JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

What do Abe Foxman, Benjamin Cardozo, Eleanor Roosevelt, Abba Eban have in common?

By Ami Eden · May 27, 2008

Abe gives the speech at this year’s Y.U. graduation...

Commencement Address of Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation League

Yeshiva University

New York City, May 22, 2008

First, let me say how honored I am to receive this degree from so distinguished an American Jewish institution.  Yeshiva University stands alone in the United States as an academic center whose undergraduate and graduate programs richly integrate Jewish ethical values with research and scholarship of the highest order.

Now, if I were truly modest, I would resist the impulse to say that I am also frankly moved to be an honorary degree recipient who joins an amazing roster of previous such recipients.  Justice Benjamin Cardozo.  Eleanor Roosevelt.  Abba Eben, to name just three.  As you see, I have not resisted.

Dear Yeshiva graduates of the class of 2008, we live – you live – in interesting times.  And you will live through ever more challenging moments as the 21st century progresses.

Of course, like many commencement speakers at graduation ceremonies around the country, I could use this occasion to speak to you about current issues that confront America.  More specifically, for this great institution with its distinctly Jewish character, I could speak to you about issues of the moment important to us as American and as Jews:  terrorism, Iran, the separation of Church and State, hate on the Internet, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, race and religion in politics, Islamic extremism, American anti-Semitism, global anti-Semitism.

But I would rather speak to you personally today about my own life journey and how the lessons I take from it might apply to your own upcoming adventure, for you stand on the brink of a future that is characterized by great promise, but also great perils.

I was born in the wrong time at the wrong place for a Jewish kid.  Nazi-occupied Poland in 1940 was not the best place to be born, yet I managed, by the intercession of one special person’s kindness and decency, to survive.

As I grew older, I tried to understand what it meant that I had survived.  The first set of questions was very serious, existential questions of “why?” Why did the Shoah happen to the Jewish people?  Why did over a million and a half Jewish children perish?  Why was the world silent?  Why didn’t the Almighty intervene? To those universal questions of “why?” were added very personal questions.  Why me?  Why me and not the other little boys and girls, the Chaims and Chanas.  Why not them?  Why me?

My parents, who also survived, struggled every day and every night with “why?” Why did they survive and not their brothers, their sisters, their nieces or nephews, their aunts and uncles?

There are no answers.  As I grew older, I realized that there are no answers, only questions.

But two facts in that struggle to understand became very, very clear.  One is that the world knew. There was no CNN, there was no Fox News, there were no satellite feeds from far off places – alas, there was no Internet – yet the world knew.

Those in positions of power to make decisions to stop what was happening knew.  They knew everyday how many Jews were killed, in Lodz, in Baranowicz, in Minsk, in Bialystok.  They knew.  And for years previous they knew what was happening to the Jews.  “Kristallnacht” made the news.  And they didn’t do very much about it, nor about the worst that was to follow.

So the first lesson for us is to know.  To know about bigotry; to know about hatred; to know who it is who threatens us, our democracy, and our freedoms.  It is extremely important that we know.  But knowing is not enough!

The second thing that became clear to me is that wherever and whenever and however good people said no – whenever good people stood up and said no to hate – Jews lived, others lived.

There was Oskar Schindler who saved 1200 Jews.  There was Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat, who saved 50,000, maybe 100,000 Jews.

There were Albania and Bulgaria.  It was in the Balkans that a magnificent chapter of humanity was written – not in the capital cities that always provided us with philosophy, with music, with opera, and with art, but in the Balkans!

Bulgarian Jews were saved because from the king to the patriarch, to the peasants, to the parliamentarians – they all said no.  Albania saved all its Jews and those from elsewhere who could make it to their country.

I stand here tonight because there was a lady who could barely read and write, who really didn’t sit down to weigh and measure the risks, and yet risked her life every single day for four years to protect the life of another human being. I had the good fortune to be sheltered from the Nazis by Bronislawa Kurpi, a brave and decent woman who was my Polish Catholic nanny.  She baptized me and raised me as a Catholic.  But for her, I would not be alive today to bear witness.  I know first hand how essential it is to have the help of just one person who, at a moment of moral collapse, does not forget the essential principal of leading a moral life: do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

And so I stopped asking the questions of why and began to ask questions on the order of “what if?”

