A long-time friend and congregant and I shared lunch this week, and as we caught up on each of our lives and families, I asked, “So how is Shanit (his wife) spending her time these days.”
Sam Schwartz proudly told me of Shanit’s one-woman show that was staged in Los Angeles last year and off-Broadway in New York earlier this year.
A long-time New York trained actress originally from Israel’s Yemenite community, Shanit Keter Schwartz is a force of nature, an expressive, brilliant, and beautiful woman whose story merges east and west, old world and new, superstition and modernity, modern Israel and ancient Yemen.
Growing up in Israel in the early 1950s in the Maabarot, tent communities filled by poverty-stricken Jewish immigrants from the Arab world following the establishment of the State of Israel, her family of five children was afflicted with the horrendous scandal of the missing Yemenite children. Two of her siblings were twins, but only the boy was brought home from the hospital. Her father, a mystic rabbinic sage from Yemen, was told that the little baby girl was sick and had to remain in the hospital. When he went to retrieve her a few days later, he was told that she died. Not so. There was no death certificate, no body, and no funeral. The little girl had been torn away from her family and adopted and raised by an Ashkenazi family. Shanit searched high and low for her sister Sarah years later, to no avail – so far. She tells the audience that if there is a woman who looks like her in the foyer, it may be her long-lost sister.
Shanit’s show is wonderful – enriched – and dramatic. The stage includes 3 panels showing photographs and film behind her as she tells her story from the early years of Israeli statehood and about the Israel that she loves. Shanit dances to Yemenite music and chants blessings.
The show is organized around Shanit’s life, but also upon key Jewish and Kabalistic principles and values. She reflects at length about her love for her father and for her powerful superstition-driven mother who called her “Bat Rasha – Daughter of the Wicked.” Shanit tells of her liberation from the old world life in which she was raised into a new life that she found and created for herself in America as an actress. She describes meeting Sam and their love at first sight.
Shanit’s life is multi-layered and she confesses that she is living a life she never dreamed possible.
The show was positively reviewed by New York theater critic Edward A. Kliszus in April of this year –
You can watch the entirety of the show here (1 hour 20 minutes). I recommend it highly – Daughter of the Wicked – Odyssey Production Full Video Link: https://vimeo.com/706295209
Jeremy Ben-Ami (J Street’s Founder, CEO and President) and the Honorable Alan Solomont (J Street’s Board Chair and a retired United States Ambassador to Spain) wrote a response in an Op-Ed that appeared in The Forward (August 11, 2023): “AIPAC’s attacks on J Street show how out of touch they are” – https://forward.com/opinion/557325/aipac-attacks-jstreet-on-israel/
I urge you to read both the AIPAC letter that mischaracterized, distorted, and lied about J Street’s policy positions vis a vis Israel and the Ben-Ami and Solomont response. Also in response to the AIPAC fundraising letter, J Street issued a re-statement of its policy positions to “set the record straight” that shows J Street’s long-held pro-Israel, pro-peace, and pro-democracy positions vis a vis Israel and its security, the Palestinians, the Arab world, and the United States.
According to polls, 70 percent of the American Jewish community agrees with J Street’s positions on the issues. J Street endorses more than 200 Members of Congress and is a trusted advisor to government officials including the Biden Administration on policy matters concerning Israel and the Middle East.
Here is that re-statement of J Street’s policies:
“Does J Street support US aid to Israel?
Yes. Indeed, it’s the first part of our endorsement criteria for all J Street endorsees.
The United States plays an indispensable role in supporting Israel’s future as a safe, secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people.
Throughout our history, we have advocated for robust security assistance packages, including the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) negotiated between the Israeli government and the Obama administration, as well as lobbied in support of legislation to authorize and appropriate all of the aid pledged. We believe that Israel should continue to annually receive the full $3.8 billion in aid pledged under the MOU. J Street believes that US security assistance to Israel plays a critical role in maintaining Israel’s security against serious external threats, and helps to advance US national interests.
Does J Street support cutting or conditioning US aid to Israel?
No. J Street believes Israel should continue to receive the current level of US aid, as stated in the 2016 MOU and without cuts. We also think that US foreign assistance to Israel should be dispersed without conditions.
As with all nations that receive US foreign assistance, aid to Israel should have the usual oversight and transparency requirements. This is vital to ensure that US security aid is used to address Israel’s genuine defense needs, and not diverted to implement or sustain illegal, unilateral actions which undermine Israel’s security, trample on Palestinian rights and contravene longstanding US interests and values. We believe that both the White House and Congress should take steps to ensure that US security assistance is not diverted to implement or maintain annexation, aid the expansion of settlements, towards the demolition of Palestinian homes or other moves that further entrench the occupation.
Supporting restrictions is standard practice for US foreign assistance. It is not the same as advocating for security assistance to be “cut” (i.e. ended or reduced outright) or “conditioned” (i.e. withheld until certain conditions are met).
Does J Street support the “McCollum Bill” (H.R. 3103)?
J Street supports H.Res 3103, the “Defending the Human Rights of Palestinian Children and Families Living Under Israeli Military Occupation Act,” which was introduced in the 118th Congress by Rep. Betty McCollum, and was previously introduced by her in similar form in previous sessions.
The bill is an example of an “aid use restriction,” which J Street supports (see above). The bill would ensure that US security aid is used by Israel for genuine defense needs and not diverted by any Israeli government to detain children, seize or destroy Palestinian property or aid in any unilateral annexation in the West Bank.
The bill would not cut aid or impose preconditions on aid to Israel.
Does J Street support Iron Dome?
Yes. J Street strongly supports US security assistance to Israel for Iron Dome and other missile defense systems. Iron Dome is a critically important defense system that consistently saves the lives of Israelis facing indiscriminate rocket attacks.
The US provides $500M annually to Israel specifically to support Iron Dome and other missile defense programs, included in the $3.8 billion annual security aid package. J Street supports and consistently lobbies for all this funding under the terms of the MOU signed by President Obama. It is the first part of our endorsement criteria for political candidates.
All candidates endorsed by J Street voted to support this full assistance package, including support for Iron Dome.
