Rechercher dans ce blog

Friday, June 30, 2017

Letters, 6/30-7/6

Uplifting Stories

I just read Ed Elhaderi’s story and can’t thank you enough (“My Quest for Fulfillment: How I Left My Roots in Libya to Find a New Life in Judaism,” June 23). I’m 88 years old and am still learning. I’m the daughter of Jewish immigrants and so happy when others find love in Judaism. 

Shirley Goldenberg

via email

I just finished reading your article about Rafi Sivron (“The Unseen Hero,” June 2). I think it’s great that he is getting the attention he deserves. 

Thank you for a great article!

Ryan Stanley

via email

Bringing Civility Back to Political Debate

David Suissa suggests that political debate should occur on weeknights rather than Shabbat (“Rabbis Should Aim Higher Than Politics,” June 23). However, if politics is “ugly and divisive,” as he suggests, no debate is likely to be fruitful. I think the objective instead should be to make politics something other than “ugly and divisive.”

Politics has been defined as the process of deciding who gets what, when and how. Of special importance in our democratic political system is the relative openness of the system, which enhances opportunities to have a say; the idea that the strongly placed and advantaged do not always prevail in the competition; and that ordinary people can and do have an impact upon the result. I feel that rabbis can legitimately dwell in their sermons on the usefulness of the process of politics without arguing for a particular result.

They also can contrast conflicting points of view and ask their congregants to decide for themselves. This is a good way to establish that issues are not “black and white.” (I have taught that way at Cal State Long Beach.)

I have heard Rabbi Jacob Schachter, a leading decisor of the Orthodox Union, argue that every political issue has a solution in Jewish law. If so, this would be the most ambitious way to deal with the problem. It certainly leaves the “ugliness” behind.

Barry H. Steiner

Emeritus Professor of Political Science

Cal State Long Beach

I like what David Suissa said. Our souls should be touched and elevated — that’s one of the reasons I go to temple on Shabbat: to shut the chaos of the week gone by and have my soul soak up the words that I’m hearing from the pulpit. Just maybe they will guide me to go higher than I did last week.

Susan Cohn

Redding, Calif.

Whose Land Is Israel Occupying?

The left thinks it owns the language. It does not! In his short op-ed (“50 Years Later: The Fighting Continues,” June 23), Adam Wergeles, no fewer than five times refers to “the occupation” of the West Bank — viz., Judea and Samaria — part of the ancient territory of Israel. 

Whom does Wergeles and his leftist cohorts think this land is occupied from? Which country? If he answers, “The Palestinians,” let him tell me what country this is. There is no Palestinian state or country, there never has been. It is a made-up name, just like the West Bank. 

If anything, one can say that this territory was taken back from Jordan after the 1967 Six-Day War, when Jordan lost it as a result of Israel’s victory over the aligned Arab countries that were about to attack and sought to destroy Israel. But Jordan never had any claim to the West Bank. 

Jordan held the land as a result of the armistice agreement between the combatants — the so-called Green Line — after the ’48 Arab-Israeli War of Independence. 

In a war, especially when not the aggressor, a country does not return land that was taken back from its enemy. Except in relatively few cases, as in the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt after Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel, conquered territory is incorporated within the confines of the victorious country. 

The Southwestern states of the United States have a sizable Mexican population. Does this mean that they can claim this territory as occupied? 

Saying “occupied” doesn’t make it so.

C.P. Lefkowitz

Rancho Palos Verdes

CORRECTIONS

The Sunday show time for “I’m Not a Comedian … I’m Lenny Bruce” at Theatre 68 was incorrect in the June 23 edition of the Journal. It can be seen 3 p.m. Sundays.

An item in the June 23 edition of Moving and Shaking mistated the official name of the American Society for Yad Vashem gala. The name of the event was Salute to Hollywood.

In Marty Kaplan’s column in the June 23 edition (“Hunk Hawks Hideous Health Bill”), references to Medicare should have been Medicaid.


THE JEWISH JOURNAL welcomes letters from all readers. Letters should be no more than 200 words and must include a valid name, address and phone number. Letters sent via email must not contain attachments. We reserve the right to edit all letters. Mail: Jewish Journal, Letters, 3250 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1250, Los Angeles, CA 90010;
email: letters@jewishjournal.com; or fax: (213) 368-1684.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Letters, 6/30-7/6 : http://ift.tt/2sZxSCN

Klal Yisrael is an Israeli Strategic Asset

When the Kotel compromise was reached two years ago, I celebrated as a Jew and as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel.  But most of all, I was excited as a father.

My wife and I have raised our three daughters to love Jewish tradition, prayer, and values.  I taught them to read Torah and lead Tefilot when they became Banot Mitzvah, which they did with deep kavana.  We are members of Conservative synagogues in both Washington and Israel, where we pray every Shabbat.  In our home, Shabbat is observed with joy and love.

So the Kotel compromise was a source of great excitement in our home. For us to pray as a family, in our style of prayer, at a new recognized egalitarian section, is a dream come true.

As a Jew, I was moved by the wisdom and creativity of the agreement.

The compromise was very elegant.  Each side got something, and each side gave up something.  But importantly, it did not change or disturb traditional prayer at the Kotel in the men’s or women’s section in any way.  The solution came through addition: a new section — Ezrat Israel — for egalitarian prayer, would be added, and the Reform and Conservative Movements, and Women of the Wall, would be among the recognized managers of the site.

The Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, Natan Sharansky, worked hard to bring this agreement about in the interest of Jewish unity.  And Prime Minister Netanyahu was right to praise it as an agreement that guaranteed “one wall for one people”.

So the decision this week to freeze the compromise is baffling, unwise, and hurtful.  So is the new bill calling into question all non-Orthodox conversions, which began advancing this week.

These initiatives hurt many diaspora Jews, who are left with the feeling that the State of Israel, which they love, does not respect their Judaism.

American Jews are frequently asked to stand with Israel.  They go out to defend Israel against BDS and delegitimization.  But now they feel that Israel is directing delegitimization against them.  I heard anger and sadness from many American Jewish friends this week, people who love and have stood by Israel for many years.  But most of all, I heard pain.  After years of supporting Israel, they don’t know if they have a place here.

But of course, it is not only Jews in the diaspora.  These decisions hurt many Israeli Jews, as well.  They harm the principle of Klal Yisrael.

During my term as U.S. Ambassador, I was regularly updated by the negotiators and then-Cabinet Secretary Avichai Mandelblit about the progress of the Kotel talks.  The United States government did not take a formal position, but I saw strategic significance to what they were trying to achieve, and welcomed the result.

I did so because of the critical role that American Jews’ support for Israel plays in the bilateral U.S.-Israel relationship.  I discussed the matter with many ministers, and told them that anything that weakens the strong bond between American Jews and Israel, which is a key pillar of the ties between our countries, is not in Israel’s interest, and not in the interest of the bilateral relationship.  Most of them told me they agreed.

The pain and anger many American Jews are feeling now could accelerate trends that, over time, threaten to erode the connection American Jews feel toward Israel, and the support they are willing to lend to it.

Strategically, it would be wiser for Israel to demonstrate more respect for the Judaism of American Jews.  And in the case of the Kotel compromise, the Israeli government should keep its word, and implement the agreement it signed and hailed when it was reached.  From time to time, Israel asks diaspora Jews to vouch for its commitments.  If it intends to do so in the future, it should keep its commitments to those same communities.  Otherwise, fewer advocates are likely come to its aid.

I understand that leaders face political pressures.  And I understand that there are strong feelings in the Haredi community.  I greatly respect the Haredim.  As Ambassador, I worked with their leaders and rabbis, and with the ministers of their parties.  I visited their communities and synagogues and yeshivot.  I worked hard to build bridges between Haredi communities and other Israelis, and to help them advance economically and in education.

So I have no need to criticize the players.  My concern is focused on the substance of these decisions.  And the decisions are very damaging. 

The solutions are actually very simple  Since the Kotel compromise was only frozen, not canceled, it should be possible to immediately unfreeze it, and begin to implement the original plan.  In the worst case, a new, very similar compromise, that keeps the essential elements but perhaps adds a face-saving fix, should be reached and implemented quickly.  The conversion legislation should not proceed any further.  And the Israeli government and public should open a new, more respectful dialogue with diaspora communities. 


Daniel Shapiro is a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.  He served as U.S. Ambassador to Israel during the Obama Administration. This piece was originally published in Hebrew by Walla News.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Klal Yisrael is an Israeli Strategic Asset : http://ift.tt/2sa2I95

Why the aversion to conversion?

The discourse among Conservative, Reform and other progressive Jewish scholars and clergy has been dominated more than usual over the past few months by the theme of intermarriage. This recent round of debate seems to have been spurred in March by a vote of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism’s General Assembly to allow individual Conservative synagogues to decide whether to grant membership to non-Jews. Since then, numerous articles by rabbis, academics and other Jewish professionals have appeared on this topic. The discussion has continued to pick up steam given the Jewish People Policy Institute’s early-June release of two significant studies: “Family, Engagement, and Jewish Continuity among American Jews” and “Learning Jewishness, Jewish Education, and Jewish Identity.”

