Fixing Hollywood’s Shameful Culture

The past month has seen the near implosion of Hollywood. That’s because of the revelations about mega-powerhouse Harvey Weinstein’s regular habit of allegedly sexually assaulting and harassing women, and the apparent industry-wide willingness to look the other way.

Many on the right have correctly condemned the left’s reticence to talk about such issues when applied to heroes of the left (see, e.g., former President Bill Clinton and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy); in response, many on the left have rightly condemned the right’s newfound willingness to look the other way when its own oxen are gored (see, e.g., then-candidate Donald Trump’s “Access Hollywood” tape, the late Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes).

We all should be on the same side regarding sexual harassment and sexual assault. That doesn’t mean that we have to agree to avoid voting for those who engage in such activities (although I have done so and think doing so would be a good rule of thumb); it’s quite possible to openly admit the evils of a candidate and still feel that the candidate would be a better legislative alternative than his or her opponent. It does mean, however, that “whataboutism” is perhaps the worst response to stories of sexual harassment and assault: Just because Clinton did it doesn’t mean that Trump’s behavior is acceptable, and vice versa.

Putting partisanship aside, the question next becomes how to curb such behavior. In this arena, there’s truly only one solution: changing the prevailing societal standards, and naming individuals. The latter is easier than the former, of course — it’s a tragedy that major stars and starlets who knew about Weinstein’s reputed predations did nothing for years. It’s difficult to expect young, up-and-coming actors and actresses to speak out when victimized: Few will believe them, their careers will be ruined and they are eminently replaceable in a city where every barista has a script and every waitress wants an audition. But those who already have established themselves do have an obligation to protect those aspiring actors and actresses from predators.

Why hasn’t that happened?

This raises institutional issues in Hollywood, and the requirement that societal standards change. Hollywood has been replete with sexual assault and harassment from the very beginning. Despite its supposedly feminist credentials, Hollywood has made the general choice to favor a libertine version of feminism — with consent as the only important value — over the stricter version of feminism that decries power relationships driving sexual relationships.

Unfortunately, the first version of feminism hasn’t just won out in Hollywood, it’s won out in society more broadly, pressed forward by Hollywood. Society now condemns any limits on sexual relationships, and sees “consent” as a binary value; transactional sex is just fine, in this view, and cannot be condemned. This makes it incredibly difficult to police both sexual assault and harassment because the same set of facts can be seen as either people doing what they want to do to get ahead, or sexual exploitation. Removing meaning from sex means treating it as a purely physical act, degrading both sex and those who participate in it.

The result: more sexual confusion and less willingness to step forward and condemn egregious conduct.

Hollywood has made the general choice to favor a libertine version of feminism – with consent the only important value.

Here’s what we need, then: some rules. We need to know about — and uniformly condemn — exploitation of women by powerful men. We need to know about — and uniformly condemn — the Hollywood casting couch, which has been joked about for decades and treated as a way of life for that same amount of time. And we, as a society, have to let Hollywood know that if it doesn’t change its ways, we will take action: We will stop seeing their movies, stop watching their television shows. We will not participate in making people wealthy and famous so that they can abuse others, or watch silently as that abuse takes place.

We should listen to and respect women who tell their stories of sexual harassment and assault. But this can’t be just another hashtag campaign. We must have hard conversations because sexual dynamics are fluid and difficult to police. If we don’t, Weinstein will be just a blip — and then things will go back to business as usual until the next Weinstein crops up.

---

Ben Shapiro is a best-selling author, editor-in-chief at The Daily Wire and host of the conservative podcast “The Ben Shapiro Show.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Fixing Hollywood’s Shameful Culture : http://ift.tt/2gI4s97

Can Jewish Journalism Aim to Please?

The conventional wisdom in journalism is that if you don’t have angry readers, you’re doing something wrong. I can’t tell you how often I’ve heard this line — “If you get angry letters from the right and angry letters from the left, then you must be doing something right.” It’s as if having angry readers has become a badge of honor, an inevitable sacrifice for a greater good.

As much as I understand that sentiment, I still ask myself: Is it possible to please all segments of the Jewish community when you run a community paper? This question weighs on my mind because I love every segment of our community. I like the idea of trying to please and nourish all of them.

It’s as if you are all guests at my Shabbat table, and I want you to enjoy the experience.

Of course, pleasing people was a lot easier when I was in the advertising business, which is all about making consumers feel good about buying a product.

But journalism is different — you can’t avoid controversial and divisive issues. I saw this when I started writing my weekly column 11 years ago. I still wanted to please my readers, but I held some strong views, which often would diverge sharply from the views of many of those readers.

So, I had to balance my need to please with my need to be honest. In searching for that sweet spot, I tried to express my opinions without triggering anger or animosity.

How do you provoke thought without provoking anger?

I reached out to people who had different worldviews, religiously and politically. I listened. I engaged. I wrote about them. I told their stories.

When I wrote political columns that displeased my friends on the left, it wasn’t uncommon to hear: “Hey, David. I didn’t agree with your last column, but I enjoyed reading it.” (That, by the way, is one of the best compliments you can give a writer.)

Occasionally, I would get a nasty letter. It could be from one of my buddies on the right (“Suissa, don’t go left on us!”) or a stranger from the left (“You right-wingers just don’t get it!”). But these were surprisingly rare.

Over the years, I grew to enjoy this weekly dance. I also learned the art of timing. Some moments, I learned, are just not conducive to unpleasant arguments. The Shabbat table is one of them. We have the whole week to argue. Shabbat is a great time for bonding. And I bonded with Jews from across the political and religious spectrum. I’m sure the Moroccan food helped.

I was gliding along comfortably in this weekly rhythm, when, one day, the stakes suddenly rose. I was offered the position of editor-in-chief at the Journal. So, after 11 years of being responsible for only 800 words a week, I would now be responsible for … about 30,000.

Oy.

If you think it’s difficult to please readers with one column a week, try it when you’re held responsible for 50 or more pages a week. How would I pull this off?

The real challenge, I have learned, is this: How do you appeal to all segments without serving up mush and fluff? How do you provoke thought without provoking anger? How do you deal with the most sensitive issues without being divisive?

Ultimately, of course, you will be the judge.

From my end, after three weeks on the job, I can share a few insights.

First, when you’re dealing with controversial issues, it’s a good idea to print both sides of the argument in the same edition — and on the same page. This conveys instant impartiality. Publishing opinions without opposing views only nourishes the anger of those in the opposing camp.

Second, it’s important to find voices who struggle with the truth. These voices don’t claim to have all the answers. They value doubt. They consider all sides of an argument before leaning to one side. They’re not easy to pigeonhole.

Third, and not surprisingly, it’s crucial for a community paper to be all-inclusive. This is especially true in a city with the diversity of Los Angeles. I can say I’m blessed to have tasted this diversity for the past decade as I’ve written my weekly column. Now, I get to “cash in” on all those coffees and lunches and salons and Shabbat dinners with Jews from across the spectrum. I’m making a lot of phone calls.

Diversity, however, doesn’t apply only to people; it’s also about the subjects we cover. That’s something else I’m learning: We’ve become so obsessed with one subject — politics — we seem to lose sight of how much more this world has to offer.

As you’ll see in this week’s issue — where we cover topics ranging from current events to history to culture to Torah to food — we take this diversity seriously.

We don’t want to just be a mirror, we also want to be a window.

Needless to say, diversity in a Jewish paper includes the Jewish tradition.

I will write a separate column one day on the intersection of Judaism and journalism. For now, I want to leave you with this thought: Even though the majority of our readers may not sit around a Shabbat table every Friday night, we still want to celebrate the beauty of that ritual, as well as other rituals of our Jewish tradition.

In other words, we don’t want to be just a mirror, we also want to be a window. We want to challenge our readers to look beyond their own customs and traditions, whatever those are. Challenging our readers to open their minds to new ideas may not always be comfortable, but it’s another way we think we will please you.

Shabbat shalom.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Can Jewish Journalism Aim to Please? : http://ift.tt/2zCROfg

When Bad People Happen to Good Art

Bad people can make and love good art. Can good people love bad people’s art?

Judgy words, I know. But certain kinds of conduct bring out the Jeremiah in me.

Harvey Weinstein is a producer, not a director or writer, but entertainment is a collaborative enterprise. Even if the Academy Award-winning women who’ve thanked him from the stage did that from fear of his power, he wielded it over women, men, money and media not only for alleged sexual assault, but also to get movies made. “Shakespeare In Love,” “The King’s Speech,” “Inglourious Basterds,” “Silver Linings Playbook,” “Lion,” “The Artist”: Whatever favorites of yours the Weinsteins produced, he was arguably as essential to their existence, let alone their success, as their directors, writers and actors.

I realize I’m making Harvey Weinstein as responsible for his output as Roman Polanski, Bill Cosby and Woody Allen are for theirs. I do that to use his disgrace as a prompt to wrestle with the pleasures that art and entertainment can offer even when they cohabit with behavior by their creators that makes you want to throw up.

I admit my ambivalence. Do I have to strike “Chinatown” from my top-10 list because Polanski pleaded guilty to raping a 13-year old? Does still finding “The Cosby Show” funny make me the comedian’s co-conspirator? From its first seconds — that glorious montage, that Gershwin — Woody Allen’s “Manhattan” floored me. But after he left Mia Farrow for her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi; after their adopted daughter Dylan claimed he sexually assaulted her at age 7; after Mariel Hemingway said he tried to seduce her when she was a teenager: Has “Manhattan,” a story about a 43-year old hitting on a 17-year old, now become a symptom, a confession, a cry for help? Or is it just the same movie?

It goes beyond entertainers. I’ve been crushed by enough biographies and memoirs of writers, painters, architects and other artists whose work I admire, but who turn out to be brutal spouses, monstrous parents, racists, fascists and worse, that I’m tempted to swear off their life stories entirely.

One example: I loved “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” until I found out what an anti-Semite T.S. Eliot was. I still don’t know how to process that. I curse how it distracts me from the text. I’m discomfited by the enjoyment I can still get from his poetry. It makes me question the gospel of the liberal arts — the faith that the humanities humanize. If poetry didn’t civilize Eliot, what makes me believe it lofts his readers?

I’ll never forget my first encounter with these words from George Steiner, which led me to become his pupil: “We know that a man can read Goethe or Rilke in the evening, that he can play Bach and Schubert, and go to his day’s work at Auschwitz in the morning.” If you say such a man is reading or hearing wrongly, you’re begging the question. The problem isn’t misinterpretation; it’s the secular church that we’ve built from the arts. It’s a miracle, not a mission, when aesthetic pleasure makes for moral enlightenment.

Hollywood is a business, not a religion, but its stories touch deep chords, and they shape how we see the world and ourselves. When Oscar winners say that their pictures depict “the triumph of the human spirit,” there’s some unctuous self-congratulation in that, but also a truth. Of course a lot of inane schlock gets made and makes money. Some of it is so violent and degrading that I can’t bring myself to watch, and I fear that it serves as a kind of curriculum for some of its viewers. But gorgeous, uplifting work gets done, too, and though some stories include — may even require — violence, sex and foul language on the journey to their endings, those pictures can move moral mountains.

Harvey and Bob Weinstein produced some schlock and some beauts. Both brothers had awful reputations as people to work for and with. Now, because some 50 women have had the courage to accuse Harvey, we know chapter and verse on being a bully and pig in Hollywood. On that evidence, the soaring movies his name is on did nothing to enlighten or redeem their producer. But it would be a pity if his grossness were to deprive us of the light that those creations let shine.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

When Bad People Happen to Good Art : http://ift.tt/2yIC8YN

An Ocean of Tears

There are moments when everything changes. In my lifetime, one of these was seeing the picture of our planet Earth from space. With that photo of our home, ​I, along with everyone else ​was able to see for the first time that we were one whole, living, breathing, connected planet. This is the image I hold in my head saying the Shema because, for me, this represents that God is One.

After seeing that photo, our consciousness shifted.

​As human beings, we could no longer justify our separateness. Being confronted with the reality that we were connected, we knew that we needed to act differently. We couldn’t “un-see” the Earth as a shining marble, fragile and precious, because it is right in front of us as truth.

Right now, we are experiencing another paradigm-shifting moment.

The Harvey Weinstein sex abuse scandal has unleashed a spontaneous response of #MeToo posts on social media. Thousands upon thousands of women and some men ​are speaking out on Facebook and Twitter, sharing their personal experiences of sexual harassment and assault from childhood up to now. It’s raw. It’s true. It’s painful.

My entire social media timeline on Facebook and Twitter is overflowing with #MeToo reports. A river of stories and a flood of tears in the Jewish community. Real stories from women I know:

We can’t unsee these stories. And we can’t pretend these wounds don’t damage souls.

“The boys on the playground snapping our bras and shaming us for being flat chested or too developed.”

“The time when I was a student rabbi and the temple president insisted on walking me to my hotel room despite my saying no thanks. I felt so threatened that I put a chair against the door after he left.”

“My 7th grade religious school teacher sexually molested me and my rabbi didn’t believe me.”

“The nice Jewish guy who raped me on my first date while I was sleeping and then said — oh I thought you were fake sleeping and wanted it (I didn’t).”

“The unwanted hand on my knee and up my skirt. The catcalls and the feels on the subway.”

“My husband’s friend slipped a Playboy magazine under the table on my son’s 21st birthday, while winking at me. That man told dirty [stories] throughout dinner.”​

Over the past few days, as I read these stories, I could hardly move. Post after post brought up my childhood of constant comments by boys about my body and the accompanying shame that I wasn’t good enough, pretty enough or filled out enough. Other stories reminded me of incidents I had brushed aside as “no big deal” — but upon reflection, were formative and painful.

We can’t “un-see” these stories. And we can’t pretend these wounds don’t damage souls.

This ocean of tears needs to evoke a sea change. Each precious human is a world we need to learn to protect and help flourish, just like planet Earth.

We have texts in our holy books about treating others with dignity. They are simple, but not easy. We are holy because are made in the image of the Divine, b’tzelem Elohim, as we just read in the beginning verses of the Torah.

We also need new texts: stories that include the voices of the vulnerable and those hurt by sexual abuse and a culture of degradation.

We need these new texts to make sure that this moment in time becomes a moment in eternity; that a new consciousness honoring human dignity becomes the default position of humanity.

In embracing the reality that we are all connected, we must pray for the strength and wisdom to live up to our Divine image.

---

Rabbi Jill Berkson Zimmerman is the founder of The Jewish Mindfulness Network.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

An Ocean of Tears : http://ift.tt/2xQDoXN

Eyal: My Brother, My Best Friend, My Hero

I received an note from a rabbinic e-mail list last month that read, “Please send in your names for notable deaths in 5777.” Carrie Fischer, Sen. John Glenn and even Hugh Hefner made the list.

I responded publicly, “I have learned that every life is a notable death.”

I had been officially an avel, a mourner, for 24 hours. My brother, Eyal David Sherman, 36 years old, passed away, on Sept. 24, my birthday. He had been a quadriplegic for the last 32 years, after suffering a brain stem tumor and subsequent stroke at the age of 4.

Just two days prior, I stood with my congregants of Sinai Temple, and recited the Unetaneh Tokef prayer, who should live and who shall die. Each year, the absence of those lost makes their presence more noticeable. These words were now my reality.

My brother accomplished more in his 36 years than most of us do in our entire lives. He graduated kindergarten, high school and college, even when the doctors told them he would not live past his fifth birthday. He became an accomplished artist, drawing and painting with a mouthstick wedged between his lips.

My father, my sister and my wife are all rabbis, but it was Eyal who became our rebbe.

Our tradition teaches us about shevirat kelim, the breaking of the vessels. The vessels that contained God’s light could not contain them and were shattered. We must put them back together.

Eyal’s death broke the vessel, but the light has emanated out. During this heartbreak, we have also experienced a tikkun, a repair, for as we continue to share Eyal’s story, so many have shared their stories with us.

During shivah, we were honored to host Dr. Mark Helfaer, an ICU attending at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who saved Eyal’s life multiple times. Born in Niagara Falls, Mark was orphaned at the age of 10. He was taken in by his uncle and aunt.

Unfortunately, Mark never celebrated his bar mitzvah, and he carried that resentment through his life. This year, at the age of 60, he marked that rite of passage. My father, Rabbi Charles Sherman, always one to throw in a joke, asked, “Mark, what was the theme of your party?”

His response: “Rabbi … the theme was gratitude.”

Today, Dr. Helfaer, so vibrant and robust and brilliant, my brother’s personal miracle maker, suffers from multiple sclerosis. He walks with a cane and slurs his speech. At shivah, he explained that Eyal was one of his most intellectually stimulating cases, and Eyal’s story inspires him to find meaning in his own battle with a disease that has stopped him from working, but has given him the gift of gratitude.

Yes, gratitude is the ability to say thank you. But gratitude is the gift to acknowledge the blessings around you. Gratitude is the gift of being noticed … gratitude is the gift of a notable life.

For 36 years, Eyal led a notable life. Very few individuals could be so inspirational without saying a word. Eyal was the definition of the kol demama daka, the still silent voice whose actions blasted like the shofar. Just scroll down Facebook and read the thousands of tributes of those — many who never met Eyal in person — have been motivated to make this world a better place.

Every Shabbat, Eyal had an assigned part of the birkat hamazon. He would silently mouth baruch atah adonai boneh yerushalayim, asking God to rebuild Jerusalem. Eyal is the builder of our spiritual Jerusalems.

While Eyal was a miracle, the most miraculous part was that Eyal was simply my brother. A lover of Syracuse University basketball, a passionate sports fan, an unbelievable artist and a lover of family, our righteous parents turned the extraordinary into the ordinary.

Thankfully, it was this ordinary brother that inspired every sermon I crafted. In fact, as I dated my now wife, Rabbi Nicole Guzik, the first gift I gave her was the transcript of my father’s book about the story of Eyal, “The Broken and the Whole.”

Several years ago, my father and I toured the country telling Eyal’s story. The most common question was, “Is Eyal a burden?” They were in awe, as we answered, “Eyal is a blessing.”

Nothing for us will ever be the same with Eyal’s death. He is and will always be my tzadik, my righteous brother. Yet, we know that each and every day on this earth will be guided by Eyal’s still small voice, guiding us on the right path.

Donations can be made to:

The Eyal Sherman Foundation

c/o Estate Bookkeeping

Cozen O’Connor

1650 Market St, Suite #2800

Philadelphia, PA, 19103

Rabbi Erez Sherman is a rabbi at Sinai Temple.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Eyal: My Brother, My Best Friend, My Hero : http://ift.tt/2xRoB3L

Letters to the Editor: Gun rights debate, keeping politics out of temple, Radical Middle and David Suissa

Gun Rights Debate Continues

First of all, congratulations to the Journal for debating an issue that the Supreme court handed down a decision on almost 10 years ago (“Does the Second Amendment Guarantee the Right to Bear Arms?” Oct. 13).

Second, my admiration to Karen Kaskey for her very well-done arguments. In contrast: The best part of Ben Shapiro’s arguments is the headline: “Good Gun Policy Starts With Reality.” His analysis of the facts, though, is superficial and he fails to see the reality that modern society is not the same as it was 200 years ago. Everything in the universe, including American society, is subject to change. He doesn’t understand that the purpose of the constitution of any country is to serve its people and should be subject to change, as well.

As far as the Supreme Court decision on the issue: Yes, the court has the legal authority to clarify the meaning of any part of the Constitution, but that doesn’t mean justices can read the minds of those who wrote it. Nobody can.

Svetlozar Garmidolov, Los Angeles

Regarding Ben Shapiro’s column on the Las Vegas shooting (“Good Gun Policy Starts With Reality,” Oct. 13):

• Congress and the states have the legal authority to ban assault weapons.

• Polls show a majority of Americans want assault weapons to be illegal.

• Shapiro doesn’t even deal with the issue of assault weapons in his column. Instead, he changes the subject to a supposed effort to take away all guns from all citizens, which is untrue and irrelevant to the massacre in Las Vegas.

• Shapiro makes the lame conservative argument that because it’s impossible to stop all shootings, there’s no point in even trying. That makes as much sense as saying that I won’t lock the doors, windows and gates of my house because I can’t stop all burglaries.

• Conservatives love to say that the left can’t see evil when it’s staring them in the face and won’t act against it when they can. The real evil here is that conservatives are just fine with mass shootings, won’t do anything about them because they’re on the payroll of the gun industry, and callously thwart the desire of all Americans to feel safe from the threat of assault weapons.

Michael Asher via email

---

Leave Politics Out of the Temple

I was in shock when I read “Political Pundits Discuss ‘Trump’s America’ in Debate at Valley Beth Shalom,” (Oct. 13). First, this should never have been organized at this temple. I believe that there are tax consequences, aside from being very distasteful. Peter Beinart and David Frum are looney Jews talking trash about Trump.

Any normal person would be absolutely fed up with this constant line of crap! Trump is a racist, Trump is anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, and on and on. I wouldn’t be surprised if Valley Beth Shalom is losing membership. I know that other “liberal” temples are. Keep houses of worship just for spiritual purposes and leave politics at home!

Alexandra Joans, Los Angeles

Please add my name to those who feel the same as the “heckler” at Temple Israel of Hollywood (“Heckler Interrupts Kol Nidre Sermon,” Oct. 6).

Your “senior writer” seems to have given a new definition to the term heckler. Not long ago, “heckler” would conjure up a picture of someone sitting at length in an audience, making it rough on some budding entertainer.

Your reporter indicated none of that. The man got fed up with the narrishkayt and stated, “This is supposed to be a house of prayer.”

According to your reporter, he was not the only one disturbed by Rabbi John Rosove’s flights into “liberal political rhetoric.” Others voiced their displeasure that our synagogues were being turned into houses of rebellion against the government. He stated his protest — and left. “Stormed”? Tsk, tsk.

My wife and I “stormed” out of Temple Beth Hillel this past High Holy Days, demanding (and receiving) our money back, after the rabbi made sure that the congregation was apprised that Israel is an occupier, that it is non-egalitarian toward women who just want to pray at the Western Wall, that we should be magnanimous enough to welcome all in need to share our boundless country and, oh, yes, that the Reform movement has asked all Reform synagogues to “rise up against this [illegitimate] government.”

As your reporter quoted another irate citizen not afraid to buck the rising liberal nonsense, “We don’t need to listen to this bull—-!”

P.S. Apparently, neither do the fine people of Wilshire Boulevard Temple, who pulled out of the movement for the same reason.

Steve Klein via email

Obviously, there were people attending the Kol Nidre service at Temple Israel of Hollywood who strongly felt that denouncing our president during the rabbi’s sermon was not appropriate — so much so that they walked out; and one man even spoke out in opposition as he stormed out of the sanctuary.

I agree with Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple about keeping politics out of the synagogue. It is not intended to be a place for expressing political differences.

According to Wikipedia, “politics is the process and method of gaining or maintaining support for public or common action, the conduct of decision-making for groups.” It serves to sway people’s allegiance.

On the other hand, a temple is “an edifice or place dedicated to the service or worship of a deity.”

Whether or not you like our president (I voted against him), the temple is a place for religious worship — certainly not intended for political denunciation of our president.

George Epstein, Los Angeles

---

Both Parties Leave  the ‘Middle’ Behind

Karen Lehrman Block is completely right, but rather late (“Toward a Radical Middle,” Oct. 6). The “middle” (to which I belong, as well) was written out of the Democratic and Republican parties years ago, and I see no sign of it being able to return because its politicians have morphed into the “establishment” and are functioning only to their own benefit. That’s what Donald Trump ran against and that’s why he was elected.

Your first redesigned issue was excellent.

Stephen J. Meyers via email

---

Progressives Should  Reconsider Their Ethics

In “Dancing With Darkness” (Oct. 13), David Suissa extols the personal freedom we enjoy in the United States, although it tragically enabled the Las Vegas massacre. American freedom has a particular resonance with Jews because it’s inspired by the Ten Commandments, which assert that true freedom requires moral behavior. The Founding Fathers were so profoundly aware of their Hebrew roots that the Liberty Bell’s sole inscription is from Leviticus; Ben Franklin’s original idea for the Great Seal of the United States was a depiction of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea; and George Washington personally assured the fledgling Jewish community that its members were free and equal citizens.

Despite this history, progressives have for years condemned Christianity and Judaism, the latter by demonizing Zionism. Since turning their backs on Judeo-Christian ethics, progressives have become meaner and less tolerant, like the crowds who cheered Madonna when she mused about “blowing up the White House,” and Linda Sarsour when she praised a convicted terrorist murderer.

After the Las Vegas massacre, a young, Jewish CBS vice president declared she was unsympathetic to the victims because “country music fans often are Republican.” Progressive indoctrination, such as Hillary Clinton calling candidate Donald Trump’s supporters “deplorables,” robbed this woman of her conscience and empathy.

Hopefully, the Harvey Weinstein scandal will lead progressives to reconsider their values, or we may well forfeit the freedom our ancestors died for.

Rueben Gordon, Calabasas

---

Good Luck, David Suissa

Congratulations to David Suissa on his new role as editor-in-chief of the Journal. The most recent Journal already shows that there is a changing of the guard and a new leadership reflecting a new light shining on different aspects of Jewish life, Israel and the world.

I have been a longtime reader of the Journal and I want to wish you much success in your new position. Go from strength to strength.

Best wishes.

Leila Bronner, Los Angeles

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Letters to the Editor: Gun rights debate, keeping politics out of temple, Radical Middle and David Suissa : http://ift.tt/2gunwaG

Kurdish Independence Movement Deserves the Support of Western Nations

On Oct. 16, Iraqi armed forces andIran-supported Shia militias moved into the disputed town of Kirkuk, bringing the country close to civil war. 

The move was Baghdad’s decisive response to the referendum on independence that the Kurds of Iraq held on Sept. 25. The referendum produced a resounding majority for independence and a high turnout — more than 92 percent voted in favor of independence, with a 72.6 percent turnout, reflecting the stubborn determination of the Kurds to maintain and build a sovereign state.

The lines now are clearly drawn, as are the rights and wrongs of the case. 

The Kurdish-controlled part of Iraq is the most peaceful and well-ordered section of that blighted country. The Kurds have given refuge to nearly 2 million of their fellow Iraqi citizens who were fleeing the onslaught of ISIS. In turn, the armed forces of the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), the Peshmerga, played the crucial role in stemming the advance of that murderous project and then turning it back, in close cooperation with U.S. air power. Many Kurdish fighters died in achieving this. 

For Americans and other Westerners, the KRG has long constituted a unique space. Outside of Israel, it is the only part of the Middle East where public sentiment is solidly and, indeed, passionately pro-American and pro-Western. It also is safe. In Baghdad, Westerners cannot walk the streets in safety. The Iraqi Kurdish capital of Erbil is as safe as any Western city, and safer than many. 

Over the past 25 years, the Kurds have built the KRG into a pro-Western de facto sovereign space, complete with its own armed forces, visa system, economy and parliament. Their ambitions do not end with autonomy, however. Language, outlook and history set them apart from the warring Shia and Sunni Arabs further south.

So the Kurds want independence. They want out of Iraq. The Sept. 25 vote was about kick-starting this process. The success of the referendum led to hopes for a swift negotiating process with Baghdad. 

Instead, the countries surrounding the KRG have united in a vow to prevent Kurdish sovereignty by all available means.

How did we get here?

Iraq is not a historic entity. It was carved by the British out of the carcass of the Ottoman Empire in the post-World War I period, when London and Paris were divvying up the former Ottoman territories of the Middle East. At that time, the Kurdish population lacked an organized national movement, and the Kurdish-majority territories were distributed among the new states of Iraq, Turkey and Syria (with an additional Kurdish population in Iran, outside of the former Ottoman territories). 

This decision has led to much suffering. From the 1950s on, Iraq was governed by a virulent form of Arab nationalism. The rise of the brutal Baath Party in 1963, and then the ascendancy, from within the ranks of the party, of the executioner Saddam Hussein to Iraq’s helm, meant disaster for Iraq’s Kurds. They were deprived of the right to use their language and subjected to arbitrary expulsion from their homes as Hussein and the Baathists sought to leaven the Kurdish areas with Arab newcomers to end any hope of Kurdish sovereignty.

The West should recognize its failure in Iraq and embrace Kurdish aspirations.

The apogee came in 1988 when, in an effort to end Kurdish resistance once and for all, the Iraqi dictator lunched a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing and slaughter led by his cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, henceforth to be known as “Chemical Ali.” In this campaign, between 50,000 and 182,000 Kurds died. The accurate number probably will never be known. What is known for certain is that in the town of Halabja, on March 16, 1988, 5,000 Iraqi Kurds were killed in a poison gas attack. Acording to a report by Human Rights Watch, “It is apparent that a principal purpose of [the attack] was to exterminate all adult males of military service age captured in rural Iraqi Kurdistan.”

This is the bitter legacy that the Iraqi Kurds carry. 

If international affairs were dictated by moral decency, the case for Kurdish statehood would be open and shut. A people who were never consulted as to whether they wished to be joined to the Iraqi state, and who were treated with the most appalling brutality and cruelty by the regimes of that state to which they never wanted to join, and who have proven themselves the most democratic and civic-minded element of the population of that state, now wish to be afforded the liberty to create, finally, their own secure and sovereign country. 

Yet despite the clear facts of the case, the West has chosen to back the Islamist administrations in Tehran, Baghdad and Ankara in their determination to oppose the emergence of Kurdish sovereignty. After the referendum, the government in Baghdad demanded that the Kurds hand over control of all oil revenue and border crossings, as well as control of the international airport at Erbil. Baghdad took unilateral control of Kurdish airspace. (I left Kurdistan on one of the last scheduled flights out of Erbil airport that Baghdad permitted to fly).

With the assault on Kirkuk, the Iraqis have demonstrated their willingness to back up their words with iron and steel. 

Why is the West acquiescing to this?

Ostensibly, the reason has to do with the urgency to complete the war against ISIS. U.S. Special Presidential Envoy to the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS Brett McGurk said the Kurdish referendum was “ill-timed and ill-advised.” This, he added, was the position of the “entire international coalition.” 

But the notion that the referendum damages the war against ISIS by diverting attention from it is unsustainable. The war against ISIS in Iraq is largely won, with the final battle to drive them from their last urban holdings being waged right now. Kurdish independence will not get in the way.

So, what is the real reason for Western opposition? 

First, the U.S. and its allies spent a great deal of blood and treasure in destroying the Saddam Hussein regime and installing a system of elections and formal democracy in Iraq. They are loath to see this project fail. At the moment, Iran-supported forces are in the ascendant in Iraq. The West hopes to assist those forces opposed to the Iranians in Iraqi politics. The Kurds need to remain part of Iraq, it is believed, to act as a counterweight to Iranian influence. 

But Iranian domination of Iraq is quite complete with or without the Kurds. More important than Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and the political structures in Baghdad are the Shia militiamen of the Popular Mobilization Units — 100,000 to 120,000 strong — raised when ISIS was heading for Baghdad but with no intention of disbanding, and controlled by pro-Iranian elements. This independent armed force, combined with other pro-Iranian social and political forces, will remain the principal instruments of Iranian influence in Iraq. 

There’s a deeper cause for the resistance, however: an Arab-centric view of the Middle East that dominates Western universities and the scholars and policy advisers who emerge from them, resulting in a certain lack of interest, even a condescending indifference, to the Kurds, their aspirations and their memories. 

If allowed to triumph, this view will combine failure with disgrace. Failure because Iraq is already dominated by Iran. Disgrace because the justice of the Kurdish case is self-evident.

Instead of denying the Kurds their due, the West should recognize its failure in Iraq and embrace Kurdish aspirations, and then make a strong friend and ally of the new Kurdish state. Instead of acquiescing to Iranian gains in the region, we should be enlisting the Kurds in the effort to roll them back.

But for that to happen, their legitimate demands for self-determination need to be acknowledged and supported.

The hour is late, as the gobbling up of Kirkuk by the militias and the army shows. But it’s not yet too late. The time to support Kurdish statehood has arrived. 

---

Jonathan Spyeris director of the Rubin Center for Research in International Affairs at IDC Herzliya.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Kurdish Independence Movement Deserves the Support of Western Nations : http://ift.tt/2gk92Xj