Did J Street support the special September 2021 House vote of an additional $1 billion for Iron Dome?
Yes. The MOU signed in 2016 anticipated there might be extraordinary circumstances to justify provision of additional funds beyond the annual appropriation.
J Street supported the House vote to appropriate a supplementary $1 billion to the Israeli government for the replenishment of Iron Dome.
A handful of J Street-endorsed candidates voted against the additional $1 billion extraordinary appropriation for Iron Dome in September 2021. Why does J Street still endorse those candidates?
J Street recognizes and respects that a number of Members of Congress, including some who voted for the supplementary appropriation and some who did not, had legitimate concerns about the process and rationale behind the request to appropriate a large amount of additional money for Iron Dome at that time, above and beyond the significant funding already provided in the MOU.
We are dismayed that some critics of those Members have unhelpfully framed this as a vote to fund or to defund Iron Dome, when in fact this vote for additional, extraordinary funding was outside the normal appropriations process and on top of the annual funding.
We reject vitriolic attacks that seek to present those Members of Congress who did not vote for this supplementary appropriation as anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. These attacks are particularly inappropriate given that all J Street endorsees who voted “no” or “present” on this supplementary appropriation also voted in support of the annual appropriation of $3.8 billion in security aid to Israel, including funding for Iron Dome, in each recent appropriations bill.
At times, candidates endorsed by J Street have taken different public positions than J Street on some bills, resolutions, letters or other topics. Why does J Street still endorse those candidates?
J Street only endorses candidates who share our core values and commitments – to Israel’s safety, Israeli-Palestinian peace, a strong US-Israel relationship, human rights and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians, and effective diplomacy-first American leadership. Our full, core endorsement criteria can be found here.
We do not and will not endorse any lawmaker who voted against Congressional certification of 2020 election results on January 6 or otherwise supported the “Big Lie” which falsely claims that Donald Trump actually won the 2020 election.
We are proud that both President Biden and the majority of the Democratic caucus in both the House and the Senate are aligned with these core commitments and endorsed by J Street.
We recognize that Members of Congress make decisions based on a number of concerns and considerations, acting in what they believe to be the best interests of their constituents. J Street’s endorsement does not mean that endorsed Members of Congress will always agree or see 100% eye-to-eye with us on every issue, all of the time.
We believe in advocating to and engaging with both endorsed and non-endorsed Members of Congress. If and when J Street has a strong disagreement with a vote or decision taken by one of our endorsees, we are sure to communicate that clearly with them, and seek out an opportunity to discuss our views and the particulars of the issue.
If it becomes clear that J Street and a particular candidate may no longer be aligned on our core values and commitments, their endorsement will be reviewed.
What is J Street’s position on BDS?
J Street is opposed to the Global BDS Movement. We do not advocate for or support any boycott, divestment or sanctions initiative. The Global BDS Movement does not support the two-state solution, recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state or distinguish between opposition to the existence of Israel itself and opposition to the occupation of the territory beyond the Green Line. Further, some of the Movement’s supporters and leaders have trafficked in unacceptable anti-Semitic rhetoric. The Movement is not a friend to Israel, nor does its agenda, in our opinion, advance the long-term interests of either the Israeli or Palestinian people.
What about boycotts or divestment focused just on settlements?
J Street neither supports nor opposes boycott, divestment, or sanctions initiatives that explicitly support a two-state solution, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and focus only on settlements on occupied territory beyond the Green Line.
It is critical to maintain the distinction between the state of Israel and the territory that it controls over the Green Line, and that distinction must be maintained.
We believe that individuals should have as much information and agency as possible when deciding how to contribute money to Israel. Individuals should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to purchase products made in the occupied territory. Labels that accurately distinguish between products made in the state of Israel and those originating in the territory over the Green Line maintain this important distinction and provide consumers the information they need in making their consumption decisions.
We believe that non-profit organizations and institutions have an obligation to provide the members of their communities with maximum transparency about how, where, and why funds are spent in Israel and in Israeli-controlled territory.
We believe that the actions of the US government should line up with the long-standing bipartisan opposition to settlements, and we advocate for the US to maintain and enforce that policy through its actions. We oppose legislative efforts at the state and federal level which, by blurring the distinction between Israel and the territory it controls over the Green Line, acts to contravene that longstanding policy.
Does J Street support “anti-BDS” legislation?
J Street is opposed to federal and state-level legislation that would criminalize individuals’ and non-governmental organizations’ BDS activities, penalize BDS supporters or impose BDS-related litmus tests on individuals.
This type of misguided legislative overreach is the wrong way to fight BDS. By alienating and angering the progressive audiences that BDS seeks to engage and recruit, it actually empowers the BDS Movement.
This legislation can too easily violate constitutional free speech protections, and is fundamentally inconsistent with our democratic principles as Americans and as Jews. We urge lawmakers and Jewish communal leaders to engage Americans who are sympathetic to BDS in serious and open conversation and debate, rather than seeking to silence them by aggressively penalizing their actions and positions.
Does J Street support normalization efforts between Israel and Arab countries throughout the region?
J Street has supported the Abraham Accords from day one, celebrating Israel’s normalization with Arab states as welcome news for all who wish to see a stable and prosperous Israel living in peace and security alongside all of its regional neighbors. We have also noted the fact — emphasized by the officials of Arab countries normalizing relations with Israel themselves — that comprehensive peace between Israel and its neighbors in the Arab world will only be achieved through an agreement that resolves the issues at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and leads to the establishment of a viable and independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.
J Street devoted our new Policy Center’s first major symposium and report to proposing a strategy for maximizing the full potential of the Abraham Accords to secure peace and prosperity for Israel and its neighbors. As an American pro-Israel organization, we will continue to support a strategy for further normalization agreements and regional integration that best serves US and Israeli interests, and oppose cynical efforts to misuse normalization as a means of bypassing the Palestinians and stoking tensions in the region.”
Writing a review of the block-buster “Oppenheimer” is no easy task. It’s an extraordinary film about an extraordinary episode in human history that changed the world.
Directed by Christopher Nolan, it stars the gifted Irish actor Cillian Murphy in the title role with Robert Downey Jr. as Oppenheimer’s arch nemesis Joseph Strauss (pronounced “straws”), Emily Blunt as Oppenheimer’s wife Kitty, and Matt Damon as Lt. Gen. Leslie Groves Jr. who oversaw the construction of the Pentagon and directed the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos, New Mexico. General Groves hired J. (Julius) Robert Oppenheimer, an American theoretical physicist, to be the director of the Manhattan Project’s Los Alamos Laboratory during World War II. The film is based on the history by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin called American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer. The musical score by Ludwig Goransson assumes a role as a “character” in the film. The direction, acting, music, sound, special effects, set design, editing, and wardrobe are likely, I believe, to be nominated for many Academy Awards, possibly in every category. I have never viewed a film like it.
It need not be said that nuclear bombs are weapons of mass destruction on a terrible scale. Their use twice over Japan in August 1945 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki ushered in not weapons of war, but weapons of genocide. In the context of World War II, the movie shows that Oppenheimer personally was not opposed on moral grounds to building an atom bomb. He was fine using the bomb, especially as a Jew, against Nazi Germany and/or Japan. He wanted the bomb to send the greater message that WWII should be the last war ever fought. He was deeply concerned that these weapons were so destructive and devastating that great nations like the United States should not be allowed to produce them unchecked. He believed that the Department of Defense had been infected with madness when he learned that the DOD developed a plan to attack the USSR and China as communist nations even if it meant killing of hundreds of millions of people.
Living in a world of relative morality, President Truman’s decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was taken based on estimates that hundreds of thousands of American soldiers would die if the war continued using conventional weaponry, and even far greater numbers of innocent Japanese men, women, and children would die than the estimated 110,000 to 210,000 combined who were killed outright and died later as a consequence of radiation poisoning.
There is a brief scene depicted in the film that occurred on October 25, 1945 in the Oval Office between President Truman (played unconvincingly by Gary Oldman) and Oppenheimer in which the scientist said, “I have blood on my hands,” and Truman angrily retorted that he was the one who made the decision to drop the bombs. It did not go well for Oppenheimer as Truman said he never wanted to see that “cry-baby” again.
The film focuses on the years of development of the atom bomb and begins and ends with the 1954 “Oppenheimer Hearings” in secret 6-week long closed-door sessions in Washington D.C. in which Oppenheimer was tried and convicted of being untrustworthy of having access to the nation’s top secrets. It is initially unclear why Oppenheimer was being targeted by the government as a Soviet spy, except through guilt by association with his brother Frank (played by Dylan Arnold), a former lover Jean Tatlock (played by Florence Pugh), and several others who were members of the American Communist Party. The back-story became clearer later in the film.
When Dwight Eisenhower was elected President and began his term in January 1953, Joseph Strauss rose to become the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. Strauss hated Oppenheimer, which is explained in the film. In his new position, Strauss was intent on destroying Oppenheimer’s reputation through connivance and illegal FBI wire-taps that he arranged with J. Edgar Hoover. Strauss effectively and underhandedly persuaded the closed panel, though he was not personally present at the hearings, that Oppenheimer was undermining the arms race with the Soviet Union and was therefore a threat to American security. Both Joseph Strauss and Edward Teller (played by Benny Safdie), a former student of Oppenheimer who headed up the development of the far more destructive hydrogen bomb, felt that Oppenheimer, the most influential American scientist of his era, was standing in the way of their aspirations for the production of unlimited nuclear armaments. There was already suspicion among many in the defense community that someone at Los Alamos was passing American nuclear secrets to the Soviets, confirmed on August 12, 1953 when Russia exploded a hydrogen bomb for the first time. That figure was Klaus Fuchs (played by Christopher Denham). Fuchs was a German theoretical physicist.
William Borden (portrayed by David Dastmalchian) was a lawyer and the Executive Director of the United States Congress Joint Committee on Atomic Energy from 1949 to 1953. He became one of the most powerful people advocating for nuclear weapons development in the United States government. Borden outlined a series of charges against Oppenheimer and said at the hearing: “More probably than not, Oppenheimer is an agent of the Soviet Union.”
As a consequence of the hearing, Oppenheimer was stripped of his security clearance, though there was no credible evidence that linked Oppenheimer to passing any secrets to the Soviets or that he was ever a member of the American Communist Party. To the contrary, Oppenheimer was a loyal American citizen. Oppenheimer, naively, was stunned when he was stripped of his security clearance, and at last came to understand that he had been deliberately targeted by Strauss, Teller, Borden, the FBI, and the United States government to remove him from any role in the government’s nuclear program. It was a humiliating moment for a man who was credited with ending World War II and was known as the “Father of the atom bomb.”
Strauss wanted the US to build more and more nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the Russians, but Oppenheimer advocated for a limited supply of nuclear weapons as part of a larger arsenal of conventional arms. In 1954, America had 300 nuclear weapons. At end of the 20th century, it had 70,000. The Soviets followed suit.
Oppenheimer was a beaten man after the hearings. However, in 1963 President Lyndon Johnson awarded him the esteemed Enrico Fermi Award that was conferred by the President of the United States upon scientists of international stature for their lifetime achievement in the development, use, or production of energy. Granting Oppenheimer this award was regarded as a gesture of political rehabilitation.
Edward Teller was present for the award, and despite his treachery against Oppenheimer in the hearings, he held out his hand to Oppenheimer in a two-faced gesture of respect, and Oppenheimer strangely accepted it. Strauss, on the other hand, was furious that Oppenheimer received this singular honor.
Oppenheimer, a chain smoker throughout much of his life, died on February 18, 1967 from throat cancer at the age of 62. In 2022, the 1954 revocation of Oppenheimer’s security clearance was vacated by the United States Government.
Barbara and I saw the film twice. The second time we were able to follow more closely the story line, who were the central characters portrayed in nuanced performances of virtually all the actors, and the skilled and creative film-making techniques of Director Christopher Nolan and his staff. Between the two viewings, we read reviews and watched documentary histories of Oppenheimer. I suggest that you do the same.
Growing up in the 1950s, I was well aware of the threats posed by nuclear bombs, but had no idea of their devastating and destructive capacity. On the last Friday of every month at precisely 10 am, sirens sounded over all of Los Angeles. We elementary school kids were taught to “drop and cover,” as ridiculous as that sounds today in light of the now-known effects of radiation poisoning against which dropping and covering has no defense in a nuclear attack. New homes in my neighborhood were being built in the 1950s that included bomb shelters. When President Kennedy spoke to the nation during the Cuban Missile Crisis on October 22, 1962, I remember feeling terrified by the thought that we were close to a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union.
Christopher Nolan has given us an extraordinary film of subtlety and power. One thing worth understanding if you have not yet seen the film. Nolan effectively uses color for parts of the film and black and white for other parts. This is not about morality – good vs evil. Rather, whenever color is used, it portrays the story from the perspective of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Whenever black and white is used, it portrays the story from the perspective of Lewis Strauss.
There are matters not addressed in the film, most especially what testing in New Mexico did to indigenous people living within a few miles of the testing site. Nor does the film address the test of the hydrogen bomb on November 1, 1952 on the small Pacific island of Elugelab at Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The Joint Chiefs of Staff made the case to Truman that the hydrogen bomb “would improve our defense in its broadest sense, as a potential offensive weapon, a possible deterrent to war, a potential retaliatory weapon, as well as a defensive weapon against enemy forces.” The island “became dust and ash, pulled upward to form a mushroom cloud that rose about twenty-seven miles into the sky.” The outcome of the test was reported to Eisenhower this way: “The island of Elugelab is missing!”
Introductory note: Every so often, I print op-eds from subscription publications that many of you may not read but that I think are so worthwhile that I want to share it with you. Today’s post is such an example.
In the context of today’s Washington, D.C. and especially in light of the crash and burn mean-spirited MAGA Republican Party, its sycophants and moral cowards, I was moved by Matt Bai’s piece extolling the virtues of what once characterized DC politics between both Republicans and Democrats. Do read what follows. Perhaps, once this sorry history of Trumpism vanishes from the political scene and common decency is restored (I am a positive thinker, after all), we’ll see relationships like those that once marked Washington, D.C. discourse again. Joe Biden is a remnant of that era, and his example ought to be the rule, just as the late President Gerald Ford was once emblematic of what political leaders were. Enjoy.
By Matt Bai – Contributing columnist – Washington Post – August 7, 2023
“Here’s a story that might blow your mind.
In 1973, as the investigations into Watergate were still unfolding, and as the corrupt Spiro Agnew was forced to resign the vice presidency, a group of Democrats in Congress hatched a takeover plan. If they delayed confirming Agnew’s chosen replacement, House Minority Leader Gerald Ford, and then forced Richard M. Nixon from office, the presidency would pass by constitutional order to the Democratic speaker, Carl Albert.
It was a clever plan, and it might have worked — except that Albert himself recoiled. To the diminutive Oklahoman, a coup was a coup, constitutional or not. So he refused to seize by parliamentary maneuver what his party had failed to win the previous year. Albert saw to it that Ford was quickly confirmed and that he himself would not inherit the presidency.
This and other stories from what seem like another political planet can be found in “An Ordinary Man,” the recently published Ford biography by Richard Norton Smith, a presidential historian who worked for Ford and later ran his presidential library. If you thought the world didn’t need an 800-page Ford biography, you might have been right — the biographical and legislative detail can be exhausting, and the central premise (“The Surprising Life and Historic Presidency of Gerald R. Ford”) feels like a stretch.
But the story is deftly told and flush with humanity — so much so, in fact, that revisiting Ford’s moment left me feeling even more profoundly disturbed by our own, with its daily headlines about the new indictment of former president Donald Trump and the prison sentences slapped on hundreds of his loyalists, all in connection with an attempt to unlawfully seize the presidency.
There are, after all, notable parallels between Ford and President Biden. Both were considered unlikely presidents who assumed office in unconventional ways and in moments of upheaval: Ford by the resignation of his predecessor, Biden by way of the first virtual, quarantine-era campaign. Both were longtime and well-liked creatures of Congress whose only brush with executive power came in the vacuum of the vice presidency.
Fairly or not, both men were considered error-prone and lacking in glamour, and both faced pressure to step aside rather than run for another term.
The political worlds in which each man governed, however, are so different as to be jarring. Where Biden’s eventual biographies will portray a time of unwavering partisanship, contempt for the institutions of government and cold disregard for truth, the pages of Smith’s book are rife with routine moments of principle, compassion and patriotism.
Imagine, for instance, any vice presidential nominee, chosen by a scandalized president, receiving strong support from leaders in the other party, simply because they admired his character. “Decent men, placed in positions of trust, will serve decently” is how Andrew Young (D-Ga.), the civil rights leader turned congressman, explained his vote to confirm Ford. “I believe that Mr. Ford is a decent man.” (Only 35 members of the Democrat-dominated House voted no.)
Or consider that, on the eve of Nixon’s resignation, Ford and his wife, Betty, could be found at a dinner party at the home of a society reporter for the Washington Star. That’s how much trust and common purpose existed in Washington at the time. The man who knew he was about to assume the presidency was more comfortable dining with journalists than with canceling at the last minute.
Or get your head around this: After Ford’s death in 2006, en route to his funeral, 82-year-old Jimmy Carter, the man who had defeated him 30 years earlier, paced the family plane with Ford’s baby granddaughter bouncing in his arms. Once bitter political adversaries, the two men ended up the closest of friends.
Imagine, too, an act of selfless political courage that somehow seemed like business as usual in Ford’s moment, but that today would be viewed as a kind of psychotic break — especially, but not exclusively, for a Republican. I’m talking about Ford loudly standing up for Vietnamese immigrants when leaders in both parties resorted to nativism.
“These refugees chose freedom,” he said. “They do not ask that we be their keepers, but only, for a time, that we be their helpers.”
Imagine a president who would go before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, as Ford did, to make the case that draft-dodgers should be given conditional clemency. (His plea was not well received, nor did he expect it would be.) Try to conjure a Republican leader who would announce his support for the Equal Rights Amendment, just because he believed in it, or who would shrug when his wife declared herself pro-choice.
It can sound naive to extol the virtues of politicians past, when so much has changed. The postwar period was mostly a time of liberal consensus, its political parties made up of regional coalitions. The transition from Ford to Ronald Reagan and his harder-edged conservatives would begin the gradual process of empowering extremists in the Republican Party, and to a lesser extent among Democrats, as well.
Even so, I took away two crucial insights about the present from reading Smith’s timely book.
First, our leaders really are worse, and there really was a time when Washington was better and more ennobling. It’s fashionable now for partisans on either side to say that political nostalgia is bogus, that those of us who idealize the age of civility and moderation are simply wistful for the days of Great Society leftism, or for the age when old White men got to rule everything and mushy centrism prevailed.
But immerse yourself for a bit in Ford’s America, and you will find that welfare programs and mushy centrists are not the only things we’ve left behind. It’s actually true that leaders cared about one another and the country, that many of them had genuine convictions, and that often they were willing to lose an election rather than lose their own integrity.
Ford kept a list of litmus tests for anyone thinking about a life in public service, which he said you shouldn’t pursue if you “expect to make a great deal of money, do not like people and working on their problems, are thinned skinned and can’t take public criticism, if you are only interested in the glamour ofthe title or the responsibility.”
I think we know what Ford would have thought of Trump. I think we can guess at how aghast Republicans of Ford’s era would be at the shocking cravenness of today’s Republican presidential candidates and their bobblehead brethren in Congress, who can barely find it in themselves to utter a half-critical word about an indicted demagogue.
Second, I think Ford and Biden are similar in another respect: It seems to me that Ford, if not the shrewdest or most memorable of our presidents, might well have been the nicest person to ever hold the office, or at least in the 20th century. If Smith’s persuasive portrait is to believed, Ford was unfailingly gracious, self-aware and humane — even more so when no one was watching. One scene involves a tailor, a Holocaust survivor, who came to the White House to measure the president for a suit; Ford told the naturalized citizen that he was “one of the best Americans,” and the tailor leaped up to embrace him.
If there’s one thing we’ve learned about the presidency these last several years, it’s that niceness matters more than we thought.”
As focused as so many Americans are on the historic 3rd indictments of the former President of the United States, it is important for the Jewish world not to take our eyes off what is happening in Israel and the historic so-called “Judicial Reforms” that the current extremist right-wing ultra-Orthodox and nationalist government is attempting to do in diminishing Israeli democracy by wiping out Israel’s system of checks and balances by concentrating all power in the executive/legislative branch at the expense of its judicial branch on its way to transforming Israel’s democracy into an autocratic theocracy and its annexation de jure of the entirety of the West Bank thereby destroying all future efforts to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I post two items below worth watching (it will take just a few minutes to watch each):
“10 Reasons NOT to invite PM Netanyahu to the White House”
The speaker is Mika Almog, granddaughter of former Israeli President, Prime Minister, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Shimon Peres, and the daughter of Professor Rafi Walden, a member of the Reform movement’s Kedem/Beit Daniel Congregation, a star-ship Reform community in Tel Aviv.
2. Stav Shafrir challenges the lies in a split screen with PM Netanyahu in his interview with George Stephanopoulos.
Stav Shafrir came to national prominence as one of the leaders of the 2011 Israeli social justice protests, focusing on housing, public services, income inequality, and democracy, and later became spokeswoman of the movement. She was subsequently elected to the Knesset as a member of the Labor Party in 2013.
He was the longest serving Senate Majority Leader in American history (1961-1977) during which time he shepherded President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs through the Senate and oversaw the Vietnam War, the Kennedy and King assassinations, and America’s social and cultural upheavals. For 12 years he served as the United States Ambassador to Japan, among the most important posts in America’s Foreign Service. As a teen he was a juvenile delinquent, but received advice from a teacher one day who told him to turn his life around and make something of himself. He did, magnificently so, becoming one of the most powerful and dignified people ever to serve in the United States Senate.
He once said: “When I’m gone, I want to be forgotten.” When he died at the age of 98 in 2001, he was laid to rest on a green slope in Arlington National Cemetery. This is how his headstone reads: “Michael Joseph Mansfield, PVT, U.S. Marine Corps, March 16, 1903 – October 5, 2001.”
I heard about Senator Mike Mansfield’s headstone epitaph last week (his wife Maurene’s name is chiseled on the other side of the stone). I remember him well during the 1960s and 1970s, and in hearing about what was written on his stone this week I was impressed by his humility in that only his name, birth and death dates, and the lowest rank in which he served in the United States Marine Corp were written.
Thomas Jefferson, not nearly as humble, had the following written on his stone at Monticello, Virginia: “Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom & Father of the University of Virginia.” Oddly, Jefferson omitted being the 3rd President of the United States.
Whenever I find myself in a cemetery, I’m intrigued to read what’s inscribed on grave stones, the years of a person’s life and how these people either wished to be remembered or were remembered by their loved ones. The story of Senator Mansfield inspired me into thinking what I might want written on my stone one day – hopefully, long in the future.
Like all of us, I have many identities: husband, father, grandfather, son, brother, friend, Jew, rabbi, Zionist, author, American, and man. There isn’t one word other than my name that says everything about me, though one would have to know me to know who I am. My father’s stone reads simply his name, “Beloved husband and father,” and his far-too-short lifespan – 1905-1959 – his 64th Yahrzeit is next week). Perhaps that ought to be enough for any one of us. Thoreau famously said: “Simplify, simplify, simplify.” As I age, the more his adage makes sense to me.
What is customarily written, at the very least, on Jewish tombstones in the Diaspora is the English and Hebrew name of the deceased (including the first Hebrew names of one’s parents), and the dates of birth and death in English and the Hebrew calendar. At the top is written in Hebrew פה נקבר (פ”נ – here is interred) or the abbreviation ת”נ”צ”ב”ה (תְּהֵא נַפְשׁוֹ/נַפְשָׁהּ צְרוּרָה בִּצְרוֹר הַחַיִּים – “May his/her soul be bound in the bundle of eternal life,” from I Samuel 25:29). Those same words eventually became the final blessing recited in a eulogy (Shabbat 152b).
In short, the traditional Jewish epitaph emphasizes humility, respect for one’s parents, and faith in the eternal character of the soul. Everything else is ancillary.
In a lighter vein, the words inscribed on the famous voice-over artist Mel Blanc’s stone at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery are “That’s all folks” recalling Porky Pig’s farewell following every Looney Toon cartoon. Later, Bugs Bunny said it. Blanc was the voice of both.
So – this is something about which Senator Mike Mansfield’s story inspired me to think this past week. What would I want written one day on my stone? What words sum up a life except one’s name, the names of one’s parents (and if one has children, their names too), and the span of one’s years? What’s the best way to affirm the values of dignity, integrity, generosity, appreciation, and humility that Judaism compels us to embody? Hopefully, a שם טוב – “a good name” – is enough.
Understanding Israel’s moment of truth – from the war on Start-up Nation, to the moral crisis in Orthodox Jewry, to the author’s personal failure of empathy for political opponents
July 28, 2023 – by Yossi Klein Halevi – The Times of Israel
Yossi Klein Halevi is among the most insightful commentators of how historic, religious, secular, emotional, political, and nationalist elements are manifesting themselves in contemporary Israel.
This 5450-word essay reflects upon the competing forces at play in the current crisis in Israel and in Israeli identity and shines a light on all that is taking place in the Knesset, the Israeli Supreme Court, on the Israeli street, and in the multiplicity of communities and homes across the country. Yossi considers the raison d’être of Zionism, the history and development of the Jewish state, the impact of antisemitism, the Holocaust, war, terrorism, and security concerns on the Israeli psyche and identity, the role of religion and nationalistic zealotry in the modern, secular, and democratic state, the intersecting tensions between the many ethnic communities that make up modern Israel, and the relationship between Israel and Palestinian-Israeli citizens and with Palestinians living under occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Far more than a critique about what is occurring in Israel today, Yossi describes thoughtfully, empathically, and self-critically how Israel has arrived at this crisis and inflection point in its 75-year history, and he lays bare the complex competing forces struggling within the heart and soul of modern Israel that defines it today and will determine what the Jewish and democratic state will become.
Despite the despair Yossi feels and expresses poignantly in his essay, on the day the Knesset passed the “Reasonableness” bill, Yossi spent ten hours with demonstrators and described the protest and his optimism on the Shalom Hartman Institute Podcast “For Heaven’s Sake” this way:
“I came away feeling we’re going to win. At the end of the protest, the leaders, who spoke so eloquently, are devoting their lives to protecting Israeli democracy. They stood on the stage together and the crowd began chanting ‘todah, todah, todah – thank you, thank you, thank you.’ It was such an overwhelmingly beautiful moment. That’s what I feel this protest movement is about. It’s this feeling of gratitude to the state, for what we owe the state. That’s why we’re all out there. And we’re going to win [over corrupt extremist anti-democratic, autocratic, and theological forces] because we [the majority of Israel] really have love on our side. What I feel from the other side is only anger and vengeance. We have anger too, lots of anger. But what makes me an optimist is that our side knows that if the government neutralizes the court, the long-term viability of the state is at risk. The other side isn’t motivated by a fear for Israel’s survival. No one on the other side believes that if the government doesn’t control the courts the state won’t survive. In this particular fight, we have the existential edge.”
I was relieved to hear Yossi’s optimistic words as he is not only a friend but a keen observer of all things Israeli and the Israeli-American Jewish relationship. Optimism, after all, doesn’t deny the difficult reality in which Israel finds itself. The late President Shimon Peres said: “There are always skeptics in life…To be an optimist you have to work very hard to maintain optimism with the people you lead and have a lot of patience. It’s more natural to be a skeptic and be on the safe side…but in my experience in life I feel that being optimistic is wiser and more realistic…” Peres reflects the spirit of Judaism’s Pirkei Avot (Sayings of the Sages 2:1) “You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to desist from it.”
The case for a democratic Jewish state of Israel remains strong regardless of what the current Israeli government is doing, and regardless of the imperfections in Israel’s democracy itself.
If you read nothing else about Israel’s current crisis of identity this summer, let Yossi’s essay be the piece that you read. He helps us understand better what’s at stake for Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish Diaspora, and the Jewish and democratic State of Israel.
I am reprinting below the lead editorial in the Israeli daily newspaper (Hebrew and English editions) of Haaretz on July 25, 2023. It reflects the position of the majority of Israeli citizens across political, religious, and demographic lines who have been demonstrating in the streets throughout Israel over the past seven months, as well as thousands of Israelis living in Diaspora communities and major American Jewish communal and religious organizations. It spares no punches and shines a light on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s desperate and destructive effort to stay out of jail on corruption charges and on the chaos he has wrought over many years using divisive and hostile rhetoric against any Israeli political party, NGO, or group of Israelis and Diaspora Jews that criticize him and his government’s policies by insinuating that they are treasonous.
Leaders of the Israeli opposition are being called upon, despite the gravity of what this government is doing and plans to do, not to give up the fight for Israeli democracy. Petitions are currently being drafted for the Israeli Supreme Court to reject the “reasonableness standard” legislation that passed in the Knesset earlier this week.
Our Reform movement in Israel, represented by the Israel Movement for Reform and Progressive Judaism (IMPJ) and the Israeli Religious Action Center (IRAC), called upon more than a thousand leaders of the North American Reform movement yesterday (July 25) in an international webinar to keep in mind the following and to stay active on behalf of Israeli democracy:
There is far more to the government’s anti-democratic actions than judicial reform. The government’s efforts also are an assault on religious pluralism in the state and on Reform movement rights as a religious minority;
Do not allow the rights of the Palestinians to get lost in the dust of this judicial struggle. Palestinian rights and the rights of all minorities in Israel (e.g. LGBTQ, women, Palestinian-Israeli citizens, Druze-Israeli citizens, etc.) are at stake as are the rights of the Palestinian people to a state of their own alongside a secure Israel;
We American Jews who have personal relationships with our congressional representatives in Washington, D.C. are urged to make contact with them and encourage them to contact Israeli Members of the Knesset whom they know to express their support for Israel’s democracy and against the Israeli government’s extremist anti-democratic actions;
Make contact with your Israeli friends and family and let them know you are with them and support them in this time of crisis;
Urge your American Reform synagogue to partner with an Israeli Reform synagogue – contact the Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA) at https://arza.org/;
Do not call for American aid to Israel to become “conditional.” Already, American law conditions military aid around the world. Nothing more is necessary and to punish Israel will send the wrong message to Israelis and to American allies around the world about American intentions vis a vis the State of Israel. There are many ways that the Biden administration can influence Israel, and we should be advocating that the President exercise that influence strongly and effectively now. Conditioning American aid further than what the law already states in the midst of this crisis would be counter-productive;
If you travel to Israel and wish to join the Saturday night protests, our Reform movement will connect you to communities with which you can march in solidarity. Phone +972-2-6203448;
Become a member of the Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA) – https://arza.org/arza-membership/ – ARZA is the largest Zionist organization in the American Zionist Movement and the Israeli Reform movement needs us as their partners in this battle for the soul of Israel;
It is far too soon to give up on the greatest accomplishment of the Jewish people in the past 2000 years – the establishment and development of the modern democratic and Jewish State of Israel.
Here is that Haaretz editorial:
“The 64 Knesset members who voted on Monday in favor of the law canceling the reasonableness standard have struck a serious blow to the State of Israel’s infrastructure of democracy and have signaled the direction in which they plan to take the country, namely dictatorship. They did it in a Knesset empty of opposition lawmakers, befitting of an imperious group that chose to ignore the millions of citizens who took to the streets for weeks to express their concern about the change in Israel’s democratic structure.
‘We are defending Israel from an internal threat,’ say military reservists
All those 64 will be remembered forever as being responsible for crushing the rule of law and fatally undercutting the separation of powers. Even the moderate forces in the coalition, who worked to forge a compromise with the opposition and soften the terms of the law, will not be able to wash their hands of it. They are no less responsible for this black day than the law’s architects – Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Constitution, Law and Justice Committee Chairman Simcha Rothman.
But the heaviest blame falls on Benjamin Netanyahu. The most destructive prime minister in Israel’s history has again proven that he is prepared to sacrifice Israel’s democracy for his personal political survival. Netanyahu is smashing Israel into tiny parts using the divide and conquer method. He incites and stirs up emotions, disrupts, tears the social fabric, crushes the rule of law and weakens the judicial system – all in order to escape the horror of judgment. Netanyahu is taking revenge on the system that decided to put him on trial, and along the way he is taking revenge on the entire country.
Following passage of the law on Monday, Levin and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir made clear that this was only the beginning. “We have taken the first step in the important historical process of reforming the judicial system,” Levin said. Ben-Gvir promised that “we must pass the rest of the reform, primarily the change to the composition of the Judicial Appointments Committee and the change to the powers of ministry legal advisers.” There is no mistaking their intention. The change in Israel’s constitutional structure aims to turn the country into a theocratic, bigoted, racist and dark state, where women, LGBT people, Arab citizens and other minorities will be discriminated against; a country that will annex the occupied territories and establish an official rule of apartheid.
Monday was a sad and painful day for everyone who holds Israeli democracy dear. However, the last few weeks have proven that the battle is not lost; that the democratic camp, which in recent years seemed to have lost its way, has consolidated and become a mighty force ready to sacrifice itself for the high values of democracy, liberalism and rule of law. The leaders of the opposition fully appreciate this and therefore did not agree to a compromise that amounted to a horse trade in democratic values.
The democratic camp must fight until victory. It was a painful loss in battle on the way to victory in Israel’s second war of independence.”
“Today is a sad day for Israel’s democracy. The passage of the amendment removing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to overrule decisions and appointments of Israel’s Government using the legal standard of “reasonableness” will reduce the checks and balances placed on the government. This is the first significant step of the ruling coalition to move forward with their judicial overhaul and pass their radical legislative agenda.
The Reform Movement in North America vehemently condemns the strong-arm tactics of the current coalition as they push through this divisive legislation which imperils Israel’s already-fragile democracy. This could have been a moment for Netanyahu to unite the nation and secure Israel’s standing in the world as a strong and leading democracy. Instead, the concerns of the majority of Israelis and Jews across the world, including the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who have taken to the streets in recent days and the thousands who marched from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, have been ignored.
The upcoming holiday of Tishah B’Av, when the Jewish people mourn the destruction of the First and Second Temples, is widely recognized in our tradition as punishment for our ancestors’ internal intolerance and hatred. Seventy-five years after its creation, the modern Jewish state of Israel is being threatened by extremists, which we know from history can only bring calamity upon our people.
As the largest Movement in Jewish life outside of Israel, we remain committed to the State of Israel, its people, and the values outlined in its Declaration of Independence. We are deeply committed to strengthening the institutions of Israeli civil society, specifically the Israel Movement for Reform and Progressive Judaism (IMPJ), which is leading the fight to keep Israel a Jewish and democratic state. As MK Rabbi Gilad Kariv stated, “We lost this battle, but we will win in the end.” We call on the members and institutions of our Movement to lean in and support our partners in Israel, strengthening their resolve to preserve Israel’s democracy.”
Union for Reform Judaism Jennifer Brodkey Kaufman (she/her) Chair
Rabbi Rick Jacobs (he/him) President
Central Conference of American Rabbis Rabbi Erica Asch (she/her) President
Rabbi Hara E. Person (she/her) Chief Executive
American Conference of Cantors Cantor Seth Warner (he/him) President
Rachel Roth (she/her) Chief Operating Officer
Women of Reform Judaism Sara Charney (she/her) President
Rabbi Liz P. G. Hirsch (she/her) Executive Director
Men of Reform Judaism Rob Himmelstein (he/him) President
Steven Portnoy (he/him) Executive Director
Association of Reform Zionists of America Daryl Messinger (she/her) Chair
Rabbi Josh Weinberg (he/him) Director
Reform Jewish Community of Canada Len Bates (he/him) President
Reform Rabbis of Canada Rabbi Daniel Mikelberg (he/him) Chair
ARZA Canada Lee Weisser (she/her) President
Emergency Briefing: Update on the Vote in the Knesset to remove the Reasonableness Clause
Tuesday, July 25 at 2:30pm ET 11:30am PT
Join us for an emergency briefing and update on the judicial overhaul, as the Knesset just passed the ‘Reasonableness’ bill. Hear from Reform Movement leaders on the ground in Israel, including MK Rabbi Gilad Kariv.
For those of us living in blue states, it’s shocking that bald-faced racism continues to impugn the integrity and legality of state legislature decisions in some red states, such as Alabama, in 2023. Jim Crow is indeed alive and well there, as Joyce Vance explains in her Substack article below.
Joyce Alene White Vance is an American lawyer who served as the United States attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2009 to 2017. She was one of the first five U.S. attorneys, and the first female U.S. attorney, nominated by President Barack Obama. She is also an MSNBC columnist and NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst as well as a law professor at the University of Alabama School of Law.
Joyce is worth reading as she gives expert legal analysis of everything happening in these times. You can subscribe to her Substack articles at https://joycevance.substack.com/.
Joyce explains in her posting today (July 23, 2023) that the racism of the Alabama State Legislature is so brazen and so obvious and so illegal (based on direct Supreme Court rulings and established law) that one wonders how it is that each member of the Republican dominated legislature of that state isn’t charged with contempt of court and violating the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It also makes one wonder what the Congress of the United States would look like if an anti-Gerrymandering bill were ever to pass Congress and be signed by the President.
I was stunned by what Joyce wrote today, and so decided to share it with you here. She writes:
“Republicans in the Alabama Legislature refused to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision that the redistricting maps drawn by Alabama’s legislature violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and should be redrawn to create two districts where Black voters would have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Instead, they approved, yet again, a map with only one district where Black voters are in the majority. The newest map also has the fringe benefit of protecting the state’s six white Republican incumbent Congressman. None of them will have to face another of their number in a primary, as two of them would have had to do if a map that comported with the Supreme Court’s decision had been selected.
The Court was explicit. It held that “any remedial plan will need to include two districts in which Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it.” That’s because of the disconnect between the results of the 2020 census and Alabama’s near-tradition of diluting Black citizens’ voting power by gerrymandering as many of them as possible into one disingenuously drawn district, while spreading the remainder throughout Alabama’s other six Congressional districts in numbers too small to have a meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome of elections. The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama’s Black population was large enough and geographically compact enough to create a second majority Black district. But the GOP-led legislature ignored the Supreme Court’s dictates and kept one majority Black district, while adding in a second one that didn’t even reach 40%. 40% doesn’t seem “quite close” to a majority.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement that said, “This map, and the Republican politicians who supported it, would make George Wallace proud.” He pointed out the Legislature ignored its job after the Court’s ruling—ensuring Black Alabamians’ voting rights were protected—and focused on how to preserve the old system.
Now, the matter will head back to the courts, where a three-judge panel decides whether to approve the legislature’s map. Their likely move at this juncture is to reject the legislature’s map and appoint a special master to draw a new one. But how will they address the legislature, which is, of course, an independent branch of a state government? How the court handles the matter and how swiftly justice is dispensed, including any appeals, is critical with the next round of federal elections just around the corner. While they might seem far off, the Alabama primary is in March of 2024 and candidates are required to declare by November 10, 2023. That means the districts must be shaped by then so potential candidates can decide if and where to run. Unlike 2022, when maps that have now been disallowed remained in place, the 3-judge panel, and perhaps ultimately the Supreme Court if there is another appeal, will have the job of swiftly restoring rights.
The courts should condemn, in no uncertain terms, the legislature’s flagrant disobedience of the Supreme Court’s legal ruling and craft a path forward that prevents the hyper-partisan legislature from continuing to bypass Black voters’ rights. Alabama’s Republican Attorney General, Steve Marshall, said in June when the case was decided that he expected to continue his defense of the maps the Supreme Court rejected. “Although the majority’s decision is disappointing, this case is not over,” Marshall said in a statement, implying he wanted to have a full trial before he gave up. That’s not how the Supreme Court saw it, and the question now is whether the courts will stand for the principle that what the Supreme Court says is the law of the land, or whether Alabama will get away with the shell game it’s trying to play with Black voters’ rights.
How the courts handle this matter will either reinforce or erode confidence in them and in our system of government. A lot will rest on the decisions that are made. They must be made soon.
There are also other matters, with less of a public profile, that contribute to the public’s confidence in the courts. One of those matters is also taking place in Alabama. Patrick Braxton filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that after being elected as the first Black mayor of Newbern, Alabama, the existing mayor, town leaders and others took steps to prevent him from taking office, reappointing the previous mayor in a secret meeting and using their power to prevent Braxton from performing his duties, even using the postmaster to prevent him from obtaining city mail. Braxton says that the town hasn’t held an election for decades, and that the job of mayor passed during this time from one official to a hand-picked successor. The new mayor would then appoint council members of his choice, without holding elections. Newbern, which is about 85% Black, had never had a Black mayor before Braxton and only one Black town council member.
How quickly will the courts move to address this situation? The defendants have already filed a response, in which they concede many of Braxton’s key allegations. They’ve asked the court to dismiss his lawsuit. This case is shocking, more 1950s than 2020s, and we would expect, in an effectively functioning system, to see the court promptly address the situation to restore a lawfully elected official. This one is worth watching. In this country, we are entitled to elect our leaders, and the courts are charged with making sure election results are carried out. That’s their job here in a mostly unlikely place.”
Rabbi John Rosove's Blog 