The commentators go back and forth on whether, and how, synagogues and other Jewish institutions should welcome intermarried couples, but surprisingly, there is relative silence on a related, and even more significant, topic: conversion. True, some Conservative rabbis, notably Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, are attempting to highlight the importance of conversion and to emphasize the need for some leniency in the ceremony. In an April essay in The New York Jewish Week, Cosgrove wrote: “the Conservative movement should be the movement of conversion.” Despite his efforts to highlight a need for a new direction for his movement, much of the discussion in and about Conservative Judaism continues to grapple with how to address intermarriage rather than how to promote conversion to Judaism.

In some Reform congregations, conversion before marriage is not actively encouraged. One of my non-Jewish students is marrying a Jewish man this summer. When they spoke with the Reform rabbi who will be officiating, the rabbi actually discouraged my student from considering conversion prior to the marriage. According to my student, the rabbi said the decision to convert should be driven by her personal desire to convert, rather than by her desire to marry a Jewish man. Ironically, the Reform rabbi’s response about personal conviction comports with Orthodoxy with one significant difference: a Reform rabbi will still perform the marriage.

In recent years, sociologist Steven M. Cohen and Rabbi Kerry Olitzky have proposed a means of joining the Jewish people that would not require a formal conversion according to Jewish law, halachah, but instead would allow non-Jews to acquire a Jewish cultural identity without a Jewish religious identity. In essence, this is a “cultural” conversion. To be fair, Cohen has long been advocating increased rabbinic conversion, and he sees their concept as a “half-step” between this and nothing.

Although Cohen and Olitzky get points for creativity, this proposal seems to assume that Jewish culture and Jewish law are distinct entities. From a theoretical perspective, however, the reality is that Jewish law and Jewish culture are completely tied together. The law has influenced the culture and the culture has influenced the law. Taken together, both the law and the culture are embedded in the entire chain of Jewish tradition.

I suggest that progressive movements need to develop better marketing skills, because the Jewish religion is a wonderful product. It is a way of life that touches both the mind and the heart. We need to take more pride in our product and encourage others — particularly those who are marrying Jews — to join us as members rather than as spectators. In short, we need to actively encourage conversion.

Of course, there can and should be flexibility as to what conversion standards should look like, depending on the overall nature of a particular Jewish community. But at a minimum, non-Jews contemplating marriage to a Jew must be educated as to the beauty of Jewish tradition and why formal membership matters to the couple and to their future offspring.

In this respect, progressive synagogues can take a lesson from Catholic communities. Recently, a close Catholic friend started taking her 8-year-old daughter to Mass at a liberal Catholic church. Her daughter was upset that she could not receive communion, given that she had not been baptized into the Catholic faith. My friend was told that the situation could be remedied if her daughter converted after taking a one-year program of instruction and initiation, including receiving the sacraments of baptism and reconciliation.

So why do Jews feel that what we have to offer the world should be accessed so much more easily? More lenient conversion standards do make sense for progressive Jews, but when we ignore formal membership as a criterion we do so at our peril.

A Jewish colleague involved with a non-Jewish partner wrote to me just yesterday about all of the current intermarriage discourse in the news and on social media. He remarked that these conversations served as a reminder that his life choices can have drastic consequences, and most significantly, that he may end up “ceding something wonderful.” Progressive Jewish communities should not be able to live with this result.


Roberta Rosenthal Kwall is the Raymond P. Niro Professor at DePaul University College of Law.  She is the author of “The Myth of the Cultural Jew: Culture and Law in Jewish Tradition” (Oxford University Press, 2015) and is currently working on a book about transmitting Jewish tradition in a diverse world.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Why the aversion to conversion? : http://ift.tt/2t8OKFL

Thursday, June 29, 2017

Diaspora Jews cannot expect veto power over Israel

American Jews seem surprised that Israelis aren’t all that moved by Diaspora grumblings they might withdraw support if the Kotel controversy is not resolved in a way that fully respects their forms of Judaism.

The American Jewish argument is, roughly: “Israel is the home for all Jews, and when I come to Israel I want to feel at home. Most specifically, I want to be able to feel comfortable when I pray at Judaism’s holiest site.”

The problem with that argument is political rather than religious. I know it’s painful to hear, but a role for Diaspora Jews in internal Israeli decision-making would be inappropriate (until they make aliyah, God-willing soon).

An analogy could be instructive. Many – but far from all – American congregations recite the Prayer for the State of Israel. It is a lovely practice that highlights the Jewish State at the apex of worship, usually connected with the Torah reading, reminding the community of the importance of Israel and praying to God for its security and success.

But not every synagogue says it. Some congregations don’t for ideological reasons, including yeshiva-style congregations that support the Land and People of Israel but not the State; and some more liberal congregations who reject right-wing Israeli policies. Other congregations omit it to keep the length of the service short.

Some communities in Israel also shun the prayer, but the State of Israel itself benefits from its widest possible adoption. Imagine if Israel stipulated as a condition of continued good Israel-Diaspora relations that every synagogue recite the prayer, so that Israelis who visited America would feel comfortable in any congregation.

It may sound silly, but the parallels are stark:

  • When in Israel, American Jews want to pray in a way that reflects their values. Well, the prayer for the State of Israel reflects the values of Israeli Zionists.
  • Jews in the Diaspora say every Jew should feel welcome at the Kotel. Well, shouldn’t every Jew feel welcome in every synagogue? There’s a reason it’s called a beit knesset (a house of gathering) whose prayers take place in a “sanctuary.”
  • American Jews consider the Kotel to be a special, unique site. Well, for Israelis in most cities, local synagogues are islands of Jewish life they gravitate to even if they’re not strictly religious.
  • American Jews don’t see how an extra section for egalitarian prayer really hurts the Orthodox. Israeli Jews could similarly ask who it hurts to add just one prayer to the liturgy of every American synagogue — after all, nobody will be forced to say it.

So what would be wrong with such a demand?

It’s simple: Israelis don’t get input into American synagogue policy. Worship is determined by rabbis and cantors, boards and congregants. In fact, engineering appropriate liturgy can sometimes create conflict among congregational factions. Outside demands would not be welcome.

It’s the same in Israel. Here’s a sketch of the political landscape regarding the Kotel status quo: Israel has one significant group (Charedim) who defend it very strongly; one (religious Zionists) who defend it more calmly; one (secular Israelis) who lean toward liberalization but don’t really care; and one (Arabs) who do not care at all. Very few Israelis enthusiastically favor change.

Any functioning democracy would maintain the status quo. The question becomes, then, whether Diaspora Jews should have a vote — or in this case, a veto. They should not.

I want the Israel-Diaspora relationship to continue to flourish. But there have to be red lines, and one of those is that neither side gets to threaten the entire arrangement over a matter whose purview truly belongs to one side. In this case, American Jews insinuate dampened financial and political support unless the Kotel they rarely pray at is run like the synagogues at home they really pray at. If American Jewish support for Israel is so tenuous that a kerfuffle over Kotel architecture can turn them away, they were never really in our corner anyway.

Israelis are known for being both sweet and prickly at the same time, and that’s how I’ll conclude: Diaspora Jews, we would love to welcome you as permanent parts of our society. The moment you get off an aliyah flight at Ben Gurion International Airport you will have both a figurative and a literal vote in all our controversies, Kotel and otherwise. If you’re not ready for that commitment, let’s work together to help both our Jewish communities thrive.

But if you mean it, and you’re not willing to help Israel unless we set aside the results of our democratic system to boost your self-esteem and enhance your davening during sporadic visits, then the Startup Nation in the Promised Land can do without you.


David Benkof is a frequent contributor to the Jewish Journal. He lives in Jerusalem. Follow him on Twitter (@DavidBenkof) and http://ift.tt/2mGILXa, or email him at DavidBenkof@gmail.com.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Diaspora Jews cannot expect veto power over Israel : http://ift.tt/2ss8P8b

A crash course in extremism

Of all the dangerous situations a single woman of marriageable age could enter into, interviewing Islamist extremists could easily top the list. 

But for reasons even she cannot explain, journalist Souad Mekhennet has been spared the grim fate of so many others, including many women and journalists who have not survived their encounters with Islamic jihad. 

In the early pages of her best-selling memoir, “I Was Told to Come Alone,” Mekhennet admits that her background makes her an “outlier” among those covering global jihad and claims it has given her “unique access to underground militant leaders.”

Though she was born and raised in Germany, she is a Muslim of Turkish-Moroccan descent who is well versed in the principles of Islam and speaks both Middle Eastern and North African Arabic. She also considers herself Western, liberal and feminist. As a child, she dreamed of becoming an actress.

It was the film “All the President’s Men” that led her to a career in journalism. Today, as national security correspondent for The Washington Post, Mekhennet’s manifold identity has played a role not only in her entrĂ©e to the dangerous, unpredictable and clandestine world of jihad but in her motivations for covering it. 

“Sometimes it’s really tiring,” she said when I met her during a recent book tour to Los Angeles. “Sometimes it hurts. Because I try to challenge; I try to somehow build bridges.”

Her work is reportage, but it’s also personal. Mekhennet tries to explain jihad to the West and the West to jihadists, often finding herself in the peculiar position of mediator. Not everyone wants to hear what she has to say: that violent extremists are people too; that they have stories to tell, beliefs that can and should be interrogated but which can be accessed only if we, Westerners, would listen.

For almost two decades, Mekhennet has searched for the answers to why and how individuals become radicalized. She began her work just after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when the widow of a 9/11 firefighter told a group of journalists she blamed them, in part, for why her husband was killed.

