. She said she was on a family vacation to Israel in 2002 when she was knocked down by a bomb blast while buying a pair of shoes for her 12-year-old son. She said she felt as though she “was in a washing machine” as blood raced from her broken leg so quickly she thought she would die.
“I looked to my right and saw a severed head of a woman about 3 feet from me,” she told the jurors.
Leitner said the trial provided evidence “for the first time [in] an American court” of the “PA’s policies and culture of glorifying the suicide bombers and terrorist masterminds. The defendants in the end offered almost no evidence and no reasonable explanation for their policy of rewarding convicted terrorists — a policy that continues to the present day.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement that Israel expects “the responsible elements in the international community to continue to punish those who support terrorism just as the U.S. federal court has done and to back the countries that are fighting terrorism.
“Today as well we remember the families that lost their loved ones; our heart is with them and there is no justice that can console them,” he added.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a statement that the ADL is “gratified that the U.S. civil judicial process provided a venue to hold the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization accountable for the heinous acts of terrorism they incited, promoted, financed and carried out against the victims.” He added that the international community “failed to impose consequences” on the PA and the PLO for its actions and that the verdict “brings a measure of justice for these murderous acts.”
David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, also welcomed the verdict, saying: “Perpetrators of terrorism and their sponsors must be held accountable. Though the legal process took a long time, the victims’ families have finally seen justice in the admirable, reasoned decision of the jury in a federal court in New York.”
Jonathan Tobin, a senior editor at Commentary magazine, wrote that the verdict “should remove any doubt about the fact that so-called Palestinian moderates are as connected to terrorism as more extreme factions like Hamas. … The decision strips away the veneer of respectability that figures such as PA leader Mahmoud Abbas have acquired from both the Obama administration and the mainstream media.”
Last September, a jury in Brooklyn federal court ruled that the Jordan-based Arab Bank had knowingly financed the Hamas terrorist organization, which was responsible for a string of suicide bombings that killed and wounded American citizens. In May, another jury will hear from victims and their families in order to determine how much the bank must pay the victims and their families.
Yuval Shany, dean of the law school at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told The Jewish Week that he believes that neither the U.S. nor the Israeli governments are likely to help the plaintiffs collect their judgment against the PA and PLO.
“I’m not sure any of the parties have an interest in seeing the PA collapse financially, and so I don’t see strong diplomatic pressure aligned to enforce [the judgment],” he said. “And so far the Israeli government has been very ambivalent about cases against the PA.”
Leitner said that should the PA and PLO refuse to pay the judgment, the attorneys would “go after their assets in the U.S. and in Israel.”
“We’ll seek to locate their offices and bank accounts in the U.S. and we’ll go after their taxes that Israel collects — $100 million a month,” she said. “If they want to file an appeal, they will have to post a bond. If they lose, we would collect the bond.”
Shany, however, expressed reservations about their ability to collect the judgment. He noted that the Israeli government is withholding the PA’s tax collection money, a move initiated in December in response to the PA taking steps to join the International Court of Justice — a prerequisite to filing war crimes charges against Israel.
“I’m not sure you can confiscate money that has already been confiscated, and it is not clear whether the Israeli government would support such efforts by private litigants because it would have political implications,” she said. “It is also not clear if the courts here would cooperate with the process because there are some immunity issues that have been raised. It has taken years for cases to be brought here against the PA, and no cases in which immunity from seizing property been litigated.”
Thus, Shany said, “economic, political and legal factors makes it difficult.”
He pointed out that Leitner and her organization, Shurat HaDin — The Israel Law Center, have won other cases in the U.S. on behalf of American victims of Israeli terror attacks. But he said her organization’s website acknowledges being able to get back only about 10 percent of the money awarded.
“That is not insignificant,” he said, “but it is indicative of the gap between getting an award and being able to collect.”
stewart@jewishweek.org
Downton's Intermarriage For The Ages
Amy Sara Clark
Staff Writer
SHORT TAKES
Downton’s Intermarriage For The Ages
The Abbey's Jewish subplot takes center stage.
Amy Sara Clark
Staff Writer
Against all odds: Lady Rose and Atticus Aldridge tie the knot. Nick Briggs/Carnival Films for MASTERPIECE
If it comes to pass that Lady Rose and the dashing Member of the Tribe, Atticus Aldridge — the new “It” couple on “Downton Abbey” — have a child, it will surely be a closely watched interfaith upbringing.About as closely watched as the boy (Jordan) being raised by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and longtime Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Or the girl (Charlotte) being raised by Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky.