What if, instead of one Raoul Wallenberg, there had been 100,000 Raoul Wallenbergs?  What if, instead of one Oskar Schindler and one Bronislawa Kurpi, there had been 10,000 such men and women?

What if this wonderful country of ours had permitted the passenger ship the St. Louis to dock at these shores and unload its cargo of refugees?  What if we had bombed Auschwitz?  What if our neighbor to the north, Canada, had found room for 5,000 Jewish orphans?  What if?  What if we had traded trucks for Jews?  What if? What if?

For me, the Anti-Defamation League is an institution that does everything so that our children and grandchildren will never have to ask “what if?” in the future.

What if their parents and grandparents stood up every single day to say no – no to hatred, no to bigotry, no to prejudice, no to racism, no to anti-Semitism?

You can see all kinds of films, you can read all kinds of testimonials, but that’s what ADL is all about.  In the rich mosaic of diversity that is the United States, where Jews and Judaism flourish, we have to find ways to live together and grow together and learn together how to choose our words carefully and to understand the power and danger of words, and to take responsibility for the words we utter and their consequences.

The gas chambers did not begin with bricks – they began with words. Ugly, hateful words that demonized, degraded, and debased Jews.  And those words became ugly, hateful deeds.

The September 11 attacks did not begin with planes transformed into missiles – it began with words – ugly, hateful words that demonized, dehumanized, debased Americans and everything that we stand for.  Those words became ugly, hateful deeds.

We need, in every way, to denounce those who traffic in fear and frustration.  We need to cleanse our communities of prejudice.  We need to speak up and speak out and protest when anyone is maligned or treated with contempt, no matter who the victim or the perpetrator.  It isn’t easy, it takes courage.  It runs the risk of peer disdain or disapproval.  Every time we laugh at an ethnic joke or a racial slur or religious stereotype, or let an expression of contempt pass in silence, we tacitly contribute to the atmosphere of prejudice.

In the Jewish tradition, we believe that life and death is in the power of the tongue.  Three times a day, we ask the Lord to “keep my mouth from speaking evil.” On Yom Kippur, we confess and seek atonement for the sins we have committed “with utterance of the lips.”

At the Anti-Defamation League, we deal constantly with words.  We believe in the power of words, in power of good people to stand up and say no.

Unfortunately, among the perils you will face in this still new century are reversions to the tribalism, xenophobia, and nihilism that so blackened the previous one.  In our era of rapid change and globalization, when traditions are under threat amid social, economic, and political instability, there is the strong temptation to “circle the wagons” and seek safety only among one’s own kind.  This inwardness, pushed to extremes, will inevitably result in fear of the Other – living in the desperate conviction that other people, other groups, other races and creeds, are somehow responsible for the problems within one’s own community or one’s country.  This then justifies the use of crude names that single out those who are different, and after the name calling comes the assigning of blame.

And we know all too well that when fingers get pointed, the oldest and most persistent hatred, anti-Semitism, will rear its ugly head as it has in the wake of 9/11.  I’m talking of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, the Big Lie believed by millions – that the Jews and the Mossad were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center.  I’m talking of Holocaust denial which is gaining strength in the Islamic world, led by Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and used by him to deflect attention from domestic problems and discontent.  I’m talking of the conspiracy theories of Jewish power and disloyalty which are being disseminated not only in the Islamic world but in the U.S. as well.

So among the challenges you will certainly face – as Jews, as Americans, and as citizens of the world – is how you will respond when those first ugly words are spoken, those words that will belittle and demonize first one person, and then a whole group or community.

“Never Again!” is an 11th commandment etched in the aftermath of Auschwitz.  It was etched by the Jewish people based on a Jewish experience.  But “Never Again” – that pledge, that imperative – has a universal message and mandate.  For all of us here today must honor the commandment which instructs us all to never again be silent whenever anyone lives in fear, in danger, isolated or singled out because of the color of their skin, their ethnic origin, their religion, their sexual orientation, or anything that makes them different from the rest.

Do that – respond with words backed by reasonable action, and both words and action impressed with the full weight of the ethical values imparted to you by Jewish tradition.  Do that and you will answer the question “What if?” by being one of many who will give hateful words and hateful deeds no quarter. You will do tikkun olam.  You will help repair the breaks and schisms of our world.

