JustASC

This week in the New Jersey Jewish News:

• Teens sentenced in New Brunswick cemetery rampage: A slap on the wrist?
• Rising bagel prices  leave holes in customers’ wallets
• Foreign aid foe, a son of Holocaust survivors, seeks Lautenberg’s Senate seat
• Negev mayor reports from the frontlines:

The Zionism that we believe in embraced advanced social ideas, liberalism, and socialism, aimed at the triumph of human values over oppression and discrimination.

Our Zionism strives to find new ways of developing Jewish culture. It broadens the circle of Jewish life in the private and public space. Our Zionism adheres to democratic principles and their application in everyday life.

These foundations – built on the search for what is good, decent, and elevated – are what give us the depth and robustness needed to withstand the murderous fanaticism of some of our neighbors.

Zionist Organization of America’s Morton Klein takes off on Obama in a stream-of-consciousness catalogue of Wright quotes and Lasky allegations. The best part is the “P.S.,” where Klein explains:

PS: (Obama excuses some of Wright’s statements by saying, “Wright was a child of the 60’s.” In fact, Rev. Jeremiah Wright went to high school in Philadelphia from 1955 to 1959. The high school he attended was my own alma mater, Central High School. Central, the second oldest public high school in the country, was a magnet school attracting the elite, most serious academic students in the city. The school was 80% Jewish and 95% white. My experience was that the African-American students were treated with the same respect as the white students. The African-American students loved Central as much as the white students did. Many of them come to Central’s reunions. Also, it is interesting to note that Rev. Wright’s father was a prominent pastor and his mother was a teacher and later vice-principal of the Philadelphia High School for Girls, also a distinguished academic high school.)”

In other words, a white Jew like Klein knows better than Wright the kind of experience the minister had at their nearly all-white school.

And since he raised it, I guess it’s also fair to ask of Klein: of that 80% of Jews in his graduating class, are they, or any, as angry and activist as Klein? Has Klein “earned” his sense of outrage at those who disagree with him any more than Wright has? 

Wall Street Journal editorial on Obama’s speech is critical, as you’d expect, but also quite fair-minded in characterizing the Obama-Wright controversy:

Mr. Obama, of course, is in the midst of a chiefly political crisis. No one honestly believes he shares his minister’s rage, or his political and racial beliefs, which have been seen all over cable news and reveal a deep disgust with America. Mr. Obama’s fault, rather, was to maintain a two-decade entanglement with Mr. Wright without ever seeming to harbor qualms about the causes espoused by his mentor and spiritual guide.

Such complacency couldn’t simply be waved off, as the Senator tried initially to do, because it drills into the core of his political appeal: that he represents new thinking and an attempt to end cultural and racial polarization. Mr. Wright imperils the possibility inherent in the first black candidate who has a genuine shot at the Presidency, in part because race is only an element of the Senator’s political character, not its definition.

I’m still stuck on the Obama thing. My column this week:

 Between clergy and congregant

 By Andrew Silow-Carroll

Nothing I am going to write about Barack Obama and his controversial pastor – check that, former pastor – will help you better understand the issue than what Obama himself has to say on the subject. So I urge you to read the speech he gave in Philadelphia on Tuesday.

Many Jews are going to focus on his brief remarks on Israel. He called the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s views on the subject “profoundly distorted” because they see “the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.” That paragraph will undoubtedly be singled out in the dueling emails exchanged by many Jews over the next few months.

But in some ways I am even more intrigued by what the Obama-Wright affair has to say about relationships with our clergy. To what degree are any of us responsible for or implicated in whatever is said from the pulpit and beyond? (more…)

Someone forwarded me this, the latest line of attack on Obama, suggesting his ruminations on black nationalism as a 22-year-old organizer (written later in life, when he was a lawyer and law professor) say more about his true intentions than his public record. It quotes from what I presume is “Dreams from My Father,” and quotes Obama’s thoughts on his conversation, as a young community organizer, with a member of the Nation of Islam:

In a sense, then, Rafiq was right when he insisted that, deep down, all blacks were potential Nationalists. The anger was there, bottled up and often turned inward. And . . . I wondered whether, for now at least, Rafiq wasn’t also right in preferring that that anger be redirected; whether a black politics that suppressed rage towards white generally, or one that failed to elevate race loyally above all else, was a politics inadequate to the task.

The blogger concludes:

In other words, Barack was willing to sacrifice his mother and his grandparents on the alter [sic] of black nationalism. His sentiments were in lime [sic] with those of Rafiq, the Nation of Islam activist. That is the reason he chose a black nationalist church run by “Reverend Wright” who explained to him (p.284): “Life’s not safe for a black man in this country, Barack. Never has been. Probably never will be.”

The author seems to confuse intellectual autobiography with  a policy statement. Having not read the book, I can only assume that Obama was explaining his thinking at the time, and the dilemmas it posed (a not uncommon dilemma in the black community, between let’s say the King model and the Malcolm X model). And what 22-year-old doesn’t find “desperate measures” attractive, or seek to rebel against the ideals of his parents?

And unless I am reading it wrong, it sounds like the quote on the blog is actually Obama’s explanation why he rejected the nationalist model. An important distinction between Rafiq and Obama is that instead of taking up arms or becoming a street radical a la Sharpton, Obama went to Harvard Law School, headed Law Review, ran for public office, and built a pretty much unradical agenda in his two decades of public service, working within the system to effect change as he saw it. (In fact, Obama has been criticized for some for doing too little as a legislator, skipping votes and avoiding tough decisions – hardly the mark of a radical or firebrand.)

Obama’s opponents prefer to see his public record as “window dressing” for his real inner thoughts and ultimate intentions. Is that a fair standard by which to judge a politician – not what he does, not what he says repeatedly and consistently in speeches and print over the years,  but what we might suspect are his deepest motivations? And is that a test we’re willing to apply across the board? 

The excerpt from Obama’s book reminds me of two biographies of ex-Jewish radicals, “Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist” by Yossi Klein Halevi and “You Don’t Have to Be Wrong for Me to Be Right” by Rabbi Brad Hirschfield. (more…)

This week in the NJJN:

• Deja vu across the Hudson: McGreevey drama echoes in NY governor’s scandal.
• A rabbi’s death, and the search effort that united tri-state Orthodox communities.
• A unique look at Roger Clemens from a Verona sportswriter.
• Is Conservative Jewry missing the boat on intermarrieds? By Paul Golin:

…as an intermarried Jew who grew up in the Conservative movement, the message I’d deliver relates directly to the future of the movement.

In a nutshell, my message would be: You lost me, here’s why, and here’s how to get me back..

Battle tested

In 1948, I was 18, and volunteered to travel from a German DP camp to Israel. I served in the Palmach. We didn’t have our own airplanes, but we had volunteers from all over the world. They transferred us from Tel Nof to Beer Sheba, which was still under Egyptian control. We landed in Beer Sheba in the desert sand, then discovered a rebel fighter had shot a bullet into our plane and had missed the gas tank by only two inches. We liberated Beer Sheba in five hours. Yitzhak Sadeh was our general. After capturing Beer Sheba, we fought in Uja al-Rafiah. In the desert, British fighters attacked us. I lost many friends. Every time I return to Beer Sheba to visit my brother-in-law, I am reminded of friends who were killed; a monument stands on a nearby mountain. I eventually immigrated to the United States and have lived here for many years with my wife, three children, and five grandchildren.

Itzhak Szteinberg, Monroe Township

If you’re a New Jerseyan, or have connections to the state, we’d like to hear your Israel story.

The New Jersey Jewish News is putting together an Israel@60 supplement, and wants to include an array of voices from people throughout the community describing their personal attachments to Israel. If you want to take part, then please share with us a photograph or other item that you find particularly memorable, along with a short statement of what it portrays, and what it says about your attachment or connections to Israel.

An example is above. The deadline is April 1 (easy to remember). Please include an identifying line with your name, town of residence, and identifying information of your choosing (e.g. organizational or synagogue affiliation, etc.)  Email submissions to editorial@njjewishnews.com, and put Israel Memories in the subject line.

Please feel free to extend this invitation to others who might have great stories to tell.

Here’s my column for this week, pre-publication:

ASK DR. DIFFERENCE

On the scale of McGreevey to Abramoff, I’d give it a Lewinsky

By Andrew Silow-Carroll

We’re happy to be joined again by Dr. Sam Difference, America’s leading expert in parsing the fine distinctions between seemingly identical phenomena. Speaking by phone from Minneapolis-St. Paul, where he is consulting in a lawsuit involving the fashion designers Isaac Mizrahi, Elie Tahari, and Issey Miyake, Dr. Difference agreed to answer our questions about the news of the day.

Q: A governor in sex trouble, an Israeli connection, a humiliated wife, a stunning news conference. What’s the difference between the McGreevey and Spitzer scandals?

A: I understand your confusion. McGreevey went outside his marriage to canoodle with a male lover; Spitzer went outside his marriage to consort with a prostitute. McGreevey’s alleged lover was an Israeli national; Spitzer’s alleged procurer holds an Israeli passport. But note the differences: McGreevey was quick to resign and garner a degree of public sympathy; Spitzer decided to weigh his options and has few if any defenders.

The big difference here is that McGreevey was able to cast his indiscretion in the name of identity politics: “I’m a gay American!” What is Spitzer supposed to declare: “I am a prostitute-loving American”? “I am a philandering New Yorker”? “My name is Elliot, and I’m a John”?

(more…)

Yikes. First there’s the Israeli lover in the McGreevey scandal, and now this. Don’t think conspiracy theorists won’t make hay out of this one too — fitting my theory of Jewish exceptionalism, anti-Semities feel Israelis can’t just be crooks; they have to be crooks with darkly ulterior motives. 

The alleged procurer in the prostitution scandal surrounding New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has an Israeli passport.

A federal magistrate in New York ordered Mark “Michael” Brener held without bail after his arrest last Thursday related to allegations that he headed the Emperors VIP Club, described by police as a high-priced prostitution ring.

The Associated Press reported that $600,000 in cash and an Israeli passport were elements in the denial of bail to Brener, 62. Brener’s lawyer said he has been a U.S. citixen for 20 years.

The New York Times has reported that Spitzer is the “Client 9″ described in the search warrant that led to the arrests of Brener and four alleged colleagues.

Spitzer, a Jewish lawyer whose office conducted serious investigations of at least two Jewish organizations when he was state attorney general, made a brief statement to the media Monday admitting he had let down his family and the public. He did not offer any details.

And I’m curious how “Michael” became a nickname for “Mark.”
 

Wall Street Journal’s front page reports on complaints that Obama’s Chicago church has been promoting him from the pulpit, and may thus be in violation of federal law that restricts a church’s political activity:

With 6,000 members, Trinity is the largest United Church of Christ congregation. The church is centered in a poor Chicago neighborhood, near public housing and down the road from Cut Rate Food & Liquors, which posts a sign reading “No drug dealing.” A review by The Wall Street Journal of 13 sermons at Trinity seen live or through church-recorded DVDs since late December found nine instances of ministers at Trinity appearing to promote Sen. Obama’s candidacy.

The WSJ explains that prohibition on political speech is aimed at preventing the government from subsidizing — in the form of tax breaks — partisan political speech. And similar scrutiny is being applied to a Baptist church in Buena Park, Calif. that appeared to endorse Huckabee.

Churches get into the endorsement game at their own risk — when they become extensions of a political party or a movement, they risk being co-opted and “bought” in any number of ways. And I resent it when a rabbi assumes the entire congregation shares his/her political views (more than I resent it when they express other views with which I disagree? That’s a good question). But it seems pretty clear that without the ability to address the issues of the day, and in specific terms, clergy and houses of worship risk irrelevance. Stuff about being a “prophetic” voice goes only so far if a rabbi or pastor can’t speak truth to power, however he/she sees the truth and/or the power.

One option is to reform the law and extend to houses of worship the status of other nonprofits, which, as the WSJ explains, “are permitted to engage in partisan political activity but have more limited tax protections. For instance, their financial supporters aren’t allowed to claim tax deductions for their donations.”

But a more consistent, and sensible, option, is for churches and synagogues that want to play politics to give up their tax exemptions. Cal Thomas argued this a few years back:

This would be my preference because it offers them unfettered opportunity to influence and shape government according to their own beliefs without the fear or favor of government leaders who might support their views today, but after a future election, oppose them.

Fundraisers would blanch, and houses of worship would complain that the loss of a tax exemption would hinder their ability to serve the poor and needy (not that serving the poor and needy is a prequisite for earning a tax break, as far as I can tell). We’ve come to accept that the government subsidizes worship as a greater public good. But liberals and conservatives can agree that such support comes with a price: censorship.