JustASC

JTA reports:

J Street has acknowledged substantial donations from billionaire George Soros, reversing years of claims by the group that it had nothing to do with the liberal financier, and apologized for making misleading statements about his role.

Jim Besser explains why this matters:

There’s no way this isn’t going to make the politicians supported by J Street and those who may be considering accepting its endorsement incredibly nervous. Instead of  providing protection for the politicians they supported, J Street essentially hung them out to dry – not by accepting Soros money, but by lying about their connection to the controversial philanthropist.

And there’s no way this doesn’t sow mistrust among commentators and reporters who write and speak about J Street, and who were repeatedly misled by its officials. J Street sought to create a climate of trust with a press corps that was being spun heavily by its opponents; this news undoes a lot of that effort.

J street was no doubt correct when it asserted that “his involvement would be used against the organization.”  The JTA article lays out the controversial things Soros has said about Israel, and the way his ideological opponents have demonized him.

But is “controversial” the same as “anti-Israel”? At this point that distinction doesn’t matter, since J Street’s fudging over the years seems to suggest that Soros was too hot to handle, at least publicly.

I made a dumb mistake in my column last week, erroneously asserting that the “Gaza 54″ letter signed by Reps. Rush Holt and Bill Pascrell was issued in the wake of the Gaza flotilla incident in May, when in fact the letter was issued the previous January.

Based on my mistaken chronology, I left the impression that at a time when other members of Congress were lining up to defend Israel in the wake of the flotilla incident, the signers of the letter were instead urging that Israel ease its blockade.

In fact, as a Holt spokesperson points out, Holt delivered a speech on the floor of the House after the flotilla incident defending Israel’s actions in the face of a “brutal assault” and describing the actions of the flotilla leaders as “needlessly provocative.” 

I regret the error.

Mideast diplomacy meets Buckaroo Banzai:

In the latest zoo-life-imitates-Mideast politics story (see here and here), Israeli zoo builds a “multimillion-shekel” barrier to keep chimps from throwing rocks at visitors.

Zoo officials were mostly amused by the sudden media interest in the “monkey intifada” playing out at the Biblical Zoo.

“It’s a nice joke, but the big idea is to create a better quality of life for the chimps and a better experience for the visitor,” said said [zoo director Shai] Doron. “I really believe that close interaction – with respect from both sides, both animal and human – leads to a higher awareness and deeper involvement of visitors in wildlife conservation in their personal behavior.”

“And we don’t call it a ‘separation fence,’” Danen added.

“Instead of a fence, now there will be windows.”

I got a nice shout-out today in the Washington Post, thanks to Eugene Robinson, who mentions my column on sharia law:

Andrew Silow-Carroll, the editor in chief of the New Jersey Jewish News, cited that case in a column last month blasting Gingrich’s “sharia-phobia.” Silow-Carroll pointed out two things: First, the system worked — the judge made a boneheaded call, and he was overturned. Second, our system already allows some civil matters — but not crimes — to be settled through other means of arbitration. “Among those alternative mechanisms is the beit din, or rabbinic law court,” Silow-Carroll wrote. “Every day, Jews go before batei din to arbitrate real estate deals, nasty divorces and business disputes.”

If Newt were aware of this, would he blow a gasket? Somehow, I doubt it. His objection seems to be faith-specific.

There should be a term for the arm-wavey motion you make when the motion-sensor that controls the light in your office switches off because you haven’t budged from your desk for a few hours.  

The Dilbert Flail? The On-Off Twitch?

I’m trying to figure out why this is even mildly controversial: According to NYU’s student newspaper, the NYU Office of Public Affairs “issued an e-mail apologizing to the university community for an e-mail they sent out during the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur.”

The e-mail was in response to NYU President John Sexton’s academic year report that was sent out at 10:36 p.m. on Friday evening, the night of Yom Kippur. According to the customs of the holiday, those who observe the Jewish holy day must refrain from eating, drinking and using electronics from sundown on Sept. 17 to sundown on Sept. 18.

A spokesman said

 the [apology] was intended to preempt [emphasis added] any potential complaints about interference with the Jewish holiday. He also said the university originally planned to send the academic year report during the day, but technical difficulties prevented them from sending it out earlier.

I can’t see how this would “interfere with” or trample the sensitivities of Jewish students — you don’t have to open your emails, there was no action that had to be taken within the 25-hours of YK, and I don’t remember it becoming a requirement that private, non-Jewish institutions shut down in deference to the Jewish holy days, even the Big One.

Nor does it seem any Jewish group or individuals complained about the original email.

I guess the apology is a nice gesture, although I worry it reflects an administration’s fears that the Jews are always quick to take offense. Is that what we’ve become in the eyes of the outside world?

Ynet reports on New Year’s predictions from Israeli kabbalists. Highlights include the end of China,  a giant jellyfish invasion, Israel becoming the ”richest country in the world in money and in spirit,” the death of “a leader” (really going out on a limb there), and a computer virus dubbed “‘Chernobyl.”

But here’s my favorite:

Lastly, in the months of Tevet and Shvat, [Rabbi Mordechai Ganot] recommends refraining from slaughtering geese “because at the time of slaughter, the angel of geese has permission to harm the slaughterer”.

There’s an angel of geese? Imagine how disappointing it would be to finally meet an angel and find out his sole responsibility is geese. “You have a terminal disease? Can’t help you there. Now, if you were a goose…”

Worlds-collide post: Yesterday I complained that Woody Allen could have been a tad menschier when a Times reporter wished him a Happy Jewish New Year. Their exchange, I realized today, brought to mind a great bit from the hilarious Love and Death, when Woody’s character, Boris, is challenged to a duel by a Russian nobleman:

Anton Inbedkov: Shall we say pistols at dawn?
Boris Grushenko: Well, we can say it. I don’t know what it means, but we can say it.

Here’s the “worlds collide” part: Anton Inbedkov was played by the late great Harold Gould, who died over the weekend at the age of 86. He was best known as the father of Rhoda Morgenstern on the Mary Tyler Moore Show and Rhoda, but the dueling scene is one of the funniest set pieces in one of the funniest films ever made.

Final connection: Gould was perhaps the best-known alumnus of my alma mater, SUNY Albany, when it was known as the New York State College for Teachers. Ask an Albany alum to name some famous graduates and they’ll usually say, “Harold Gould, um, Steve Guttenberg” and then trail off (Jimmy Smits was supposed to have been a student there, but not according to Wikipedia).

Woody Allen interviewed in the Times:

Asked on Tuesday morning if it was appropriate to wish him a happy Jewish New Year, Woody Allen made it clear that such formalities were not necessary. “No, no, no,” he said with a chuckle, seated in an office suite at the Loews Regency hotel. “That’s for your people,” he told this reporter. “I don’t follow it. I wish I could get with it. It would be a big help on those dark nights.”

I can’t begrudge Allen his alienation from Judaism — that’s his issue and he’s entitled to it. And the author did ask. But what kind of nudnik just can’t respond, “Thanks, you too” and be done with it?

Hell, every December people wish me a Merry Christmas, and I’m happy to say “Thanks, you too.”  I don’t see it as a huge theological dilemma or compromise. It’s just the menschy thing to do.