“She said, ‘Nobody told us there are people out there who are hating us so much,’” Mekhennet recalled. “And she looked at me, because I was the only person of Arab-Muslim descent there. And she was waiting for an answer, and I couldn’t give her one.”

Mekhennet’s investigation has taken her all over the world, from the insular terrorist cells of Europe to the front lines of wars in Iraq and Syria. Along the way, she has struggled to understand those who use Islam to justify violence and to explain their motivations to a stupefied West. She tries to reconcile a perversion of Islam with the one she inhabits, claiming religion doesn’t radicalize people, people radicalize religion.

Throughout her encounters, Mekhennet finds herself in talmudic-like disputes with extremists, challenging them over their interpretation of the Quran. She told one ISIS commander, “This is not the jihad, what you’re fighting. Jihad would have been if you’d stayed in Europe and made your career. It would have been a lot harder. You have taken the easy way out.”

Her methods may seem audacious, even dangerous for someone who often finds herself in isolated areas beyond the rule of law of any government. And how many Western journalists could argue like that with a terrorist and live to tell the tale? Only someone educated in Islamic teaching could even mount such an argument, and one of the lessons of Mekhennet’s book is that knowledge of one’s subject is essential to ferreting out truth.

The question is: To what end?

No explanation can justify brutality. Plenty of people have suffered injustice and not taken up weapons and killed innocents. If Mekhennet’s version of Islam is compatible with modernity, then why is it also compatible with a murderous caliphate?

“When it comes to violent acts or terrorism, it is unfortunately the reality that [some] people are using Islam or call themselves Muslims and commit acts of violence,” she said. “There is a problem that we have within our Muslim communities where we need to have an honest conversation about who is speaking on behalf of Islam, and what kinds of interpretations and ideologies are out there, and how can we deal with that [as a community]?”

Mekhennet’s book is a cri de cƓur to the West to try to understand “the hearts and minds” of extremists to better defeat them. She believes current policies are misguided, and that simplistic generalizations portraying a clash of civilizations are playing into the hands of recruiters who exploit Western antipathy to Islam to indoctrinate young jihadists.

For many radicals, she says, “it’s too late; there is a point of no return.” But others, she believes, can be saved.

“This is not a clash of civilizations or religions,” she said. “This is a clash between people who want to build bridges and look at what we have in common and those who want to preach divides.”

She recounted the time she went to Mecca for the Hajj pilgrimage. Next to the Kaaba, Islam’s holiest site, is another place of honor where it is believed Abraham set foot. Having spent years studying religious divides, “this was a moment, where I said to myself, ‘Why are people not getting it? We’re connected.’”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

A crash course in extremism : http://ift.tt/2up11VM

On anti-Semitism at Chicago Dyke March

I am a queer Israeli Jew of Arab and North African descent. I’m no stranger to oppression in many forms. My family escaped Iraq in the early 1950s as anti-Semitism in Iraq reached a peak. I grew up in an underprivileged neighborhood in Israel and struggled to make my way out of it. I served in the Israeli army as an openly queer commander for five years, and had to endure many battles on the path for acceptance. Yet I cannot wrap my head around the bigotry, hatred and anti-Semitism coming from my LGBT community.

On June 24, the final red line was crossed at the Chicago Dyke March. What was supposed to be a march for equal rights for an oppressed minority turned into a hate-fest targeting Jewish people — yes anti-Semitism in the guise of LGBT rights. Three LGBT Jewish participants were forced out of the parade for holding a rainbow flag with a Star of David on it. For the organizers, it was unacceptable to have a Jewish symbol at the parade. While you might think that they would try to apologize after this shameful act, they didn’t. The organizers took to Twitter and argued: “Queer and Trans anti-Zionist Jewish folks are welcome here …” In other words, some Jews can join, but they will decide which ones.

It is not a political stand; we all know it is not. If this were political, why are they not targeting the countless countries that ban homosexuality and target LGBT people on a daily basis? Would they be removing Iranians from the parade for holding a flag with crescent on it? In Iran, they hang gays every day. Why not Gaza, where they throw gays off of rooftops? Or Chechnya? It is not political, it is ideological, an ideology called intersectionality. The problem with intersectionality is that it doesn’t even adhere to its original meaning: All struggles for rights are inherently connected. It has now become a tool to be used against not only Israel, but Jews in general, who are accused of “white privilege” even though we’re not white.

What does the support of Zionism (the movement to liberate the Jewish people in their ancient homeland) have to do with your LGBT identity? What does your religion have to do with it? Even if you are critical of Israel’s politics and policies, as I am and many Israelis are, why are the organizers supporting only “anti-Zionists”? The only meaning of anti-Zionism is the destruction of Israel, the only Jewish state. For the organizers of the parade to support anti-Zionism can mean only that they support the end of Israel, destroying the Jewish state. Iran’s leaders, ISIS, and many terrorist groups hold similar views to the organizers of the Dyke March. It can be defined only as anti-Semitic.

We are witnessing a trend among many in the progressive camp, a camp of which I am a part, that is losing its true identity and being used by campaigners and strategists manipulating them. Some queer groups and other minority groups are being used as tools to promote hatred of the Jewish state and the Jewish people. They are being told to use their identity, be it their race, gender or religion, to fight Israel for a cause they have no connection to. These groups must ask themselves, before taking a stand about Israel, when was the last time they took a stand about another conflict around the world? When was the last time they’ve judged a participant in an event based on his ethnicity or religion? Why is it only with Israel and Jews that they feel that they have the liberty to boycott, to discriminate and to hate?

The signs are clear and this type of hateful incident is a red flag for the LGBT community. What is this community if not a community that is fighting for equality and justice, for our community and for all? Although it is not popular to stand up for the Jewish people and the Jewish state, we must remember the lessons of history. It might start with us but it never ends with us.

Also, everything can change very quickly. The just thing to do is to stand up to this type of hatred and call it what it is, nothing more or less than anti-Semitism.


Hen Mazzig is an Israeli writer, speaker and social activist from Tel Aviv. You can follow her @HenMazzig.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

On anti-Semitism at Chicago Dyke March : http://ift.tt/2srX6Gm

Reversal on Kotel decision ruptures promise of Jewish unity

Why wasn’t I surprised to hear that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flip-flopped again and reneged on the government’s 2016 decision to allow egalitarian prayer at the Kotel? Perhaps because at the same time I was watching the current season of “House of Cards,” where anything goes to stay in power.

Frankly, I don’t care so much about the Kotel. Yehuda Amichai, the great Jerusalemite poet, once wrote that Jerusalem will become normal only when a tour guide will stop telling his group, “You see the man sitting there? On his right, there is an ancient arch.” (I’m paraphrasing fom memory.) Instead, he should say, “You see the arch there? Left of it there is a man, probably coming back from the market.”

However, I remember vividly the moment 50 years ago, in the heat of the Six-Day War, when I landed from a sortie in Sinai and upon entering my squadron’s officers mess, I heard the words “Har HaBayit BeYadeinu” (The Temple Mount is in our hands). An outburst of joy erupted from our crowd of airmen, with none of us being even close to Orthodoxy.

Reflecting on this today, I know that what touched us at Squadron 103 so deeply had nothing to do with religion but with the fact that this Wall was the focus of yearning and praying of Jews over centuries. When Jews say “Next Year in Jerusalem,” they have the Kotelin mind. Indeed, some worship it because it was a part of the Second Temple, while others, like me, tend to regard it as an important magnet for Jewish identity. More than the Kotelitself,I value the fact that my friend, professor David Heid, a philosopher from The Hebrew University, is one of the four paratroopers immortalized in the famous photo taken by David Rubinger, standing next to the Kotelimmediately after it had been taken. 

Now, the Kotelmanages to stir emotion in my heart once more, this time rage, not elation, and again, it is not about religion but about the base, cynical and ungrateful attitude of the Israeli government toward fellow American Jews.

In November 2015, Netanyahu addressed the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, in Washington, D.C. To the standing ovation of the crowd he promised, “I will always ensure that all Jews can feel at home in Israel — Reform Jews, Conservative Jews, Orthodox Jews — all Jews.” 

Then he touched upon the issue of the Kotel specifically: “I am also hopeful that we will soon conclude a long overdue understanding that will ensure that the Kotel is a source of unity for our people, not a point of division. And we’re getting there, I have to say.”

Indeed, in January 2016, the Israeli government decided to establish a pluralist prayer section at the Kotel. The architect of this momentous move was Avichai Mandelblit, then-government secretary and today attorney general, an Orthodox Jew. On June 25, Netanyahu’s government surrendered to its ultra-Orthodox veto-holders and reversed its decision.

I wonder if Netanyahu would dare address the next General Assembly and speak again about Jewish unity to thousands of Jews of all denominations — those who responded to his oratory and rallied against their own government on the Iran deal, when he asked them to do so. What a shame.

What should American Jews do now? To start with, the board of governors of the Jewish Agency was right in cancelling a dinner that was scheduled with Netanyahu for June 26. In the longer run, the best thing that could happen would be an aliyah of 1 million American Jews — Conservative, Reform, Modern Orthodox — who would change the political scene here. Just see what the Jews from the former Soviet Union have accomplished here in a short time.

