JustASC

Another story to make a Jewish grandmother blanch, and a very strong piece of investigative journalism that a Jewish newspaper — mine , for instance — should have been all over:  The Bergen Record has this doozie about the “Outreach Center,”  actually a Brooklyn synagogue that places  ubiquitous billboards seeking car donations to “Help Children in Need.” In a nutshell:

Several of the charities it says it supports haven’t received any payments since 2002, and have raised objections to the Outreach Center’s use of their names.

 A spokesman maintains the Outreach Center donated “close to $1 million” to charity last year out of its total $1.6 million budget. And yet,

The Web site lists no donations from 2003 through 2005 and just $45,000 to a range of charities from 1999 through 2002.

Meanwhile, because the Outreach Center declares itself to be a religious organization, it “isn’t required to file tax returns that secular charities must make publicly available.”  In the past six years it has loaned $475,000 to real-estate developers, according to public documents.

So what is the Outreach Center? In fact, it is 

Kehilas Mevakshai Hashem, a storefront Orthodox synagogue headed by Rabbi Yehuda Levin.

The Record describes Levin as “the arch-conservative religious leader who stirred up controversy in Jerusalem last year by organizing opposition to a gay pride march there and promising, ‘There’s going to be bloodshed — not just on that day, but for months afterward.’” He also filed an unsuccessful lawsuit to block the opening of the Museum of Jewish Heritage — A Living Memorial to the Holocaust in Manhattan, “over its inclusion of information about homosexual Holocaust victims.”

Not that there is anything wrong with a rabbi holding strong opinions. But somehow I doubt many people donating cars to “help children in need” share them.

A sidebar detailing other Orthodox organizations — Heritage for the Blind and JOY for Our Youth — in the donated-car business is similarly troubling. JOY  runs the Kars4Kids radio jingle and “took in more than $9 million in 2006, according to its most recent tax return, and gave $7.6 million to Oorah, another Lakewood charity formed in 1980.” Oorah provides scholarships for yeshiva kids, but the radio spots make no mention of its religious purpose. Not fraud, apparently, but certainly and purposely coy, down to the picture of the African-American kids who used to grace its web site. 

Caveat emptor? (What’s Latin for “those looking for a tax break beware”?) But a troubling picture emerges of Jewish institutions raising money for their own purposes while playing on the sympathies of a public that probably thinks it is helping kids of all faiths, and certainly isn’t interested in supporting a relgious institution’s particularist agenda.

Before you sympathize with the beleaguered fundraisers just trying to keep their Jewish institutions afloat, ask yourself — If you found out the March of Dimes was sending most of its money to build a church and send kids to Catholic school, would you feel a little, I don’t know, duped?

Knock me over with a feather: The Jerusaelm Post reprinted my column on hyphenated last names, and the talkback comments are (for the most part) thoughtful!

Malcolm Parker-Lisberg of the U.K. writes: 

Adding the hyphen means you now have to spell out your surname; with mine is it a ‘u’ or an ‘e’ in -Lisberg and I would guess that you, Andrew, have to spell out the two ‘r’s and two ‘l’s. Does not a change of name signify a significant event in a Jewis life? Was not a name change instigated when life threatening or changing events events loomed?

Jon Levi writes: 

Your article brings up deep issues beyond the scope of the hyphen in the last name. Interestingly enough it’s a great way to bring up the subject of sexual divisions evident in Judaism, from the division of the sexes in the temple during prayer to agunot. 

An Israeli named Bracha writes:

What was Avraham Avinu’s last name?
Or Rashi’s? I’ve kept my own last name for 30 (so far) years of marriage (our names were too long to hyphenate). We have a wonderful, Torah-observant home and so far my children seem to be fine. Why do these rabbis insist on taking non-halachic issues and pretending that they have halachic significance? 
 

And then there’s this, from an NJ charmer named Abe:

FEMINIZED MEN HYPHENATE THEIR NAMES
It’s also a brand of liberals, showing that they are open-minded enough to share their wife’s name. Kumbaya to you Andrew.

And Shabbat Shalom back at ya, Abe!

This week in the New Jersey Jewish News:

• Bob Wiener surveys Republicans and Dems on the upcoming NJ primaries.
• The NJ Senator with the most seniority among his Jewish colleagues is eyeing a seat in Congress.
• Another synagogue merger: Temple Israel in Union, closed its doors and merges with Temple Beth Ahm in Springfield.
• Editorial: Clinton, Obama, and the politics of race and religion. 