0 Comments | Share This | community, Hate, Shoah

J Street Project: Doves launch AIPAC alternative

By Ami Eden · March 27, 2008

James Besser reports in the New York Jewish Week about the launch of a new political action committee aimed at supporting dovish congressional candidates – and, in Britain’s Prospect magazine, Gershom Gorenberg says that’s a good thing.

Besser:

Dubbed the J-Street Project — “K Street” has become a cipher for Washington’s lobbying establishment and “J Street,” missing from Washington’s downtown grid, has become a local “in” joke — the new project kicks off with a hush-hush fundraiser next Monday hosted by former Clinton administration official Jeremy Ben Ami and Daniel Levy, director of the Prospects for Peace Initiative of the Century Foundation. The group will be publicly launched around the middle of April; organizers said they will not speak publicly about the group until then.

“For too long, the loudest American voices in political and policy debates have been those on the far right — often Republican neoconservatives or extreme Christian Zionists,” according to the invitation. “J Street aims to change that. We are the first and only lobby and PAC (political action committee) dedicated to ensuring Israel’s security, changing the direction of American policy in the Middle East and opening up American political debate about Israel and the Middle East.”

While sources say the structure and initial goals of the new group are still in flux, it is expected to raise money for congressional candidates who advocate a stronger U.S. leadership role in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and multilateral solutions to the region’s problems.

The group will be headed by Ben-Ami, who served as deputy domestic policy adviser in the Clinton administration and later as a media consultant.  Ben-Ami has worked with several Jewish peace groups, including the Center for Middle East Peace and the Geneva Initiative-North America.

Gorenberg:

So the first priority of a real pro-Israel lobby should be pushing for the most active possible US role in brokering a two-state solution. As Israeli strategic analyst Yossi Alpher has pointed out, the US has succeeded in advancing Arab-Israeli peace only when an emissary representing “the full prestige of the American president” has come to the region for extended negotiations, as Henry Kissinger, secretary of state, did after the 1973 war.

The negotiator has to propose compromises and then push hard for them. The US must also provide incentives. It should offer funds to resettle Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian state and to relocate Israeli settlers within Israel. But the offers should have tough conditions: for the Palestinians, giving up on resettling refugees within Israel; for Israel, evacuating settlements that it has heretofore insisted it has to keep. The liberal Israel lobby should work on Capitol Hill to support such funding for peace.

Diplomacy also means effective pressure on both sides and on the relevant Arab states. The US should insist that the Palestinian authority in the West Bank disarm all armed factions that remain in its territory. But the US will need to lean on Israel too. Right now, the Israeli public has no idea how much the state spends on settlement. American insistence on financial transparency as a condition for current aid levels would serve Israeli democracy and increase domestic backing for a settlement freeze. AB Yehoshua is right that the US should finally show real displeasure that outposts have not been taken down. That’s an example of how Washington can help an Israeli government do what it knows it should, helping to beat domestic pressures.

Realistically, even a liberal Israel lobby will be more timid than progressive Israelis. Few US Jews will feel comfortable asking for American pressure on Israel. Publicly, the lobby’s task will be to increase support for diplomacy and a two-state solution. But it will also allow more politicians—particularly liberal ones—to say what they really think about Israel/Palestine, safe in the knowledge that there is an alternative lobby to back them with money and votes. Quietly, it should counterbalance lobbying by Aipac for congress to tie the president’s hands in negotiations. If a peace process really does get moving, expect an Aipac-backed congressional resolution on the need to keep Jerusalem united as the capital of Israel—an American position that would undermine the talks. The liberal lobby’s task would be to push the pragmatic stance that the future of the Holy City must be agreed by both sides.

But a real pro-Israel policy extends beyond the Palestinian issue. Renewed peace talks between Israel and Syria are in both Israeli and American interests. If the talks succeed, they would lead to a cold peace—which is much better than the current cold war, in which Damascus uses Hamas and Hizbullah as proxies to bleed Israel. Alon Liel—the ex-director general of Israel’s foreign ministry, who last year revealed that he had conducted unofficial back-channel talks with Syria—says that part of any peace deal would be Syria realigning itself with the west. That would weaken Iran’s position in the region, and be a clear American victory. A liberal lobby would promote US backing for such negotiations.

Even on Iran, a liberal lobby could encourage a shift. An Iranian bomb is certainly a serious danger to Israel. But US refusal to negotiate with Tehran means giving up in advance on means to reduce the threat. There are hard-nosed strategic analysts in Israel who advocate a quid pro quo: US acceptance of the Iranian regime in return for an end to uranium enrichment and support for terror groups.

Ultimately, Israel’s goal is to be part of the middle east, not to be a garrison state in conflict with it. To support the most bellicose possible Israeli or US policies is to damage both countries. A liberal voice is needed in Washington to press that message. Perhaps this is another form of hope for a deus ex machina. If so, the winged figure is long overdue.

7 Comments | Share This | community, Iran, Israel, Jewish organizations, Politics

Anatevka, Wisconsin

By Ami Eden · March 26, 2008

The Wisconsin State Journal says that the recent wedding of a local Chabad rabbi’s daughter is the closest most residents of Madison to experiencing “Fiddler on the Roof” (don’t worry, she didn’t marry a Cossack):

The marriage of Chanie Matusof, of Madison, and Nissi Gansbourg, of Montreal, was a deeply traditional Chasidic Jewish wedding.

It may have been the first of its kind here – the closest most Madisonians have come to experiencing anything similar may be watching “Fiddler on the Roof.”

“It is rare, “ said Rabbi Matusof of the Chabad House on Regent Street, the father of the bride, who officiated. “Just ask the staff here and they ‘ll tell you they ‘ve never seen anything like it before.”

“My parents have been here in Wisconsin for 40 years,” added Rabbi Mendel Shmotkin, of the Milwaukee-based group Lubavitch of Wisconsin. “This is definitely the first Chasidic wedding that Madison has ever seen. This is historic.”

1 Comment | Share This | community

Send in your videos (but only if you married out)

By Ami Eden · March 14, 2008

InterfaithFamily.com is holding its first-ever video contest…

We are looking for all types of videos, including but not limited to: wedding videos demonstrating interesting, engaging, interfaith wedding ceremonies; humorous videos dealing with interfaith issues regarding life-cycle events, holidays, and everyday life; interviews with people involved in interfaith relationships and how they are dealing with the issues they face; conflict resolution; cartoons; parodies (in good taste); and music videos. InterfaithFamily.com reserves the right in its sole discretion to decide which videos to upload to its website, and not to upload any video that does not meet these criteria or that we deem unsuitable.

(All types of videos?)

0 Comments | Share This | community, Intermarriage

Jews are junkies too

By Ami Eden · March 12, 2008

The Jeffersonian, Baltimore’s business newspaper, reports on a Jewish recovering drug addict and the community’s efforts to draw attention to the issue:

Samantha Schroeder’s life revolved around heroin for nearly a decade. The Pikesville native stole money from the bank where she worked and became a prostitute, watching her life deteriorate as she struggled to keep up with a $250-a-day addiction.

Her story echoes countless other stories of drug abuse. But because she is Jewish, many may see her as an anomaly.

“My grandmother would always say, ‘I bet you are the only Jewish person in Narcotics Anonymous.’ If she only knew!” said Schroeder, now 37 and free of heroin for almost 10 years.

The perception that Jews are more immune to the perils of substance abuse is one that Jewish leaders have been trying to change. Schroeder, who has spoken around town in connection with Baltimore-based Jewish Addiction Services, recently told her story at a March 2 sisterhood brunch at Reisterstown’s Temple Emanuel.

3 Comments | Share This | community, Drugs

Intermarriage through an Israeli television lens

By Ami Eden · March 12, 2008

Israeli television takes a look at intermarriage in the United States:

1 Comment | Share This | community, Intermarriage

JPOST: It’s not clear if we can all just get along

By Ami Eden · February 22, 2008

The Jerusalem Post has an editorial Friday voicing skepticism over reports that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is set to “commit Israel to a much more intensive engagement with the Jewish communities of the Diaspora.”

Nothing that has leaked out of the first discussion on the issue, held at the Prime Minister’s Office on Wednesday, and nothing in the record of this government or its predecessors, suggests that Israel understands the complexity and immensity of the challenge posed by the Israel-Diaspora relationship. Thus, while Olmert’s initiative deserves praise, it also needs urgent direction.

The first important step, the Post’s editors argue, is to understand the difference between Jewish existence in America and Israel.

Like other Americans, America’s Jews are passionately individualistic. Like other Americans, they have no patience or understanding for government intervention in their private lives, including the religious sphere, and they intuitively understand their Jewish identity as a choice that their society challenges them to make. In Israel, meanwhile few of us are asked to choose to be Jewish. Our identity is not a religious choice, but a natural, organic and innate sense of communal identification. This is the gap that a new Israel-Diaspora relationship must bridge - not one of communication, but of understanding.

The new initiative will only succeed if it is the beginning of a generation-long project that engages American Jews in building a shared transnational Jewish culture. The initially suggested ideas - “rebranding” Israel, establishing Israeli cultural centers and unifying Israeli resources overseas that deal with Jewish identity - sound worryingly like a recap of old, arrogant attempts to impose Israeli cultural understandings on the American Jewish reality....

The prime minister is right to turn up the heat on a discussion of this issue. If we do not develop this shared culture, the centrifugal forces at work in the Jewish world will drive us farther apart. Without both communities committed to building together, the Jewish people as a whole are immeasurably weakened in facing the challenges of the 21st century, which are turning out to be as profound and complex as those of the 20th.

0 Comments | Share This | community, Israel, Israel-Diaspora

Breaking down the Forward 50

By Ami Eden · November 8, 2007

This year’s Forward 50 list is out, which means plenty of Jewish machers and shakers are smiling – or, in the case of those who didn’t make the cut, grumbling. We’ve put together our own panel of experts to weigh in on the list (and invite you to chime in via the comments section below, where we’ll hopefully be carrying on the conversation for a few days).

It’s worth reading the full descriptions of each Forward 50 selection. For now, here are the ”Top Picks” on the list: Michael Mukasey, President Bush’s pick for attorney general; Elyse Frishman, the rabbi who edited the Reform movement’s new prayer book; Seth Rogen and Judd Apatow, the creative minds behind “Knocked Up” and “Superbad”; Sheldon Adelson, casino mogul and philanthropist with a new foundation reportedly set to dole out up to $200 million per year, and Peter Deutch, the former Democratic congressman whose now working to create a movement of Hebrew-language charter schools.

First my thoughts:

If, as the Forward claims, the list really is about recognizing those who “are doing and saying things that are making a difference in the way American Jews, for better or worse, view the world and themselves” – where are the authors of perhaps the two most debated essays of the year: Noah Feldman and Alvin Rosenfeld.

Certainly in Orthodox circles, no article generated more debate and sermons than Feldman’s essay in the NYT Mag, in which he paints his yeshiva high school as primitive for allegedly leaving him out of a reunion photo and not publishing his family announcements because he married a non-Jew. In general, intermarriage may seem like an old story, but in many ways it still is the story in American Jewish life – and, however flawed, Feldman’s article was the focal point of the issue this year.

And where is Rosenfeld, who sparked a national controversy with his essay, “‘Progressive Jewish Thought’ and the New Anti-Semitism,” published by the American Jewish Committee?  Coupling him with Cecilie Surasky, of Muzzle Watch, would have been a good entry addressing the raging debate over whether the Jewish Left is defaming Israel or the mainstream Jewish community is stifling all criticism of Israel.

I loved the culture picks, all very smart, but not thrilled with the idea that telling a few Jewish jokes in two movies merits a Top Pick for Rogen and Apatow. (While we’re on the topic, far be it from me to take issue with YIVO or the brains at the Yiddish Forward, but the word is s-h-l-u-b.) Much more significant on the cultural front, I think, is Michael Chabon’s increasing focus on the Jewish condition. He’s on the list, but is more deserving of being in the “Top Picks” than Rogen & Apatow.

Enough quibbling. Overall, the list is great, and anyone with an interest in Jewish life would do well to give it a thorough read. I’ll end with praise for one of many smart picks: Rabbi Boruch Shlomo Cunin, the top Chabad guy on the West Coast. The choice is strong on two levels: It speaks to the fact that Chabad is taking over the world – and that it is doing so because of the people on the ground, not back at some headquarters in New York.

Now for the guest experts:

David Kelsey, associate director of business at Heeb Magazine
It wouldn’t be the Forward without some ostensible inner conflict. On the one hand, the Forward is sympathetic to Abe Foxman’s “prescience” that led to the “bruising battle” over his reluctance to give recognition to the Armenian genocide.  On the other hand, Andrew Tarsy’s rebellion, dismissal, and reinstatement over his stand proved the ADL is “capable of being nudged in the right direction when it strays.” But it is no contradiction, really. Tarsy is right, but Foxman is shrewd. And sometimes you have to choose.

I found the listing of Rabbi Eric Yoffie most appropriate. He is a leader willing to challenge the status quo, but thoughtfully, even disarmingly. But Yoffie is also a shrewd strategist, with a firm understanding of game theory, often at the expense of the Conservative Movement, demonstrated by his encouragement of ”re-ritualization.”

In many ways, Rabbi Yoffie is a traditionalist, a quintessential rabbi, challenging his constituency to become more committed Jews, and better human beings. He is Reform in his willingness to challenge gentiles morally as well as Jews.

But Arnold Eisen, the new chancellor of the JTS, seems a more speculative choice for inclusion as a religion member of the Forward 50. Yes, he has conceded that the Conservative Movement has had “failure on message,” but this is hardly an assessment restricted to those privy to the data of the focus groups. Anyone at a Jewish Renewal drum circle could tell you that. Britney Spears knows the Conservative Movement has “failure on message.” So the Forward is probably including him more because he has filled a very difficult position, and for what he might do.  And that’s notable, but perhaps not Forward Fifty notable, as he is not quite yet “making a difference,” at least not one that we know about yet. Of course, one could say the same thing about Michael Mukasey, the Orthodox Jew to be the next attorney general, but that would be a silly argument. The Forward’s choice of leading with Mukasey is quite reasonable, and signals, among other more important issues, the continued rise of Modern Orthodox Jews in power in the general American landscape, never mind the Jewish one.

In case anyone has any doubt as to the sincerity of the Forward’s insistence that, “Membership in the 50 doesn’t mean that the Forward endorses what these individuals do or say,” this should be put to rest by their inclusion of Norman Podhoretz, granddaddy of the Neocons. Though respectfully listing his accomplishments, they did note his “sharp right turn” in the late 60’s, and their speculation that if Giuliani wins the presidency, “there’s no telling what kind of influence Podhoretz may wield,” made me shiver enough to close the window.

Amy Klein, religion writer at the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles and a former reporter at the Forward
While I completely support the inclusion of Jewish scribes Shalom Auslander and Michael Chabon as the cultural icons for this years Forward 50’s list of most influential people – after all, they write about Jewish topics, although not always in the most laudatory terms –- I shudder at the inclusion of a duo that gave us “Superbad,” perhaps the most offensive movie of the year.

Maybe I’m in a minority here, but I’m a single Jewish woman who is tired of watching perfect love stories between Jewish men and their perfect, non-Jewish girlfriends ("Knocked Up,” “Prime,” and any romantic comedy starring Ben Stiller). Are these guys the movers and shakers of the Jewish community? Is this the image we want to continually perpetuate – yet another next generation of uber-wimps: the slope-shouldered, weak-chested, beaten down Jewish male who pines for the once unattainable, but now very achievable, shiksa goddess? Who are these non-Jewish women dating anyway that make by comparison our bespectacled nerds so lovable? When are we going to see a film about a neurotic-but lovable Jewish woman hooking up with a muscular uber-shaygitz who knows how to fix things around the house and is impressed by her strength?

At least Borat was a satire (why isn’t he on the list again, his influence did extend in 2007?). Sascha Baron Cohen is not the same-old, same-old Jewish nerd, and he’s not a victim either; he’s the aggressor and he’s also a hottie (without the mustache). Of course, he did marry his shiksa goddess (who converted), so maybe there is no winning when it comes to Jewish men.

When it comes to promoting positive images for Jews, I think Borat spins the Jewish stereotype on its head. Rogen and Apatow – however proud they may be of their Jewish cultural heritage –- do not.

Andrew Silow-Carroll, editor in chief of the New Jersey Jewish News and the former managing editor of the Forward
I’ve got to give a self-serving shout-out to the five (by my count) New Jersey Jews who made the list: Abe Foxman, Eric Yoffie, June Walker, Elyse Frishman and David Brog. If that’s a sorry count considering the size of the Jewish population, the quintet makes up for it in stature.

So why doesn’t the Garden State have a higher percentage of leading Jewish thinkers and players? It’s a Jersey thing, I think: I often say that we are the largest Jewish weekly without a metropolis, or as Ben Franklin famously said, NJ is a keg that is tapped at both ends – Philadelphia and Boston. Jewish creativity is inspired and nurtured in the cities and in pioneering communities in the South and West. Cities benefit from an influx of new bodies and fresh ideas, in combination (and sometimes opposition) with the wealth and power of their establishments. Communities on the Jewish edge are where the innovators go to test new ideas – and can get away with it. Suburban Judaism, by contrast, is a little like the houses that line the cul de sacs: quiet, solid, confident, well-maintained, and with perhaps a little too much emphasis on style over substance.

And the suburbs and suburban Judaism have the same challenge – will the kids find a home there, or will they be drawn elsewhere?
So where do city and suburb meet? Take a look at Chabad, represented on the 50 by Boruch Shlomo Cunin. Chabad has figured out a model for exporting its Brooklyn-born product to every corner of the globe, and especially the suburbs and exurbs.

Innovation is great. The next challenge is taking a cue from Chabad and finding a way to franchise it.

Ron Kampeas, JTA’s D.C. bureau chief
The Forward 50 pretty much covers it when it comes to politics – I particularly like how it bookends the major donor to each party, Sheldon Adelson for Republicans and George Soros for Democrats.
There is one glaring omission, however: The 2007 congressional class that returned Democrats to power.

It’s not just the Jewish numbers are disproportionate in Congress – 13 out of 100 in the Senate and 30 out of 435 in the House – Jewish power is as well.

Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) is lending his considerable weight as the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to bringing about Iran sanctions that could potentially cripple the Islamic Republic, even without the international cooperation the Bush administration is seeking. The legislation would make it illegal for any American individual or entity to do business with just about anyone that does substantial business with Iran’s energy sector. The threat of losing access to American markets and banks could sway even the recalcitrant Chinese and Russians. The sanctions passed overwhelmingly, 397-16, in the House in September and are under consideration in the Senate. A similar veto-proof margin there would render irrelevant the signature of President Bush, who opposes the bill.

It doesn’t stop with Lantos; four of his committee’s subcommittees are chaired by Jewish members as well: Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) chairs the Europe subcommittee; Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) chairs the Middle East subcommittee; Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) chairs the terrorism subcommittee; and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) chairs the Western Hemisphere subcommittee.

Ackerman in particular has nudged congressional support for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking toward Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state who hopes to emerge from peace talks later this month with a concrete proposal for Palestinian statehood. Ackerman’s letter this month asking for additional financial assistance for the Palestinian Authority, his rhetoric recognizing the suffering of Palestinian refugees and his impeccable pro-Israel credentials have combined to frustrate lobbyists who yearn for the days when Congress was a willing pro-Likud cudgel battering executive branch peacemaking attempts.

Even outside the committee, congressmen that might be ranked as “backbenchers” in a parliamentary system can make a difference. The effort to recognize the World War I Ottoman genocide of Armenians made a star of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and nearly precipitated a U.S.-Turkey rift. The non-binding resolution passed the Foreign Affairs committee 27-21, with the critical support of seven of its eight Jewish members. Heading it off at the pass: None other than Wexler, the sole vote against, who led the effort to bury the bill in procedure.

The moving and shaking does not stop in the Middle East.

Investigations by the House Oversight Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) – the one member of Congress who made the Forward 50 list – have helped hasten the departure of some of the staunchest of Bush loyalists, including adviser Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general.

In the Senate, six of the Judiciary Committee’s 19 members are Jewish. Two of them – Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) crossed party lines this week to shepherd President Bush’s attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey (number one on the Forward list, by the way) out of committee.

14 Comments | Share This | community