For Jewish “Downton Abbey” fans, the hope for a Jewish subplot that began in Season Two came to full fruition Sunday night when Lady Rose tied the (chuppah-less) knot to Atticus Aldridge.
There are members from both families that are unhappy with the union, with the father of the groom, Lord Sinderby, bemoaning the fact that his grandchildren will not be Jewish. (To which Atticus optimistically notes that the since the children will be taught about both parents’ religions they might choose to convert to Judaism one day.) Rose also shows her enthusiasm for her husband-to-be’s religion by asking that the marriage be blessed in a synagogue. (Sinderby informs Rose that with her non-Jewish status, this isn’t an option.)
Despite his disapproval, Lord Sinderby begrudgingly tolerates the wedding under pressure from Atticus’ mother, who says she’ll leave him if he stops the marriage.
It’s Rose’s mother, Susan, the Marchioness of Flintshire, who pulls out all stops to stop the wedding, announcing her impending divorce in an effort to derail the marriage, and then framing Atticus by hiring a woman to follow him to his room after his stag party. Tipsy though he may be, Atticus politely gets her to leave, but not before Susan’s hired photographer snaps some photos that she sends to Rose in the hopes she’ll call off the wedding. She doesn’t, and the wedding goes forward.
The Downton Crew comes across best, grudgingly accepting the marriage, with the Dowager Countess declaring that “Love may not conquer all, but it can conquer a lot.”
Lady Grantham even spoke of her own Jewish roots at the wedding reception, telling a friend that her father was Jewish, which caused the friend to politely end the conversation.
In an interview with Time published the morning after the episode aired in the U.S., series creator Julian Fellowes said he found fodder for the Jewish subplot from his own experience, having himself dated a woman from a “very prominent, grand Jewish family.”
“And it was one of my only times when I have been considered ineligible and not a sort of desirable party.”
Let’s hope that that doesn’t happen with any child that might arise from Lady Rose and Atticus’ love.
editor@jewishweek.org
EDITORIAL & OPINION
Exposing The PLO In CourtEDITORIAL
Exposing The PLO In Court
The significance of the Federal District Court verdict here this week against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, awarding damages amounting to $655.5 million to victims of six terror attacks in Israel, is far more than financial. By determining, after a legal battle of more than a decade, that the Palestinian organizations were supportive of and responsible for the attacks, which killed 33 people and injured 450 others, the jury in effect was saying that the PA and PLO are involved in terrorism in Israel.
The argument that these groups are “moderates” has been exposed as fraudulent, challenging the prevailing narrative of the Israeli-Arab dispute that suggests Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza are the primary militants and that the Mahmoud Abbas-led groups are on the side of peace.
The verdict awarded $218.5 million to the plaintiffs, who are relatives of the victims. According to a special terrorism law, that sum is automatically tripled. Among the attacks involved in this case were bombings at the Hebrew University cafeteria, on Jerusalem buses and in the city’s streets.
The verdict represents a serious problem for the PA, which is financially strapped and faces further cuts by Israel as a result of the Abbas decision to abandon the Mideast peace process and seek to join the International Criminal Court. PA spokespersons called the ruling’s charges “baseless” and said they would appeal.
The verdict also represents a serious diplomatic problem for the U.S., which has long maintained that the PA under Abbas is a peace-seeking partner for Israel. In much of the mainstream media, reflecting attitudes at the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is the chief obstacle to a two-state solution and peace settlement. The evidence presented at the seven-week trial, however, indicated through testimony and financial documents that those who carried out the deadly attacks had been employed by the PA. In addition, it was determined that the PA provided salaries to jailed terrorists in Israel as well as funds for the families of suicide bombers.
In his closing argument, Kent Yalowitz, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told the jury that “money is oxygen for terrorism,” and that the antiterrorism law “hits those who send terrorists where it hurts them most: in the wallet.”
The case follows the victory several months ago here in the ruling against The Arab Bank, which was held responsible for transactions that knowingly provided funds to terror groups like Hamas. Another trial will assess damages for the 300 victims of the 24 attacks cited.
Looking forward, it will be that much more difficult for Washington to pressure Israel to negotiate with the PA and to continue to support the Palestinian leadership as it has until now. Time will tell whether this major court case will motivate U.S. officials to change their perspective and approach. Will they now show greater empathy for Israel’s concerns, or will they do their best to ignore the reality of the Palestinian leadership’s actions and continue down the path leading to a diplomatic dead-end.
editor@jewishweek.org
The Speech Bibi Should Deliver To Congress
Martin Raffel
Special To The Jewish WeekOPINION
The Speech Bibi Should Deliver To Congress
Martin Raffel
Special To The Jewish Week
Honored members of the U.S. Congress, I stand before you today as prime minister of the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people, a people yearning for security and peace in a part of the world wracked by extremism and violence.
I know that my decision to accept the invitation to speak here today has generated much controversy, for which I am genuinely sorry. Please know that it certainly was not my intention to create an atmosphere of partisanship around the U.S.-Israel relationship. Quite to the contrary; our two nations have forged an unshakable bond anchored in shared values and vital strategic interests. This bond, which crosses all political lines both here and in my country, cannot be broken by occasional disagreements that may come up between the leaders of our two countries.
In addition, my appearance here today should not be interpreted as a sign of disrespect for President Obama, who has been a great friend of the State of Israel. We are deeply grateful for the support he and his administration have given us during the last six years, as we also appreciate the wonderful bipartisan support Israel has received from the U.S. Congress. The Iron Dome program, which saved countless Israeli lives in recent conflicts, is just one example of our partnership.
Perhaps it would have been preferable to wait until after our general election to speak to you. But because it is scheduled to take place just one week before the target date for a framework agreement with Iran, I decided this appearance could not be delayed. It is true that my main opponent for the prime minister’s office, Mr. Isaac Herzog, criticized my decision. However, you should not mistake his criticism as a difference of policy. On the threat to Israel posed by Iran, he and I are very much like-minded.
Recognizing that negotiations with Iran are ongoing, nonetheless we are concerned about the direction they are taking. Unlike your expansive country that sits halfway around the world from Iran, Israel is small, roughly the size of New Jersey; it is in the heart of the turbulent Middle East; and it has been explicitly and repeatedly threatened with annihilation by the rulers in Tehran.
Iran’s regime for many years has been the leading state sponsor of global terrorism. Israelis, Americans, Europeans and South Americans all have been the victims of its unbridled violence. It is a regime, which, to this very day, refuses to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and hides important facets of its nuclear and missile programs. In short, it is a regime that cannot be trusted to keep its commitments.
It is not that we are against diplomacy with Iran. If successful, it is far preferable to other options. For us, however, it is not enough simply to deny Iran an actual nuclear weapon. Israel cannot accept — and our children cannot comfortably go to sleep at night knowing — that Iran continues to possess the capability to produce a nuclear weapon in a relatively short period of time. That means Iran should not be permitted to maintain significant uranium enrichment capacity. Make no mistake; this same concern is shared in the region. While they are not as open and candid about this issue as I, many of America’s Arab allies feel exactly the same way.
Again, a final deal has not yet been struck. But from what we understand, negotiators may be on the verge of reaching one that keeps Iran’s ability to threaten us and America’s other allies in place. We beseech President Obama and Congress — in the interest of regional and, indeed, global security — do not let this happen!
I also recognize that Israel’s security as the Jewish and democratic state requires that we reach an historic conflict-ending agreement with the Palestinians. We have no interest in ruling over another people who are entitled to self-determination no less than the Jewish people. Both Israelis and Palestinians have suffered long enough — far too long. President Abbas, going to the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court in an attempt to isolate Israel diplomatically will not lift your people to independence. Now is the time to return to the negotiating table and to stay there as long as it takes until we are successful.
When negotiations resume, President Abbas should be aware that when it comes to fundamental Israeli security, there can be no compromise. With three terrorist organizations operating just outside of our borders — Hezbollah, Hamas, and, now, ISIL, all of them armed with thousands of sophisticated rockets — Israel has no margin for error.
But we can reach a compromise agreement on permanent borders based on the 1967 boundaries with agreed-upon swaps; we can reach a compromise on Palestinian refugees and their descendants that provides for dignity and appropriate compensation; we can also reach a creative compromise on Jerusalem that allows for both our states to have internationally recognized capitals without requiring us to divide the Holy City. Meanwhile, as a demonstration of good faith and the sincerity of my commitment to the vision of two states, I also am declaring a freeze on growth outside of the large settlement blocs during the course of our negotiations. In parallel, we also wish to advance toward normalized relations with the rest of the Arab world based on the constructive Saudi Peace Initiative.
I have also called for Palestinian recognition of Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state, not as a precondition to negotiations, but in the context of a final agreement. Let me be clear about this issue. It means that Israel will continue to serve as the democratic nation state of the Jewish people, while remaining fully committed to protecting the equal rights of all its citizens. I regard this matter as fundamental to Israel’s long-term security. Until our Arab neighbors accept that the Jewish people have reclaimed our sovereignty in Israel by right — that we are not an illegitimate colonial presence — true reconciliation in unattainable. Please know that I have not raised this matter to place obstacles on the path to peace, but rather to make sure the treaty we may sign today will not be discarded by future generations.
Since Israel’s founding in 1948, we have found ourselves occasionally in disagreement with our friends here in the United States. But on the big issues of seeking peace, defeating tyranny and terrorism, and promoting democracy and freedom, fundamentally the United States and Israel have stood together. I have no doubt we will continue to do so long into the future.
Martin J. Raffel recently retired as senior vice president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA). He now consults for the JCPA and for the Israel Policy Forum.
The Jewish Week
Exposing The PLO In Court
The significance of the Federal District Court verdict here this week against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization, awarding damages amounting to $655.5 million to victims of six terror attacks in Israel, is far more than financial. By determining, after a legal battle of more than a decade, that the Palestinian organizations were supportive of and responsible for the attacks, which killed 33 people and injured 450 others, the jury in effect was saying that the PA and PLO are involved in terrorism in Israel.
The argument that these groups are “moderates” has been exposed as fraudulent, challenging the prevailing narrative of the Israeli-Arab dispute that suggests Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza are the primary militants and that the Mahmoud Abbas-led groups are on the side of peace.
The verdict awarded $218.5 million to the plaintiffs, who are relatives of the victims. According to a special terrorism law, that sum is automatically tripled. Among the attacks involved in this case were bombings at the Hebrew University cafeteria, on Jerusalem buses and in the city’s streets.
The verdict represents a serious problem for the PA, which is financially strapped and faces further cuts by Israel as a result of the Abbas decision to abandon the Mideast peace process and seek to join the International Criminal Court. PA spokespersons called the ruling’s charges “baseless” and said they would appeal.
The verdict also represents a serious diplomatic problem for the U.S., which has long maintained that the PA under Abbas is a peace-seeking partner for Israel. In much of the mainstream media, reflecting attitudes at the White House, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is the chief obstacle to a two-state solution and peace settlement. The evidence presented at the seven-week trial, however, indicated through testimony and financial documents that those who carried out the deadly attacks had been employed by the PA. In addition, it was determined that the PA provided salaries to jailed terrorists in Israel as well as funds for the families of suicide bombers.
In his closing argument, Kent Yalowitz, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told the jury that “money is oxygen for terrorism,” and that the antiterrorism law “hits those who send terrorists where it hurts them most: in the wallet.”
The case follows the victory several months ago here in the ruling against The Arab Bank, which was held responsible for transactions that knowingly provided funds to terror groups like Hamas. Another trial will assess damages for the 300 victims of the 24 attacks cited.
Looking forward, it will be that much more difficult for Washington to pressure Israel to negotiate with the PA and to continue to support the Palestinian leadership as it has until now. Time will tell whether this major court case will motivate U.S. officials to change their perspective and approach. Will they now show greater empathy for Israel’s concerns, or will they do their best to ignore the reality of the Palestinian leadership’s actions and continue down the path leading to a diplomatic dead-end.
editor@jewishweek.org
The Speech Bibi Should Deliver To Congress
Martin Raffel
Special To The Jewish WeekOPINION
The Speech Bibi Should Deliver To Congress
Martin Raffel
Special To The Jewish Week
Martin Raffel
In my judgment, it was unwise for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address a joint session of Congress in early March. It has led to partisanship in Washington and polarization in the Jewish community, and I believe there were more appropriate forums to convey his message. That said, barring any unforeseen circumstances, he is giving the speech. Here is the one I would like to see him deliver:Honored members of the U.S. Congress, I stand before you today as prime minister of the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people, a people yearning for security and peace in a part of the world wracked by extremism and violence.
I know that my decision to accept the invitation to speak here today has generated much controversy, for which I am genuinely sorry. Please know that it certainly was not my intention to create an atmosphere of partisanship around the U.S.-Israel relationship. Quite to the contrary; our two nations have forged an unshakable bond anchored in shared values and vital strategic interests. This bond, which crosses all political lines both here and in my country, cannot be broken by occasional disagreements that may come up between the leaders of our two countries.