Assuming that this option is not so viable, then second best for American Jews would be not to wash their hands of Israel, but to ally with individuals, movements, organizations and parties in Israel that believe in and promote equality for all Jews, regardless of how they choose to exercise their religion.

There are still some of us here who will fight against this political-religious tyranny, and if necessary, I’m willing to even mobilize my old comrades from Squadron 103 for that cause.


Uri Dromi is director general of the Jerusalem Press Club. He served as spokesman of the Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres governments from 1992 to 1996, during the Oslo peace process.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Reversal on Kotel decision ruptures promise of Jewish unity : http://ift.tt/2sVEG4m

Embracing the Rachmones Challenge

worry that I don’t think about my father enough. He died 20 years ago and his presence doesn’t haunt me. I don’t talk to him when I’m stuck in traffic.

But a picture of him sits on my desk, taken at the beach circa 1975. His hairy chest is fully exposed, the gold chai he always wore embedded in the hair.

He’s looking right into the camera. “You can do it, sweetheart,” I’ve decided he’s saying from behind those tinted lenses set in aviator frames.

It’s not an accident that this picture sits on the desk where I write.

Victor, given this name by my grandmother because he was born on Armistice Day 1918, thought I could do anything. He once left me in the driver’s seat of his car at the corner of Lexington Avenue and 38th Street in New York, a month after I passed my driving test.

“Go park,” he said, getting out and slamming the door.

I guess I’m lucky this was his legacy to me, the sense that if I put my mind to something, I can figure it out. It’s in times when my confidence is flailing that I beckon his memory. And also whenever someone orders a bagel “with the insides taken out.”

I also hear his voice clearly whenever anyone uses the word rachmones, which, granted, is almost never. But sometimes, when I am feeling particularly intolerant, “judgy,” if you will, I don’t even have to hear a person say the word for an old Jewish man to whisper in my ear, “Sweetheart, have a little rachmones.”

For those for whom Yiddish is not a second language, or even a third or fourth, rachmones is defined by essentially four words: mercy, compassion, forgiveness and empathy. Looking back on my youth, the fact that my father said this to me repeatedly suggests that I wasn’t the warmest child on the block.

In my defense, I was not a golden-haired Cinderella, was not particularly athletic, and very few children played the flute as badly as I did. What I did have was smarts. Maybe it was spending my formative years in New York City, with its you-snooze-you-lose pace, but I was very quick. And I didn’t understand if you weren’t. I was impatient, intolerant and intense. Rachmones was for suckers.

What’s great about life, or my life anyway, is how little my superior brain did to make me happy; to build meaningful relationships, to listen, to help me connect with people in a way that made me feel less lonely at the end of the day. You know what does this better than getting A’s? Rachmones.

Vic never went to college, a fact that always embarrassed him. According to family lore, he sold apples during the Great Depression; after that, he sold clothes, then finally real estate. He wasn’t a book-smart man. Given the absence of wealth in his early life, his parents’ divorce, his Eastern European bouts of depression, I’ll admit no one ever accused my father of being happy. But he cared deeply for his family and friends, who gave him great joy, and that caring nature most definitely enabled him to practice what he preached to me.

The other night, I saw a terrible show; I had paid a babysitter so I could see it; and I got stuck in parking lot traffic going home. That’s the holy trinity of misery for me. I was out with my husband, and I was fuming. He turned up the radio. Listening to KDAY-FM was far more enjoyable than my stewing in silence.

Somehow, above the din of the blaring rhymes on the radio, I heard that little, old Jewish man voice. “Sweetheart … ” And something in my mind shifted. These people in the show had an idea and they saw it through and it wasn’t perfect, but where was my compassion, my empathy for how hard it is to create anything?

I took a deep breath and relaxed a little. My husband turned down the music and we found something to laugh about. Shon fartik. Translation: “pretty ending,” another of my father’s favorite Yiddish expressions.

Here’s what I’m suggesting, and not in a Pollyanna or Rifka-Anna kind of way: Why don’t we all take “The Rachmones Challenge”?

I know we can all think of at least 10 million to 59.8 million people who should do this first, but, unfortunately, we have no control over them. For the sake of finding a little more peace in our days, against very serious odds, maybe we can try to find one or two interactions during which we take a second to breathe and think about mercy, compassion, forgiveness and empathy.

The Rachmones Challenge will not raise money. It will not clean out your colon. But if you commit to it, it may just deliver to you, and the people around you, something neither of these goals can: a soul-nurturing dose of humanity.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Embracing the Rachmones Challenge : http://ift.tt/2slvwiZ

There’s more to the story: Look beyond the wall

choose not to wallow today. I identify with Rabbi Akiva in the story in which his rabbinic peers tore their garments upon seeing the ruins of Jerusalem. They see a destruction prophesied by a particular biblical verse. Rabbi Akiva smiles, reminding them that the end of that verse prophesies redemption. Now that the nadir envisioned by the verse has transpired, the eventual aliyah also is inevitable.

So I celebrate today. Even though the Charedi hold on Israeli politics is at times corrupt, as the Kotel fiasco attests, for me redemption is not tied to a particular wall. I am bemused by the fact that so much focus is put on prayer at the ruin of the Temple by the Jews who least ache for that spot to re-emerge as the center of Jewish spirituality.

For the progressive traditional Jew, what transpires at the Kotel may be important symbolically, but it pales in comparison to the evolutions transpiring throughout the land — the mashup of secular seekers and traditional liturgy at various kabbalat Shabbat phenomena that are growing; the vitality of Masorti and Progressive communities despite the infrastructural challenges that inhibit them; the will exhibited by myriad Israelis to reject the monopoly of the rabbanut by making decisions to marry creatively rather than under near-theocratic conditions.

Last summer, I attended a cousin’s wedding on an Orthodox kibbutz, where the officiant was female, and at which the hordes of tzitzit-flying, tichl-wearing celebrants saw no conflict between traditional Jewish rituals and practice along with female religious leadership and party-style mixed dancing. This same cousin, who helped found an Orthodox/egalitarian minyan in Jerusalem, recently posted on Facebook wishing a “Mazel tov” on the recent wedding … of Moshe and Eran, two of his closest male friends.

I’d tear a tiny thread in my clothes, as I wish that on my next visit to the Kotel I, and my daughters, can pray in the manner we find sacred. But this symbolic setback is dwarfed by the successes we see playing out in spots that are more important to the Jewish future even than those venerable stones. I know we will not win every engagement. And the perfect is the enemy of the good. And Robinson’s Arch is a beautiful place to hold egalitarian prayer. And if we scope out beyond those square meters, and if we are witness to (and financially contribute to) the efforts to egalitarian-ize and modernize and evolution-ize the many Judaisms of modern Israel, then we can stand with Rabbi Akiva, and celebrate the burgeoning redemptions. 


Rabbi Adam Kligfeld is senior rabbi of Temple Beth Am.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

There’s more to the story: Look beyond the wall : http://ift.tt/2slrmYz

Big, Beautiful Tents: Zweiback on Kotel controversy

I remember the first time I saw you. It was the summer of 1978 and the whole family was traveling to Israel to celebrate the b’nai mitzvah of my older sister and brother. We’d only just met and I didn’t know your story yet, but I recall feeling impossibly small in your presence. Despite the heat, you were cool to the touch. I stood right next to you, holding my father’s hand as he gently rested his forehead against you, whispering a prayer.

Although both of my siblings had participated fully in the ceremony we’d celebrated at our synagogue in Omaha, Neb., a few months earlier, only my brother was given the honor of chanting Torah in your presence. My sister, my mom, my grandmother, my aunt and all of the other women stood on chairs on the other side of the divider as the men (and 8-year-old me) gathered around my brother to hear him recite the ancient blessings.

I don’t remember how I felt at the time about my mother having to stand on a chair to watch from a distance, but when I think about it now, almost four decades later, it makes me sad.

Over the years, I’ve visited you more times than I can count. I’ve stood before you with some of the people who matter to me most. I cried in your presence as I watched my grandfather lean against you to write a final letter to my deceased grandmother, telling her that he’d see her soon. I’ve introduced you to hundreds of people, from teenagers on summer tours to families on synagogue missions.

I’ll be with you again in just a few days. This time, I’ll bring two young women to stand beside you as they chant these words from our tradition: Mah tovu ohalecha Ya’akov, mishk’notecha Yisrael!  How beautiful are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel! (Numbers 24:5).

Parashat Balak is the perfect text for such a time as this. A prophet is sent by our enemy to curse Israel. He explains that he can say only the words that God puts into his mouth and out comes a blessing instead. It can be read as a prayer, too: “May it be Your will, O God, that we might have the courage and wisdom to pitch big, beautiful tents like Abraham and Sarah, open on all sides, welcoming all who would enter.”

We magnify and glorify our tradition when we find room in our hearts for our entire community: women and men; secular and religious; Orthodox and Reform; Ashkenazi and Sephardi; gay, straight, and transgender; Jews by birth and Jews by choice along with non-Jewish friends and family members who have cast their lots with our People. This week’s reversal by the Netanyahu government of its previous agreement to provide an egalitarian prayer space at the Kotel and its views on conversion diminish our tradition and weaken our community.

There are congregations throughout Israel and the Diaspora that continue to support a broad, inclusive Judaism. Every day, I am grateful to be part of a synagogue that consciously and intentionally tries to celebrate the big, beautiful diversity of our contemporary Jewish community.

Next week, as I travel to Jerusalem and approach that ancient Wall, I won’t hear those young women chant Torah in the same place where my brother stood. Women’s voices still aren’t welcome there, so we’ll go a hundred yards farther south where, for now at least, we can join together as a community to worship, to give thanks, and to celebrate what it means to be part of a People called Israel.

And when those two young women raise their voices in prayer and song, proudly adding their links to our chain of tradition, you’d have to have a heart of stone not to be moved to offer a simple prayer: “May all of Jacob’s descendants, all Israel, soon come to agree that each and every member of our diverse community deserves a place of honor within the tents of Israel.” 


Rabbi Yoshi Zweiback is senior rabbi of Stephen Wise Temple.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Big, Beautiful Tents: Zweiback on Kotel controversy : http://ift.tt/2slMJZA

Can Nick Melvoin bring more Jews to LAUSD schools?

One of the many items on Nick Melvoin’s agenda as a new member of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) board is whether he can help make the L.A. public schools more attractive to middle-class Jewish parents and their children.

As I prepared to interview him recently, I knew this might not be the most pressing issue facing an enormous, financially troubled school district confronted with the many problems of urban America. But I thought it was important given that this group’s support had been significant to the public schools before it started to desert them in recent years. I had discussed the matter often with the man Melvoin defeated at the polls in May, school board President Steve Zimmer, and I wanted to know his successor’s views.

But, like I said, there’s so much else at play. Melvoin and the other new school board member, Kelly Gonez, are committed to a larger remodeling of the district, which often has proved to be ungovernable. They were backed in the election by rich supporters of charter schools who long have criticized LAUSD. These contributors want more charter schools, which are public schools not bound by union contracts and other district rules and regulations. The charter school backers say they provide a better education for students.

The teachers union, United Teachers Los Angeles, see the charters as a union-busting device. Complicating the matter, because of the intricacies of school finance, some state funds go to the charters, which reduces the money available to regular public schools.

Charter school supporters and their opponents, the unions, spent $15 million on the election between Melvoin and Zimmer, with the charter supporters donating twice as much as their foes. The result was the most expensive school board election in U.S. history.

No doubt, Melvoin, 31, and Gonez, 28, got an idea of how hard remaking the district would be when they were schooled in the district’s byzantine ways by veteran staff members at a three-day session from June 21-23. I met Melvoin in his campaign manager’s Mid-Wilshire office after one of the sessions. I could imagine the scene: Veteran educators, resistant to change, assuring the young newcomers, “Kids, listen to us. We know the ropes. This is how we’ve always done it.”

I could see that he needed a shot of energy, and he immediately steered me to a Starbucks, where we talked about the importance of keeping white, middle-class students in LAUSD, including Jews.

First, though, a bit of context: The district in 2015 reported that 74 percent of its students were Latino, 9.8 percent white, 8.8 percent African-American, 3.8 percent Asian and 3.5 percent Native American and other ethnicities. Bruce Phillips of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, along with USC’s Richard Flory and Diane Winston, found that about half of the white students in LAUSD are Jewish. That’s based on figures from 2000; Phillips said newer information is badly needed.

The school district reports that 84 percent of students attending the most recent academic year qualified for free and reduced-price lunch, the federal definition of poverty.

Melvoin said he thinks it’s important to increase the number of middle-class students in the Los Angeles schools. The additional middle-class parents, who vote more than the poor, would increase political influence on board members, maybe resulting in improved policies and administration. More middle-class students would make Los Angeles schools more economically and ethnically diverse, which studies show improves education and civic involvement. And more students would increase the amount of state aid — allocated by enrollment size — going to LAUSD.

Melvoin said he saw the importance of middle-class involvement in his campaign. “When you have a group of parent advocates engaged in a way that they haven’t been in the past, you have this advocacy base, this group of politically aware parents with political and social capital,” he said.

Melvoin said his involvement in the Jewish community and interaction with other young Jews showed that more Jewish students would bring to the schools a more diverse cultural experience when Jews, Latinos, African-Americans and other ethnicities mingle in classrooms, the theater, bands and in social life.

“I’m on the board of the Union for Reform Judaism and involved with The Jewish Federation and some of the young professional cohorts, so I think having a diverse school setting is an important value. … For our community, being in integrated schools and having our kids being in school with kids from a lot of diverse communities will strengthen the education our kids will receive,” he said.

Melvoin said that more Jewish students would bring to the schools a more diverse cultural experience.

But Melvoin, who was a middle school teacher in Los Angeles for two years, conceded it will be a tough sell, especially at poor schools where many students have limited English skills and test scores are lower.

“Parents first look at test scores,” Melvoin said. “Until they see academic improvement, they won’t send their kids. … Until you improve the core instruction, I don’t think some of these middle-class parents will be interested.”

I asked him about what it will take to improve the schools. “Great teachers, great principals, engaged parents, rigorous curriculum, deeper dives into content,” he said.

I don’t think any of previous board members would disagree with those generalities. But his predecessors have been stymied by obstacles big and small of which Melvoin still is unaware.

He will have to deal with hostile unions, especially when the board tries to reduce pension and benefit costs that administrators have warned are driving the district into bankruptcy. Charter school advocates will demand action from Melvoin after they financed his campaign. Parents will besiege him with complaints.

All this for a salary of $45,637 a year.

Charles Taylor Kerchner, a professor and research scholar at Claremont Graduate University, described the new school board member’s challenge well on the Education Week website: “Remember the little dog you used to have: the one that chased cars but was smart enough not to ever catch one? Nick Melvoin caught the car. Now, he and his big money backers have to figure out what to do with the nation’s second largest school district.”


Bill Boyarsky is a columnist for the Jewish Journal, Truthdig and L.A. Observed, and the author of “Inventing L.A.: The Chandlers and Their Times” (Angel City Press).

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Can Nick Melvoin bring more Jews to LAUSD schools? : http://ift.tt/2sphRTc

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

L.A. clergy respond to the Kotel controversy

We have seen the selling out of the Jewish people for crass political power.  However, it isn’t usually done by a prime minister of Israel to Jews around the world. Benjamin Netanyahu’s crass political move to renege on the compromise reached with the Reform and Conservative Movements and Women of the Wall on appropriate egalitarian prayer space at the Kotel is alarming and shameful.

The plan to build egalitarian prayer space at the Western Wall was negotiated by the prime minister’s own representatives. His representatives Natan Sharansky and now-attorney general Avichai Mendelbilt were the ones who spoke for the Israeli government. It was hailed as an historic agreement by the prime minister’s own office. Netanyahu came to the U.S. and himself addressed American Jewry about the importance of this.

I sat across from the prime minister a year ago February in his office when he assured me and rabbinic leaders of the Reform Movement, “It will happen.”  Following the meeting at the annual convention of the Reform rabbinate in 2016, we held the first services in what was to eventually become the new space. It was a spiritually uplifting and moving experience to pray with my fellow rabbis next to the ancient and historical symbol of our people’s continuity, men and women together as is our authentic Jewish experience.

The prime minister, who claims to speak for all Jews, has betrayed a significant portion of the Jewish people by giving in to Charedi demands.  He is not a man of his word or a man of honor and he is leading the government of Israel to act immorally.

The sacrifices of the ancient Temple were designed to restore wholeness and holiness to individuals who have sinned and to the Jewish people. Prime Minister Netanyahu instead has sacrificed the majority of American Jews on the altar of his political expediency, reinforcing the very sin that destroyed the ancient Temple: sinat chinam, the hatred of Jew against Jew. This is the sin our Talmudic Sages teach destroyed the Temple. Netanyahu’s actions further alienate American Jews from finding a place and connection to the Jewish homeland. As a Reform rabbi I try to build up that connection and help Jews find their way home. The prime minister has increased the distance and removed the welcome mat from the doorway.

Rabbi Denise L. Eger, Congregation Kol Ami


I am saddened, of course, that things had to come to this point, and that no effective compromise was brokered that could avoid the considerable pain experienced on both sides of the divide. I cannot say that I understand what happened.

I am saddened by the hype and the untruths that are being spread. While I can understand some of the feelings of let-down in the non-Orthodox world, I cannot understand charges that this move is a repudiation of their Jewishness. It is rather, for better or worse, nothing but the affirmation and continuation of a long-standing policy recognizing the holiness of the Wall as defined by halachah. No one — no one — is barred from participating in prayer there. The leaders of the movement to carve up the Kotel were not motivated by lack of a place where they could pray according to their fashion. Robinson’s Arch would have been more than adequate. The word that they have used has been “visibility,” i.e. they wished to make a statement about the legitimacy of their beliefs in high profile. Let’s at least be honest that this is not about equal access. It is about marketing.

Mostly I am saddened that the rift between Jewish brothers and sisters has become so cavernous that people speak of “rethinking” their commitment to the State of Israel. Do we support it because of what it can do for us, or because of its centrality in Jewish thought? Could it be that lots of non-Orthodox folks in Israel sense this wavering commitment, and are therefore prepared to listen to the Orthodox position, recognizing that only a halachic tradition will be a guarantor for the Jewish future?  I suspect that the heterodox movements have lost far more through this than a place at the Southern Wall.

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, Co-founder of Cross-Currents, an online journal of Orthodox Jewish thought


This is a triumph of expediency and fear over principle and unity. We all understand the political calculation involved, and the need for the prime minister to keep his coalition happy. But as Harry Truman memorably said, sometimes you have to put your principles aside and do what’s right. This betrayal tastes bitter in the mouths of those who love our people and our land.

Rabbi David Wolpe, Sinai Temple


This move by the government of Israel reneging on the Kotel agreement and promoting the conversion bill that would disenfranchise 500,000 people in Israel and around the world is a violation of the trust of the Jewish people. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has allowed a small group of religious extremist fanatics to separate the Jewish people from the State of Israel so that he can remain Prime Minister regardless of the importance of maintaining the unity of the Jewish people.

Jews everywhere should insist that the Prime Minister withdraw the conversion bill from consideration in the Knesset and reverse his government’s decision to ignore the Kotel agreement. The Prime Minister should also apologize to Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky, who at the Prime Minister’s request five years to find a compromise agreement on the Kotel that unifies the Jewish people, did so and then Netanyahu dismissed the compromise agreement without even informing Sharansky in advance. Netanyahu’s decision humiliated one of the great heroes of the Jewish people.

Rabbi John Rosove, Temple Israel of Hollywood


In December 1988, I was a first-year rabbinic student living in Jerusalem when the first group of women naively took a Torah scroll to the women’s side of the Kotel and held a prayer service. Their heartfelt offering did not sit well with many who witnessed it. I was not among that original group, though several of them came to our living room later that afternoon to debrief and cry.

That year brought new meaning for me to the terms “hard rock” and “heavy metal,” for in the months afterwards I served the newly forming women’s group as a shomeret (a guard). The guards formed a ring around those praying, and faced the angry ones so the others could turn inward, trying to worship.

We tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to protect those praying from the vitriol, spittle, tear gas canister (thrown at us by one of the Orthodox men who picked it up after the police threw it at them), and one heavy metal chair that suddenly came flying through the air in our direction, injuring one of the women as she prayed.  It was the first year of the first Intifada, but the rocks coming over the Kotel from above made more sense to me, and were in some ways less frightening, than the weapons and words thrown by Jews at Jews.

The soldiers who protect the Jews at the Kotel were as taken aback as we were.  On a later visit a woman carried a Torah scroll on loan from the Reform Movement’s Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in a baby blanket through the ever-tightening security: “Oh,” laughed the guard as he peeled back the blanket, and waved us through, “beautiful baby.”

No one is laughing now.

Rabbi Lisa Edwards, Beth Chayim Chadashim


We Jews must surely be the laughing stock of the world! Even as the United Nations actively delegitimizes our connection to the Temple Mount and ancient holy sites in Jerusalem and Israel, we are busy fighting with each other as to who can pray where and how, as if any of this really matters.

Both sides in this dispute ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Do any of the protagonists really think that they are making God happy by fighting with each other? The Talmud tells us that the Temple was destroyed and the exile was decreed by God as a result of the endless pointless squabbling between Jews. And yet, almost 2,000 years later, we are still squabbling! How pathetic.

Instead of fighting each other, we need to be joining forces and together fighting our real enemies — those who wish to deny the Jewish connection to our holiest site — not the Kotel, but the Temple Mount, where our Temple once stood, and will stand again, but only if we can focus our energy on making it happen, instead of wasting energy point-scoring against each other, pointing fingers, and creating ill-feeling.

In this fight, no matter who prevails there are no winners. Instead of this nonsense, our goal must be to protect Israel from its enemies, and to create a thriving center for Jewish revival and triumph in our ancestral homeland.

Rabbi Pini Dunner, Beverly Hills Synagogue


That the Israeli governing coalition reneged on its own agreement to provide a separate, cordoned off area, discretely to the side and far from the postcard courtyard that we all think of as the Kotel can’t really be a complete surprise. Politics is politics, and all politics is local. Most Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Renewal and nondenominational voices will decry this short-sighted and discriminatory decision (as do I); most Orthodox, Charedi, and Chasidic voices will support and celebrate the power to impose their monopoly. Obviously, this has a lot to do with pluralism (which some see as a threat), and with women acting with authority in public (which even more people see as threatening).

Personally, I feel the need remind us of three simple truths: First, an Israel that circles the wagons and enacts religious policies that sound like they could have been proposed in Teheran or by the Westboro Baptist Church reveals itself to be motivated by fear and considerations of power, more than by faith and wisdom. That’s not good for Israel in the long run.

Second, if we are going to make the Wall into a locus of Jewish faith, then there has to be room for us all, each in our own way, or the imposed exclusion will itself become a justification for those marginalized and slighted to walk away from Judaism and from Israel, and that’s not good for Israel in the long run.

Third, nowhere in the Torah does it suggest that God is accessible at that Wall more than anywhere else. The portability of Torah, the insight that holiness is to be found in acts of tzedek (justice), shalom (peace) and chesed (lovingkindness) remains Judaism’s greatest insight and core conviction. So, by all means, let’s fight for our space at the Wall, but let’s remember that we show real love for God and Torah, and real solidarity with Israel, when we work for a Jewish community — here and there — that observes mitzvot, loves the stranger, learns Torah, and pursues peace.

Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, Abner and Roslyn Goldstine Dean of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at American Jewish University


I can pray at the Kotel, but my wife cannot. I can hear the Torah read at the Kotel, but she cannot. If she dons a tallit for private prayer at the Kotel, she will be arrested. If she prays aloud, she will be shouted down or escorted away.  Her spirituality, her voice, is deemed an affront to the Kotel. The great symbol of our collective destiny has become a political token, a tool of division. And sinat hinam, unbounded rivalry, our inability to embrace one another, the very reason we lost the city twice before, burns once more.

Rabbi Ed Feinstein, Valley Beth Shalom


I have been spat and yelled at (and worse) while davening at the Kotel.  I stand behind the efforts to bring egalitarian services there.  I am a supporter of Women of the Wall.  And I am pained (but somehow not surprised) by the recent reversal by the government, which does feel like a betrayal, and which stymies admirable efforts to open the Kotel to the full array of Jewish religious expression.  And at the same time, I choose not to wring my hands or wallow today.  I choose to celebrate, and thus identify with Rabbi Akiva in the famous story from the Talmud in which his rabbinic peers tore their garments upon seeing the ruins of Jerusalem.  They see the moment frozen in time, a destruction prophesied by a particular Biblical verse. Rabbi Akiva smiles, however, reminding them that the end of that very verse also prophesies redemption.  Now that the nadir envisioned by the verse has come to pass, the eventual ascension/aliyah is also inevitable. 

 

So why do I celebrate today?  Because even though the Charedi hold on Israeli politics is at times painful and corrupt, as the Kotel fiasco attests to, for me redemption is not tied to a particular wall. I am sometimes bemused by the fact that so much focus is put on prayer at the ruin of the Temple by the very Jews who least ache for that spot to re-emerge as the center of Jewish spirituality.  For the progressive-traditional Jew, who sees rebirth of meaningful and resonant Judaism within Israel as one of Zionism’s greatest contributions and challenges, what transpires at the Kotel may be symbolically important, but pales in comparison to the evolutions transpiring throughout the land—the mash-up of secular seekers and traditional liturgy at various Kabbalat Shabbat phenomena that are growing; the strength and vitality of Masorti and Progressive synagogues and communities despite the infrastructural challenges which inhibit them; the will exhibited by myriad Israelis to reject the authority and monopoly of the rabbanut by making decisions (which, yes, they ought not have to make) to marry creatively rather than under near-theocratic conditions.  Last summer I attended a cousin’s wedding on an Orthodox kibbutz, where the officiant was female, and at which the hordes of sweaty, tzitzit-flying, tichel-wearing celebrants saw no conflict between traditional Jewish rituals and practice on the one hand, and female religious leadership and party-style mixed-dancing on the other.  This same cousin, who helped found yet another Orthodox/egalitarian minyan in the Katamon neighborhood of Jerusalem, recently posted on Facebook wishing a mazal tov on the recent wedding…of Moshe and Eran, two of his closest male friends and fellow B’nai Akiva alumni. 

 

I’d tear a tiny thread in my clothes, as I really do wish that on my next visit to the Kotel I, and my daughters, can pray in the manner we find sacred.  But this symbolic setback is dwarfed by the extraordinary successes we see playing out in spots that are, indeed, more important to the Jewish future even than those venerable stones.  I honor the leaders of WOW and wish them strength.  And yet I know we will not win every engagement.  And the perfect is the enemy of the good.  And Robinson’s Arch is a beautiful place to hold egalitarian prayer (and a bit shadier, too!).  And if we scope out beyond those square meters, and if we are witness to (and financially contribute to) the efforts to egalitarian-ize and modernize and evolution-ize the many Judaisms of modern Israel, then we can stand with Rabbi Akiva, and celebrate the burgeoning redemptions.

Rabbi Adam Kligfeld, Temple Beth Am


I stood at the Wall in 1967, having returned “home” on Aliyah with my husband, an Israeli officer. My eyes filled with tears as I approached the Wall which I could only see from the top of the Mt. Zion hotel when I was a young student in Jerusalem in 1960. I prayed and cried tears of gratitude at the open Wall.

I returned to the Wall for the Bar Mitzvah of my son in 1986. There was a mechitzah, but it was low, and no one seemed to mind when I held on to his tallit and prayed out loud, as I draped myself over the barrier from the woman’s side.

A decade later, things had changed. The mechitzah was now a wall itself and the woman’s section became smaller each year. The “Fashion Police” at the entrance to the woman’s section were more insistant, and I was chastized when I gathered my congregants near me in prayer as we visited the holy site.

By the year 2000, the Kotel area had become a war zone, not only for the intifada, but the epicenter of Jew against Jew. Rocks were thrown directly at me. On Rosh Chodesh, the catcalls and whistles grew louder and louder until the level became deafening. The Schechinah decamped elsewhere.

Robinson’s Arch was to be a worthy compromise that honored the unity of the Jewish people. I was lucky enough to lead a Shabbat servce for my congregation in the proposed Plaza area, and it was one of the holiest moments of all of our lives. Swallows flitted in and out of the crevases, the sound of the Arab call to prayer intertwined with our “mixed” daavening as the holy silence of Shabbat decended on Jerusalem.

Today, there is no holy silence. There are only tears for the pain of the Jewish people, and the opportunities we have lost.

Rabbi Judith HaLevy,Malibu Jewish Center and Synagogue

Let's block ads! (Why?)

L.A. clergy respond to the Kotel controversy : http://ift.tt/2rZWuIN

The human toll of the Senate health plan

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has delayed a vote on the heath care bill that he and his colleagues negotiated in secrecy and with no public input. For that, at least, we can be thankful.

The Senate bill made the House bill even worse, with estimates that both bills would leave more than 22 million additional Americans without health care insurance because of the high cost of premiums and deductibles.

Whatever reason enough Senate Republicans gave for withholding their support for now — some said it was too harsh, others not harsh enough — the delay gives everyone time to understand the bill’s true implications. And it has delayed harm to the most vulnerable Americans — the elderly, poor, disabled and children — from the devastating effects of losing coverage and benefits they now have.

Consider Philip, who is 60 years old, and whose name has been changed for privacy. After a series of setbacks, he found himself at a low point in his life. He had to file for bankruptcy and was evicted, and he alternated between living in his car and in low cost motels. The stress impacted his health and he began experiencing severe stomach and back pain. In addition, he has only one kidney. Philip had no health insurance before the Affordable Care Act (ACA) went into effect.

Thanks to Medi-Cal expansion, Philip qualified for benefits. After months of severe pain, he was able to receive regular preventive care and support for ongoing pain relief.

Or Sara (name also changed for privacy), an 85-year-old Holocaust survivor from Romania. In 1940, when she was 12 years old, she fled to Uzbekistan. Her parents were executed. She eventually moved to the United States with her husband, but talking about her history has been very difficult.

Now a widow and frail, Sara has many medical problems, including myeloma, which necessitates ongoing chemotherapy treatments. She suffers from poor balance and coordination and has severe pain in her back and legs along with osteoarthritis and osteoporosis.

Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid program) pays for her medical treatment, her in-home care and the social worker that keeps all of her systems coordinated.

The Senate promised a more humane bill that doesn’t perversely target seniors or children born with disabilities. Yet they didn’t seek input from the experts — doctors, hospitals, clinics, community providers, researchers or patients — and produced a plan that takes the worst pieces of the House bill and adds deeper cuts to Medicaid, which provides health coverage to nearly one-quarter of all Americans. 

As drafted, the Senate bill goes beyond undoing Medicaid expansion, which has helped millions of Americans. The Senate also is looking to remove the guarantee of a federal match in Medicaid, which has been in place for 50 years, that helps ensure the program will be in place to provide medical care to those who need it most. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the House bill would cut federal funding to Medicaid by 25 percent, both through the rollback of the Medicaid expansion and implementation of spending caps.

With lower funding, states will be forced to slash services, restrict eligibility and cut benefits for seniors, children, people with disabilities, and low-income adults. All indications are that these cuts will fall disproportionately on nursing home residents and those needing home-based care.

California, which would face a $24 billion cut to Medi-Cal, would have to limit health care services and reduce access for 14 million state residents who rely on Medicaid for safe, reliable health care. These cuts would go beyond hurting half of all California children or two-thirds of all nursing home residents who are on Medi-Cal — it would affect the entire health care system that we all rely on.

Across the country, Jewish social service agencies will be unable to offer assistance to tens of thousands of their clients and community members — Jewish and non-Jewish, alike. For providers such as Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles (JFS), the Los Angeles Jewish Home, and other local organizations that provide health care services, Medi-Cal is the major source of funding for home and community-based services and long-term care. Seniors and those with pre-existing conditions will lose much needed coverage. Older adults, the fastest-growing segment of the Jewish community, often struggle financially and are dependent on the Medi-Cal safety net. 

At JFS, we fear the proposed cuts will not impact only our elders, but will unfairly target other vulnerable populations we serve. Low-income women escaping abuse and violence rely on Medi-Cal to receive medical treatment for broken bones and bruised spirits. Holocaust survivors rely on in-home care and case management programs to remain safely in their homes and avoid unnecessary institutionalization. And children with special needs rely on Medi-Cal for lifesaving treatment that enables them to live independently.

The Senate did the right thing this week by not voting on a pernicious bill. Now, lawmakers should take the next step and start over, crafting a bill that helps — not hurts — millions of Americans like Philip and Sara.


PAUL S. CASTRO is president and CEO of Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles, a multifaceted, multi-service nonprofit organization serving individuals and families throughout Los Angeles.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

The human toll of the Senate health plan : http://ift.tt/2sZ2set

Bibi hits a wall

When push came to shove, when he had to pick between politics and principle, between personal power and Jewish unity, between his position and his people, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu caved. He picked his position. He showed us his ultimate priority.

Surrendering to ultra-Orthodox pressure, Bibi reneged on a January 2016 agreement to ensure egalitarian prayer at the Western Wall and, as if that weren’t enough, he supported an initiative to give total monopoly on conversions to the Chief Rabbinate. When did he choose to give those two middle fingers to Diaspora Jewry? Right when the Jewish Agency was having its annual meeting in Jerusalem, with global representatives of the Diaspora looking on.

The moves were so insulting that the Jewish Agency did something unprecedented—they cancelled their dinner invitation to the Prime Minister. Meanwhile, the moves were condemned virtually across the board. You know you went too far when a beloved hero like Natan Sharansky goes against you.

Sensing that he may have overplayed his hand, Bibi has tried to do some damage control, but it’s not helping much. I think there are two main reasons for that.

First, Bibi clearly reneged on an agreement. His calls for renegotiation now ring hollow. It took years of hard negotiating to come up with the original compromise for egalitarian prayer at the Wall, under the leadership of Sharansky.

As Yossi Klein Halevi wrote in Times of Israel, “It was a noble compromise: The liberal denominations accepted with humility a secondary place at the Wall, but that at least recognized their right to be part of Israel’s public space; while the Orthodox seemed to accept an organized non-Orthodox presence at the Wall for the sake of Jewish unity.”

For those who fought so hard to obtain that agreement, the thought of going back to the drawing board must be demoralizing. As the head of the Reform movement, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, says, “To spend four more years negotiating and then not have that implemented either is not credible.”

The second reason Bibi will have trouble spinning away from this crisis is that he’s associating himself with a corrupt institution with little credibility, the Chief Rabbinate. In the last year alone, two former chief rabbis, Yonah Metzger and Eliyahu Bashki Doron, have been convicted of felonies. And who’s the politician leading the charge on these latest moves of intolerance? None other than Interior Minister Aryeh Deri, leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, who spent three years in jail for bribery, fraud and breach of trust.

Add it all up, and there’s not much wiggle room for Bibi to repair the harm done to Israel-Diaspora relations. Until Bibi shows the courage to stand up to ultra-Orthodox forces for the sake of Jewish peoplehood and Jewish unity, they will continue to pressure him for their own divisive agenda, which puts a strict interpretation of Halacha above all else.

The tragedy is that Bibi knows better. He’s a cosmopolitan Jew who understands the Diaspora and the importance of tolerance, pluralism and Jewish peoplehood. As the leader of the Jewish state, he knows he has a responsibility to make Israel a unifying force for all the Jews of the world. Once Israel becomes a divisive force that offends the majority of American Jews, what’s left? Start Up Nation?

“I’m a Jew first and an Israeli second,” I remember him saying once at a Manhattan synagogue. Will he be able to say that next year at AIPAC, or at an American synagogue? Will anyone believe him? What American Jews are hearing today is that Bibi is an Israeli politician first and a Jew second. That is the price he is paying for appeasing intolerance.

What I find especially sad about this affair is that Bibi knows how to build bridges—with non-Jews. For the past few years, he has done a remarkable job opening up Israel to other countries hungry for Israeli expertise. He has traveled the world and received delegations from places like China, India, Africa and Eastern Europe in an effort to build economic bridges.

While he built those bridges, he allowed another bridge to fray—the bridge between his government and the Jews of the world. So many of these Diaspora Jews are deeply in love with Israel and deeply attached to the Zionist miracle. I hate to think that they will now need some kind of financial “leverage” in order to effect change with Israel and Bibi’s government.

If the cause of Jewish unity is not enough leverage, what is?


David Suissa is president of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal and can be reached at davids@jewishjournal.com.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Bibi hits a wall : http://ift.tt/2sXEPmk

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Rabbis should aim higher than politics

We’ve all become obsessed with politics. Politics now colors every aspect of culture, including our personal lives. It colors how we see friendships, how we judge each other, how we judge ourselves.

So, naturally, it’s tempting for rabbis to follow suit and inject politics into their Shabbat sermons. The problem is that politics also has become ugly and divisive. That ugliness and divisiveness consumes us all week, assaulting our email inboxes and Twitter and Facebook feeds.

When I come to synagogue on Shabbat, do I really need to be reminded of all that ugly and divisive stuff? Or do I need spiritual nourishment to help me rise above it and get to a deeper place?

As much as we can try to make politics holy, the reality is that politics is inherently divisive. That’s because we always will disagree about how best to use the power to govern.

If a rabbi, for example, speaks against illegal immigration because it violates the “Jewish value” of honoring the law of the land, what will he or she have accomplished except trigger a congregational food fight? Liberal congregants are sure to scream about other Jewish values such as “caring for the stranger,” and then the gloves are off.

It’s my Jewish value against your Jewish value.

Keeping politics off the pulpit doesn’t mean shutting off the synagogue from the outside world. Rather, it means filtering that world through a spiritual and unifying lens. When my rabbi spoke after the Bernie Madoff scandal, he unified us with his electrifying talk on Jewish ethics. When Jews were murdered brutally in suicide bombings in Israel, he helped us grieve and talked about defending ourselves with strength but without hatred.

He wasn’t picking sides on political choices.

A rabbi can light up our compassion and our humanity without introducing politics. If the issue is the homeless, for instance, the rabbi can inspire us to open our hearts and not ignore their plight.

As soon as the rabbi starts endorsing a certain proposition against homelessness, however, that’s when it becomes divisive. Why? Because well-meaning people will disagree about how best to address the problem, and some congregants may even be upset that the rabbi did not present “the other side.”

But here’s the good news: A synagogue is not just a place for sermons, it’s also a place for debate. So, during the week, any synagogue can host a lively discussion on any number of controversial issues, including how best to fight homelessness. People can bring their own ideas and argue it out.

That debate is perfectly appropriate for a Tuesday night. But for Shabbat? I don’t think so.

Shabbat is about the sanctity of separation. It’s about tasting eternity. It’s an opportunity to experience our unity with God, with one  another and with humanity. From their pulpits, rabbis ought to help us taste that unity and that eternity. That’s hard to do when the topic is the latest political controversy in Congress.

As Rabbi David Wolpe wrote recently in the Journal, “All we hear all day long is politics. Can we not come to shul for something different, something deeper?” That something deeper also means something more uplifting and unifying.

For the past few years, political controversies have torn our community apart. Families have been divided, friendships have been strained, Shabbat table conversations have been poisoned. If anything, rabbis ought to use their pulpits to help us heal from those wounds.

Rather than remind us of our political divisions, which we experience all week, spiritual leaders ought to challenge us to look for the validity and the humanity in those with whom we sharply disagree. Of course, that can be difficult, but isn’t that when rabbis earn their keep — when they help us do the difficult?

It’s easy to talk about changing the world; it’s a lot harder to talk about changing ourselves. It’s easy to rail against a politician to a congregation that already despises him; it’s a lot harder to inspire that congregation to transcend their contempt for a higher ideal.

Politics will never make us more humble. It can consume us, but it will never unite us. Politics is not there to inspire us to become better parents, better children and better friends. But when I come to hear my rabbi speak on Shabbat, that is precisely what I’m looking for.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Rabbis should aim higher than politics : http://ift.tt/2sXaF4x

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Crafting political activism

“Protest is the new brunch,” says the new slogan. I certainly hope not.

Shortly before the inaugural, a friend posted a question on her Facebook page. She lives in Orange County and has a couple of small children. She asked if she should attend the Women’s March in Los Angeles, or go to a smaller one in the O.C.? It would be quite a hassle to bring her children, but she wanted to see her friends. What should she do?

I responded as follows: “Think about it this way. Resisting this Regime is not an exercise for a day, or a week, or a month, or even a year. It will be a marathon, not a sprint. It seems to me that doing that work means joining an activist community that you will be able to work with on an ongoing basis, developing ideas for what you want to accomplish, and then working together to accomplish them. You aren’t going to schlep up here regularly to do that. Moreover, maybe your kids will meet other kids from Orange County so it will be easier for you to involve them. So as much as I would like to see you, at least if you are trying to effect change, staying there might be better.”

She might have thought her question was about convenience, but it really concerned effectiveness. Did it matter where she protested?

We all have seen and I have participated in many of the now ubiquitous protests, marches, meetings, etc., that constitute the resistance to President Donald Trump. How do we assess them? If activism is supposed to accomplish something, it must be tethered to a clearly enumerated set of objectives — in other words, it needs a coherent theory of change. Put another way, how does activism get us from point A to point B? Answering this question is particularly necessary now, when marches, protests and actions are occurring throughout the country — and will continue for the foreseeable future.

Demand for a theory of change has dictated my own preferred activist course: voter registration. In Southern California alone, there are five congressional districts held by Republicans that Hillary Clinton won in 2016. Since I want to block President Donald Trump as much as possible, I would like to flip those districts to the Democrats. So I spend a good bit of my time going to these districts (in Santa Clarita and Orange County), trying to register more Democrats. If enough of these districts flip across the country, then the House will become Democratic. It’s a straightforward theory of change. That doesn’t mean that it will work or that it will be easy. A coherent theory of change doesn’t necessarily mean an effective one. But it cannot be effective unless it’s coherent.

Theories of change span the political spectrum, of course. Anti-abortion activists picket clinics because they hope to shame pregnant women into turning away — making it too emotionally difficult to end their pregnancy. Whatever you think of this tactic, it contains a coherent theory of change. Picketing leads to shame leads to emotional pain leads to turning away leads to preventing the abortion.

“Raising consciousness” or “speaking out” can represent a coherent theory of change — but only if it is married to concrete ends. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. chose to protest in Birmingham, Ala., precisely because he knew that the sheriff there, Eugene “Bull” Connor, would respond violently and brutally. The ensuing gruesome television images would, he hoped, catalyze complacent Northern opinion into seeing the ugliest face of Jim Crow and raise political pressure on Congress to act. It worked.

So I often get frustrated when activists say that they want to be a “voice” for change. What will that voice do? Simply being a voice can work only if the circumstances are right. A friend who organizes protests in Santa Clarita  explained her efforts to me this way: “This town has been Republican for so long that Democrats don’t think they have a chance. Protesting shows them that there are other Democrats here, and that we can win. So they will become more involved and get others involved in politics.” This is a coherent theory of change. 

“Raising consciousness” or “speaking out” can represent a coherent theory of change — but only if it is married to concrete ends.

You might be more of a change agent than you think. A few years ago, I read a master’s thesis that considered, among other things, what organizations can do to get more people to come to their meetings. That’s a very important question for any organizing. The answer? Not slick ad campaigns, nor charismatic leadership, nor lots of money, but rather providing food and child care. That’s common sense when you think of it. So, don’t want to knock on doors or give speeches or drive all over the place? Fine, can you watch the kids during the meetings or cook something? Then you are doing a lot.

I sometimes hear two primary objections to insisting on a theory of change that deserve answers.

Objection one: I’m not a social theorist!

Social change is hard and complicated. “I’m just a doctor/social worker/customer service rep/development officer/accountant/teacher, etc. How can you expect me to develop a whole theory of change?”

First, don’t sell yourself short; you’re a lot smarter than you think. You don’t need a fancy education or experience to figure out how to get from point A to point B. You probably do it in your life all the time.

Second, you don’t have to have a theory of change, but any organization that asks for your energy, your time, your resources or your support should be able to explain to you what its theory of change is. Ask the organization, “In 18 months, if you are successful, what has happened and how do you see it happening?” If it doesn’t make sense to you, it might not make sense to the organization either. Or it might not know. If it doesn’t, then maybe you should look elsewhere. The goal is to help you focus your energy on activism that can lead to real change.

Objection two: One person can’t change the world.

Many people engage in protest and activism not because they think they will change the world, but because they simply want to stand for what is right and lead an ethical life. Critics might call this “virtue-signaling,” but we also can see it as simple humility. I am doing what I think is right even though I don’t expect that I will change the world. Christians sometimes call this “witnessing”: just declaring your beliefs and values publicly without pretending that others will listen, although we can always hope for that.

This posture is attractive precisely because it combines modesty with realism. If you adopt this approach, however, be clear in your own mind that that is what you are doing. “I suppose I have joined the Resistance, but what I am really doing is connecting to God.” Be honest with yourself — and with others who are considering joining you. We always benefit from courageous and moral voices, but we must not allow developing such voices to become an excuse for inaction.

Protest, then, is not the new brunch. It is a particular tactic that (we hope) fits into a broader program of social change. What is that program? How does it work? We can’t answer that question unless we ask it. But now we have. Go and learn.


Jonathan Zasloff is professor of law at UCLA, where he teaches, among other things, property, international law and Pirkei Avot. He is also a rabbinical ordination candidate at the Alliance for Jewish Renewal.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Crafting political activism : http://ift.tt/2sRlepY

Search

Featured Post

I just paid $9.99 for a carton of 18 eggs. Will prices ever drop? | Opinion - Sacramento Bee

[unable to retrieve full-text content] I just paid $9.99 for a carton of 18 eggs. Will prices ever drop? | Opinion    Sacramento Bee &quo...

Postingan Populer