Disturbing news out of Lakewood: NJ developer Eliyahu Weinstein is alleged to have defrauded a Miami investor — and fellow Orthodox Jew — Harvey D. Wolinetz out of some $78.5 million in loans and investments. An article on the lawsuit suggests it is a case of “affinity” fraud, in that Weinstein gained Wolinetz’s trust by invoking their common Orthodox ties:

Wolinetz’s trust was “founded on the fact that both men come from the same Orthodox Jewish community,” the suit states. “Instead, Weinstein exploited Mr. Wolinetz’s trust by defrauding him.”

Besides Weinstein, the 27-page lawsuit names as defendants Weinstein’s wife, Rivka Bichler, and two other couples: Simcha and Elana Shain and Michael and Barbara Gindi, who live in the Lakewood, N.J., area.

Awful fodder for those inclined to bash the Orthodox, especially non-Orthodox Jews who think Orthodox Jews are inherently unethical in their business practices. I can’t tell you how many conversations I have with fellow Jews who want to share stories of Orthodox malfeasance. I find it maddening and do my best to explain that every group has its “outliers” and shouldn’t be judged on the basis of its nogoodniks. At the same time, I realize that a crime in a religious community is always going to be magnified since there is the outside expectation that its members should be above such things (not to mention all the Oedipal stuff going on). And the more sheltered a community the more it’s likely to breed suspicion (unless you’re Amish, when everything you do looks adorable from the outside).

Jewish groups do a good job monitoring gentile attitudes toward Jews. Maybe it’s time we got to work on Jewish attitudes toward Jews.

If I were Ms. magazine, I’d hurry to grab the shovel out of Executive Editor Katherine Spillar’s hand. Here’s an excerpt from her updated response to American Jewish Congress:

In Ms. magazine’s judgment, the ad submitted by AJCongress for consideration was inconsistent with this policy. Not only could the ad be seen as favoring certain political parties within Israel over other parties, but also with its slogan “This is Israel,” the ad implied that women in Israel hold equal positions of power with men. Israel, like every other country, has far to go to reach equality for women. As the Israel Women’s Network notes: “Women have consistently received symbolic representation in Israeli politics, at least sufficient enough to generate the myth of an open and egalitarian system.”

In other words, no boasting about women’s gains until your country is perfect. Four current supreme court justices, including its president? A female prime minister? A current foreign minister and speaker of the Knesset? All a ruse to obscure the oppression under which Israeli women live.

Indeed Israeli writers have reported in the pages of Ms. on the continuing efforts of the Israeli feminist movement to combat discrimination and achieve a larger voice for women in the country’s political arena.

Of course, Spillar brought up none of this in her first statement. There it was all about “politics” and favoring one politcal party over another. Now the chains have been moved — advocacy groups must now make claims that meet Ms.’s standards of feminist infallibity. If she said that from the beginning, at least, her claims might now be credible.

Spillar’s literal reading of the ad is laughable, and a willful misreading of a “This is…” [”This is my country,” “This is SportsCenter”] trope that Ms. itself has used. AJCongress pointed out that when Nancy Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House, Ms. featured Speaker Pelosi on its cover with the words “This is What a Speaker Looks Like.” Spillar responds:

[W]e did not claim [in the Pelosi cover] that “This is what the USA looks like.” Far from it, since women comprise only 17% of the Congress, ranking 65th in the world in women’s representation, and continue to face discrimination in every aspect of American society.

But if we were to apply Spillar’s exacting standards, the cover line was misleading because, in fact, a Speaker is hundreds of times more likely to look like an old white guy than a middle-aged, brunette woman.

Using Ms.’s all-or-nothing citeria, they might also reject the famous “This is your brain on drugs” ad, because in fact the brains of many drug addicts do not look like a pair of fried eggs.

Jewish World Review has reprinted my fuller take on the Ms. affair.

Only better than the Oxford Union’s latest debate topic are the guys chosen to defend Israel’s “right to exist”: Norman “Holocaust Industry” Finkelstein and a philospher I never heard of before Saturday.

Alan Dershowitz complains:

But at the Oxford Union the only debate permitted is over the means used to end Israel’s existence; whether Israel should be destroyed by Palestinian suicide bombers, by Hizbullah rockets or by some other means. This is not a public debate!  It is a public execution! Shame on the Oxford Union.  It is not only dead and buried; its attempt at resurrection produced a ghoul. 

Ms. magazine’s pitiful response to its rejection of the American Jewish Congress ad:

Statement of Katherine Spillar, executive editor Ms. magazine

concerning AJCongress ad

January 11, 2008

“Ms. magazine has been criticized for not running an ad submitted by the American Jewish Congress (AJCongress) featuring the photographs of three prominent Israeli women leaders with the statement “This is Israel”. In its press release criticizing Ms., AJCongress has taken the position that Ms. therefore must be ‘hostile to Israel’. This is untrue and unfair.

“Ms. frequently covers women leaders from around the globe. Indeed, the current issue just now hitting newsstands, features a major story profiling Israel’s Foreign Affairs Minister Tzipi Livni, highlighting her career and accomplishments. Livni was one of the women pictured in the AJCongress ad.

“Ms. magazine’s policy, however, is to only accept mission-driven advertisements from primarily non-profit, non-partisan organizations that promote women’s equality, social justice, sustainable environment, and non-violence. The ad submitted by AJCongress for consideration appeared to be a political ad, and as such, was inconsistent with this policy. With two of the women featured in the ad from one political party in Israel, Ms. concluded that in accepting the ad it could be viewed as though it was supporting one political party over another in the internal domestic politics of a country.”

Katherine Spillar, Executive Vice President, Feminist Majority Foundation

Executive Editor, Ms. magazine

433 South Beverly Drive

Beverly Hills, California 90212

kspillar@feminist.org

You really have to see the ad to understand how weak a pretext this is. The ad features head shots of the Speaker of the Knesset, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the President of the Supreme Court, women all, and three simple words: “This is Israel.” True, Livni and Itzik are both Kadima (and how many American Jews, let alone Ms. readers, even know that?), but it does happen to be the ruling party in Israel, so you might imagine that is how they would have reached their positions of power. (What if Germany had placed an ad with a picture of its leader Angela Merkel? Would Ms. have called it political?) Plus, Israel has a coalition government, so the two women represent a larger bloc than just their party. In effect, Ms. is rejecting the ad either because Israel’s most powerful women are not sufficiently diverse for its editors.

Another possibility is that they think, or think their readers will think, that Kadima represents something antithetical to Ms.’s ideals. Considering we’re talking about the centrist Kadima, whose party leader is under fire from the right for even suggesting the division of Jerusalem among other conciliatory moves toward the P.A., what on earth could those “ideals” be?

But to even argue about the ad’s “politics” is to suggest that Ms. is telling the truth. I think the truth lies in what the AJC’s Harriet Kurlander said she was told by a Ms. rep when she tried to place the ad: that it “would set off a firestorm” and that “there are very strong opinions” on Israel. I’m sure that’s true on both ends — that the rep said it and it would set off a firestorm. Sad but true — acknowledging Israeli normalcy and legitimacy is a controversial topic in some political sectors, as if Israel is the sum total of its conflict with the Palestinians.Or perhaps Ms.had a problem with AJCongress, which earlier in the decade had been portrayed as moving to the Right, but has lately embraced positions on “women’s equality, social justice, sustainable environment, and non-violence” that would warm the hearts of many Ms. readers.

Except those, of course, who think you can’t talk about Israel if you’re not willing to rend your garments, beg forgiveness, or condescend to the Palestinian cause.

For discussion around the Shabbat table, from JTA:

Ms. magazine rejected a pro-Israel advertisement from the American Jewish Congress.

The ad highlights successful women in Israel. It shows photographs of three prominent Israelis — Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik, Foreign Affairs Minister Tzipi Livni and the president of the Supreme Court, Dorit Beinish — above the words “This is Israel.”

Harriet Kurlander, the director of the AJCongress Commission for Women’s Empowerment, said in a news release that she was told when she tried to place the ad that it “would set off a firestorm” and that “there are very strong opinions” on the subject, which she believed to mean Israel.

“What other conclusion can we reach except that the publishers — and if the publishers are right, a significant number of Ms. magazine readers — are so hostile to Israel that they do not even want to see an ad that says something positive about Israel?” AJCongress President Richard Gordon asked.

Ms. magazine’s executive editor, Kathy Spillar, disputes that version, telling JTA the ad showed political support for one of Israel’s parties and thus violated magazine standards.

“We only take mission-driven ads,” Spillar said. “Because two of the women in this ad were from the same political party,” that showed favoritism, and the magazine’s policy is not to get involved in the domestic politics of another country.

Gordon noted that the magazine in its Fall 2003 issue ran a cover story on Jordan’s Queen Noor, and the Winter 2004 issue contained an article on the Ramallah Film Festival called “Images of Palestine.”

Spillar responded that “ironically” this month’s issue, just coming to newsstands now, has a two-page spread profiling Livni.

The NY Sun’s version.

Debra Rubin updates our New Brunswick cemetery story.

Announcing the arrest of four juveniles in a devastating attack on a New Brunswick Jewish cemetery, investigators said the evidence points to an act of vandalism rather than a bias crime.

Read the full story here.

I figured out the NPR puzzle, but I had to cheat. Answer after the jump. (more…)