In addition, my appearance here today should not be interpreted as a sign of disrespect for President Obama, who has been a great friend of the State of Israel. We are deeply grateful for the support he and his administration have given us during the last six years, as we also appreciate the wonderful bipartisan support Israel has received from the U.S. Congress. The Iron Dome program, which saved countless Israeli lives in recent conflicts, is just one example of our partnership.
Perhaps it would have been preferable to wait until after our general election to speak to you. But because it is scheduled to take place just one week before the target date for a framework agreement with Iran, I decided this appearance could not be delayed. It is true that my main opponent for the prime minister’s office, Mr. Isaac Herzog, criticized my decision. However, you should not mistake his criticism as a difference of policy. On the threat to Israel posed by Iran, he and I are very much like-minded.
Recognizing that negotiations with Iran are ongoing, nonetheless we are concerned about the direction they are taking. Unlike your expansive country that sits halfway around the world from Iran, Israel is small, roughly the size of New Jersey; it is in the heart of the turbulent Middle East; and it has been explicitly and repeatedly threatened with annihilation by the rulers in Tehran.
Iran’s regime for many years has been the leading state sponsor of global terrorism. Israelis, Americans, Europeans and South Americans all have been the victims of its unbridled violence. It is a regime, which, to this very day, refuses to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and hides important facets of its nuclear and missile programs. In short, it is a regime that cannot be trusted to keep its commitments.
It is not that we are against diplomacy with Iran. If successful, it is far preferable to other options. For us, however, it is not enough simply to deny Iran an actual nuclear weapon. Israel cannot accept — and our children cannot comfortably go to sleep at night knowing — that Iran continues to possess the capability to produce a nuclear weapon in a relatively short period of time. That means Iran should not be permitted to maintain significant uranium enrichment capacity. Make no mistake; this same concern is shared in the region. While they are not as open and candid about this issue as I, many of America’s Arab allies feel exactly the same way.
Again, a final deal has not yet been struck. But from what we understand, negotiators may be on the verge of reaching one that keeps Iran’s ability to threaten us and America’s other allies in place. We beseech President Obama and Congress — in the interest of regional and, indeed, global security — do not let this happen!
I also recognize that Israel’s security as the Jewish and democratic state requires that we reach an historic conflict-ending agreement with the Palestinians. We have no interest in ruling over another people who are entitled to self-determination no less than the Jewish people. Both Israelis and Palestinians have suffered long enough — far too long. President Abbas, going to the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court in an attempt to isolate Israel diplomatically will not lift your people to independence. Now is the time to return to the negotiating table and to stay there as long as it takes until we are successful.
When negotiations resume, President Abbas should be aware that when it comes to fundamental Israeli security, there can be no compromise. With three terrorist organizations operating just outside of our borders — Hezbollah, Hamas, and, now, ISIL, all of them armed with thousands of sophisticated rockets — Israel has no margin for error.
But we can reach a compromise agreement on permanent borders based on the 1967 boundaries with agreed-upon swaps; we can reach a compromise on Palestinian refugees and their descendants that provides for dignity and appropriate compensation; we can also reach a creative compromise on Jerusalem that allows for both our states to have internationally recognized capitals without requiring us to divide the Holy City. Meanwhile, as a demonstration of good faith and the sincerity of my commitment to the vision of two states, I also am declaring a freeze on growth outside of the large settlement blocs during the course of our negotiations. In parallel, we also wish to advance toward normalized relations with the rest of the Arab world based on the constructive Saudi Peace Initiative.
I have also called for Palestinian recognition of Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state, not as a precondition to negotiations, but in the context of a final agreement. Let me be clear about this issue. It means that Israel will continue to serve as the democratic nation state of the Jewish people, while remaining fully committed to protecting the equal rights of all its citizens. I regard this matter as fundamental to Israel’s long-term security. Until our Arab neighbors accept that the Jewish people have reclaimed our sovereignty in Israel by right — that we are not an illegitimate colonial presence — true reconciliation in unattainable. Please know that I have not raised this matter to place obstacles on the path to peace, but rather to make sure the treaty we may sign today will not be discarded by future generations.
Since Israel’s founding in 1948, we have found ourselves occasionally in disagreement with our friends here in the United States. But on the big issues of seeking peace, defeating tyranny and terrorism, and promoting democracy and freedom, fundamentally the United States and Israel have stood together. I have no doubt we will continue to do so long into the future.
Martin J. Raffel recently retired as senior vice president of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA). He now consults for the JCPA and for the Israel Policy Forum.
1501 Broadway, Suite 505
New York, New York 10036 United States
____________________________
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment