Dear Reader,
The story of Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt, who made a practice of visiting the sauna with young men, continues to dominate our website, with several additional communal leaders weighing in with their thoughts.
Scholar Judy Klitsner writes on how to prevent future rabbinic scandals. OPINION
How To Prevent Future Rabbinic Scandals
Journalistic expose is a sign that all our internal mechanisms have malfunctioned.
Judy Klitsner
Special to The Jewish Week
Judy Klitsner
We have been here before: persistent rumorsand reports of sexual misconduct by a rabbi over the course of decades culminate in ascandalous expose in a newspaper (The Jewish Week, “With Sauna ‘Secret’ Out, Riverdale Faces Tough Choice,” June 5).
We have been here before and this is why I believe that if we don’t make immediate changes we will be here again.
There are four types of public reaction to such disclosures in the press; all of them can be observed in the current responses to the recent New York Times article.
Reaction No. 1: “Nothing happened.” If the allegations fall short of outright sexual molestation or violence, the story is dismissed as overblown drama. Perhaps the rabbi was guilty of faulty judgment, but not of harmful intent, and in any case no real harm was done.
Reaction No. 2: The accusations do point to serious wrongdoing, but they are false. But why the smear campaign? This group will argue that for a variety of reasons, all whistleblowers are lying. Some are said to have a personal vendetta or feelings of envy toward the rabbi. Others may have chosen to bring him down because of ideological differences. Often the journalist or newspaper will be accused of promoting a nefarious agenda, such as anti-Semitism or anti-Orthodoxy.
Reaction No. 3: Disingenuous expressions of shock and dismay by individuals and organizations that were in a position to stop the behavior but didn’t. Members of this group tend to dismiss and deny persistent reports of wrongdoing — too often over the course of many years — and often deal callously with those who report the problem. When the story breaks, this group abruptly switches tactics, distancing themselves from the rabbi and accusing him of betraying them personally.
Reaction No. 4: Sincere expressions of shock and dismay by members of the public, who never imagined that their rabbi could be capable of misusing his authority to harm innocent and vulnerable congregants. Members of this group trusted not only the rabbi, but also the leaders and organizations that were in a position to protect them, but chose not to.
The tragic story of prolonged rabbinic misconduct followed by public disgrace is likely to repeat itself, because to this day we have failed to acknowledge the fundamental errors in the first three reactions.
The fundamental error in Reaction No. 1: Even if no overt sexual or violent molestation took place, a great deal of psychological and emotional damage could have been done, especially given the hierarchy in the situation and the fact that the hierarchical figure is deemed to bear God’s authority.
In my experience with victims of rabbinic misconduct, the lingering effects of psychological manipulation can be even more profound and more lasting than those that accompany a physical assault. It is simply unfair to these people to summarily cast aside their distress.
The fundamental error in reaction No. 2: We would have to embrace the sheer improbability that the same lie would be told by so many people, in this case by a series of young men over the course of 30 years. Offending rabbis tend to repeat themselves and a good journalistic expose reveals the unmistakable patterns. It is up to the reasonable reader to draw the likeliest conclusion, which is that those who report offenses are in fact telling the truth.
The fundamental error in reaction No. 3: This group holds on to numerous errors and in my view bears the greatest responsibility for the persistence of rabbinic misconduct. Although charged with promoting the public interest, members of this group often choose instead to refrain from any action, and at times to actively protect and promote spiritual leaders who are accused of wrongdoing. In the current case, the synagogue leadership, which apparently was aware of the problem for decades, has the most to answer for. In addition, the reader will note the failed responses of Yeshiva University and the Rabbinical Council of America, whose most decisive action was to discreetly protect YU’s rabbinic students, but to withhold their concerns — and any kind of accompanying warning — from the public.
But why do so many leaders and organizations fail to act effectively? Here are some of the fundamental errors in their thinking that I have observed over the years: a sense of collegiality by rabbis toward other rabbis; a sense of loyalty to the rabbi (often actively fostered by the rabbi); sympathy for the rabbi, who is known and visible, but none for the victims, who are unknown and unseen. There is often a fear of washing dirty linen in public (chillul Hashem) or a sense of cognitive dissonance, which makes it impossible to believe that a man of God could do such disturbing things.
Often, normative rules of conduct are suspended for charismatic leaders. (As one rabbi once commented to me about another: “What can we do? Genius often has a dark side.) Worst of all is a human cost-benefit analysis, in which the rabbi’s good works are deemed to carry greater weight than any harm he might do. In the current case, many will point to those who benefited from the rabbi’s attentions — as if their experiences somehow cancel out the anguish caused to so many others.
Ultimately, it is that innocent public — group No. 4 — that we need to hold in mind at all times. When we truly see them, we will at long last stop our flawed thinking and address the problem with honesty and courage. We will write a code of ethics to make clear to all what our standards are, and we will set up committees to handle complaints of offense in an atmosphere of utter safety, discretion and professionalism. We will have a panel of leaders who will investigate reports of wrongdoing and who will boldly act to put a stop to problematic behavior; when that is impossible, they will dismiss the problematic leader and issue a clear warning to the public.
Journalistic expose is effective, but ultimately it is a signal that all of our internal mechanisms have malfunctioned. It is time to thank the press for their valuable contributions and to let them know that we can take it from here.
Judy Klitsner is a senior lecturer at the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, where she has been teaching Bible and biblical exegesis for more than two decades.
A rabbi writing anonymously to question whether the vitriol aimed against rabbis in general is warranted.OPINION
You, Not Rabbis, Have The Power To Stop Rabbinic Abuse
"Rabbi Yochanan Batzek"
Special To The Jewish Week
I want to share a secret about American Orthodox rabbis: We have no power. We serve at the pleasure of lay leaders who sign our paychecks. We often live in homes we do not own. With relatively few exceptions, we are employed under contracts that must be renewed every few years. If we make a few false moves or anger the wrong laypeople, our contracts can be bought out or it can otherwise be made clear that we are no longer wanted, that our time here is up.
In our line of work, there are often only a handful of jobs in each city. We have all gone through the process of finding a new job, a new community, and new schools for the kids. Telling the kids that they will be leaving their good friends is always difficult. Like in the story of the biblical Isaac, dad hears God calling, but the child is the sacrifice. Every rabbi has at some point wished that someone else had been called.
It is therefore difficult to express how infuriating it is when every instance of a rabbi behaving badly is framed as a question of power imbalances and authority structures in which the old boys protect their own, victims be damned. The RCA is a grossly underfunded, chronically dysfunctional, and entirely impotent organization. Yet it is deemed to have swept all sorts of unsavory things under the rug in order to maintain and bolster its phantom power. How else can we explain why Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt is still on the job, almost three decades after the first incidents, and after a New York Times exposé? And given this protectionism, can we not understand why victims are unwilling to risk speaking out under their own names?
And so every member of the RCA is guilty by association, and the Internet has declared open season on Orthodox rabbis. We are all deemed culpable for bolstering a “system” or “power structure” or “hierarchy” or whatnot that hordes power and victimizes with impunity. Our attempts to offer commentary that does not fuel the outrage machine are met with a flood of responses in ALL CAPS. All discussion is cut off before it starts because it’s just so OBVIOUS what the moral stance is here. If you try to present an alternative “narrative” you are “blaming the victim.”
In truth, I am torn about the case of Rabbi Rosenblatt, but not because it falls in a moral grey zone. I am torn because it is a Rashomon-style conundrum, with two distinct but totally incompatible stories, which both begin with the one group: the past and present board members of the Riverdale Jewish Center.
This group knew more than anyone else about complaints and allegations concerning Rabbi Rosenblatt — certainly more than anyone who read an article or two and know someone, or know someone who knows someone, who claims to be a victim. This group not only declined to fire Rabbi Rosenblatt, it has even renewed his contract several times over the decades, despite vocal opposition from wealthy and powerful community members who went so far as to offer to buy out the rabbi’s contract. Over the past three decades, this board has included some of Modern Orthodoxy’s best and most well respected lay leaders. It is absurd to think that this group was somehow cowed by their rabbi or the “establishment” or that they were so irresponsible for so long.
That leaves us with two options (neither of which supports the wave of vitriol against Orthodox rabbis in general):
Option A: Rabbi Rosenblatt has done a masterful job of masking his exhibitionism or a similar sexual disorder by expressing it only in contexts where male nudity is acceptable and where he could claim to be acting in a pastoral or relationship-building role.
Option B: Rabbi Rosenblatt really believes that the locker room is an excellent venue for male bonding and that nudity, where acceptable, can break down barriers and help build relationships. He was not trying to exploit a power imbalance to get naked with students and mentees — he was trying to establish a relationship of equals, a naked relationship, free of pretense or airs. It is true that some were creeped out by the sauna scene — it can be pretty creepy — but there is no denying that the culture exists. The shower rooms in question have no curtains between showerheads; male public nudity is the norm. The board understood this and worked with him to avoid situations that would seem especially creepy, but in the main it tolerated his benign eccentricities.
Which is it?
At the moment I am inclined toward Option B for one main reason: With the exception of Dr. Yehuda Kurtzer, nobody has gone on record, though it is claimed that several people outed themselves on the Wexner Fellows distribution list. Contrast this with last year’s sordid Freundel case, in which a number of courageous women stepped forward immediately, before the jury of public opinion reached a verdict. They spoke out even though they are converts and risked having their very Jewishness called into question, and even though the community is sadly often dismissive of converts.
Wexner Fellows are not quite so vulnerable. If a handful of Wexner Fellows would describe openly, as Kurtzer has, how they are victims of Rabbi Rosenblatt’s predations, it would dispel all doubt about this case. Others will surely join the chorus.
But if they don’t, then eventually the outrage will die down or find a new target, and the slow process of reclaiming one man’s unfairly tarnished reputation will begin.
“Rabbi Batzek” is an American Orthodox rabbi. His name has been changed to protect him from the current consequences of expressing unpopular opinions".
And our homepage features a roundup of the news on this particular episode.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/
We also have a story on a trial underway in Jersey City, in which former clients of the gay conversion therapy outfit JONAH are suing the the organization under New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act.NATIONAL
Gay-Conversion Trial Opens Window On Orthodox Debate
Fraud suit against Jewish group’s homosexuality ‘cure’ puts spotlight on divide over sexual orientation in frum world.
Rachel Delia Benaim
Special To The Jewish Week
Benjamin Unger testifying in the JONAH trial in Jersey City. Courtesy of The Star-Ledger
Jersey City, N.J. — The only time Benjamin “Benji” Unger lost his composure on the stand was when recounting how he stopped talking to his mother for several months after his gay conversion therapist suggested that his closeness with his mother was a root cause for his homosexuality.
Only 19 at the time, Unger, a Borough Park native, started seeing a conversion therapist when he told his parents that he was attracted to men. His father directed him to the only resource he knew: a conversion therapy nonprofit JONAH, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing.
In his first phone call with JONAH co-director Arthur Goldberg, Unger recalls Goldberg saying that one-third of JONAH clients are healed completely of their homosexuality, and another third sees a decline in same-sex attraction. “He said he helped hundreds,” recalled Unger. Unger was eager to sign up so that he could fit back into the community that raised him.
Over the next year, Unger endured what some would consider bizarre and often damaging treatments — including beating an effigy of his mother until his hands were raw — in hopes that he would become straight, just as he remembers Goldberg promising him.
In a landmark trial now in its second week in a Hudson County state court here, Unger, who is now 27, and three other former clients of the gay conversion therapy organization, and two of their mothers, are claiming that JONAH breached New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act by claiming that JONAH could “cure” their sexual orientation in a specific amount of time with a specific success rate. The suit names JONAH, its two co-directors, and counselor Alan Downing.
From a consumer fraud angle, the plaintiff’s attorney, David Dinielli, deputy legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit advocacy organization specializing in civil rights litigation, presented a simple argument during last week’s opening statements: “My clients needed help, but JONAH lied and JONAH made it worse.”
In the community where Ungar grew up, “there were no gay people,” Dinielli said. “In Benji’s world, it didn’t make sense. He didn’t know how he was going to live unless he could get married.”
The plaintiffs charged JONAH with six counts of consumer fraud, including that the organization claimed homosexuality is a disorder and that the program is based on science. They also argue that JONAH provided specific statistics for success rates and a time period in which clients could be “healed” — two to four years.
But JONAH’s legal team, led by Charles LiMandri, president of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, a legal advocacy nonprofit with a mission to “defend religious freedom,” argued “JONAH has a right to their beliefs.” The defense also argues that none of the plaintiffs actually stayed for the full length of the program, and as such, it is difficult for them to claim that the treatment didn’t work.
The case playing out here puts a spotlight on the painful situation of gay and lesbian Jews in the Orthodox community, which traditionally prohibits homosexuality. For decades Orthodox LGBT Jews who wished to remain in their community faced an identity-tearing choice: they could either leave their religious community to lead openly gay lives, or they would have to stifle their sexuality.
Some, like Unger, went to conversion therapy to “cure” their homosexuality so that they could fit into the community. But in recent years, opinion about such therapy has undergone a change. In fact, New Jersey banned the practice for minors in 2013 and it has run into some resistance in the Jewish community as well.
From a national standpoint, the ruling from this civil suit, initially filed in 2012, could extend far beyond New Jersey and the Jewish community. If the plaintiffs can convince the jury that conversion therapy is a violation of consumer law, the ruling could have widespread implications.
The suit, in fact, already made national waves in February when Superior Court Judge Peter Bariso was the first judge to rule that the defense couldn’t call homosexuality a disorder. He ruled that it is scientifically inaccurate much “like the notion that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.”
On Monday, this line of inquiry came to a head in a new form: Goldberg testified that when he called homosexuality a disorder, he didn’t refer to a mental illness, but rather “a spiritual disorder.” He attributed his belief in JONAH’s ability to “heal” someone of homosexuality to the Torah’s statement that “God gives us free will so we can act upon that free will.”
The wider fight for acceptance of gay and lesbian Jews in the Orthodox community is playing out in the debate over conversion, or reparative therapy.
In 2010, Rabbi Nathaniel Helfgot, posted a “Statement of Principles,” arguing that while Jewish law prohibits homosexual acts and condemns gay marriage, it does not prohibit homosexual feelings. Accordingly, the Orthodox community should welcome people who identify as gay and lesbian — and their children — as full members of the community. It takes a skeptical view of conversion therapy and affirms the right of people “to reject therapeutic approaches the reasonably see as useless or dangerous.” By 2012, nearly 220 Orthodox rabbis and community leaders had signed it.
The response was “The Torah Declaration,” created the same year. Signed by 223 rabbis, community leaders and mental health professionals ranging from charedi to Modern Orthodox, including JONAH’s Goldberg, it argues that “homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle or a legitimate identity” under Jewish law and that “same-sex attraction can be modified and healed.”
Since those two documents were written, cultural and scientific views on homosexuality and reparative therapy have changed. Dr. Alison Feit, director of New York City’s Trauma and Recovery Center, asked “If you accept standard research, then where does that put the religious obligation?” And that question is plaguing many modern rabbis, who both accept scientific findings and rabbinic traditions.
These rabbis are faced with an even more nuanced question beyond whether is it possible to be Orthodox and gay, which is: if there’s a way to change sexuality, should that be the religious ideal? Or should man live in the image in which God made him?
This debate has led some rabbis to re-evaluate the legitimacy of conversion therapy.
Rabbi Helfgot publicly revised his stance on conversion therapy at a conference on sexual orientation in the Orthodox community earlier this year: “We gave an even-handed presentation about reparative therapy. Today we would’ve sharpened our approach to it … the psychology community has proven the negative effects.”
Rabbi Mark Dratch, the executive vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America, an Orthodox rabbinical association, furthered Helfgot’s opposition to conversion therapy. He said at the April 19 conference, entitled “Desire, Faith and Therapy,” that because of the damage conversion therapy can inflict, “in this one rabbi’s opinion ... it’s wrong and it’s not something that should be done.”
Despite the slow but steady shift in Jewish views on conversion therapy, New Jersey’s 2013 law outlawing it for minors, and the lawsuit, JONAH is still functioning out of its Jersey City office.
editor@jewishweek.org
And our 36 Under 36 issue, which celebrates a new group of young Jewish leaders, is still drawing lots of readers.
36 Under 36 2015
Meet The Millenials Who Are Remaking TheJewish Community
Learn More About This Year's Winners By Checking Out Our 36 Under 36 Photo Wall
Flipbook Link:
Click To Flip
For the 36 Under 36 Winners click HERE
INSIDE THIS SPECIAL SECTION
- Introduction: What's Next
- A Taste For The Hipster Life: Yuda Schlass, 30
- Bringing Science Workshops To Pediatric Patients: Yosefa Schoor, 22
- Public Face Of Inclusion Advocacy: Tikvah Juni, 32
- Planting Seeds For Sustainable Farming: Sophie Ackoff, 26
- Staging Positive Change: Sivan Hadari, 33
- Standing Up For His Dream: Simon Cadel, 15
- Traveling Teacher: Sion Setton, 29
- Fostering Orthodox Feminism: Sharon Weiss-Greenberg, 31
- Sparking Change, Enabling Others: Sasha Fisher, 26
- Advocating For Orthodox LGBTQ Jews: Dasha Sominski, 22
- Advocating For Students With Special Needs: Adam Dayan, 31
- Alt Rock, Chasidic-Style: Perl Wolfe, 28
- An Old Subject, A New Beat: Daniel Silverstein, 35
- Backing Israel By Supporting Two States: Ira Stup, 28
- Building Community, And Bridges; Raysh Weiss, 31
- Cancer Survivor, Cancer Researcher: Elana Simon, 19
- Helping Malawians Help Themselves: Melissa Kushner, 35
- Instilling Teens With Bukharian Pride: Manashe Khaimov, 27
- Kicked Out And Pushing Back: Melanie Goldberg, 23
- Reaching Out To Russian-Speaking Jews: Avital Chizhik Goldschmidt, 23 Rabbi Benjamin Goldschmidt, 27
- Reclaiming The Mikvah: Rabbi Sara Luria, 32
- Supporting Jews In Transition: Lani Santo, 35
- Supporting Jews With Eating Disorders: Temimah Zucker, 23
- Tikkun Olam On Wall Street: Jeremy Balkin, 31
- Cultivating Sephardic Pride: Lauren Gibli, 24
- Fearless Israel Supporter: Jordan Chandler Hirsch, 27
- Instituting A More Inclusive Judaism: Eva Stern, 33
- Jewish Voices Transcending Generations: Johanna Sanders, 23
- Making Theater Frum Friendly: Yoni Oppenheim, 33
- Orthodox Davening, Gay Pride: Oliver Rosenberg, 29
- Babysitting Boss, Budding Philanthropist: Noa Mintz, 15
- Gearing Up To Help The IDF: Ross Den, 33
- Rallying Rabbis To A Cause: Joy Friedman, 32
- Challenging Judaism’s Self-Image: Chava Shervington, 34
- Making The Shidduch Swipe-able: David Yarus, 28
- Using His Voice For Performance, Politics: Aryeh Nussbaum Cohen, 21
Helen Chernikoff
Web Director
THE ARTS
FILM
Matters Of Identity, Mideast Style
The opening and closing night offerings in the Israel Film Center Festival deal with a similar theme in very different ways.
George Robinson
Special To The Jewish Week
Director Eran Riklis, whose new film is “A Borrowed Identity.” Courtesy of Israel Film Center
In the turbulence of the contemporary Middle East, a little thing like personal identity is fragile, evanescent and in jeopardy. That would seem to be the message of the opening and closing night films on display at this year’s weeklong Israel Film Center Festival, which begins June 4.
Eran Riklis opens the event with the New York premiere of “A Borrowed Identity,” scripted by popular Israeli Arab novelist Sayed Kashua from his novel “Dancing Arabs.” The closer is also a New York premiere. “Self-Made,” written and directed by Shira Geffen, reunites her with Sarah Adler, who starred in “Jellyfish,” Geffen’s previous feature. Both films involve an exchange of identities, but they couldn’t be more dissimilar.
“A Borrowed Identity,” like its literary source, is a bildungsroman that traces the youth of a young Israeli Arab, Eyad (Tawfeek Barhom), as he picks his way through the minefield of ethnic identity and Jewish-Arab conflict. Although there are moments of levity, “Borrowed” is essentially the latest installment in the director’s ongoing search for the human side of the crisis. As in his best films, “The Syrian Bride,” “The Lemon Tree” and “Cup Final,” Riklis is trying to find some reason for optimism, but the material stubbornly refuses to provide one. Instead, it is his own dogged commitment to a cinematic humanism that is the most hopeful element in the film.
Although “A Borrowed Identity” pivots on the literal event invoked in its title, the name of the film also serves as a reminder of the uniquely ambiguous status of the Israeli Arabs. Eyad encounters the expected racism in the larger society, but finds allies among his classmates at the elite arts school he attends in Jerusalem. He also becomes involved with someone even worse off than he, Yonatan (Michael Moshonov), whose muscular dystrophy has already put him in a wheelchair. The problem with “A Borrowed Identity” is that, despite some very nice acting, the film is sluggishly paced and too often feels like a rather obvious version of a ’50s problem picture. And yet, against all odds, the final 15 minutes is genuinely moving, as Riklis’ complex language of camera movement pays emotional dividends.
If “A Borrowed Identity” sinks under the weight of its own earnestness, by contrast, “Self-Made” skips along, buoyed by the helium-like lightness of its own surreal humor. It’s the sort of film in which a famous Israeli artist, Michal (Adler) switches places with a Palestinian factory worker, Nadine (Samira Saraya), and no one seems to notice, not even husbands and lovers, despite the two women looking nothing like one another. It’s the sort of film in which a mysterious bouquet is delivered to Michal by a young Palestinian boy who will, 80 minutes later, give her an identical bouquet under even more unlikely circumstances.
In short, Geffen has taken the absurdist, almost cartoonish strain of her first feature, “Jellyfish,” and expanded on it, while losing some of its twee qualities (perhaps by losing her co-director, husband Etgar Keret). Some of the earlier film’s themes remain the same, of course: the capriciousness of fate, the stifling nature of women’s daily lives in both Israel and Palestine and the weird outcroppings of candy colors in the midst of the most mundane settings, suggesting the risibility underpinning reality.
The film opens with a long take of Michal asleep on her bed, which suddenly gives way under her, dropping her to the floor where a bump on the head knocks big holes in her short-term memory. With that device conveniently in place, Geffen assaults her with a procession of stunningly obtuse journalists, photographers and workmen, culminating in the delivery of a new bed from the insanely efficient ETACA (an Ikea-like furniture purveyor). The bed, of course, can’t be completed because it is missing a small piece, which gives Michal the opportunity to tell someone that she’s “lost a screw.” Her path will cross repeatedly and mysteriously with Nadine’s until, through a series of misadventures, they exchange roles. The result is refreshingly oblique, grounded in the Israeli reality but just fantastic enough to be funny in unexpected ways.
Dani Menken’s documentaries, “39 Pounds of Love” and “Dolphin Boy,” are both films in which a literal journey also is a spiritual and metaphorical one. His new fiction film, “Is That You?” attempts to repeat that structure, but his protagonist, Roni (Alon Aboutboul) is neither physically challenged nor a victim of trauma like the central figures in the other two films. Rather, he is a 60-year-old movie projectionist who has been fired from his job in Tel Aviv and decides to try to locate an old flame, now supposedly in the United States. At the outset of his search he encounters a filmmaking student, Myla (Naruna Kaplan de Macedo), who inveigles him into helping her shoot her movie about lost chances and regrets, footage from which gives “Is That You?” it’s ramshackle structure. Despite the presence of the novelist Nevo Eshkol as co-writer, the result is alternately slack and saccharine.
New Directors/New Films has become a reliable source of Israeli film premieres in New York in the past decade, and two of the films included in the Israel Film Center’s event had their first screenings in that festival.
Tom Shoval’s “Youth” is a frequently disturbing blend of family melodrama and crime film in which a rapidly declining middle-class family in a Tel Aviv suburb struggles with growing debts and shrinking income. The young adult sons of the family decide to kidnap the daughter of a wealthy Orthodox family, with results that stop just short of the farcical. Shoval treats the material with deadly seriousness, though, using the brothers’ behavior as a lens for examining machismo in contemporary Israeli culture.
“The Kindergarten Teacher,” Nadav Lapid’s second feature, is a slow-burning drama in which the title character, played with great nuance by Sarit Larry, gradually becomes obsessed with a seeming prodigy. As in his debut film, “Policeman,” Lapid paints his picture with precision, a welter of brilliantly worked-out camera movements that capture his protagonists within the restless, compulsive energy that finally drives them in circles. In the end, “The Kindergarten Teacher” is not all that dissimilar from its predecessor, with an impulsive act of rebellion that cannot succeed confirming Lapid’s Yeatsian apocalyptic vision, his conviction that “the worst/Are full of passionate intensity.” Disquieting, no doubt, and one may reject its predictive powers, but as a piece of filmmaking, “The Kindergarten Teacher” is an intoxicating un-fun ride.The Israel Film Center Festival is presented June 4-11 by the JCC in Manhattan (76th Street and Amsterdam Avenue), which will host most of the screenings. For schedule, venues and other information, go to www.israelfilmcenter.org/festival.
Read More
FOOD & WINEOur Fish Fridays
Lauren Rothman/JW
You can get it wholesale at Acme Smoked Fish on Fridays.
Lauren Rothman
Special To The Jewish Week
For the past couple of decades, appetizing fans in the know have made a weekly pilgrimage to a Greenpoint, Brooklyn factory. There, a 60-year-old fish-smoking plant offers retail shoppers a wealth of delicacies — from fatty sable tail to peppery pastrami lox and much, much more — all at bargain-basement prices.
The ritual is known as Fish Fridays, and it takes place at Acme Smoked Fish. Founded in 1954 by Harry Caslow, a Russian immigrant who arrived in New York in 1906, the factory offers a huge range of house-smoked and cured fish, and while the products are normally available at stores and restaurants only, on Friday mornings they’re offered to the public at a 50 to 70 percent discount.
The combination of high-quality fish and low prices attracts a diverse array of customers, from Orthodox Jews loading up for the Sabbath to local hipsters looking to brunch in style. For Adam Caslow, Acme’s fourth-generation owner and operator, that’s what’s most exciting about running the “smoked fish speakeasy.”
“As the neighborhood has changed, so has Fish Fridays,” Caslow said on a recent Friday morning. “In the ’50s, when we were founded, this was a neighborhood of Polish immigrants. But today, all kinds of people live here. And the popularity of smoked fish has grown, too. So we get an incredibly varied mix of shoppers.”
For Caslow, it’s heartening to hear that Acme smoked fish forms the centerpiece of many a family gathering.
“This type of food is so ingrained in family,” Caslow said. “I’ll hear customers tell me, ‘I drove from Jersey to get lox for my son’s bar mitzvah,’ stuff like that. Knowing that what we make unites families, brings them together? That makes me feel good.”
Slideshow
Recommended For You
Gentrification Spurs Black-And-White Cookie Company's Move
Gourmet Grocers Grow In Brookl
Nach Waxman's Rare BooksRead More
Waikiki Beach in Oahu. Wikimedia CommonsIf 'Aloha' Is In Your Future
Hilary J. Danailova | Travel WriterIt’s June, which means weddings — and honeymoons. That gets me thinking about Hawaii, a perennial favorite for that post-nuptial getaway, as well as a classic family vacation spot.
Hawaii may well be the most exotic destination in America; it’s undoubtedly one of the more expensive. Planning early is essential, both for honeymooners and for families eyeing next winter’s holiday.
So if “aloha” is in your future, here are some tips to get you started. (Many of these tips come courtesy of my sister, a longtime Californian who — like so many Left Coasters — jets off to Maui the way we New Yorkers weekend in Florida.)
For starters: When to go? Devotees swear that Hawaii, with its subtle seasons, is fabulous any time of year. Late winter is the peak for tourism; in February, Hawaii’s famous humpback whales frolic and spout just offshore, so whale watching is a major draw.
Summer is hotter but still pleasant. Hawaiian microclimates can vary dramatically, and rain tends to concentrate in particular areas rather than in a single wet season. Tropical downpours are usually short and sweet, though — and as any Hawaii visitor quickly learns, rainbows are a magical side effect.
Next question: Where to go? If you’re short on time or traveling with kids, consider flying directly into one of the larger islands, which saves a lot of time and money. Those looking for the widest variety of resources and activities — Jewish and otherwise — should head to Oahu, home to two-thirds of the state’s population, its capital, Honolulu, and historic Pearl Harbor.
If you love to dress up and go out, head for Ibiza; nature, not nightlife, is the Hawaiian strong suit. Hawaii gets up early, a habit that owes as much to an agrarian past as to a desire to sync with the mainland.
Oahu (home to the fabled Waikiki Beach district) and Maui (with abundant resort options) are the best bets for after-dark action. Both islands are popular precisely because they offer plenty to do — shopping, dining and culture, especially on Oahu — along with spectacular beaches and natural beauty.
Across the islands, resorts fill the nightlife gap, with most larger hotels offering evening entertainment. This can range from low-key Hawaiian music and mai tais to hula shows and all-out luaus — cultural spectacles featuring everything from torch runners on the beach to smorgasbords of local fare.
The Big Island, also called Hawai’i, is great for kosher eaters and volcano lovers. It is home to Chabad of Hawaii, which sells souvenir Hawaiian-style kippot, hosts weekly Shabbat dinners, and coordinates kosher meals for vacationers. As the only island to host an active volcano, Hawai’i is also the place to explore lava flows and craters at Volcanoes National Park.
With a larger budget and a sense of adventure, you can escape to two harder-to-reach spots: Lanai, a quaint isle of 3,000 inhabitants recently bought by the Oracle executive Larry Ellison, and the “Garden Island” of Kauai, a natural paradise largely untouched by development (though it does have a small Jewish congregation). These destinations are best for people who want to explore craters by helicopter, snorkel in secluded coves and go off-road through jungles and surf in a setting lost in time.
Anywhere in Hawaii, you’ll want to rent a car. Wheels are essential for exploring the islands properly, and certain scenic routes — along ocean cliffs or through waterfall-dotted rainforests — are destinations in their own right.
Pack carefully. Hawaii has particularly stringent entry requirements regarding theimportation of plants, animals and foodstuffs, and going through controls can feel akin to entering a foreign country. With a unique, fragile ecosystem to protect, Hawaiian officials have tightened inspections for those entering the islands.
Now for the classic Jewish vacation question: How’s the food? The farm-to-table movement has lately put a sophisticated twist on Hawaiian dining, with upscale new eateries — especially in Honolulu — that exploit the local bounty. Island cuisine still relies on Asian staples like fresh fish, white rice, sweet flavors, and fruits: mango, pineapple and papaya. Vegetarians do better than ever in a region long given to meat-heavy dishes (a luau is essentially a pig roast); there’s even a Vegetarian Society of Hawaii, with a website full of resources and ideas for the herbivore visitor.
Kosher vacationers also have more options than ever, mostly on Maui, the Big Island and Oahu. Chabad of Hawaii organizes a kosher meal-delivery service for those staying locally, and coordinates with several hotels throughout the islands; check the website for more information.
Chabad can also help direct Oahu vacationers to local kosher options — including, on a recent visit, kosher meal providers and an online Israeli kosher supermarket with delivery service for many staples. editor@jewishweek.org
Read More
The JW Q&A
'The Status Quo Is Tolerable'
Professor Efraim Inbar says there's no alternative right now to fighting Hamas every few years.Stewart Ain
Staff Writer
Efraim Inbar is a professor of political science atBar-Ilan University and director of its Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (the BESA Center). Inbar holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago and has served as a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins University,Georgetown University. His specialty is Middle Eastern strategic issues with a special interest in the politics and strategy of Israeli nationalsecurity.
Q: Critics say Prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu has made a cynical move by reportedly saying Israel is ready to resumePalestinian peace talks by first negotiating Israel’s borders knowing that Palestinian preconditions would make such talks impossible. Do you agree?
A: There is no limit to the cynicism of critics. The offer to negotiate settlement blocks is a great concession by Israel. Our only leverage in negotiations is territory, and Netanyahu has been serious for the last several years in willing to accept a two-state solution provided [the Palestinian state] is a demilitarized state and that Israel keeps control of the Jordan Valley.
Israel has said that as long as Hamas’ objective is the destruction of Israel, it cannot negotiate with it. But there are increasingly other voices saying Israel cannot live this way — fighting a war with Hamas every few years.
I think the status quo is tolerable. We have been to war with them for many years. What would you suggest? We cannot go into the sea. We have to fight back — they’re fighting us. What can you do?
How serious is the threat to Israel from ISIS, al-Nusra in Syria, and Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, the Sinai-based terror group that has swore allegiance to Islamic State?
It should be made quite clear that states are more dangerous than terrorist groups. Syria with nonconventional weapons is more dangerous than Hamas and al-Nusra. They don’t have tanks or airplanes or the ability to develop nuclear weapons.
In light of President Obama’s recent remarks at a Washington synagogue, are you now reassured that the president will not sign an agreement with Iran unless every pathway to the development of a nuclear weapon is blocked?
You have a great sense of humor. American policy is to legitimize the vast nuclear infrastructure in Iran and, according to Secretary of State [John] Kerry, they will be just three months away from having enough fissionable material for a bomb. So this is not very reassuring.
I know you view any agreement that leaves Iran with the capability to develop nuclear weapons as the greatest threat to Israel. Yet others argue that because it is unlikely Iran would ever use the bomb against Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas rockets and missiles pose a greater threat because of the greater likelihood they will be used.
The destructive power of a nuclear bomb is very great, and I wonder if those who do not think it is a big danger are willing to take chances. Even if the probability is low, they are playing with the lives of hundreds of thousands of Israelis. You do not act only on probability but on capability. That is what we are concerned about. As for the many missiles in the hands of Hezbollah and Hamas, we can parry them with Iron Dome.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said he plans to try to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. What is your reaction?
I wish him good luck. We are in favor of peace. If he can bring it, fine.
What is your reaction to E.U. foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini also calling for new talks and saying the current situation is “not sustainable?”
In many ways the E.U. is accepting the Palestinian narrative. It is hypocritical. It marks Israeli products produced in the West Bank but not products from Turkish-occupied Cyprus, Chinese-occupied Tibet or Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara. Why pick on us — because we are Jews?
stewart@jewishweek.org
Read More
A Rabbi's World
Rabbi Gerald C. Skolnik
The JW Q&A
'The Status Quo Is Tolerable'
Professor Efraim Inbar says there's no alternative right now to fighting Hamas every few years.Stewart Ain
Staff Writer
Efraim Inbar is a professor of political science atBar-Ilan University and director of its Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (the BESA Center). Inbar holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago and has served as a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins University,Georgetown University. His specialty is Middle Eastern strategic issues with a special interest in the politics and strategy of Israeli nationalsecurity.
Q: Critics say Prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu has made a cynical move by reportedly saying Israel is ready to resumePalestinian peace talks by first negotiating Israel’s borders knowing that Palestinian preconditions would make such talks impossible. Do you agree?
A: There is no limit to the cynicism of critics. The offer to negotiate settlement blocks is a great concession by Israel. Our only leverage in negotiations is territory, and Netanyahu has been serious for the last several years in willing to accept a two-state solution provided [the Palestinian state] is a demilitarized state and that Israel keeps control of the Jordan Valley.
Israel has said that as long as Hamas’ objective is the destruction of Israel, it cannot negotiate with it. But there are increasingly other voices saying Israel cannot live this way — fighting a war with Hamas every few years.
I think the status quo is tolerable. We have been to war with them for many years. What would you suggest? We cannot go into the sea. We have to fight back — they’re fighting us. What can you do?
How serious is the threat to Israel from ISIS, al-Nusra in Syria, and Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, the Sinai-based terror group that has swore allegiance to Islamic State?
It should be made quite clear that states are more dangerous than terrorist groups. Syria with nonconventional weapons is more dangerous than Hamas and al-Nusra. They don’t have tanks or airplanes or the ability to develop nuclear weapons.
In light of President Obama’s recent remarks at a Washington synagogue, are you now reassured that the president will not sign an agreement with Iran unless every pathway to the development of a nuclear weapon is blocked?
You have a great sense of humor. American policy is to legitimize the vast nuclear infrastructure in Iran and, according to Secretary of State [John] Kerry, they will be just three months away from having enough fissionable material for a bomb. So this is not very reassuring.
I know you view any agreement that leaves Iran with the capability to develop nuclear weapons as the greatest threat to Israel. Yet others argue that because it is unlikely Iran would ever use the bomb against Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas rockets and missiles pose a greater threat because of the greater likelihood they will be used.
The destructive power of a nuclear bomb is very great, and I wonder if those who do not think it is a big danger are willing to take chances. Even if the probability is low, they are playing with the lives of hundreds of thousands of Israelis. You do not act only on probability but on capability. That is what we are concerned about. As for the many missiles in the hands of Hezbollah and Hamas, we can parry them with Iron Dome.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said he plans to try to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. What is your reaction?
I wish him good luck. We are in favor of peace. If he can bring it, fine.
What is your reaction to E.U. foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini also calling for new talks and saying the current situation is “not sustainable?”
In many ways the E.U. is accepting the Palestinian narrative. It is hypocritical. It marks Israeli products produced in the West Bank but not products from Turkish-occupied Cyprus, Chinese-occupied Tibet or Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara. Why pick on us — because we are Jews?
stewart@jewishweek.org
Read More
A Rabbi's World
Rabbi Gerald C. Skolnik
Iran's Anti-Semitism Can't Be Separated From A Nuclear DealRabbi Gerald C. Skolnik
Special To The Jewish Week
As the deadline for a proposed deal between the P5+1 countries and Iran on Iran’s nuclear program looms at the end of June, there is ample reason to be concerned. As of this writing, early indications are that the deal, whose final details are yet to be announced, will fall short of what is needed to make it credible, and sensible.
The default view in most of the media is that the current tensions surrounding the deal represent Israel’s disagreement with American policy, and that this is Israel’s problem. It is certainly true that Israel has serious issues with the deal. There is, however, a broader truth. The entire Western world has an equally important stake in this. A nuclear Iran, or an Iran on the nuclear threshold, virtually insures that the Saudis, Qataris, and numerous other Middle East states will seek to go nuclear, quickly. One doesn’t need a particularly vivid imagination to conjure up exactly how unacceptable it would be for the Sunnis and Shias to be playing nuclear games with each other, with Israel and with the West.
For all of these reasons, any proposed deal that is made needs to meet these five requirements, as advocated by the pro-Israel community. It must allow anytime, anywhere inspections, including at military facilities, to insure Iran’s compliance; it must require Iran to fully disclose its weaponization efforts in the past, something it has not done despite six U.N. Security Council resolutions; it must maintain at least the current level of sanctions until Iran’s ongoing compliance is adequately verified; it must block Iran’s nuclear quest for decades, not just ten to fifteen years; and it must require Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, leaving it no path to a nuclear weapon.
As I write, these requirements are being emphasized to everyone and anyone who has the potential to influence the final outcome of the deal with Iran. Every person who cares about this issue, and if you care about Israel and world peace, you have to care about this issue, needs to make his/her views known to their Congresspeople and Senators, who ultimately will be reviewing the deal and deciding whether or not to approve it.
All of this is true.
But for all that the details of any deal are an issue for the Western world and not just Israel and her supporters, there remains one aspect of all this that is not often mentioned in conjunction with the negotiations, because it is, like climate change, an inconvenient truth. I refer to the relentless anti-Semitic statements of the Iranian government.
During the term of former Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Holocaust denial of the most primitive kind was routine. So were characterizations of “the Zionist state” as a cancer, or a blight on the world, 9/11 was a Mossad conspiracy, etc. When the current Iranian President Hassan Rouhani assumed office in the fall of 2013, he began his term with a less malignant approach to the Jewish world, actually admitting that the Holocaust had taken place (such a progressive!) and trying to present a more humane face to the west. But that is all history now. Iran in once again sponsoring conferences that feature Holocaust deniers and renowned anti-Semites, and no opportunity is lost to declare that all that is wrong with the Middle East is rooted in Israel’s existence. The Middle East would be a much better place without Israel on the map, and Iran’s stated intent was and is to make that dream a reality. It is officially committed to erasing Israel from the map.
When asked about these kinds of statements, Secretary Kerry and our American negotiators will routinely say that Iran’s anti-Semitism, which they certainly do not deny, is, though awful, a separate issue. They are negotiating a nuclear deal, and the anti-Semitism is an issue for a separate forum.
For me, that line of reasoning is almost inexpressibly painful. Trying to separate a country’s rabid anti-Semitism and stated intention to eliminate another country from its concerted effort to gain nuclear weapons is simply not possible. It is beyond disingenuous. How does one even conceive of doing that? What mental gymnasticsdoes one have to do to make it possible to negotiate a nuclear weapons capability with people who have made their nefarious, genocidal intentions perfectly clear?
In our efforts to prevent the conclusion of a “bad deal,” it is vitally important that opposition to it is not a Jewish or Israeli issue. There will surely be those who want to paint it as such, and imply that “the Jews (i.e., the Jewish lobby) are dragging America into war.” That is, of course, a dangerous way of thinking for all of us. Again, the issue is far broader than the Jewish community.
But when it comes to a total failure to link Iran’s stated intentions vis-à-vis Israel (not to mention its prolific exporting of terror) to its efforts to go nuclear, that is for me, as a Jew, a hurt beyond reason. Jewish blood must never again be that cheap. We’ve learned that lesson the hard way.
Rabbi Gerald C. Skolnik is the spiritual leader of the Forest Hills Jewish Center in Queens.
Rabbi Gerald C. Skolnik
Read More
The Jewish Week
Special To The Jewish Week
As the deadline for a proposed deal between the P5+1 countries and Iran on Iran’s nuclear program looms at the end of June, there is ample reason to be concerned. As of this writing, early indications are that the deal, whose final details are yet to be announced, will fall short of what is needed to make it credible, and sensible.
The default view in most of the media is that the current tensions surrounding the deal represent Israel’s disagreement with American policy, and that this is Israel’s problem. It is certainly true that Israel has serious issues with the deal. There is, however, a broader truth. The entire Western world has an equally important stake in this. A nuclear Iran, or an Iran on the nuclear threshold, virtually insures that the Saudis, Qataris, and numerous other Middle East states will seek to go nuclear, quickly. One doesn’t need a particularly vivid imagination to conjure up exactly how unacceptable it would be for the Sunnis and Shias to be playing nuclear games with each other, with Israel and with the West.
For all of these reasons, any proposed deal that is made needs to meet these five requirements, as advocated by the pro-Israel community. It must allow anytime, anywhere inspections, including at military facilities, to insure Iran’s compliance; it must require Iran to fully disclose its weaponization efforts in the past, something it has not done despite six U.N. Security Council resolutions; it must maintain at least the current level of sanctions until Iran’s ongoing compliance is adequately verified; it must block Iran’s nuclear quest for decades, not just ten to fifteen years; and it must require Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, leaving it no path to a nuclear weapon.
As I write, these requirements are being emphasized to everyone and anyone who has the potential to influence the final outcome of the deal with Iran. Every person who cares about this issue, and if you care about Israel and world peace, you have to care about this issue, needs to make his/her views known to their Congresspeople and Senators, who ultimately will be reviewing the deal and deciding whether or not to approve it.
All of this is true.
But for all that the details of any deal are an issue for the Western world and not just Israel and her supporters, there remains one aspect of all this that is not often mentioned in conjunction with the negotiations, because it is, like climate change, an inconvenient truth. I refer to the relentless anti-Semitic statements of the Iranian government.
During the term of former Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, Holocaust denial of the most primitive kind was routine. So were characterizations of “the Zionist state” as a cancer, or a blight on the world, 9/11 was a Mossad conspiracy, etc. When the current Iranian President Hassan Rouhani assumed office in the fall of 2013, he began his term with a less malignant approach to the Jewish world, actually admitting that the Holocaust had taken place (such a progressive!) and trying to present a more humane face to the west. But that is all history now. Iran in once again sponsoring conferences that feature Holocaust deniers and renowned anti-Semites, and no opportunity is lost to declare that all that is wrong with the Middle East is rooted in Israel’s existence. The Middle East would be a much better place without Israel on the map, and Iran’s stated intent was and is to make that dream a reality. It is officially committed to erasing Israel from the map.
When asked about these kinds of statements, Secretary Kerry and our American negotiators will routinely say that Iran’s anti-Semitism, which they certainly do not deny, is, though awful, a separate issue. They are negotiating a nuclear deal, and the anti-Semitism is an issue for a separate forum.
For me, that line of reasoning is almost inexpressibly painful. Trying to separate a country’s rabid anti-Semitism and stated intention to eliminate another country from its concerted effort to gain nuclear weapons is simply not possible. It is beyond disingenuous. How does one even conceive of doing that? What mental gymnasticsdoes one have to do to make it possible to negotiate a nuclear weapons capability with people who have made their nefarious, genocidal intentions perfectly clear?
In our efforts to prevent the conclusion of a “bad deal,” it is vitally important that opposition to it is not a Jewish or Israeli issue. There will surely be those who want to paint it as such, and imply that “the Jews (i.e., the Jewish lobby) are dragging America into war.” That is, of course, a dangerous way of thinking for all of us. Again, the issue is far broader than the Jewish community.
But when it comes to a total failure to link Iran’s stated intentions vis-à-vis Israel (not to mention its prolific exporting of terror) to its efforts to go nuclear, that is for me, as a Jew, a hurt beyond reason. Jewish blood must never again be that cheap. We’ve learned that lesson the hard way.
Rabbi Gerald C. Skolnik is the spiritual leader of the Forest Hills Jewish Center in Queens.
Rabbi Gerald C. Skolnik
Read More
The Jewish Week
1501 Broadway, Suite. 505
New York, New York 10036 United States
____________________________
____________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment